Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a PhD scientist who left NOAA as a GS-13 due to a lack of opportunities beyond that level. I dd a postdoc at NASA/Goddard and came into NOAA as a GS-12/13. That means my first year I was a GS-12 and on the one year anniversary was promoted to GS-13. After that there were step increases but zero opportunities for real advancement. When I was a postdoc I thought as you did - that I would never want to manage anyone. It may not be for you but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand at this time because you may change in the future and realize that there are positives to being a leader. Of course, there is a difference between management and leadership!

I also work for NOAA but under a different line office and use the Commerce Alternative Personnel System (CAPS) pay structure. Our fed scientists come in as ZP-4's which is the equivalent of a GS-13 step 1 up to a GS-14 step 10. CAPS is performance based, so if you're incredible at your job or kiss a lot of butt, you'll do very well very quickly. I've heard old stories of scientists and IT personnel going from a low GS-13 to GS-14 step 10 equivalent in under 10 years. It's not difficult to get a 5% pay increase each year based on your performance.

The major knock is that some of the IT personnel never graduated from college and still make the same amount of money as a PhD scientist... And sometimes get higher yearly pay increases.

I'm very familiar with CAPS. In fact the inability to jump form A GS-13 to a ZP-5 is the principle reason why I left NOAA. I even wrote a report detailing the negative impact on the National Weather Service Federal Workforce given the inequality of opportunity that having two different pay systems within the same agency creates. In short, two people can start in two different positions, one at GS-13 the other at ZP-4. After one year the ZP-4 is eligible for a ZP-5 (which is equivalent to a GS-15), but not the GS-13 - even if said 13 has kicked ass and taken names. My resume blew away some GS-14's and even some 15's in my field but I could not make the cert for ZP-5 based solely on the fact that I was a GS-13 so I left for greener pastures and a place that values my accomplishments and has compensated me as such.

Anonymous wrote:I am a PhD scientist who left NOAA as a GS-13 due to a lack of opportunities beyond that level. I dd a postdoc at NASA/Goddard and came into NOAA as a GS-12/13. That means my first year I was a GS-12 and on the one year anniversary was promoted to GS-13. After that there were step increases but zero opportunities for real advancement. When I was a postdoc I thought as you did - that I would never want to manage anyone. It may not be for you but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand at this time because you may change in the future and realize that there are positives to being a leader. Of course, there is a difference between management and leadership!

I also work for NOAA but under a different line office and use the Commerce Alternative Personnel System (CAPS) pay structure. Our fed scientists come in as ZP-4's which is the equivalent of a GS-13 step 1 up to a GS-14 step 10. CAPS is performance based, so if you're incredible at your job or kiss a lot of butt, you'll do very well very quickly. I've heard old stories of scientists and IT personnel going from a low GS-13 to GS-14 step 10 equivalent in under 10 years. It's not difficult to get a 5% pay increase each year based on your performance.

The major knock is that some of the IT personnel never graduated from college and still make the same amount of money as a PhD scientist... And sometimes get higher yearly pay increases.

I am a PhD scientist who left NOAA as a GS-13 due to a lack of opportunities beyond that level. I dd a postdoc at NASA/Goddard and came into NOAA as a GS-12/13. That means my first year I was a GS-12 and on the one year anniversary was promoted to GS-13. After that there were step increases but zero opportunities for real advancement. When I was a postdoc I thought as you did - that I would never want to manage anyone. It may not be for you but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand at this time because you may change in the future and realize that there are positives to being a leader. Of course, there is a difference between management and leadership!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I joined NASA just after a (single) postdoc and was hired as a GS-13. I was promoted to GS-14 after about four years without doing anything other than science research. Yes, as previously noted, that does involve writing and winning proposals, managing budgets, supervising students and technicians -- but is not what the government means by "supervisory".

It did take a further 8 years or so to be promoted to GS-15, by which time I had acquired a fair amount of project/program management experience, but even then (and to this day) none of my work was "supervisory". Yes, I have increased responsibility and a broader remit for my work, but many of my colleagues -- most of whom have titles along the lines of 'project scientist' -- are also GS-15s, and we qualified for the position by the seniority of our stature in the field rather than by some administrative hierarchy.

I hope this is not too off topic, but I'm a non-science fed. I'm in a technical field and have two graduate degrees. I'm ok with being underpaid due to the other fed perks. What makes my blood boil, however, is the fact that there are brain dead admins at my agency that are grade 14s. I think their jobs are disguised as program analysts or something, but they pretty much gossip, eat, and collect a paycheck. I do think my agency is making an effort to phase these jobs out, which gives me some hope for the future.

Anonymous wrote: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?

I think many things are different in DoD. Not hemorrhaging money helps. But, yeah, non-supervisory 15s are rare and precious in general!

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I wasn't referring to NIH postdoctoral jobs. Once you have completed a PhD/postdoc and are looking for a permanent job then those GS positions are usually at 11/12. Occasionally a super-qualified person will come in at 13. Again it depends on your agency/office. My friend entered at 12 and moved to 14 in two years but most take longer.