|
john ashpool posted:Biotech seems fairly casual. I'm at one of the big ones, and its all jeans. Some even wear t shirts instead of button down shirts. Not a tie in sight, not even upper management. Now soon I may be switching companies. What should I wear to an interview at major pharma, assuming I'd be hourly and in a lab alot. I'm beginning to think that a suit may be too dressed up. I'm of the school that you should always wear a suit to an interview, regardless of the position. If you really feel out of place, take off the tie. What do the rest of you think?
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
When I interviewed for my PhD, I wore a suit and felt incredibly overdressed. I think it depends on how well you know the lab to which you're applying. If you are familiar with the people interviewing you, because you've met them at conferences, T-shirt and jeans should be fine. If not, I'd probably go with decent trousers and a shirt. I think a suit is way too overdressed. N.B. This is from the point of view of academia. I'd probably wear a suit to a pharma interview, if I ever wanted to go that route.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
My university's rule was "always suits, no exceptions" and they stuck to it to the point where they refused a group of us access to their career fair because we weren't wearing suits with a full four feet of snow on the ground. (The visiting employers were actually pretty pissed off about that. They traveled all the way to Ithaca in a blizzard for the career fair, and almost no students were permitted into the building because they had all dressed appropriately for the storm.) The same applied to job interviews for student research, doctoral interviews, and for actual lab job interviews on-campus. You were in a suit or you damned well weren't getting considered. This may depend on your university or your lab, but my experience with academic labs at Cornell was basically to interview in a suit or get lost. As for pharma, it's absolutely always suits. Even though the dress code for scientists is often very lax (I've worn jeans without a belt for the last three years), your interview is in a suit regardless of your gender. I have never, ever seen an exception to this at any company I've interviewed with or known people at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 14:46
|
|
|
On a different topic... Does anyone else find that the majority (or at least an awful lot) of their laboratory studies are based around eliminating projects rather than advancing them? I just spent the last two weeks proving to biz guys that their idea for a drug had zero chance of working. They refused to believe me unless I went and wasted time producing batches of it to demonstrate the problems in person. Meanwhile, my other project which actually works is lingering on the back-burner while I work on this stupid poo poo. Our project lead is spineless and agrees to every demand that the business groups make, no matter how infeasible it actually is. Some of them require defiance of the laws of time and space! It's pretty impressive in a Kafkaesque sort of way. I actually received a demand for a new product to be developed using a specific process, scaled up and transferred to a manufacturing site in Puerto Rico that doesn't have equipment for that process, and was assigned a due date on it of three weeks before I received the request.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
In my lab we have the exact opposite problem: Last year I was working on a project and managed to show that it was a dead end and that our hypothesis was flawed. It took months of repeating the same bloody Western blots until my supervisor agreed with me and let me go down a different line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
A timeline of idiocy... Sundae works on a stupid project. Stupid project works in one particular way. Stupid executives ask for three other ways. Sundae wastes nine months proving that these three ways don't work. Sundae presents the one working way, and project is killed. Executive is fired. (Every now and then it actually happens!!) *** A full year passes, fast-forward to this morning *** New executive assigned this old stupid project. Sundae receives e-mail asking for those same three other ways that don't work.  At least I've already done all the work. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
Sundae posted:A timeline of idiocy... So you're going to spend the next nine months doing nothing, right? :p Or are you going to give the professional curtsey of telling this executive what happened to the last one who asked you to do this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
I actually just got out of a meeting explaining the problems her predecessor encountered to her. I think she got the hint, because she slammed shut two of the three lovely options immediately. Only one left to kill. Should be easy enough, because the only way it works is if we ignore math and the concept of space. (Let's just say that they want me to find a way to slam over 1600mg of drug into a capsule small enough for an elderly population to comfortably ingest. Anyone who has ever looked at anything in their medicine cabinet should instantly understand how ridiculous this idea is. For those who haven't... those ibuprofen tablets are usually 200mg. Can you comfortably take EIGHT of them rubber-banded together?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
Gotta love the business world... you should rubber band 8 Advil's together and ask her to swallow it. Just got to book my first ever work travel/conference down in Charleston, I'll get to hang out with a lot of you laboratory folk. From the sounds of it you all probably drink heavily due to work stress, so at least I'll have that going for me down there. I also confirmed that my boss likes to get banged up when I was up at HQ the other day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
Don't ever use a coin in a presentation as a size comparator. Imagine, if you will, a tablet sitting next to a dime, and this photo is in a powerpoint slide. Seems sensible enough, right?  : "Pardon me interrupting for a second. Can you tell me what coin that is?" : "It's a dime.": "Dime?": "Yes, a dime.": "Oh... haven't seen one of those before."The lady on the telecon with me is at our New York corporate offices. : "Yeah, it's a small coin; the smallest we have.": "I can't swallow a coin. It's too big.": "I promise you you can swallow a dime, but that's not the point...": "Come back when it's smaller. Coins are too big."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Don't ever use a coin in a presentation as a size comparator. I...what...how can... The mind boggles. How has she never have seen a dime before? I mean, really? I'm amazed you've avoided re-enacting Columbine your work Sundae.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
I don't understand it either. That's the SECOND person to not recognize a dime. This time I had witnesses since two managers were in the meeting with me to talk about the financial risk profiles for the drug, and they were speechless too. It's a perfectly clear picture. No blur at all. Very clearly a dime! This is the sort of person I like to point to when people ask why the pharma industry can be making so much money and yet fail so spectacularly. With regard to your last comment, nobody at my site is important enough to change the system. It'd be like trying to make a statement against government corruption by taking out the lady behind the desk at your local DMV.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Don't ever use a coin in a presentation as a size comparator. That is one of the most surreal exchanges I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 12:29
|
|
|
I heared something bizar this week at a meeting. At the meeting we discussed the future of lab work (analytical chemistry), turns out that here in the netherlands the amount of people graduating with an MLO diploma is 200 a year. This is lab technician level. The amount of people graduating with an HLO diploma is 1000 a year. This is technical specialist lvl. But most end up as lab managers and middle management. Managers will outnumber technicians 5 to 1 in the near future. Good times...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
And yet... watch there be no openings for laboratory technicians.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
MrDutch posted:Managers already outnumber actual workers 10 to 1 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
I'm a lab rat! I work at an organic synthesis lab. We make reference standards and certified reference standards! I graduated back in December 2009 and have been working there for a bit over a year. It is fun, I enjoy it. Get to do a bit of everything which is what I enjoy. The job search sucked, though.. Not looking forward to doing it again. About to start because we are moving to Houston from Austin and I'm not sure where I should be looking... Uhg.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
soupy posted:I'm a lab rat! I work at an organic synthesis lab. We make reference standards and certified reference standards! I graduated back in December 2009 and have been working there for a bit over a year. It is fun, I enjoy it. Get to do a bit of everything which is what I enjoy. The job search sucked, though.. Not looking forward to doing it again. About to start because we are moving to Houston from Austin and I'm not sure where I should be looking... Uhg. You are right to move, there like 1 synthetic chemist job opening every 3 years in Austin and like 1 every 10 years for a senior (PhD) synthesis position.. Do you do any NMR?For synthesis (if that is what you are interested in) Houston sucks too. There will definitely be more jobs there though than Austin due to the size and less competition from fresh UT grads willing to work for jack poo poo. Austin just sucks rear end for ANY field because everyone wants to stay there after graduation. However if that is truly what you want to do and are willing to relocate you really want to be looking in New Jersey or Virginia. NJ might suck and no place in the country is as good as Austin, but it can't be any more of a shithole than Houston (I lived in Houston area for 15 years). I will go on the record saying I absolutely loved doing organic synthesis. I swapped for analytical/instrumental chemistry after graduation because there is a ton more jobs (BY COMPARISON, not absolute terms) to organic/inorganic synthesis, and I really do love instruments.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
seacat posted:I used to live in Austin so I'm pretty sure I know what company you are at unless things have changed.. does it starts with a C? Yes, you are correct! And I do all of my pre-submission NMR. I am competent with Proton, C13, COSY... So yeah! But really, I just want a job that pays more than I am paid now which isn't Too much. It would be great if it is synthesis, but if it is analytical or whatever I really am not too picky. Edit: I'd love to get into the materials science/energy business but I don't have that stupid 'Engineer' thing on the end of my diploma so it may be a bit hard. Don't get me wrong, though.. I love organic synthesis, but I learned from my first job search that being picky means I might not get a job so I ready for anything. soupy fucked around with this message at 23:21 on May 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
soupy posted:Yes, you are correct! And I do all of my pre-submission NMR. I am competent with Proton, C13, COSY... So yeah! But really, I just want a job that pays more than I am paid now which isn't Too much. It would be great if it is synthesis, but if it is analytical or whatever I really am not too picky. . One thing you only learn from the school of hard knocks is that if you fold your arms and limit yourself to one field without a whole lot of experience, your rear end will be unemployed a long time. I hate those C&E News statistics (what's that? physical chemists make 50K starting whereas organic chemists make 45K and analytical chemists only make 38K starting?) They omit certain facts like that there is a 100:1 ratio of analytical to physical chem positions and that all pchem people do some achem and vice versa, and you'll see that means gently caress all. Just search Indeed.com for "physical chemist" vs "analytical chemist", seriously. If you love synthesis but have an interest in analytical chemistry as well, or just open to different fields, I would highly suggest you try to get a background in instrumental analysis (QC labs are your best bet - they hire tons of early-career chemists and I have not seen even a crappy QC lab without at least a HPLC or GC or AA). Push your NMR skills heavily - NMR is insanely expensive and while it is rare, it shows you can handle a 250K$+ instrument with 200$/hr LN2/LHe requirements.If you really want to get into materials/energy engineering, don't let your degree hold you back too much and start edging your job experience towards those fields in any way you can. That's easier said than done, and it will take years not months. Again, instrumental work rather than wet-lab work (titrations blah) will help you a lot here as instruments are very very technical in the traditional engineering sense. As an example I am just a QC lab drone whose first job was actually for a university, but I've gotten calls (and am interviewing) for a field-service engineer position for an instrument manufacturer. Now, it's not an engineer in the usual sense at all (it's really more of a mechanic position, they just like to call it engineer rather than "technician" bc of the serious education and experience requirements), but my instrumental experience led me to interviews for that position and if I get this position (fingers crossed), it will unlock many more new doors. The real world is NOT NEARLY as segregated as the academic world where everyone hides in their lab researching obscure topics many of which nobody cares about. Your degree does matter, don't get me wrong, but it gets less and less important as you get more work experience. The job market is just that - a market, whereas university education is not a market - you can do whatever it is you want as long as you fork over tuition money or cheapass labor as a grad student. I'm glad to see you're discovering that -- the sooner you learn it the sooner you will start making real money and going places you want to go with your career. People with chemistry degrees AND enough experience get hired for engineering positions, and some people with Chem-E degrees work as lab chemists (usually in higher positions than just drone though) instead of doing fluid process analysis or whatever the bloody hell it is they are trained to do. seacat fucked around with this message at 00:42 on May 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
seacat posted:Good man always glad to talk to someone from Austin especially a chemist Yeah I've been looking into a few QC lab positions. I run all of my own GCs, HPLCs, LC/MS and I can fix most common/some uncommon GC problems (Same with LC except more common stuff only). I feel like I have a good range of skills from my year at this lab and hope it will translate well. We'll see, though.. I need to find the companies hiring first!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
seacat posted:The real world is NOT NEARLY as segregated as the academic world where everyone hides in their lab researching obscure topics many of which nobody cares about. Your degree does matter, don't get me wrong, but it gets less and less important as you get more work experience. The job market is just that - a market, whereas university education is not a market - you can do whatever it is you want as long as you fork over tuition money or cheapass labor as a grad student. I'm glad to see you're discovering that -- the sooner you learn it the sooner you will start making real money and going places you want to go with your career. People with chemistry degrees AND enough experience get hired for engineering positions, and some people with Chem-E degrees work as lab chemists (usually in higher positions than just drone though) instead of doing fluid process analysis or whatever the bloody hell it is they are trained to do. I wish recruiters would understand the same thing. I'm getting tired of them saying, "you have a mathematical biology degree, you aren't qualified for lab work". So loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I wish recruiters would understand the same thing. I'm getting tired of them saying, "you have a mathematical biology degree, you aren't qualified for lab work". So loving stupid. Recruiters don't know what the gently caress when it comes to specialty positions. I keep getting offers asking for unrelated Ph.Ds for field repair engineer positions at fairly stupid salaries. I keep getting pressure to go for a doctorate but the opportunity cost is huge (at least 50k/year less), and every staff scientist I work with says it's a poo poo idea. Am I wrong for agreeing with them? All our C-level execs and directors are Ph.D holders, which would be a great thing to shoot for ten years from now.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:Recruiters don't know what the gently caress when it comes to specialty positions. I keep getting offers asking for unrelated Ph.Ds for field repair engineer positions at fairly stupid salaries. The vast majority of scientists I've met in both industry and academia agree: if you get a PhD, don't do it for the money. The money loving sucks for giving up 4-6 years of your life (and earnings), valuable work experience, and possible your sanity. Of course there are some superstar scientists who land a sweet gig on 140K$. This is like 1% of the total PhD holders. I guess if you really, really, REALLY, REALLY love science, or are independently wealthy, go for it. I'm pretty unique in that I love instrumental analysis and equipment repair, both of which are break-into-able with just a bachelors in a technical degree (in my case chemistry) so I guess I lucked out there. PS: Yes, recruiters don't know what the hell. Most recruiters I've met are biologists. Why did everyone in industry who doesn't know wtf they're doing major in biology?!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
seacat posted:PS: Yes, recruiters don't know what the hell. Most recruiters I've met are biologists. Why did everyone in industry who doesn't know wtf they're doing major in biology?! The only folks I run into on a regular basis that are dumber than recruiters are auditors. "Holy poo poo I found the expiration date on the bottle but gently caress me if I can tell you what's inside".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 08:17
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The only folks I run into on a regular basis that are dumber than recruiters are auditors. "Holy poo poo I found the expiration date on the bottle but gently caress me if I can tell you what's inside". We actually have to WRITE OUT EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CALCULATION because the ISO goons and FDA goons can't be hosed to learn how to calculate acid value from a simple KOH titration or to at least send someone who's had 2 semesters of college chemistry. Also it seems the volume of poo poo we're required to record on our paperwork doubles every 6 months. I can understand lot numbers and expiration dates of important chemicals, but indicators? Balance calibration dates? Really?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
I think I made the correct choice, I've been directing groups of post-docs since I was 23. I'd be amazed if my work would sponsor anything but an MBA at this point- but it's something to bring up at my career panel next quarter. Oh god maintenance stickers- our COO came through for a safety audit and noticed the company we get our PMs from left stickers on all the machines saying they need to be serviced again in a year. A 115V plug does not need to be PMed once a year 
Bastard Tetris fucked around with this message at 09:24 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 09:21
|
|
|
seacat posted:Also it seems the volume of poo poo we're required to record on our paperwork doubles every 6 months. I can understand lot numbers and expiration dates of important chemicals, but indicators? Balance calibration dates? Really? I love that we have a fancy electronic lab notebook system, but if you include a notebook reference to an experiment in anything that might be audited, you have to print out a pdf of the experiment and include it in the paperwork. Makes you wonder what the point of a paperless system is. gninjagnome fucked around with this message at 11:37 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 11:33
|
|
|
seacat posted:Also it seems the volume of poo poo we're required to record on our paperwork doubles every 6 months. I can understand lot numbers and expiration dates of important chemicals, but indicators? Balance calibration dates? Really? Ok, I do lots of calibrations under ISO 17025, so I'll defend the balance calibration dates. That's there because too many jackasses like the owner of the lab I work at would simply by happy to by used equipment on Dovebid or eBay and never check it at all. So every time you have to write that down, think of my boss's boss. EDIT: Either that, or research scientists that won't bother to loving clean them after use, loving christ. I can't tell you how many times I can't do a daily balance check because some rear end in a top hat couldn't bother to clean up after themselves. Nothing like leaving a mysterious white powder all over everything. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 14:19 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 14:13
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:EDIT: Either that, or research scientists that won't bother to loving clean them after use, loving christ. I can't tell you how many times I can't do a daily balance check because some rear end in a top hat couldn't bother to clean up after themselves. Nothing like leaving a mysterious white powder all over everything. I hate mysterious white powder syndrome! We suffer from it to terrible degrees. One of my labs upstairs is currently unusable. It is coated in powder to the point of a foggy haze on the windows looking into it from the hallway. It has a sign on the door, also. Guess what it says? OEB 5, November 4 2010. No name. No compound number. No indication of what the gently caress is in there other than that it's an OEB 5, and now we need to get a fancy cleaning crew in because it's on EVERYTHING. We can't even vouch for the safety of the breathable air hookups because they're covered in powder. We have a lab booking system. Nobody had the loving room booked on Nov 4. Nobody in my department was even assigned to an active OEB 5 compound at that time. I can only narrow it down to two things... either an rear end in a top hat from another department borrowed our labs at the cost of months of our time, or someone in the December layoffs decided to have some fun at our expense before he got poo poo-canned. People are why we can't have nice things. They are also why balance calibration dates matter so much. I don't even have to calibrate them and I'll agree to that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
That is just.. Awesome. Like.. It truly boggles my mind how someone could do that. It really does. We just had someone put copper powder on our lypholizer and it bumped SO hard and the entire inside of the machine is coated with copper powder. We were able to clean out the metal parts, but the copper imbedded itself in all of the rubber seals. So we have to order all new ones to the tune of 1.5K+ And even with that we all weren't.. Happy. There is NOTHING worse in a lab then someone who wont clean up their own messes.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
Hello there! I'm glad to find this biotech/pharma thread, since I've been toying with the idea of joining "the dark side" after my Master's. Sadly, I have virtually no clue what "the industry" actually does, so I'd really appreciate some advice (even if it'll shatter my illusions of "I can do research, keep my dignity AND earn money!" v v).Most people here seem to work on the more chemical/engineering end of things, are "purely biological" research jobs not so common? And is it also possible for biologists to stack up experience on top of a MSc to make up for lack of a PhD for more "advanced" positions? Also, I've always pushed myself for good grades (yay Asian), but I have the impression that to the industry, grades matter less than, let's say, experience with lots of assays/techniques. For example, my bachelor thesis project involved the ubiquitin-proteasome system and I loved it, so for my 2nd master project I applied to a Japanese lab also in this field (other master project was peroxisome biogenesis). It's super interesting to me, but I'm a bit worried that by indulging in this preference, I'll miss the chance to learn more new techniques and it'll hurt my prospects in the future...
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
plasmoduck posted:Hello there! I'm glad to find this biotech/pharma thread, since I've been toying with the idea of joining "the dark side" after my Master's. Sadly, I have virtually no clue what "the industry" actually does, so I'd really appreciate some advice (even if it'll shatter my illusions of "I can do research, keep my dignity AND earn money!" v It really is all about experience and what you've done. Grades really.. Don't matter in industry unless you are fresh out of undergrad and they don't really have anything else to go on. As for purely biological industry jobs? I can't think of any.. Biotech, however, has tons of jobs. We are looking for a chemist right now and they want either a PhD or a MS with good experience so at least for our company having a MS wont hurt you as long as you have good experience.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
plasmoduck posted:Hello there! I'm glad to find this biotech/pharma thread, since I've been toying with the idea of joining "the dark side" after my Master's. Sadly, I have virtually no clue what "the industry" actually does, so I'd really appreciate some advice (even if it'll shatter my illusions of "I can do research, keep my dignity AND earn money!" v Don't do it. Stay in academia where it's awesome. There's more to life than money.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
plasmoduck posted:Also, I've always pushed myself for good grades (yay Asian), but I have the impression that to the industry, grades matter less than, let's say, experience with lots of assays/techniques. For example, my bachelor thesis project involved the ubiquitin-proteasome system and I loved it, so for my 2nd master project I applied to a Japanese lab also in this field (other master project was peroxisome biogenesis). It's super interesting to me, but I'm a bit worried that by indulging in this preference, I'll miss the chance to learn more new techniques and it'll hurt my prospects in the future... HOWEVER, I sometimes wish they would look at grades a little more. Assuming you come from a respectable school (it doesn't have to be Harvard, any accredited school with a rigorous curriculum), a high GPA implies a good understanding of that backing science. I've trained numerous people who have been doing HPLC for years and still have absolutely no understanding of how it works; hence, when a problem is encountered, they come running to me for help and distract me from my own poo poo. For an entry-level position I would almost prefer a fresh college grad who understands the principles behind a technique to a monkey that knows how to flip switches and push buttons because he's been doing it for years, but doesn't really understand what those switches and buttons do. The ideal candidate will have both. Obviously the hiring manager/lab manager will go with the person with experience even for a lab drone position because OMGEXPERIENCE makes them look better to their boss/HR/whoever. Think long and hard about your choice of doing a Master's in those two things you mentioned. If you want to start as a lab grunt and work your way up to make that $$$$, find some people in the industry you want to work in (cosmetics, food, pharma, whatever). Ask them what techniques they use the most. Find a way to perfect those techniques and understand them well while you are in school (it looks like you already have a bachelor's, so let it be the focus of your masters). Bam, now you have something to talk about in a job interview that makes you look like a badass. As I mentioned above ITT there are tons of people who did their graduate work on some obscure poo poo and only like 5% of them are actually doing industry work in their niche topic. TBH, I don't think the academic scene is that much better. Sucks, but that's just supply & demand for ya. Unless you're lucky, the only time you REALLY get to pick your project and study/research what you love is when you are an undergraduate/grad student willing to work for subpoverty wages.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
plasmoduck posted:Hello there! I'm glad to find this biotech/pharma thread, since I've been toying with the idea of joining "the dark side" after my Master's. Sadly, I have virtually no clue what "the industry" actually does, so I'd really appreciate some advice (even if it'll shatter my illusions of "I can do research, keep my dignity AND earn money!" v I'm afraid you've just missed the boat for pure biology in industry. We just announced that we are laying off, depending on specialty, anywhere from 65%-80% of our research discovery departments. Rather extreme percentages, but much of the industry is doing this right now. Small biotechs are your best bet for finding stuff, but don't count on stability or $80,000 wages anymore. If you are stuck on the student-loans-from-hell boat like I was, industry is great for making them disappear in a hurry. Academia is awesome (but has its own problems with lab politics) if money isn't an obstacle. Academia, due to the low salaries, has never been an option for me. My student loan payments are simply too high for the salaries offered.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Sundae posted:If you are stuck on the student-loans-from-hell boat like I was, industry is great for making them disappear in a hurry. Academia is awesome (but has its own problems with lab politics) if money isn't an obstacle. Academia, due to the low salaries, has never been an option for me. My student loan payments are simply too high for the salaries offered.  this is my exact situation as my student loans are obscene. I considered being an academic but realized the beard-stroking ivory tower culture just wasn't for me, and coupled with piss poor salaries for all but the Tenured (that most elite of castes which shrinks every year as the ever growing University Administrator/Bureaucrat caste realizes they can get adjuncts for 10% of the price of a FT tenured professor), I said gently caress IT. Yes, I'm just a lil bit bitter Shame, I was really counting on those $80,000 salaries :P But even as a QC drone I am managing to make my loan payments and am currently interviewing for a position that pays $15,000 more. *fingers crossed* My sister on the other hand fled to grad school doing a PhD in computational biology as her $80,000 in private student loans (5 years of private university) grows and grows and grows (no, there is no deferment for student loans, although you don't have to pay while you're in school, the interest still compounds and builds!) She is on her 4th year. I fear to ask what her balance is.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
seacat posted:the beard-stroking ivory tower culture What? Is that similar to industry's money-grabbing, profiteering culture? Or could it be that both are stupid stereotypes?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Yeah, the ivory-tower stereotype is absolutely idiotic, and I'd agree that it's about as idiotic as assuming that every scientist in industry is a money-grubbing whore. Only some of us are money-grubbing whores, and often only because we can't afford to be anything else. I had the absolute most kickass lab ever while I was in school, and I was actually sad that, when they offered me a job as lab manager, I couldn't afford to take it. (http://luolabs.bee.cornell.edu/)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Sundae posted:I'm afraid you've just missed the boat for pure biology in industry. We just announced that we are laying off, depending on specialty, anywhere from 65%-80% of our research discovery departments. Rather extreme percentages, but much of the industry is doing this right now. Small biotechs are your best bet for finding stuff, but don't count on stability or $80,000 wages anymore. Aw well, I was already fearing that the pharma/biotech industry are struggling to maintain their research/development. On the bright side, I have virtually no external student loans (thanks to cheap European universities), but I want to be able to pay back my parents as soon as possible. If I could stay in Europe, where PhDs are usually paid positions and only take ~4 years, I wouldn't mind doing it - but a boyfriend issue forces me to move to the US (whole different story). So now I'm struggling to find a good path, since the whole PhD system is so different in the US and I'm aware that I'm not well-trained for an industry position. To clarify my situation a bit, I'm finishing my first year of a 2-year "Molecular Biology and Biotechnology" MSc programme in the Netherlands, with a cell biology-centered curriculum (but it's quite flexible). My bachelor was actually in biotechnology, but the college sucked and the engineering parts never clicked for me so I switched universities and back to biology for my masters. Oh the irony! In my own fantasy future, I'd like to do pre-clinical biomedical research and develop/optimize drug strategies with cells or tissues... I know "translational research" is a buzzword, but it pretty much sums up what I was hoping for..oh dreams. Thanks for all the input and putting things in perspective though, it's very much appreciated. Edit: I agree with this article wholeheartedly. I like research and wouldn't mind doing it as a postdoc forever (was never keen on becoming a professor, although I'd enjoy the teaching part), if it was a real job and not a stepping stone. plasmoduck fucked around with this message at 20:10 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 20:05
|
|