So you want to be a scientist in industry

[J77]

I guess my opinions lie in the academic camp.

However, graveneworld -- I'll try to respect the ethos of your thread and add...

You can combine the two -- industry and academia.

I've given presentations to "industrialists" in the UK to obtain CASE awards for PhD students -- these awards sit alongside the student's bursary from a research council; they get a bit more money plus get to talk to industry: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/IndustrialCASE/default.htm

Also, a lot of UK unis have specific links with industry and, in fact, employ teams to create and nurture these links; I'm sure they have similar programs in the US (?).

What are your opinions on this route to industry -- ie. working at a uni, yet being heavily involved in the research of large companies?

Also, gnw -- can I ask your degree of experience w.r.t. the scale you had in your first post -- I like a bit of background to help with understanding viewpoints.

 

[Locrian]

I've been trying to decide between, after my masters, getting a PhD or getting an MBA. My intention has always been to work in industry, and I'd prefer to manage. However, I have no interest in leaving science, and I love physics.

Any comments would be very highly appreciated.

 

[gravenewworld]

Just as a recap, it may be helpful for Zz and gravenewworld to post the main points they are trying to get across in 3 or 4 sentences (if you go over, you will get 0 points for the exercise ;) )

1.) Look before you leap; a PhD guarantees you nothing in industry since experience is almost substitutable for number of years of education in the eyes of the employer.

2.) To be a scientist in industry you need to more than a scientist, you need knowledge and skills that aren't even related to science like the ones mentioned previously.

3.) Consider all of you options carefully; even consider careers that are loosely related to your degree.

Just one little thing to nitpick here. I find this somewhat not true. I would say that nothing is more practical than good theory. If your company is developing something new, your first step shouldn't be to make the widget and hope it works. You need a good theoretical background on the widget to determine what is possible and what is not. Good theory is the first step to making a good widget. Once it is determined the theory is sound and know what you want from your widget, then it all shifts to what you said.

True. The theory should lead to practicality. What I had more in mind when I wrote that was something like consider someone who studies math. If they choose to specialize in something like differential geometry they will have a hell of a hard time finding employment (non academic!) than if they chose to specialize in something like financial derivatives.

I guess my opinions lie in the academic camp.

However, graveneworld -- I'll try to respect the ethos of your thread and add...

You can combine the two -- industry and academia.

I've given presentations to "industrialists" in the UK to obtain CASE awards for PhD students -- these awards sit alongside the student's bursary from a research council; they get a bit more money plus get to talk to industry: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateT...SE/default.htm

Also, a lot of UK unis have specific links with industry and, in fact, employ teams to create and nurture these links; I'm sure they have similar programs in the US (?).

What are your opinions on this route to industry -- ie. working at a uni, yet being heavily involved in the research of large companies?

Also, gnw -- can I ask your degree of experience w.r.t. the scale you had in your first post -- I like a bit of background to help with understanding viewpoints.

Indeed you can. My company collaborates with academics all the time to study cancer research, obesity, etc. However, this is never permanent, only temporary. If you want to primarily remain in academia, but get a taste of industry this would be a good option that you suggest. Remember though, that in order to do this your area of expertise must be able to be applicable to real world problems.

Also, gnw -- can I ask your degree of experience w.r.t. the scale you had in your first post -- I like a bit of background to help with understanding viewpoints.

I have a BS and have been working for 4 years in industry. If my company weren't about to go out of business then I would have definitely started to pursue my MS by taking some night classes.

I'm telling you what I'm observing. I have seen many many people come and go over my 4 years and also have seen many many people try to get a job at the same time. Many who come out from college have impressive resumes with tons of research that they did, but once they try to present what they did research on or answer questions about their research they are like a deer in headlights! They have no speaking or presenting skills at all. All of the PhDs who interview BS candidates certainly know much more than what the BS candidate knows, but they don't go for the presentation content! They just go to the interviews in order to see how the person presents themselves and how that person reacts under pressure. The meanest thing the PhDs do is ask questions to the BS candidates that they know they will have no clue on how to answer. The best BS candidates are the ones who are able to apply basic theory in order to come up with an educated guess, it might not necessarily be the right one though.

Some of the BS and MS chemists and biologists we have, who have been in industry for a long time, are in charge of their own small groups and are ridiculous at what they do. You would instantaneously mistake them for a PhD if you ever had the chance to listen to them talk. This just proves my point that years of experience in industry are almost equivalent to spending time in school. As a BS or MS in industry, you get to do PhD level science all the time. Sure you might not understand the theory of what is going on first (all that matters is that you get your desired product), but after years of working you'll be able to figure it out. Even though you might only have a BS or MS, after years of experience, you will know just as much or maybe even more than some fresh out of school PhDs. Is it really unreasonable to believe that years of experience can be interchanged with years of schooling? I don't think so. Experience, to me, is nothing more than real world science schooling.

I've also attended many interviews of potential PhD candidates. They are almost a dime a dozen. A lot of them know tons and tons of theory, however, the all the theory that they present, they have never actually performed in a lab. Their "group" has.

The best PhD candidates are the ones who have excellent oral/communication and writing skills. My company always wants and also requires its doctoral employees to publish papers. PhDs who can't write are therefore worthless. Also, whenever we come up with a new finding that has never been accomplished before, and after we are done patenting our finding, the PhDs are the ones who have to go out, make posters, and present our company's findings. Excellent speaking skills are a must for those guys! It seems like the PhDs have to be almost superhuman like where I work to be employed.

Sure you can write off what I told you simply because I work in the chemical industry. In my opinion though, a lot of the themes present in the experiences I told you about could easily be applicable to all fields of science.

All I was trying to do with my first post was try to provide an alternative view. I was simply trying to point out that a PhD simply isn't necessary to work in industry a lot of time, and there are many many scientists out there who are just BS and MS who have fulfilling and successful careers. A lot of them even end up being some of the most well educated and most skilled scientists in industry!

I've been trying to decide between, after my masters, getting a PhD or getting an MBA. My intention has always been to work in industry, and I'd prefer to manage. However, I have no interest in leaving science, and I love physics.

Any comments would be very highly appreciated.

Having a MBA would be a great addition to your education, it can't hurt now can it? The PhD vs. MS is up to you. Look at the facts and make up your own mind from there. There is a link for the AIP stats already provided in a previous post from Zapper

 

[Mororvia]

True. The theory should lead to practicality. What I had more in mind when I wrote that was something like consider someone who studies math. If they choose to specialize in something like differential geometry they will have a hell of a hard time finding employment (non academic!) than if they chose to specialize in something like financial derivatives.

I figured as much :) I more or less threw that in there for clarification.