4 ms·

Google is paying a lot more than $50k - $90k for new PhD grads. I've had a couple offers declined - at what I thought was market or above market! - to Google Li

by frisco 11y ago

Google is paying a lot more than $50k - $90k for new PhD grads. I've had a couple offers declined - at what I thought was market or above market! - to Google Life Sciences in the last six months: recent PhDs, engineering bents, $180k - $250k+. True story. $50k - $90k would be "competitive" based on academic salaries, but some companies are paying a lot more. What the tech companies moving into LS are paying is way out of line with what the "native" LS companies are paying, too. It seems to be a little random if GLS wants you or not, but if they want you they really want you. From my own experience and that of friends working in science-based startups, Google salaries are a major impediment right now for hiring. We're still able to get great people, but it certainly slows things down.

cryoshon 11y ago
Depends on the grad, I assume, but I'm not too surprised at the range you're reporting. The 200k+ salaries are probably very rare, considering most new biomedical PhDs would jump at 100k. I'm guessing that the higher salaries are for people who are experts in (did their dissertation on) extremely narrow subfields of subfields which Google has an intense (but probably only capricious) interest in-- they want THAT person because they're one of a dozen on earth who specialized on that particular thing. This would drive the salaries up quite a bit, but only as blips. From the outside, this would also explain the "seemingly random" criteria used to select people-- it's not random, just very focused on an otherwise obscure/esoteric item.
- frisco 11y ago
  Way more common than you think it is. It's less that their biomedical experience is valued particularly highly as it is that they're on the engineering pay scale now, and Google is paying very high prices for good engineers at the moment. Uber is too. New undergrads are ~$130k + bonus, PhDs are routinely $170k + options. A few years of experience brings this up pretty fast. Facebook is also paying new undergrads $120k - $140k. It's just that PhDs are basically considered engineers now. Edit: Worth clarifying is that the cases I know of first-hand for this got their PhDs in "bioengineering" or something similar, not a traditional biology or chemistry.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    Ah, your clarification brings this into perspective. The researcher I knew was definitely not an engineer, so I assume he was on a lower payscale. Biomedical engineers typically get paid a bit better than the researchers everywhere.
  - mmmBacon 11y ago
    I used to work in this field at a big tech player that competes with Google for talent in this area. I can definitely vouch for the fact that salaries are NOT $60k and that they are more in line with what frisco is talking about.
srunni 11y ago
> What the tech companies moving into LS are paying is way out of line with what the "native" LS companies are paying, too. This is an interesting observation, particularly when considering the engineering vs. science distinction that you mentioned. The value traditionally produced by life scientists is less predictable than it is for engineers, due to the more unpredictable nature of the business. To some degree, Google has probably overshot in terms of estimating the likelihood of success (the 'Andy Grove fallacy'). They've hired a lot of ex-biotech people though, so that's surprising. Perhaps they just want to ensure they attract the best life scientists despite the lack of a track record in the industry.

by frisco 11y ago

cryoshon 11y ago

Depends on the grad, I assume, but I'm not too surprised at the range you're reporting. The 200k+ salaries are probably very rare, considering most new biomedical PhDs would jump at 100k. I'm guessing that the higher salaries are for people who are experts in (did their dissertation on) extremely narrow subfields of subfields which Google has an intense (but probably only capricious) interest in-- they want THAT person because they're one of a dozen on earth who specialized on that particular thing. This would drive the salaries up quite a bit, but only as blips. From the outside, this would also explain the "seemingly random" criteria used to select people-- it's not random, just very focused on an otherwise obscure/esoteric item.

frisco 11y ago
Way more common than you think it is. It's less that their biomedical experience is valued particularly highly as it is that they're on the engineering pay scale now, and Google is paying very high prices for good engineers at the moment. Uber is too. New undergrads are ~$130k + bonus, PhDs are routinely $170k + options. A few years of experience brings this up pretty fast. Facebook is also paying new undergrads $120k - $140k. It's just that PhDs are basically considered engineers now. Edit: Worth clarifying is that the cases I know of first-hand for this got their PhDs in "bioengineering" or something similar, not a traditional biology or chemistry.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Ah, your clarification brings this into perspective. The researcher I knew was definitely not an engineer, so I assume he was on a lower payscale. Biomedical engineers typically get paid a bit better than the researchers everywhere.
- mmmBacon 11y ago
  I used to work in this field at a big tech player that competes with Google for talent in this area. I can definitely vouch for the fact that salaries are NOT $60k and that they are more in line with what frisco is talking about.

srunni 11y ago

> What the tech companies moving into LS are paying is way out of line with what the "native" LS companies are paying, too. This is an interesting observation, particularly when considering the engineering vs. science distinction that you mentioned. The value traditionally produced by life scientists is less predictable than it is for engineers, due to the more unpredictable nature of the business. To some degree, Google has probably overshot in terms of estimating the likelihood of success (the 'Andy Grove fallacy'). They've hired a lot of ex-biotech people though, so that's surprising. Perhaps they just want to ensure they attract the best life scientists despite the lack of a track record in the industry.