5 ms·
Has anything changed recently, or is biotech still far less well compensated than software, relative to years of experience and education?
by epicureanideal 6y ago
Has anything changed recently, or is biotech still far less well compensated than software, relative to years of experience and education?
- natechols 6y agoAt least in the bay area the gap is enormous - and biotech is not known for paying poorly!
- epicureanideal 6y agoI'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying biotech is better paid in the bay area?
- WanderPanda 6y agoNo he is saying the other one is overpaid
- dekhn 6y agotier-1 biotech in the bay area (genentech, gilead, etc) pays less than tier-1 tech (google, facebook, etc), but that's mainly because FAAMG pay such absurdly high base salaries. The difference is less profound for tech folks at biotech companies than it is for biotech people. Certainly when I worked at a biotech startup for a year, after leaving FAAMG, I was able to negotiate the same base salary, but base salary is only a part of total comp...
- celinehh94 6y agoHey! I’m the author. Biotech is not as well comp’ed, especially when you compare years of experience. For context, senior (Director, VP) levels make low to mid 200s, PhDs with work experience make mid 100s, and straight out of grad school make 80-120s This doesn’t take into account equity, which most bio hires have zero context for and are easily taken advantage of when negotiating. I give equity packages in line with tech standards, but I could have cut them by 3-5X and still been competitive with the standard bio co.
- t_serpico 6y agounrelated, but I browsed your company website and think the idea is brilliant (especially after reading this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12737 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12737, which confirmed my initial speculation).