2 ms·

Well, hopefully you networked with your profs and their contacts during that time? They can probably help...

dnautics 6y ago
Not all professors are good at that, or even practicioners. Ironically if you get away with doing good science as a grad student there may even be an inverse correlation. Less time networking = more time at the bench. While I appreciate that self-promotion is a valuable skill, I believed (possibly flawed) understanding? narrative? that part of the reason why YC / tech incubation / tech can be effective is that it provides a structure where folks who are highly technically minded and historically preferred to spend time leveling up on that can be given easy access to networks with a builtin trust biased to some relatively technical merit, and resources to help level up on networking at all stages (whether that's PG's imprimatur that gives you access to VC offices for late stage companies or resources to help you find networkers in early stage companies). If YC doesn't acknowledge the structural barriers that make identifying technically meritorious biotech founders (vs biotech founders that have focused on buzzwords and networking) difficult then it's going to have a rough time meeting the success expectation it has for software, on biotech. It's nice to say you want biotech portfolio, but the proof is in the pudding what are you actually doing differently to get it done?
- JabavuAdams 6y ago
  There's something to what you've written, but I wonder whether it's too black/white. Even successful paper submission involves some level of strategizing / networking, sadly. So if you're published at all, you probably have some networking skills. It doesn't mean that one has to take time away from the other. I have not yet worked in a lab setting or where my PI is strict about hours, but from my software background a lot of "butt in seat" time is not really productive. My instinct would be to automate as much as possible and spend less time at the bench. But again, this is theoretical at this point.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    Well usually your PI will do the initial stages of networking or carry enough weight that you don't have to do much networking on behalf of your publications. That is a separate question from if your PI will do networking FOR you. Some will, some won't, either by malice, by ignorance, or by temperament. I worked for a nobel laureate (who discovered restriction enzymes). Publication was not a problem. He was lovely and fun to work for, but in the end I had to leave academia because he couldn't be bothered to network for me (he was more interested in playing penny slots at the casino). If you're in grad school, my strongest recommendation is to optimize first for a PI that will network for you. That is generally the most valuable form of networking, because 3rd party validation generally carries a strong amount of weight by human nature. Plus it potentially takes minimal effort on your part.

Not all professors are good at that, or even practicioners. Ironically if you get away with doing good science as a grad student there may even be an inverse correlation. Less time networking = more time at the bench. While I appreciate that self-promotion is a valuable skill, I believed (possibly flawed) understanding? narrative? that part of the reason why YC / tech incubation / tech can be effective is that it provides a structure where folks who are highly technically minded and historically preferred to spend time leveling up on that can be given easy access to networks with a builtin trust biased to some relatively technical merit, and resources to help level up on networking at all stages (whether that's PG's imprimatur that gives you access to VC offices for late stage companies or resources to help you find networkers in early stage companies). If YC doesn't acknowledge the structural barriers that make identifying technically meritorious biotech founders (vs biotech founders that have focused on buzzwords and networking) difficult then it's going to have a rough time meeting the success expectation it has for software, on biotech. It's nice to say you want biotech portfolio, but the proof is in the pudding what are you actually doing differently to get it done?

JabavuAdams 6y ago
There's something to what you've written, but I wonder whether it's too black/white. Even successful paper submission involves some level of strategizing / networking, sadly. So if you're published at all, you probably have some networking skills. It doesn't mean that one has to take time away from the other. I have not yet worked in a lab setting or where my PI is strict about hours, but from my software background a lot of "butt in seat" time is not really productive. My instinct would be to automate as much as possible and spend less time at the bench. But again, this is theoretical at this point.
- dnautics 6y ago
  Well usually your PI will do the initial stages of networking or carry enough weight that you don't have to do much networking on behalf of your publications. That is a separate question from if your PI will do networking FOR you. Some will, some won't, either by malice, by ignorance, or by temperament. I worked for a nobel laureate (who discovered restriction enzymes). Publication was not a problem. He was lovely and fun to work for, but in the end I had to leave academia because he couldn't be bothered to network for me (he was more interested in playing penny slots at the casino). If you're in grad school, my strongest recommendation is to optimize first for a PI that will network for you. That is generally the most valuable form of networking, because 3rd party validation generally carries a strong amount of weight by human nature. Plus it potentially takes minimal effort on your part.