3 ms·

Coming out of academia, I would say the biggest thing I had to internalize was that nobody in the for-profit world cares about your interesting findings, unless

Coming out of academia, I would say the biggest thing I had to internalize was that nobody in the for-profit world cares about your interesting findings, unless those interesting findings result in more money. So, apart from just being able to write to a format, I don't think grant proposal skills are transferable, and in some sense they may hurt you if you forget that the case you're making is not about research, it's about generating profits. FWIW, I don't think this a bad thing in many cases. I left academia after I realized that our 4-year NSF project to build collaborative software was never intended to actually improve anyone's life, or even to ever be used outside of our very limited study. It didn't have to be good, or useful, or get adopted by any community in order to succeed. The motivations were completely different: it was to write more papers, and get the next grant, and fund the next set of grad students, so they could build something else that would never be used. Grant proposals all the way down. Yes, basic research is valuable, obviously, my point is just that it's an entirely different, and largely non-transferable worldview from the private sector.

counters 5y ago
IMHO an important point here is that in much of the story as you've described it, there are incredibly valuable skills that just need to be re-dressed. As an academician who was lured to industry by an interesting startup and has worked the gamut of positions from IC to executive, I'm reasonably confident in telling folks that it's all about perspective. If things look upside down, then turn yourself to match! For example: > I don't think grant proposal skills are transferable, Well, they actually probably are. If you work as a domain expert on the business or technical side of an organization, you may need to directly engage with funding agencies, other companies, or some other agent where your ability to (a) understand the audience and what is required to persuade them to support your idea, and (b) quickly execute on the content required to generate the proposal. Extra points if you were one of those pre-tenure faculty who needed to submit a half-dozen grant proposals every quarter, because you've likely built some intuition as to where it's safe to cut corners in your writing and pitching. Sure, in most jobs you may not be writing NSF proposals every week, but the general skill of effective and succinct technical communication is beyond valuable across a wide swath of applications you'll find in industry. > The motivations were completely different: it was to write more papers, and get the next grant ... but that's, in a sense, the same thing as the start-up hustle, is it not? Build the MVP, get that one extra client - not because this next iteration of your product is going to change the world, but it's one more notch on your belt that will look good in the next funding round. Hell, maybe the majority of what you're building on any given iteration is throw-away work, but it's towards an explicit goal. I don't really see the start-up rat race as much different than the grant rat race (for better or for worse - I'm not making a judgment call here).
- karaterobot 5y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response! > the general skill of effective and succinct technical communication is beyond valuable across a wide swath of applications you'll find in industry. I did not feel that academia rewarded succinct technical communication in any way, and the criteria for evaluating effectiveness were very different than in the private sector. The kind of cases you need to make to pitch to investors (or even product owners) are different than the kinds of cases you need to make to pitch to a grant committee. In both domains, there is a language you need to learn to communicate effectively, and I suppose that's partly what I was thinking of when I cryptically mentioned "writing to a template". But, the languages are not the same, and in fact you have to unlearn some ingrained concepts when you move from academic to private sector — or vice versa, I'm sure. At least I did. > ... but that's, in a sense, the same thing as the start-up hustle, is it not? Build the MVP, get that one extra client... No, I don't think it's the same. They both have incentive structures, but the incentives are different. It's good for private businesses to be judged on whether they make more money than what was invested in them, but it would be pretty catastrophic to our culture if academic research projects were.

counters 5y ago

IMHO an important point here is that in much of the story as you've described it, there are incredibly valuable skills that just need to be re-dressed. As an academician who was lured to industry by an interesting startup and has worked the gamut of positions from IC to executive, I'm reasonably confident in telling folks that it's all about perspective. If things look upside down, then turn yourself to match! For example: > I don't think grant proposal skills are transferable, Well, they actually probably are. If you work as a domain expert on the business or technical side of an organization, you may need to directly engage with funding agencies, other companies, or some other agent where your ability to (a) understand the audience and what is required to persuade them to support your idea, and (b) quickly execute on the content required to generate the proposal. Extra points if you were one of those pre-tenure faculty who needed to submit a half-dozen grant proposals every quarter, because you've likely built some intuition as to where it's safe to cut corners in your writing and pitching. Sure, in most jobs you may not be writing NSF proposals every week, but the general skill of effective and succinct technical communication is beyond valuable across a wide swath of applications you'll find in industry. > The motivations were completely different: it was to write more papers, and get the next grant ... but that's, in a sense, the same thing as the start-up hustle, is it not? Build the MVP, get that one extra client - not because this next iteration of your product is going to change the world, but it's one more notch on your belt that will look good in the next funding round. Hell, maybe the majority of what you're building on any given iteration is throw-away work, but it's towards an explicit goal. I don't really see the start-up rat race as much different than the grant rat race (for better or for worse - I'm not making a judgment call here).

karaterobot 5y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response! > the general skill of effective and succinct technical communication is beyond valuable across a wide swath of applications you'll find in industry. I did not feel that academia rewarded succinct technical communication in any way, and the criteria for evaluating effectiveness were very different than in the private sector. The kind of cases you need to make to pitch to investors (or even product owners) are different than the kinds of cases you need to make to pitch to a grant committee. In both domains, there is a language you need to learn to communicate effectively, and I suppose that's partly what I was thinking of when I cryptically mentioned "writing to a template". But, the languages are not the same, and in fact you have to unlearn some ingrained concepts when you move from academic to private sector — or vice versa, I'm sure. At least I did. > ... but that's, in a sense, the same thing as the start-up hustle, is it not? Build the MVP, get that one extra client... No, I don't think it's the same. They both have incentive structures, but the incentives are different. It's good for private businesses to be judged on whether they make more money than what was invested in them, but it would be pretty catastrophic to our culture if academic research projects were.