4 ms·

What private sector jobs would you recommend? When I started graduate school studying Biochemistry, a job in the pharmaceutical industry was a credible alternat

What private sector jobs would you recommend? When I started graduate school studying Biochemistry, a job in the pharmaceutical industry was a credible alternative to academic research. Today, the pharmaceutical industry is hurting, with hiring freezes on nearly everywhere, mass layoffs following giant mergers, and all the while being maligned by the press and the public as over-charging money-grubbers. In short, the pharmaceutical industry is bust (most people just don't realize it yet). > I mean, does anyone really think that science grads are less business ready than business grads, and if so, why? Yes, yes, a million times yes. A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. While it is true that there are scientists who are great at public speaking or business, in almost all cases these individuals were good in those areas before they became educated in science. Furthermore, in my time working in research, I've come to appreciate that science graduates are absolute luddites in every realm of technology that is not directly involved in their own research. Anecdotally, I've watched researchers working on promising cures for Parkinson's have trouble logging into their Windows XP machine and others working on cancer-fighting nanoparticles unable to connect a printer to print their manuscripts. Basic research can never compete in a capitalist economy because the profits of most research activities are realized on time scales greater than an individual lifetime and there is no monetary incentive (only altruistic incentives) to invest in something that will only pay out when you're dead.

wisty 15y ago
>>> A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. So? Scientists often tackle problems that they don't have training in. There seems to be 2 parts to the myth: 1) Scientists aren't suitable for business. I think this is crap. Mathematicians can do engineering and financial stuff, just not the final sign-off (which requires a licensed professional). Ecologists can analyse a company's strategic position, based on stuff like competition, symbiosis, and other buzz words that they actually understand. Psychologists could work in marketing. This is true for many pure research areas. It's may not be so true for applied research, like biochemistry - a lot of that could be very domain specific, but the tools they use could be applied elsewhere (if the number of graduates and number of research jobs doesn't match). 2) Scientists are doing more valuable work, they just aren't being rewarded. This is sometimes true, but sometimes not.

wisty 15y ago

>>> A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. So? Scientists often tackle problems that they don't have training in. There seems to be 2 parts to the myth: 1) Scientists aren't suitable for business. I think this is crap. Mathematicians can do engineering and financial stuff, just not the final sign-off (which requires a licensed professional). Ecologists can analyse a company's strategic position, based on stuff like competition, symbiosis, and other buzz words that they actually understand. Psychologists could work in marketing. This is true for many pure research areas. It's may not be so true for applied research, like biochemistry - a lot of that could be very domain specific, but the tools they use could be applied elsewhere (if the number of graduates and number of research jobs doesn't match). 2) Scientists are doing more valuable work, they just aren't being rewarded. This is sometimes true, but sometimes not.