Is Pursuing a PhD in Organic Photovoltaics a Smart Career Move?

[moontiger]

Everything I've read and seen suggests the market for PhD's in biology may be even worse than that of physics.

You should carefully research this.

I have also heard poor things, overall, about the market in biology.

But the market depends strongly what kind of biology, and what kind of physics, you are comparing.

With training in genetics/genomics/molecular biology/biomedical applications, my impression is that there are more fallback options that allow you to remain in your field and make use of your training than there are in theoretical physics. The pharma industry comes to mind, as does regulatory work.

If I were interested in bio I would do an MD, or if really interested in research, an MD-PhD. The thing is that the MD-PhD takes about 8 years, followed by residency for those who want board certification. But once finished with all this you are set...this is one of a few areas where there are way more academic jobs than people qualified for them.

 

[Delong]

I have also heard poor things, overall, about the market in biology.

But the market depends strongly what kind of biology, and what kind of physics, you are comparing.

With training in genetics/genomics/molecular biology/biomedical applications, my impression is that there are more fallback options that allow you to remain in your field and make use of your training than there are in theoretical physics. The pharma industry comes to mind, as does regulatory work.

If I were interested in bio I would do an MD, or if really interested in research, an MD-PhD. The thing is that the MD-PhD takes about 8 years, followed by residency for those who want board certification. But once finished with all this you are set...this is one of a few areas where there are way more academic jobs than people qualified for them.

Thanks for the input. I'm more interested in the science then the medicine although I want to pay close attention to applicability. An area of biology I'm drawn to right now is stem cell biology, or plant genetics, but I don't know what I'm getting myself into.

 

[jesse73]

Biostatistics is very marketable.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Biostatistics is very marketable.

Indeed it is, although one should add that the majority of biostatisticians (including myself) do not have a background in biology at all -- the majority of biostatisticians I know have majored in math, statistics (not surprisingly), and/or computer science. Whatever knowledge of biology or medicine that is necessary is typically covered in the MS or PhD biostatistics programs.

 

[Delong]

Indeed it is, although one should add that the majority of biostatisticians (including myself) do not have a background in biology at all -- the majority of biostatisticians I know have majored in math, statistics (not surprisingly), and/or computer science. Whatever knowledge of biology or medicine that is necessary is typically covered in the MS or PhD biostatistics programs.

I think I'll just have to accept that my chances of making money have become harder by choosing a career in biology. Haha dumb me

 

[rigetFrog]

I did a whole PhD., but an EE degree would have been sufficient.

I think the most important things are

1) your advisor's connections and where his previous students are.

2) What marketable skills you'll gain while doing the PhD. "Problem solving" and "self starting" don't count on the resume. I mean something practical like C++ or some nifty piece of equipment industry uses.

 

[analogdesign]

"Problem solving" and "self starting" don't count on the resume. I mean something practical like C++ or some nifty piece of equipment industry uses.

Sure they do. If you're really a self-starting problem solver, your advisor will tell people that when they call for a reference. More likely, that is how he or she will sell you when trying to drum up a job for you.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Having an adviser say that as a reference is different than putting it on your resume though. Nearly all STEM graduates, even without a Phd, consider themselves "problem solvers" and "self starters" and many of them are. I think putting that on your resume is fluff, but having a reference say it about you is meaningful.

 

[jesse73]

Sure they do. If you're really a self-starting problem solver, your advisor will tell people that when they call for a reference. More likely, that is how he or she will sell you when trying to drum up a job for you.

"Self starting problem solver" is a meaningless cliche by now just like "detail oriented".

 

[analogdesign]

Having an adviser say that as a reference is different than putting it on your resume though. Nearly all STEM graduates, even without a Phd, consider themselves "problem solvers" and "self starters" and many of them are. I think putting that on your resume is fluff, but having a reference say it about you is meaningful.

That's a fair point. I guess I was thinking of "resume" as set of skills and experience rather than a physical document.

 

[analogdesign]

"Self starting problem solver" is a meaningless cliche by now just like "detail oriented".

Well, SAYING you're a "self-starting problem solver" is a cliche. Being one is not (and rare!). But like I said above, I agree it shouldn't go on a resume.

 

[jesse73]

An article on cliches.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2011/09/15/ten-cliches-to-ditch-on-the-job-hunt/

Try not to use these as they were cliched in 2011