Nature publishes ridiculous editorial on researcher working hours

[caedar]

Has anybody seen http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477005b.html"? I can't believe that a journal like nature is condoning the idea that unreasonable working hours for researchers are ok because that's just how things are going.

What are some others' opinions on this article?

 

[gravenewworld]

This is exactly why I will try as best as humanly possible to stay away from academia circles at all costs when I'm done. Academia is exploitative at many levels and pushes individuals to work ridiculous hours for low pay during the prime earning years of their lives, and many times it simply doesn't pay off as researches keep moving from university to university as assistant profs, never finding tenure. Why would anyone put allllll of those hours slaving away for low wages in order to build up the resume of someone else? Why not use all those hours you are working to open up your own company, be your own boss, and take your own vacation?

 

[f95toli]

Why would anyone put allllll of those hours slaving away for low wages in order to build up the resume of someone else? Why not use all those hours you are working to open up your own company, be your own boss, and take your own vacation?

Because we like our jobs?
Seriously, one have to be pretty daft to work in academia if ones goal was to make a lot of money and/or have lots of free time. Many of us could relatively easily find another job is we wanted to (and many do).

.

 

[cristo]

Because we like our jobs?

I think you hit the nail on the head. Everyone always talks about how working long hours is slave labour, etc... But what if you actually enjoy your job?

I do, however, agree with taking a vacation, and with a work/life balance, but there are certainly academics who love their job, and enjoy doing research in their 'free time'.

 

[Phrak]

Economic times are not the best for employment opportunity. I've been pulling 70-80 hours a week for months, and can't manage to negotiate less. Others are unemployed for the same reason; employees and the unemployed have less favorable negotiable positions with employers than they have in the recent past. Two days off for Labor Day *was* a vacation for me.

It's not just academia, boys and girls. Have you heard of the economy?

Let's all give a cheer for the roaring late 90's and early 2000's, when "old business models were broken" and a thing of ancient history, according to one CEO. "Happy days are here again. There's a blue bird on my shoulder...”

Seriously. This is a repeat of a recurrent story, where a breakthrough in commerce (trains, the telegraph, telephones then the internet) has lead to boom times with flush money following expectations driven to frenzy, followed by bust.

The last time, in the 1930's they decided to let bad businesses fail. This time they decided the decisions in the 30's were wrong. Instead, they would prop-up businesses that had made bad decisions by making business loans affordable, by printing new money. And they did. They couldn't push it out of the helicopters fast enough upon the awaiting crowds.

The price of loans went down as intended, and businesses in trouble could afford cheap financing of debt. (As a side effect, the cheap money caused a housing mortgage loan market boom that could not be sustained, so busted.) This flush money strategy did not work in the 90's any more then the opposite tough-love strategy worked in the 30's. Why? Because government cannot repair, by legislation, bad investment driven by greed, pissing away in a single decade the infrastructure built in a generation. Only human blood, sweat and labor has this potential. The busy bodies in government, driven by do-something-about-it pressures, make it more costly, as they invent stupid schemes to placate criticism of lack of action on their part.

The next proposed fix for this bad fix will be made by the same gentlemen, worse than the cause and twice as cancerous, doing exactly the opposite of what is required. They will make the current units of monetary exchange--unredeemable checks from the Federal Reserve Bank (bank notes) having no gold or silver value, obsolete, and they will sell us on the idea of digital money, and we, the masses, will believe it and buy into it.

 

[Locrian]

and they will sell us on the idea of digital money, and we, the masses, will believe it and buy into it.

Your goofy rant is outdated.

 

[Diracula]

Some of this is certainly a function of what field you are working in. The "slave-driver" lab head in the article is an academic neurosurgeon who does wet lab research on brain tumors. I've never heard of an academic neurosurgeon who does additional lab research working anything less than 100 hours a week. This may actually be a necessary thing for this type of work.

Other scientists, particularly in industry, work far less hours. I don't necessarily see a problem of some scientists working >100 hours a week. I do believe it is a problem, and should be illegal, if these scientists are exploited for others gain. I think it is more a problem of resource distribution and giving credit to the proper people. If the scientists working >100 hours a week are making pennies on the dollar while the principal investigator gets to be the first author on the papers and gets the lion's share of the credit, this is a major problem and is extremely unethical. However, if they are being paid appropriately and get the majority of the credit for the work, then I don't see a problem with them working so many hours necessarily -- at it may simply be a requirement for working on certain things (like academic neurosurgery + tumor research).

 

[ParticleGrl]

Because we like our jobs?
Seriously, one have to be pretty daft to work in academia if ones goal was to make a lot of money and/or have lots of free time. Many of us could relatively easily find another job is we wanted to (and many do).

Liking your job is great- but the low wages and long hours will make it hard to raise a family, settle down, etc. The problem is that the uncertainty, the hours, the wages, it all drives good people away from science. Science isn't immune to the problems of labor markets- there are lots of great scientists who leave the field because they don't want to uproot their family every few years, they want to be able to provide better for their children, etc.

Also, don't overestimate your ability to "easily" find another job. After you have a few postdocs under your belt, it can be really hard to transition into industry. I myself have found the transition to be incredibly hard (I tend bar), and I know several other phds would describe themselves as underemployed. The truth is that there aren't people lining up to hand phds jobs, you have to develop a skill set beyond what your phd will give you- but academia requires you to be laser focused on research.

 

[Diracula]

ParticleGrl,
I see industry job ads requiring a phd with postdoc experience. I think it depends on what you do your postdoc in. Perhaps it's only a problem if you stay narrowly focused when doing your postdoc in the same field you did your phd in? Do you think someone with a physics phd would get better results if they did their postdoc in a high tech field useful in industry? Something like biotech, electrical/computer engineering, semiconductors, etc.

 

[gravenewworld]

Because we like our jobs?
Seriously, one have to be pretty daft to work in academia if ones goal was to make a lot of money and/or have lots of free time. Many of us could relatively easily find another job is we wanted to (and many do).

.

Yeah, and I like to run too, but I'm not going to run so much that it starts to have negative health effects (comparable to the guy who was working the lab that admitted to having a terrible diet that was having health consequences).

 

[twofish-quant]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Everyone always talks about how working long hours is slave labour, etc... But what if you actually enjoy your job?

Then you are screwed, because you are terrified of losing it. At some point "enjoyment" becomes "addiction" and "addictions" are very unhealthy. When you do something addictive for the first time, it's quite enjoyable, but after do it for several decades, it becomes unsustainable.

Now you can deal with the problem by always having a "fresh batch" of people that haven't gone from enjoyment to addiction, but at that point you end up having to lie to people about what the future for them is going to be to keep the system going. That's not a good thing if you are doing a job whose goal is to find truth.

 

[twofish-quant]

The problem is that the uncertainty, the hours, the wages, it all drives good people away from science.

It's actually not uncertain. Most people are screwed. If you look at the mathematics of the situation, most people will end up screwed. The reason people talk about "uncertainty" is that it makes denying the problem easier. If you think that the situation is "uncertain" then you can delay thinking about the consequences. If you think "I'm screwed" then you have to figure out what to do next.

Also, don't overestimate your ability to "easily" find another job.

True. It's really quite painful and traumatic. A lot of the trauma happens to be psychological. If you've convinced yourself that you are working in the world's perfect job, then doing anything else is going to be a shock. There is a very fine line between "I love my job" and "I MUST love my job or else I'm a nasty person that will lose their job if they don't love it."

After you have a few postdocs under your belt, it can be really hard to transition into industry.

In some ways, I was lucky because I jumped right after I got my Ph.D., and it was a good economy. One of the reasons I could jump is that my reasons for getting a Ph.D. were rather personal. I had to get my Ph.D. because my father wasn't able to. However, this was a good thing because once I got my Ph.D., I could "declare victory" and get off the treadmill.

Also, I had extremely supportive advisers. One thing that did help a lot was that I didn't get the sense that my adviser (or anyone else) was disappointed that I had to leave. Also, the department was pretty supportive. All of the professors there realized that not all Ph.D.'s could get professorships so they did everything they could to make things easier for us.

There's one professor in my department that keeps track of employment statistics so that everyone knew what the likely outcomes of getting the Ph.D. was going to be.

I myself have found the transition to be incredibly hard (I tend bar), and I know several other phds would describe themselves as underemployed.

One curious thing is that I don't. Part of it is that my peer group graduated in the late-1990's, early-2000's. Another might be that I had a department that was particularly helpful.

Finally, a pretty large number of people that I know are foreign students, and if you've switched countries once in your life, it's not that hard to go where the grass is greener. The Chinese economy is booming right now, and the government is rolling out red carpets for Ph.D.'s. I know several people that have given up green cards and gone home. There is a truly *massive* brain drain going on here.

The truth is that there aren't people lining up to hand phds jobs, you have to develop a skill set beyond what your phd will give you

There are, but there are strings attached.

 

[twofish-quant]

Do you think someone with a physics phd would get better results if they did their postdoc in a high tech field useful in industry? Something like biotech, electrical/computer engineering, semiconductors, etc.

Almost by definition if you are doing a postdoc, it's something that isn't immediately useful in industry. If a company thought that there was something that was immediately useful and profitable, they'd hire Ph.D.'s directly so that they own whatever comes out.

 

[twofish-quant]

Here is a link to a book on the world of fashion modelling. A lot of it sounds like the world of physics...

http://www.slate.com/id/2303242/

Something that I find both interesting and amusing is this quote

Why do so many models operate against their own economic interests? Mears details how, in the fashion world, there is typically an inverse relationship between the prestige of a job and how much the model gets paid. A day-long shoot for Vogue pays a paltry $150, for instance, while a shoot for Britain's influential i-D magazine, which Mears calls "one of the most sought-after editorial clients for a model," pays absolutely nothing, not even the cost of transportation or a copy of the magazine for the model's portfolio.

The alternative to high-fashion poverty is to be a "money girl," working for catalogs and in showroom fittings, jobs that pay well and reliably. The best-paid model at Mears' agency, for instance, was a 52-year-old showroom model with "the precise size 8 body needed to fit clothing for a major American retailer. She makes $500/hour and works every day." But the commercial end of modeling is widely derided within the industry as low-rent, as mere work without glamour. Once a model has done too many commercial jobs, she is thought to have cheapened herself, and it's exceedingly difficult for her to return to high fashion.

 

[chiro]

Doesn't prestige do that to people in any industry though?

 

[twofish-quant]

Doesn't prestige do that to people in any industry though?

No. In some industries (and in fact I think in most industries) prestige is directly proportional to the amount of money that you make.

 

[Phrak]

Your goofy rant is outdated.

what do you mean?

 

[Diracula]

Almost by definition if you are doing a postdoc, it's something that isn't immediately useful in industry. If a company thought that there was something that was immediately useful and profitable, they'd hire Ph.D.'s directly so that they own whatever comes out.

But there are postdocs IN industry. And there are job ads for phds with postdoc experience as a desired or even required qualification.

And even if that weren't true, the postdoc does not need to be immediately useful in industry. Some experience is more useful than other experience for specific jobs/fields. A physics phd with 2 years systems biology postdoc experience is going to be a lot more likely to get hired in the growing biotech industry than a physics phd with a postdoc done at Fermilab.

 

[TMFKAN64]

what do you mean?

I hesitate to put words in someone else's mouth, but most money is digital already.

 

[twofish-quant]

But there are postdocs IN industry. And there are job ads for phds with postdoc experience as a desired or even required qualification.

Can you provide more details? Where are the job ads? E-mail addresses of people that have gone physics -> biology. If you know someone that has done this, can you get them to this forum or point us to the places where they hang out.

The problem is that in order to create a jobs channel, you really need people that provide some detailed information about what the jobs are like. One big problem is that I don't personally know anyone who has gone from astrophysics -> biotech, so I don't **personally** know that it is possible. Something that helped a lot in jumping to finance is that I personally knew someone that did it, so you have the "if they can do it, I can do it" effect.

The process in astrophysics is that all real post-doc ads are in the AAS jobs register. If it isn't in that list, don't bother, it's not a real job. Once you have a real job, you can very quickly figure out the job requirements, and estimate your likelihood of getting the post-doc. If you really have no chance of getting a post-doc then it's a seriously bad idea to apply. The trouble is that post-docs generally require letters of recommendation, and getting letters of recommendation from people for a job you know you are not going to get is going to get you into the doghouse quickly.

There's also the problem is that astrophysics professors know what to say in recommendation letters for astrophysics post-docs, but really have no clue what to say for biotech.

Now the rules of the game for biotech postdocs are likely to be very, very different from astrophysics, but that's why we need someone that has gone through the process explain exactly what the process is. To start off with, where do you look for ads?

And even if that weren't true, the postdoc does not need to be immediately useful in industry. Some experience is more useful than other experience for specific jobs/fields. A physics phd with 2 years systems biology postdoc experience is going to be a lot more likely to get hired in the growing biotech industry than a physics phd with a postdoc done at Fermilab.

You are using terms that worry me. Do you know or are you guessing? That might sound like a rude question, and it probably is, but it matters a great deal. If you *know* of someone that has gone physics->biotech postdoc, then you really need to get them to start posting here. If you are guessing, then it gets harder, since it's not obvious that it can be done, and even if it can be done, it's not obvious how to do it. One thing that I've found is that lots of things are counter-intuitive.

The reason I'm pushing you here a bit, is that I don't know of anyone in astrophysics that went into biotech. Maybe it happens a lot, or maybe there is a demand for physics Ph.D.'s that isn't being met, but the fact that I don't know about it happening means that there is a problem there that needs to be fixed.

 

[twofish-quant]

Do you think someone with a physics phd would get better results if they did their postdoc in a high tech field useful in industry? Something like biotech, electrical/computer engineering, semiconductors, etc.

Once you have a physics Ph.D. in field A, it is extremely, extremely difficult to get a postdoc in another field. If your dissertation topic is doing PPM simulations of type Ia supernova, you may find it a little difficult in getting a postdoc doing SPH simulations of type Ib supernova.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Once you have a physics Ph.D. in field A, it is extremely, extremely difficult to get a postdoc in another field. If your dissertation topic is doing PPM simulations of type Ia supernova, you may find it a little difficult in getting a postdoc doing SPH simulations of type Ib supernova.

Baloney. (Sorry, but there's no better word for it) Yes, it's hard to move from experimental AMO to theoretical HEP. But I just lost out on a postdoc who decided she wanted to move from collider experiments to particle astrophysics, and another one withdrew from consideration because he didn't want to move from nuclear to HEP; he wanted to work on accelerators.

 

[twofish-quant]

Baloney. (Sorry, but there's no better word for it)

OK. Let me replace physics Ph.D. with computational astrophysics Ph.D.

The point I'm making here was that things are very, very different in different parts of physics so if you want to move, you really need someone that knows what the situation is in the field that you are moving to. In astrophysics, it's quite difficult to move between different fields. If your Ph.D. is in numerical relativity you are just not going to get a post-doc in star formation, because there will be a dozen people with better qualifications than yours for the position, and what's worse, the community is small enough so that everyone already knows everyone else.

One good/bad thing about astrophysics is that it's a relatively small field in which everyone knows everyone else, and postdoc/faculty hiring is rather transparent...

http://www.astrobetter.com/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Rumor Mill 2010-2011

If things are different in the fields you are familiar with then that's fine. If it's easier to move between fields in biotech and accelerator physics that's wonderful, but you need to communicate that to people that work in astrophysics, because the rules are quite different there. If you went up to a professor in numerical relativity and asked him to write a recommendation letter for something in star formation, he likely won't do it because it would think that it is a waste of time, and if other fields are more flexible then this has to be made clear.

 

[vici10]

Can you provide more details? Where are the job ads? E-mail addresses of people that have gone physics -> biology. If you know someone that has done this, can you get them to this forum or point us to the places where they hang out.

I remember reading on this forum a post by someone who got Ph.D in physics, did many years of different postdocs, including bioinformatics. Although he still could not find job in academia. I searched, this is a thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174804"

I entered a physics doctoral program at the ripe old age of 38. Succeeded in getting the doctorate in a very impractical field (theoretical cosmology). Did 10 years as postdoc around the world. Failed to find a job after a detour into bioinformatics. Finally went back to writing engineering software at the same company I'd left so many years before because they had stuff like health benefits. Be careful what you wish for. But I wouldn't trade the detour for anything. Don't plan on making it a career, you are judged harshly as you approach 50.

If Dick reads us, he may give us more insight into switching fields.

Personally, I know one mathematician, who after doing Ph.D in mathematics, did a postgraduate certificate in bioinformatics and got a postdoc in cancer research.

 

[twofish-quant]

I remember reading on this forum a post by someone who got Ph.D in physics, did many years of different postdocs, including bioinformatics.[i/QUOTE]

Also I don't want to sound too negative here. If it turns out that there are people that are going from particle/astrophysics to biotech or if it turns out that people in accelerator physics end up a lot less siloed that people in astrophysics, I think it's a great thing. The point here is that there are some real barriers in moving between fields, and if we can get rid of those barriers than *great*

One of the big barriers is that applications aren't "free". A typical post-doc application requires three letters of recommendation. This means that you can send out eight applications, but you won't be able to send out 100-200, which is typical for technology jobs, and so "fishing" is not an option.

It also means that you are dead if you have some personality conflict or issue with your supervisor. One reason industry basically does not use letters of recommendation is that it's assumed that if you want to switch jobs, you don't like your current job, and if you don't like your current job, you aren't going to get good recommendations even assuming you are willing to ask, which you aren't. Everyone in industry has been in a bad situation so the fact that you hate your boss and your boss hates you doesn't disqualify you from getting work.

The other problem is getting information about jobs. Figuring out how to read an ad to figure out what it really says is pretty important in going to a new field. For example, in astrophysics you care about the particular job that is mentioned in the ad. In high technology recruiting you don't. The job they mention is like the used car that they put on the showroom window. It's to get you in the store, so that they can sell you another used car. (And HH's are like used car salesman. But even dealing with scummy HH's that is obviously trying to scam you with a beat up, no good job made me feel good in a perverse way. I was important enough to be lied to, and in some ways being lied to is better than to be ignored.)

I have no clue how to read a biotech job ad, and would appreciate it if someone showed me.

Finally it helps if figure things out if you know that there is a solution. There's this quote that the biggest secret about the atomic bomb was that it is possible to make one. Once you know that you *CAN* make an atomic bomb, then actually figuring out how to do it is just a matter of detail.

One reason that finance ends up being attractive for theoretical astrophysicists, is that people know that it is possible. It's not that there are one or two people that have jumped. The number of physics Ph.d.'s in finance are on the order of hundreds or thousands, and I personally know about one or two dozen. The problem is that monocultures are bad, and setting up a lot of different career paths is good.

I have a personal interest in this, since I have no clue if finance is going to blow up, so I'd like to find out about job opportunities in biotech, if and when I get kicked out of the plane.

If there is a similar community in biotech or accelerator physics then just knowing that it can be done makes a big difference.

 

[vici10]

One of the big barriers is that applications aren't "free". A typical post-doc application requires three letters of recommendation. This means that you can send out eight applications, but you won't be able to send out 100-200, which is typical for technology jobs, and so "fishing" is not an option.

This is not always a case. I guess it depends on what are the people who write letters of recommendation and what one’s relation with one’s supervisor. I remember once I did send around 100 applications. In this case professors usually give this job of sending letters to their secretaries, so it is not a big deal. Of course it is much better if one’s supervisor knows someone who is looking for a postdoc. Then the postdoc is almost guaranteed.
Such connections are very important. For example, the guy who got a postdoc in cancer research, did it through going to community college and getting bioinformatics certificate. The college had connections with research institutes, so he did a coop in one of them. And since he had Ph.D, his supervisor suggested to him to continue as a postdoc after coop.

It also means that you are dead if you have some personality conflict or issue with your supervisor.

Unfortunately, it is quite true.

One reason industry basically does not use letters of recommendation is that it's assumed that if you want to switch jobs, you don't like your current job, and if you don't like your current job, you aren't going to get good recommendations even assuming you are willing to ask, which you aren't. Everyone in industry has been in a bad situation so the fact that you hate your boss and your boss hates you doesn't disqualify you from getting work.

But in industry, people very often ask for recommendations from one’s previous boss and co-workers. It is not as universal as in academia, but quite common. At least, it was in most jobs that I have worked, especially in big firms.

I have no clue how to read a biotech job ad, and would appreciate it if someone showed me.

I do not know much about all biotech jobs, but I know a little bit about bioinformatics jobs. These are examples of bioinformatics jobs:
http://bioinformatics.ca/resources/jobs
http://www.bioinformatics.org/jobs/?group_id=101&summaries=1
They usually demand programming skills in Java and Perl, familiarity with databases such as MySQL and some mathematical techniques.
The problem with bioinformatics jobs is that they are mostly government funded, so one may run into the same problems as with mathematics or physics. Although there are some private firms too.

 

[mark55]

Has anybody seen http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477005b.html"? I can't believe that a journal like nature is condoning the idea that unreasonable working hours for researchers are ok because that's just how things are going.

What are some others' opinions on this article?

Well I think its not true you have to work 100 hours a week. I am an experimental physicist and mostly work 9-6 ish hours, some weeks I might work like crazy like when we have a deadline to meet like getting a paper published, new versions of software in place etc but that's not the norm and its not even necessary to achieve things in ones career. I don't think anyone in my research group works crazy hours on a regular basis and we are rather successful in our field. Good time management skills probably help too.

In fact I often solve problems when I am doing something completely different (like hiking or playing sport), whereas if I had stayed in the office I would have banged my head against it for hours and not got anywhere!

 

[mark55]

Liking your job is great- but the low wages and long hours will make it hard to raise a family, settle down, etc. The problem is that the uncertainty, the hours, the wages, it all drives good people away from science. Science isn't immune to the problems of labor markets- there are lots of great scientists who leave the field because they don't want to uproot their family every few years, they want to be able to provide better for their children, etc.

Also, don't overestimate your ability to "easily" find another job. After you have a few postdocs under your belt, it can be really hard to transition into industry. I myself have found the transition to be incredibly hard (I tend bar), and I know several other phds would describe themselves as underemployed. The truth is that there aren't people lining up to hand phds jobs, you have to develop a skill set beyond what your phd will give you- but academia requires you to be laser focused on research.

Probably depends on the field and where you live? In particle physics for example I have yet to meet any phd who did not get a job they liked straight after, often using the very skills they learned in the PhD (c++, python etc), and I don't even think they were applying for lots of jobs (this is in the UK, maybe its not the same in other countries). So at least in this one field odds seem good to get jobs? Would be interesting to hear peoples experiences in other research areas of non-academic employment.

I also know of many particle physicists who left after 2,3 or even 4 postdocs and took posts in industry.

 

[Diracula]

Can you provide more details? Where are the job ads? E-mail addresses of people that have gone physics -> biology. If you know someone that has done this, can you get them to this forum or point us to the places where they hang out.

The job ads are on the company websites or recruiting websites like careerbuilder. I don't have some super secret stash of biotech job ads. I'm also not sure I should be posting email addresses of people that have gone physics -> biology on a public forum.

The one guy I personally know that is now in industry did his PhD in a biophysics related field. I could ask him if he wants to post on here but he's pretty busy and I doubt he'd be interested.

The problem is that in order to create a jobs channel, you really need people that provide some detailed information about what the jobs are like. One big problem is that I don't personally know anyone who has gone from astrophysics -> biotech, so I don't **personally** know that it is possible. Something that helped a lot in jumping to finance is that I personally knew someone that did it, so you have the "if they can do it, I can do it" effect.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. How does one "create a jobs channel"? What is a "jobs channel"? I would think going from physics to biotech or specifically astrophysics to biotech would require the same things that any job would require. Learn what the company does, read the job ad, and write your application so whoever reads your resume thinks you will fit in well at the job and company.

If you don't have the skills they are looking for then learn them. That's why I was asking if anyone who is having difficulties finding an industry job has tried doing a postdoc in an industry popular field to branch out and gain a broader range of skills.

I would think that a computational astrophysicist with a postdoc in computational biology would have a lot of options in the biotech sector, but I don't have any hard data. Which is probably the crappiest part in all this. Things would be way easier if we could see some detailed job statistics for physics phds going into high tech industry.

The process in astrophysics is that all real post-doc ads are in the AAS jobs register. If it isn't in that list, don't bother, it's not a real job. Once you have a real job, you can very quickly figure out the job requirements, and estimate your likelihood of getting the post-doc. If you really have no chance of getting a post-doc then it's a seriously bad idea to apply. The trouble is that post-docs generally require letters of recommendation, and getting letters of recommendation from people for a job you know you are not going to get is going to get you into the doghouse quickly.

How do you know if you have no chance or not? Vanadium seems to have evidence that people do postdocs in very different fields than their PhD. I remember ParticleGrl stating she had friends who "changed fields" and did a postdoc in something other than HET.

I would think that if the postdoc is in a field that is related to physics or is in a quantitative field, you have a non-zero chance of getting the postdoc.

There's also the problem is that astrophysics professors know what to say in recommendation letters for astrophysics post-docs, but really have no clue what to say for biotech.

Isn't it sufficient for them to comment on your quality as a scientist? I'm not sure a biotech recruiter would expect an astrophysics professor to comment on their biology knowledge.

Now the rules of the game for biotech postdocs are likely to be very, very different from astrophysics, but that's why we need someone that has gone through the process explain exactly what the process is. To start off with, where do you look for ads?

The same place you look for job ads anywhere. Company websites and job databases. I honestly know of any other place that has job ads. Well, headhunters too I guess.

For instance, I saw a postdoc position at IBM looking for someone with a physics PhD. This was some months ago. It was for some type of computer engineering position, if I recall. As for industry postdocs in general (not just physics phd), I see them all the time on pharm company websites. I would think physics phds are qualified for computational related industry postdocs in many fields. Or bioinformatics. Things like that.

You are using terms that worry me. Do you know or are you guessing? That might sound like a rude question, and it probably is, but it matters a great deal. If you *know* of someone that has gone physics->biotech postdoc, then you really need to get them to start posting here. If you are guessing, then it gets harder, since it's not obvious that it can be done, and even if it can be done, it's not obvious how to do it. One thing that I've found is that lots of things are counter-intuitive.

I don't understand why you think I need to know someone specifically when I see ads in biotech for physics PhDs. The mathematical modeling department at my company is a separate group from everyone else, and I don't know anyone in the group personally, but I'm guessing they consist primarily of people with backgrounds in things like math, physics, and CS. Like I said, I do know someone who has done a biophysics PhD, but I don't think he'd be interested in posting here.

The reason I'm pushing you here a bit, is that I don't know of anyone in astrophysics that went into biotech. Maybe it happens a lot, or maybe there is a demand for physics Ph.D.'s that isn't being met, but the fact that I don't know about it happening means that there is a problem there that needs to be fixed.

If you are specifically asking about astrophysics or computational astrophysics then I definitely don't know anyone. But I also don't know anyone at all with a PhD in astrophysics. I would think doing a postdoc in a biology-related field would be sufficient, and I would probably target computational biology positions if I had a postdoc in computational astrophysics and wanted to move into biotech.

I think the danger is staying too specialized after your PhD. You've got your PhD in some esoteric field. That's great, you're already ultra-specialized and you're extremely good at quantitative/math/analytical stuff. Now it's time to build breadth in an in-demand field so you can actually stay employed. That's why I would strongly consider doing a postdoc in a different field if I did my thesis in something like computational astrophysics or high energy theory, if I were in that position.

The difficulty would be in obtaining a postdoc in a different field, and I really have no idea how hard this is. I just know I've heard of people doing this pretty routinely, so I kind of assumed it wasn't too difficult.

 

[twofish-quant]

The job ads are on the company websites or recruiting websites like careerbuilder. I don't have some super secret stash of biotech job ads. I'm also not sure I should be posting email addresses of people that have gone physics -> biology on a public forum.

Privacy issues are one reason that this sort of thing is more difficult than it appears. Something that is true about Ph.D.'s is that you are dealing with small numbers of people so it's pretty easy to figure out identities.

Also simply saying that you should go to corporate websites to fill out applications is useful information. For most jobs in finance and software, the last thing you want to do is to go through the corporate websites. You need to go through personal networking or failing that, go through head hunters.

The one guy I personally know that is now in industry did his PhD in a biophysics related field. I could ask him if he wants to post on here but he's pretty busy and I doubt he'd be interested.

That's another problem. People that have jobs tend to be busy. One reason I post as much as I do is it helped me get through the difficulty of job searching. One thing that I promised myself when I was looking for work was that if I made it, I'd do everything I could to make it easier for the next poor bloke in the same situation.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. How does one "create a jobs channel"? What is a "jobs channel"?

Think of it as an assembly line from Ph.d. to job. For example, if you want to get a job on Wall Street, I can give you a step-by-step list of things that you should do, and things that you shouldn't do. There are some obvious things that you *think* you should do that you shouldn't, and there are some obvious things that you *think* you shouldn't do that you should. For example, if you have a Ph.D., you should *NOT* get an Masters in Financial Engineering. It's a waste of your money.

If you have a Ph.D., you should write your resume to include a technical explanation of your research written so that the average reader *CANNOT* figure out what you did. There are also "code words." Avoid the world "theoretical." Include the term "PDE" and "monte carlo."

Now there are a dozen tricks for getting a job in finance or software. I'm sure that there are similar tricks for getting a job in biotech, but since I don't know anything about biotech, I don't know what they are, and some things that will help you in finance will probably kill you in biotech.

I would think going from physics to biotech or specifically astrophysics to biotech would require the same things that any job would require. Learn what the company does, read the job ad, and write your application so whoever reads your resume thinks you will fit in well at the job and company.

That's actually the totally wrong strategy for high technology software or finance.

1) A software company or financial firm will *NEVER* tell you what the real job requirements are. The reason they won't tell you is that if they mention that they are looking for programmers in Blotto (a language I made up), then all their resumes will mention Blotto and this will make it harder to filter out resumes.

2) If you guess what the company does, you are likely to guess wrong. I got my first job because I had Fortran experience. The company didn't mention they were looking for Fortran programmers. They didn't mention it because they didn't want a million resumes with people claiming to know Fortran.

3) In software and finance, you look for jobs with a shotgun and not a snipers rifle. Most of the hiring goes through headhunters, and it's almost never the case that you get the job that was advertised. The advertised job is like the car in the showroom window, it's to get you to give your resume to the HH, so that he can try to match you with the twenty or so jobs that he has.

That's for the fields I'm familiar with. Now things almost certainly are very, very different for biotech, which is why it's so important to get someone with real life experience here so that they can mention what the rules are.

If you don't have the skills they are looking for then learn them.

Sometimes you can't. Learning C++ is like learning a new language. If you can't speak Armenian now, then with one month of concentrated effort, you can learn some basic phrases, and this may be enough for you to survive. You are just not going to be a guru in a language in one month. Maybe with three years of work, but you don't have three years.

Also, it's not obvious what skills to learn. For example, I don't have problems with math. I do have this phobia talking on the telephone that I had to spend a lot of effort to fix.

That's why I was asking if anyone who is having difficulties finding an industry job has tried doing a postdoc in an industry popular field to branch out and gain a broader range of skills.

And it's not that easy because to get a post-doc you have to get three letters of recommendation, and it's a hard sell to your supervisor. This is why it's important to give live examples of people that jumped. If a Ph.D. goes to they're supervisor and asks for a letter of recommendation, it's it's obvious that it's just a fishing expedition, this is going to be considered rude. If you can point to someone and say, X got a job in biotech, and I want to do the same thing, it's an easier sell.

I would think that a computational astrophysicist with a postdoc in computational biology would have a lot of options in the biotech sector, but I don't have any hard data.

I do. I don't know of *anyone* that has moved from computational astrophysics to biotech. We can try to figure out what that data means (maybe I'm just clueless), but that data point is significant. Also, there is a professor that keeps track of outcomes of students from UT Austin astronomy, and last time I checked, the number of people that moved from astronomy to biotech was zero.

You *could* be the first, but it's a royal pain in the backside. Better to be the second one.

Which is probably the crappiest part in all this. Things would be way easier if we could see some detailed job statistics for physics phds going into high tech industry.

I got statistics from UT Austin astronomy. Again you get into privacy issues, because there is no way of anonymizing the data. It basically involves listing everyone and their current employer. You are dealing with very small numbers here.

How do you know if you have no chance or not?

Also, you are an astronomy Ph.D., you should have enough training to know what a search committee is looking for. If you are in a particular field of astronomy, you know all of the post-doc employers, you know all of the professors, you know all of the applicants. You should be able to figure out your likelihood of getting a post-doc.

I can say that I'm not competitive for certain post-docs, because if I were on the search committee, I wouldn't hire me. For example, suppose there is a job opening for stellar formation. That's not my field, and if I were on the search committee, I could easily find thirty people that are more qualified than me. If there is one post-doc, I'm just not going to get it.

The good/bad thing about astrophysics hiring is that it's pretty transparent and it's pretty rational. If I applied for a post-doc in the physics of stellar formation. and I got the post-doc over the thirty people that I think are more qualified than me, people will asking what the heck happened.

Vanadium seems to have evidence that people do postdocs in very different fields than their PhD.

Good for him. I'm seeing something different. We can figure out *why* I'm seeing something different, but I'm seeing something different.

I would think that if the postdoc is in a field that is related to physics or is in a quantitative field, you have a non-zero chance of getting the postdoc.

If it is astrophysics, it's not going to happen. If it is biotech, then I want someone with that experience to talk about that, since I have zero knowledge of the biotech world.

Isn't it sufficient for them to comment on your quality as a scientist? I'm not sure a biotech recruiter would expect an astrophysics professor to comment on their biology knowledge.

The standard job application for a post-doc requires three recommendations. If you are applying for a biotech position and no one you know has a clue about biotech, then yes, you are screwed. If people think this is a bad thing, then you can drop the requirement for three recommendations.

The same place you look for job ads anywhere. Company websites and job databases. I honestly know of any other place that has job ads. Well, headhunters too I guess.

I don't think you realize how hard it is to get information on jobs.

For instance, I saw a postdoc position at IBM looking for someone with a physics PhD. This was some months ago. It was for some type of computer engineering position, if I recall. As for industry postdocs in general (not just physics phd), I see them all the time on pharm company websites. I would think physics phds are qualified for computational related industry postdocs in many fields. Or bioinformatics. Things like that.

In software and finance, want ads on corporate websites are often bogus. There are two things that happen. The first is that there is often an internal policy requirement to advertise a job, so even though people know that the job is filled, they have to advertise it. The second thing happens when the company is shrinking and no one bothers to remove the job ad (because all of the people that are responsible for getting rid of the ad are getting laid off).

If it was a matter of just sending off an e-mail, then this wouldn't be a problem. If you have to spend a month putting together a research proposal and getting letters of recommendation, then it is.

I don't understand why you think I need to know someone specifically when I see ads in biotech for physics PhDs.

Because it helps a lot to know someone personally in software and finance. Job ads in those fields are largely bogus. Maybe biotech is very different, but I really would like someone to tell me that it is different and how it is different. It's *really* important because if you ask your thesis supervisor for a letter of recommendation, and it turns out that it was for a bogus job ad, then you've just committed a massive, massive faux-pas.

The reason the AAS jobs register is the only real source of for jobs in astrophysics is that AAS will do very, very bad things to you if it turns out to not be a real job offer.

I think the danger is staying too specialized after your PhD. You've got your PhD in some esoteric field. That's great, you're already ultra-specialized and you're extremely good at quantitative/math/analytical stuff. Now it's time to build breadth in an in-demand field so you can actually stay employed. That's why I would strongly consider doing a postdoc in a different field if I did my thesis in something like computational astrophysics or high energy theory, if I were in that position.

Actually, if you are interested in industry, it's probably better not to get a post-doc at all. The problem with getting *ANY* post-doc is that you run the risk of being marked as "too theoretical and overqualified."

The difficulty would be in obtaining a postdoc in a different field, and I really have no idea how hard this is. I just know I've heard of people doing this pretty routinely, so I kind of assumed it wasn't too difficult.

I haven't.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
Now there are a dozen tricks for getting a job in finance or software. I'm sure that there are similar tricks for getting a job in biotech, but since I don't know anything about biotech, I don't know what they are, and some things that will help you in finance will probably kill you in biotech.
<snip>

What has been irritating me about this thread (not to pick on twofish in particular, this sentence was simply the most recent) is the uselessness.

Saying you want a job in 'biotech' is like saying you want a job in 'engineering' or a job in 'math'. If someone had asked how to get a job in Engineering, they would be (rightly so) excoriated for not being more specific- one does not apply for an engineering job, one does not get an engineering degree, one does not get a PhD in math. Instead, you get a degree in EE (or some other sub-specialty) and apply for jobs tailored toward your specific expertise.

I'm sure finance has sub-specialties as well, and it's not trivial to move from one to another, just as a mathematician who has a PhD in statistics may not be able to easily move into algebraic topology.

So it is with 'biotech'- do you want to do clinical or research work? Most bioinformatics is, AFAIK, clinical trial based- data mining. There is another large bioinformatics thrust in genetics/proteomics, using network theory. There's a lot of work doing drug development using high-throughput techniques that undoubtedly use a lot of mathematics to analyze.

All I'm saying is, if you want to be serious about moving into another field, you should at least make an effort to learn about the jobs in that field.

 

[Diracula]

I'll read the replies in more detail later, but briefly:

1) There are specific jobs in biotech that, I think, are more suitable for someone with physics training. Namely, things like computational biology and (AFAIK from talking to biological science professors) systems biology. Probably synthetic biology and bioengineering too. Much of this is based on impressions I have gathered from people already in the field. I have seen job ads in the biotech industry specifically for people with physics or related backgrounds, and it tends to be in these fields. I mentioned at least a couple of these previously, and it should be pretty clear that a computational astrophysicist (for example) wouldn't be seriously considered for a protein biochemistry position (for example).

2) All of the people who I know that work in biotech obtained their jobs through "standard channels". To the best of my knowledge they literally simply applied on the company website, had a phone/screening interview at some point (generally 3-6 months later for positions they are not rushing to fill), then had an all day interview. I don't know if there are other ways to get positions in the biotech industry. So it looks like finance and software are just way different to what I'm familiar with.

 

[twofish-quant]

All I'm saying is, if you want to be serious about moving into another field, you should at least make an effort to learn about the jobs in that field.

From whom? It's incredibly difficult when you have no idea where to start.

Also, maybe I'm *not* serious about moving into another field. What I really need is to have someone give me an hour or two presentation about what is possible and what isn't, so that I can make a rational decision on how much effort to put into this. Talking with a real live human being is helpful because you learn stuff that isn't easily available on google. For example, "do I as a Ph.d. want a job in finance" can basically be boiled down to one question "Do you want to live in New York City/London/Hong Kong/Singapore?" If it turns out that you hate NYC, then I can tell you that finance is likely not for you, and you should look elsewhere, and that's a huge time saver.

In my case, I have no immediate need or desire to switch fields, but I've found it useful to keep a parachute ready just in case. Also even in the lack of any jobs, I'd like to talk to someone in biotech who has astrophysics background. My current plan is to work for another decade, and then do astrophysics for the rest of my life. If there is someone in biotech that is planning the same thing, we need to talk.

In particular, I try to keep looking five to ten years ahead. If I have to find a job in bioinformatics *now* then it's come as you are. If there is a vague possibility that I'll be looking for a job in bioinformatics in five to ten years, then I can start learning some things now so that in five years, I'll have guru level skills.

Also I've found that it's a bad thing to assume things when moving from field to field. What's standard practice in one field is suicidal in another. The other thing that is a problem is that there are trust issues. There are people in finance that are downright crooked, and even the people that aren't crooked are usually not acting in your interests. One reason that a lot of finance involves face to face interactions is that its not hard to write an ad that streches the truth, but it;s a lot harder to convincingly lie to someone that is you talking directly to.

The other thing that you can gauge is how much people really want you.

 

[Diracula]

From whom? It's incredibly difficult when you have no idea where to start.

Also, maybe I'm *not* serious about moving into another field. What I really need is to have someone give me an hour or two presentation about what is possible and what isn't, so that I can make a rational decision on how much effort to put into this.

YES!

A lot of these posts that people are critical of come from the point of view of "OK, I have no job, or my job and career direction are completely horrible, so I need to know what to do."

If you are coming from this perspective, it is a serious serious mistake to pick out one specific niche in one specific field and try to gather all the info you can about that one career path then do that. And do all this before you weigh your options in every other reasonable field. This is what got you into the horrible career situation in the first place, most likely.

Which is why people who are looking for SOME type of reasonable job or career path tend to speak in broader terms of "ok, what can I do from where I'm at?" Picking out one specific sub-field of biotech, for instance, and putting your blinders on for all other options in biotech (or every other field physicists can work in) is silly for someone in that position. It's far better to ask questions like, "biotech seems to be growing, can I get in this field with a physics background? If so, how?" Then once you answer that you start thinking about specific paths to specific jobs.

 

[Andy Resnick]

From whom? It's incredibly difficult when you have no idea where to start.

It's far better to ask questions like, "biotech seems to be growing, can I get in this field with a physics background? If so, how?" Then once you answer that you start thinking about specific paths to specific jobs.

[Twofish:]How did you find out about finance? Whom did you talk to?

You both know as well as I do that finding a job is a full-time job. Also, speaking from 'the other side of the fence', I don't have the time or inclination to recruit- qualified candidates come to me.

For the students (undergrad or grad), you have career services centers at school- use them. For the postdocs, you should have, by now, an established network of contacts- not just colleagues, but friends who went on to do other things.

There's no shortcut- if you want to move into a new field, you need to get familiar with that field. Being able to solve a PDE is, in itself, not a marketable skill because there are bizillions of people who can do that. People are hired because they can solve someone else's problem. If I can do something myself, I'm not going to spend money getting someone else to do it.

How do you find out what problems need to be solved? Read. Read everything. Trade journals are an excellent resource, most of them are free and give you a broad overview of a field. What skills do you have that can translate to another field? I can't answer that for you, nobody can.

In the end, nobody can point to a well-defined career path for you. Nobody can figure out what you should do, and nobody can honestly say things like "if you do [x], then you will be able to get a job doing [y]".

I took a risk by spending 4 years immersed in a Physiology department. The first 2 years that I spent working in a medical school were incredibly disorienting and difficult, for a variety of reasons. Biomedical people don't like physics, *really* don't like math, and know a $hitload more than you. For 2 years I was regularly derided in class (I took a bunch of classes) and in various Department seminars for asking idiotic questions. I suspect that both of you realize that if you can endure that period of time (and over time ask fewer stupid questions and more intelligent questions), you will start to gain mastery and value.

No shortcuts, no single path.

 

[twofish-quant]

You both know as well as I do that finding a job is a full-time job. Also, speaking from 'the other side of the fence', I don't have the time or inclination to recruit- qualified candidates come to me.

There is the matter of going where you are wanted.

Recruiting is a royal pain in the rear end sometimes, but most financial firms *NEED* physics Ph.D.'s so that they go through quite a bit of effort to find them. Our firm (and pretty much every other firm) send people to the major big-name universities each fall looking for Ph.D. applications. The reason I post as much as I do, is that since my Ph.D. isn't from a big-name university, I do what I can to "level the playing field."

There are some signals that people can put out, and you can figure out that you are needed when someone spends a lot of precious time on you. If biotech firms *NEED* physics Ph.D.'s then I've got some ideas for how to get them. If the attitude is merely "send us your resume and we'll call you back" then maybe that don't *need* you, and if they don't *need* you, maybe it's a waste of time to apply unless you are totally
desperate.

For the students (undergrad or grad), you have career services centers at school- use them. For the postdocs, you should have, by now, an established network of contacts- not just colleagues, but friends who went on to do other things.

And none of my contacts went into biotech. If there are jobs available then that's a big problem that needs to get fixed.

Also, people *should* have a network of contacts, but in most places people don't. If you have a situation in which working in industry is considered shameful, then people just won't network. Also networking favors the big name schools, which is a problem since I didn't get into one, so I'm doing what I can to create a different network.

There's no shortcut- if you want to move into a new field, you need to get familiar with that field.

But how do you decide if you want to move into a field? The reason finance looked interesting was that I knew people that made the switch, and that made a difference. Also there is really know way of learning some things until you jump off the cliff.

Being able to solve a PDE is, in itself, not a marketable skill because there are bizillions of people who can do that.

Not true. There really aren't that many people that are competent at it. Being about to crunch PDE's is a very marketable skill. You just have to remember to market it.

People are hired because they can solve someone else's problem. If I can do something myself, I'm not going to spend money getting someone else to do it.

That's also not true in finance or software. A lot of finance consists of what I call toilet cleaning problems. There are lots of people that *can* clean a toilet bowl, but if you have ten thousand toilets to clean it doesn't matter. Anything I can do, there are a dozen other people that can also do, and some of them can do it better. But there are lots of toilets to be cleaned.

How do you find out what problems need to be solved? Read. Read everything. Trade journals are an excellent resource, most of them are free and give you a broad overview of a field.

Except that in finance the good stuff never gets published. If anyone is interested I'd be happy in private lunch what we are working on, and what skills we need, but I will get fired if I start talking about it publicly. In any case, things change quickly. Skills that are in serious demand in January 2010 may have a glut in March 2010.

One reason that finance needs so many Ph.D.'s is that the rules change quickly. The human body and general relativity will not change much between May 2011 and today, but finance changes on this sort of time scale. That's also why taking classes is useless. By the time you finish a one semester class, everything you were taught could be wrong and even dangerously wrong.

In the end, nobody can point to a well-defined career path for you. Nobody can figure out what you should do, and nobody can honestly say things like "if you do [x], then you will be able to get a job doing [y]".

True, but people can tell you that there is a road that leads somewhere or a road that leads nowhere. Also, I can't honestly say that "if you do X, then you will be able to get a job doing Y" and I *can* with reasonable confidence say "if you do X, then you *won't* be able to get a job doing Y"

Also the fact that there is no well-defined career path for physics Ph.D.'s has to do with the way that the economy is set up. It's not an inherent characteristic of society, and if we have a situation in which Ph.D.'s are ending up vastly underemployed we have a problem, especially since other countries are rolling out red carpets for Ph.D.'s.

I took a risk by spending 4 years immersed in a Physiology department. The first 2 years that I spent working in a medical school were incredibly disorienting and difficult, for a variety of reasons. Biomedical people don't like physics, *really* don't like math, and know a $hitload more than you. For 2 years I was regularly derided in class (I took a bunch of classes) and in various Department seminars for asking idiotic questions. I suspect that both of you realize that if you can endure that period of time (and over time ask fewer stupid questions and more intelligent questions), you will start to gain mastery and value.

No shortcuts, no single path.

But knowing that something is painful is useful information. For example, if you send out ten resumes and no one calls you back. Is this a problem with your resume or is this normal? In the case of software, it's normal.

As a counterpoint, there are a lot of physics Ph.D.'s that end up getting an MFE degree. They are just wasting their money, and helping the schools make $$$ and pad their statistics. If it turns out that taking courses for four years is *essential* for moving into biotech, then that's very useful information and may explain why no one I know has done it.

The other thing is there is an issue of social responsibility. One thing that I do from time to time is play Carl Sagan and go to young people talking about the wonders of the universe. The fear that I have in the back of my mind is that I'll get someone hooked on science and then they'll end up like some of the post-docs in this thread. If I believed that this would be the outcome, then I'd shut up about how cool science is.

But since I really believe that society would be better off with more people interested in science, then it then becomes my responsibility to make sure that the eight year old who I get interested in astrophysics has some path in front of him.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
But how do you decide if you want to move into a field? <snip>

I can answer that for me, but clearly there's no way I can answer that for you (or anyone else).