Is A PhD Degree Worth It?

Posted in BioEducation

There is no longer any question that it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD life scientists to find jobs. Further, there is no longer any doubt that the academic system responsible for the current glut of PhD life scientists on the market is broken and needs to be fixed. However, it is important to point out that the decision the get a PhD degree is a very personal one and, in most cases, is not based on the prospect of future long term employment.  In fact, most graduate students and postdoctoral scientists that I have talked to over the past 10 years, don’t think about the need to find a job until they learn that their funding is running out.  The point  is, that just because you have a PhD degree it does not entitle you to a job. Further, looking for a job takes commitment, time and a lot of work and unfortunately some PhD scientists mistakenly  think that the “jobs will/should come to them.”  Put simply, if you aren’t willing to put in the work to find a job, which may mean additional training or a possible career change, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

In 1974, shortly after I was admitted to the graduate program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I received a congratulatory letter from my soon-to-be PhD adviser. In the letter he made a comment about “the blood, sweat and tears” that are required to earn a PhD degree.  At the time, I was a youthful, ambitious 21 year-old, who thought he could do anything and I had no idea what he was talking about!  Seven painful and often tearful years later, I finally understood what he meant by those words; because I had lived them!  I  have no doubt that many who are reading this post have had similar experiences. However, earning your  PhD degree is only the very beginning of your journey. And, like it or not,  the only thing that a PhD guarantees is that others will call you “doctor”and that you can add the letters “PhD” after your name!

For the past several months I have been following a question on a LinkedIn group that asked: “If you had to do it all over again, would you have still chosen to get your PhD degree”. For me, the answer is an unequivocal YES!  And, like the first time, that decision would not have been based on the notion that there would or should be a job waiting for me at the end of my training.  My decision was a personal one based on my “love of microbiology” not the guarantee of future employment.

So,  to those of you who feel like the system has let you down and that you have been abused, I feel your pain but offer the following. If you wanted a guaranteed job at the end of your training than you ought to have considered a career in medicine, nursing, law, engineering, physical therapy, carpentry, plumbing or any other profession where a license is required to practice. These professionals offer a “service” to people and, in exchange for services rendered, they get paid for their efforts.  Like it or not, laboratory research is a not a service or fee-based industry and consequently has minimal short term personal value to people. And, not surprisingly, the demand for PhD life scientists, well trained or not, is not high.

In closing, nobody said getting a PhD degree was going to be easy. And, as somebody once said to me, “if getting a PhD degree was easy, then everybody would have one!”  That said, be proud that you earned your degree; but the hard work has only just begun!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

Fixing the Disconnect Between Academia and Industrial Life Science Jobs

Posted in BioJobBuzz, Uncategorized

Dave Jensen’s article in a recent edition of Science Careers entitled “Tooling Up: The Big Disconnect” aptly and cogently pointed out why it has become increasingly difficult for academically-trained PhD life scientists to find jobs in the life sciences industry.

Dave is spot on in his assertion that most life science hiring managers engage in what he terms “pinpoint hiring”— a practice in which employees are hired based on their extant skill sets rather than long term scientific potential and possible contribution to the success of a company.  In the good old days before globalization, companies would frequently hire the “best and the brightest”, train them and take the long view that well trained employees will ultimately benefit and add value to their organization.  Unfortunately, those days are long gone. Today’s mantra is “what can you do for me today because there may not be a tomorrow.”

As Dave rightly points out, graduate students and postdocs are simply not being trained to meet the needs and demands of most life science companies.  An essential ingredient that is missing from current training paradigms is a fundamental understanding of the life sciences industry and how it works. Put simply, students who lack a basic understanding of the pharmaceutical/biotechnology drug development processes will find it increasingly difficult to land an industrial job; regardless of the number of Cell, Science and Nature papers or where you may have received your graduate or postdoctoral training.

In his article, Dave asserts that determining (as early a possible) that an industrial career is right for you may be your ticket to success. Unfortunately, while conducting informational interviews and landing a competitive unpaid company internship may be helpful, only small numbers of graduate students and postdocs have the flexibility or access to these activities.  More importantly, most academic researchers engage in basic rather than applied research (which is what life sciences companies are looking for). Consequently, while many students view industry jobs as possible employment opportunities, there simply may not be enough PI or mentors who can help to acquire the applied skill sets demanded by most life sciences hiring managers.

By now, many of you may be thinking: okay we know about the problems how about some practical solutions. So, here goes:

First, there are many online biotechnology courses and certificate-earning biotechnology/pharmaceutical/regulatory affairs course at local community colleges that graduate students and postdocs can take. Yes, I know that you are extremely busy and working 80 hours plus in the lab, but it is your career and nobody else can do if for you. These courses will provide graduate students and postdoc interested in industrial careers with a basic understanding of how the life sciences industry functions. Also, these courses can provide a rich lexicon of industrial jargon—when correctly used in a face-to-face job interview — can make a difference between a job offer or not.

Second, graduate students and postdocs can work together to organize career development symposium, seminars and workshops to obtain a better understanding of the requisite skill sets and training required to improve their competitiveness for industrial jobs.

Third, there are a number of PhD programs that now offer joint degrees in science, business and other disciplines. Choosing to enroll in these programs rather than traditional graduate life sciences programs may be an option for students who already know that an industrial rather than an academic career path is right for them.

Finally, organize and then talk college administration to demand that changes be made to existing graduate training paradigms to improve job preparedness. To that end, it would not be unreasonable to request that alternate career training courses (regulatory affairs, medical writing, project management etc be) be offered to all graduate students and postdocs who may be interested. Also, it may be appropriate (depending upon geographical location of an institution) to request that formal industry-focused company internships are established to allow interested and qualified graduate students and postdocs to participate. And, last, request that all faculty members be required to engage in career development counseling to help them to better understand the job market realities that their graduate students and post docs are currently facing.  While this may sound like an odd request, it is important to remember that tenured professors are guaranteed a “job for life.” Consequently, most of them are not particularly concerned about whether or not their PhD students or postdocs find gainful employment after they leave their laboratories. Sadly, many of them (and perhaps rightly so) believe that finding a job is not their problem but yours!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

So You Want To Be A Regulatory Affairs Professional?

Posted in BioEducation

As anyone who works in the drug development industry and they will invariably tell you how complex the environment has become in the past 10 years to get a new drug or medical device approved. While this increased regulatory scrutiny has been brought on by drug and device makers themselves (has there been a time over the past decade when there has not been some reports in the news media about drug recalls, tainted drugs or marketing scandals?), it does not obviate the growing need for more regulatory affairs professionals at drug and medical devices companies. To that end, people looking to break into the life sciences industry ought to consider whether becoming a regulatory affairs professional may be right for them.

Zachary Brousseau, who is Senior Manager of Communications for the trade group the Regulatory Affairs Professional Society (RAPS), alerted me to a recent annual survey conducted by the group entitled “Global Scope of Practice and Compensation Survey”. This survey which has been conducted by RAPS for the past 20 years provides insights into the regulatory affairs profession and the compensation persons interested in this career might expect.

I highly recommend those of you who are considering regulatory affairs careers to read the post below and to also look at the entire survey. Also, RAPS offers traditional classroom and online courses for those who are looking for training to break into the profession.

RAPS Scope of Practice Study: Tracking the Regulatory Profession

RAPS recently fielded the 2012 iteration of its ongoing research initiative on the regulatory profession, the RAPS Global Scope of Practice & Compensation Survey.

This research has been conducted by RAPS for more than 20 years, and it continues to be the largest, most comprehensive study of the healthcare product regulatory profession. RAPS Executive Director Sherry Keramidas, PhD, FASAE, CAE, recently spoke with Regulatory Focus about the study and its implications.

Regulatory Focus (RF): What is the goal of the Scope of Practice Survey?

RAPS Executive Director Sherry Keramidas (SK): The Scope of Practice Survey gives us a look at the development of the regulatory profession, monitoring trends and changes in what we call the scope of practice: the duties and responsibilities of regulatory professionals. It also gives us a look at their career progression and compensation.

RF: Why is it important?

SK: Like any profession, the regulatory profession must adapt and evolve. This research provides a way of seeing how it has adapted and changed over time, and gives us insight that helps regulatory professionals respond to the changing needs and anticipate what may be coming next. What we learn helps RAPS create and improve professional development initiatives to ensure regulatory professionals have the knowledge and skills to excel in their roles today and tomorrow. It also provides critical information for RAPS to help the world beyond the profession understand what regulatory professionals do and its importance.

RF: What have you learned about the regulatory profession from previous surveys and what do you expect to learn from the current survey?

SK: We have seen a number of important developments over the 20-plus years we have been conducting this research. We have seen increased movement of professionals across product lines—from more pharma-oriented jobs to medical device jobs and vice versa, and we have witnessed increased involvement in combination products. We have seen a trend away from country-specific specialization to more professionals who have multinational or worldwide responsibilities. And we see strong similarities in the scope of practice of professionals around the world, regardless of where they live and work. Today’s regulatory professionals have to be more familiar with regulations and requirements for many different global markets and different products. There is still specialization, certainly, but there is an increasing need for regulatory professionals to understand the broader regulatory landscape. Another interesting development has been that regulatory professionals have become more involved in business and strategic decision making. I would expect each of these trends to continue.

RF: What do you think is driving the increasing involvement in business?

SK: The shift toward more business involvement is something we started to see more than 10 years ago. I think the increasing number of regulatory professionals ascending to higher executive levels played a role in companies’ and organizations’ burgeoning recognition that regulatory expertise can provide valuable insight to drive more-effective organizational strategies. The fact that regulatory professionals were increasingly being called upon to influence business and strategy decisions led RAPS to launch its Executive Development Program in partnership with the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University. That is a pretty good example of how this research helped RAPS identify and respond to a growing need within the profession.

RF: What other changes in the profession have you seen, and what do you think is driving them?

SK: Another trend and an important factor, I think, in the business involvement has been regulatory’s increasing engagement throughout the product lifecycle. This made regulatory professionals more important players in all aspects of healthcare products—from research and development through postmarketing. Regulatory has a role at every stage, whereas years ago, the emphasis for regulatory professionals was on submissions and compliance. This change aligns with what is going on in the overall the healthcare product sector. In recent years, we have seen industry’s focus shift a bit toward more postmarketing activities and keeping existing products on the market.

RF: Have there been any surprising results from past years’ surveys?

SK: I don’t think we expected to see the business involvement when it first emerged. Other interesting trends we have seen develop include increased engagement in reimbursement and health technology assessment. Issues of regulation and reimbursement are more often being considered in coordination with one another at earlier stages. A viable product needs to be both approvable and reimbursable, and regulatory professionals are increasingly being asked to help bridge the gap between the two areas.

RF: What new questions have been added to the survey this year? What do you hope to glean from these questions?

SK: We have refined the breakdown of where regulatory professionals spend their time based on feedback from those in the field, and we have added some new questions about what brought them into the profession in the first place and what factors help shape their career decisions. For organizations that employ regulatory people, there is a need to find the best way to recruit, develop and retain regulatory professionals. More information will help both professionals and employers better address career development and talent management.

RF: What can the Scope of Practice survey tell us about the importance of the regulatory profession?

SK: The profession continues to evolve closely in step with the overall healthcare product sector, including the pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology industries. Translating scientific and technological breakthroughs in these areas into real, accessible patient treatments demands that regulation keeps pace. In many ways, the regulatory profession is on the cutting edge, at the intersection of innovation, regulation and business. There is a growing recognition of the critical role of regulatory professionals, even as work remains to help those outside the profession more fully understand what they do. Regulatory professionals do important work that, as RAPS’ tagline says, ‘helps make better healthcare products possible.’ The Scope of Practice Study helps us tell this important story.

The 2012 RAPS Global Scope of Practice & Compensation Survey is open now, and regulatory professionals can complete it online at www.raps.org/2012globalstudy.

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

Why Many Scientists Have A PR Problem!

Posted in BioEducation

I apologize in advance for this rant but I have been participating in an almost six month long thread on LinkedIn discussing whether or not PhD-trained scientists lack the social discipline and knowledge necessary to favorably interact with the lay public. Not surprisingly, a majority of participants contend that most PhD-bearing life scientists lack social graces to the point where they come off as being aloof, condescending and enamored with their own intelligence and projects that they choose to work on.

While I tend to generally agree with this characterization, I contend that the lack of social discipline exhibited by many graduate students and postdocs is not a result of personality defects but can likely be attributed to the attitudes and behaviors learned from their mentors and PIs. Put simply, graduate students and postdocs would likely learn to behave differently in social situations if they were trained differently by their PIs and mentors.

Now: the reason for the rant. In yesterday’s Science Times, there was an article about a Princeton-based writer, Jeffrey Eugenides, who decided to write a novel using a life sciences researcher as its main character. Mr. Eugenides, who previously wrote a well received novel entitled “Middlesex,” does not possess a scientific background nor has he spent any time in a research laboratory. In fact, despite living in Princeton a bastion of life sciences research, he had no friends or even acquaintances who were scientists. His closest connect to science is his wife, an artist who spent a winter in Cold Spring Harbor (but not at the research center). Nevertheless, creating a main character who is a scientist required that he do a lot of internet research to learn about scientific research and what makes “scientists tick.” To that end, he read peer-reviewed yeast genetics papers to better understand the focus of the main character’s research—yeast mating genetics. It took him many years to collect the information necessary to write the novel. And a scientist—whose research laid the foundation for work described in the novel—was astounded that Eugenides got it exactly right!

Because Princeton University is home to one of the world’s leading yeast genetics programs, Eugenides decided to chat with yeast geneticists actively engaged in basic research to get an idea of what actually goes on in a research laboratory. To accomplish this he turned to one of the world’s leading experts on yeast geneticist at Princeton to ask for help. Although the geneticist thought that Eugenides needed an explanation of the research described in the novel, Eugenides simply wanted to spend a day in his laboratory and interact with “real” scientists. After hearing this, the geneticist handed Eugenides off to his laboratory manager and left the lab.

When interviewed for the story in the NY Times, the geneticist quipped “I never heard of the book, and I don’t remember talking to the guy.” Taken at face value his comments are not intentionally pejorative or demeaning. But, they do suggest an air of arrogance, indifference and most importantly disinterest. I suspect that this is because the visit had little to do with the geneticist’s work and, in the end, there was not much in it for him—so why waste his time?

Sadly this is exactly the attitudes and behaviors exhibited by many scientists. Is it any wonder why many lay people think that most scientists are arrogant, self absorbed and indifferent when it comes to social graces? Although the scientist mentioned in the post is world renown in scientific circles, he did not come off well (to me anyway) in the article. That said, he created a PR problem for himself.

While in the past it was convenient for academicians to “live in the ivory tower” the recession, an increasingly lousy job market for PhD-trained scientists and the advent of social media suggests that we have entered into a new age. Like it or not, social skills are absolutely required for gainful employment in today’s world. I think it is time for academics to realize this and change the way in which they train their graduate students and postdocs.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Regulatory Affairs Update; FDA 483 and Warning Letters Trends for 2012

Posted in BioEducation

Those of you who manufacture products approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are well aware of the importance of complying with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) during FDA mandated inspections of your manufacturing facilities. Failure to comply with cGMP requirements during an inspections results in the issuance of 483s. And if you fail to adequately address the concerns of the agency outlined in 483s, it may ultimately result in issuance of warning letter to your company.

FDA is more vigilant and aggressive than ever before with its 483 and warning letter enforcement procedures. In the words of Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, FDA is quick, visible and vigilant.  With this in mind, it may be worthwhile to participate in a webinar offered by Expert Briefings.com entitled “Top Compliance Trends for 483 and Warning Letters for 2012—Based on Rare FDA Data.”

The webinar will be held on March 8, 2012 from 2:00-3:30 PM EST and Dennis Moore, Managing Partner, AUK Technical Services and a 28 year veteran FDA investigator will lead it. 

Topics to be covered include:

  • Top warning letter trends for 2012, such as more 806 enforcement
  • The Top 10 QS 483 Observations for 2010 and 2011
  • Most common quality system failures for drugs for 2010
  • Top drug and device citations in 483s for 2010
  • Top drug and device warning letter citations for 2010
  • Total 2010 BIMO inspections for CDER, CBER, CDRH, and CVM
  • Details on clinical investigator, sponsor/monitor and IRB audits for 2010
  • Most common sponsor deficiencies for 2010
  • The rising trend of ‘cease to market’ letters, one of which hit a NY pharma company in 2011
  • The total number of 483s issued in 2010 and 2011 – an all time high
  • Total CAPA 483 observations in 2010
  • How long to receive a warning letter, based upon which offices issues it
  • 483 inspection targets for drugs and devices for 2010, 2011, and 2012
  • Total warning letters issued by drug and device category in 2010
  • Which district offices write the most warning letters
  • How long to receive a warning letter, based upon issuing office
  • Warning letters issued by QS system for 2010
  • 483s broken down by QS subsystem for 2010
  • Warning letters by CFR section
  • Top device 483 observations for 2010
  • Details on process validation observations for 2010
  • Design control 483 observations by category for 2010
  • Click here to visit Expertbriefings.com.

Click here to visit Expertbriefings.com.

I hope to see (hear ?) you at the webinar!

 

Improving Employment Opportunities for Life Sciences Graduates

Posted in Career Advice

There are a variety of reasons why the life sciences job market has been so dismal in recent years. First and foremost, there are too many applicants for too few jobs; employers are ignoring resumes/CVs that previously commanded face-to-face interviews. Second and perhaps more pernicious, is the notion among corporate executives and hiring managers that current graduates (both undergraduate and graduate students) have been catered to and are so academically untested that they bring little or no value to today’s fast-paced and demanding workplaces. While this characterization may or may not be warranted, it is a prevailing attitude that is likely hindering employment opportunities for recent life sciences graduates.

According to an insightful article written by Robert W. Goldfarb, a management consultant, entitled “Help Graduates Find Their Footing” in the past, senior hiring managers were willing to hire applicants that thought outside of the box or were a bit unconventional to bring in new ideas and create some chaos in quiet office environments. But Goldfarb asserts, that long, painful and largely unsuccessful job searches “have sapped their daring, creativity and willingness to challenge old procedures.” Further he believes that older employees, once extremely resistant to change, are much more willing to reinvent themselves by adapting to a technically-challenging workplace and bringing mature problem solving skills to the job to protect their jobs and 401K plans. Because of this, Goldfarb contends that “managers have become far less tolerant of the missteps that once expected of any new hires” and not surprisingly older workers make mistakes. Finally, previously supportive hiring managers, criticize recent graduates for poor quality written and oral reports and the inability to recognize trends or draw conclusions from masses of data. 

So what can be done to ensure that the current generation of college graduates does not remain unemployed into perpetuity? Goldfarb suggests that mentoring and building partnerships between recent college graduates and companies that want to hire them would be an important first step toward fixing the problem. He suggests that companies should consider investing in training programs designed to shape the employees that they ultimately will need for their businesses. For example, Goldfarb suggests that:

 “high potential graduates for whom there isn’t an immediate opening could be hired, not as unpaid interns but as salaried trainees given three to six months to prove their value in a series of assignments. Those who don’t seize the opportunity can quickly be dismissed.

Also, he suggests that trainees must be mentored to help them avoid the “small missteps that can damage a career before it starts.” Interesting, back in the 70s and 80s most major corporation had training programs in place. These were largely abandoned in the 90s as a result of global competition and increasing US labor costs.

Goldfarb’s plan requires companies to think strategically, and plan for their employment needs of the future. Sadly, as many of you already know, must companies focus on the short term and are not mindful of future needs; after all they are someone else’s problems to solve). But, in response to this attitude, Goldfarb offers this dire warning:

“Employers can keep faulting overindulgent parents, ineffectual teachers, colleges without required subjects and graduates unsuited to today’s complex workplace or they can play a greater role in training and developing a generation longing to take its place in the American mainstream.”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

Debunking the Myth That There is a Shortage of Qualified American Life Sciences Employees

Posted in BioJobBuzz

Despite the fact the US unemployment rate has hovered around 9.0 percent for the past several years and over 200,000 pharmaceutical employees have lost their jobs since 2001, many life sciences executives contend that they cannot find qualified employees to fill job openings at their companies. Most executives blame the US education system for not providing prospective employees with necessary training and immigration laws that prevent companies from hiring highly-skilled foreign workers. According to a recent survey conducted by the staffing company ManpowerGroup, over 52% of US employers that they have difficulty filling open positions because of talent shortages.  Some other revealing statistics about employer’s attitudes include:

  • 47% of employers blame job candidates’ lack of hard job or technical skills for their inability to hire
  • 35% of companies cite job candidates’ lack of experience as a reason not to hire
  • 25% blame lack of business knowledge or formal educational qualification as a deterrent to hiring

While a majority of US corporate executives may believe this, the reality is that employers simply cannot find employees to accept jobs at the wages that they are willing to offer! In other words, there is a plethora of skilled American workers out there; but many US employers are willing to outsource or hire skilled foreign nationals who frequently work for lower wages than most Americans. Further, American employers are unwilling to spend money to train college graduates or re-train existing employees who may be able to step into these so-called difficult-to-fill positions. This may help to explain why an increasing number of students are willing to accept unpaid internships or, in some cases pay to work at companies for free to garner valuable industrial experience which may ultimately lead to a job.

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Peter Cappelli, the George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, offered three possible solutions to the current American unemployment conundrum

Work with education providers

If job candidates lack the skills or qualifications to do certain jobs, companies ought to make them go to school to acquire them. To that end, a growing number of community colleges in North Carolina and New Jersey have partnered with prospective employers to develop courses or degree programs tailored to meet their employment needs. For example, about 10 years ago my local community college (Mercer County College) developed a program (in a partnership with the clinical research company Covance) to train students interested in becoming clinical research assistants and managers. Not surprisingly, many of the students enrolled in the program ultimately where hired by Covance. 

In another variation of this model, extant employees, who may be interested in advancing their cares, would be able take classes at local community colleges (in off hours) and have their tuition subsidized via company tuition reimbursement programs. This would help to obviate the high costs and inordinate amount of time typically required to hire external candidates for newly created positions.

Reintroduce on-the-job training programs

Back in the day, companies tended to hire persons who were the brightest, most talented and most likely to benefit an organization.  New hires were required to participate in internal training programs so that they would better understand their positions and allow management to best evaluate new talent. Generally speaking, this allowed most companies to operate more efficiently; mainly because this allowed managers to determine the best fit of new hires into the existing corporate structure. Sadly this is no longer the case at most companies. These days, companies tend to hire worker who possess the technical skills and qualifications to do a certain job and are expected to “hit the ground running” Put simply, short term needs are placed before the long term needs and future success of an organization.

Promote from within

According to data from the talent management company Taleo Corp., in recent years a surprising two-thirds of job vacancies, even in larger companies, have been filled by outside hires. While it may be cheaper to hiring from the outside, the loss of experienced workers and historical corporate knowledge may affect a company’s performance and ultimately its bottom line.

While the US economy is beginning to show signs that it is beginning to recover, I believe that surest way to prosperity is to put Americans back to work. Although this may require a substantial financial investment by US corporations, we simply can no longer rely on outsourcing or a cheaper immigrant workforce to allow American to continue to compete on the world stage.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

Statistics and Job-Related Facts You Should Know About Careers in the Life Sciences

Posted in BioJobBuzz

Fewer and fewer American college students are choosing to major in Science Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). This has been an ongoing trend in the US for the past two decades. However, within the STEM majors, the life sciences are faring the best. While I believe that the US needs more life sciences majors to remain competitive with the rest of the world, there are a few things you ought to know before you take the life sciences plunge.

  1. More than 86,000 American biology majors graduate each year
  2. About 58% of all bachelors’, masters and doctorates in the life sciences are awarded to women (who continue to earn substantially less than their male counterparts)
  3. Entry level salaries for biology majors range from $40,000 to $50,000 per year (computer and engineering students start at salaries of $55,000 to $65,000 per year)
  4. PhD degrees in the life sciences take on average six years to complete
  5. Postdoc starting salaries range from $37,000 to $40,000 per year
  6. More than a third of biologists are still working as postdocs or in other non-tenure track jobs six years after receiving their PhD degrees
  7. Only 14% of PhD-trained biologists win tenure track positions within six years of receiving their degrees
  8. Because of tighter funding for government jobs and the loss of 300,000 pharmaceutical jobs in the past decade, many newly-minted PhDs are forced to become serial postdocs (supported by soft money) or help senior scientists set up and run their laboratories waiting to see if they can win permanent academic employment
  9. Fewer tenured life sciences professors are retiring because of the financial downturn

If you still want to be biology major after reading this post, then I think that you know what career path you ought to pursue! Just sayin’……

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

BioCareer Development Symposium

Posted in Career Advice

Last week, BioJobBlog in association with BVS, a life sciences vendor management company, launched an inaugural three hour career development workshop called BioCareer Development Symposium at New York University School of Medicine. 

The event which featured seminar topics  including "Writing a Winning Resume," "Interviewing Tips and Advice" and "Social Media and Career Development for LIfe Scientists" was well attended by graduate students, postdocs and mid-career life scientists.  In addition to the seminars, nine life sciences companies were on site to showcase the latest life sciences reagents, equipments and kits.

Future BioScience Career Development Symposia are scheduled @ Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Alabama-Birmingham and the University of North Texas Health Sciences Center in Fort Worth, TX.

If your or your institution may be interested in hosting or learning more about our BioCareer Development Symposium offerings, please contact me.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!