FAQ

FAQ v1.0 for sci.research.careers

A - LOGISTICS
Last modification: 4 December 2000
Approximate times of posting: 1st and 15th of each month
Review & Feedback: Feedback may be sent to sci.research.careers or any 
contributor. If any reader has comments that they wish to nominate for 
inclusion they are encouraged to email them to sci.research.careers 
indicating their wishes. Anonymous contributions are accepted, see below 
for a description of how they will be dealt with. The FAQ will be posted 
in this form for a number of months. After a suitable interval has 
passed, or earlier (if there is a consensus of requests), a group of 
contributors will review all current material and call for new material.

Copyright
As from the initial creation date of this document, the ownership and 
copyright of the following comments and/or opinions are in the 
possession of the person who has contributed the section of this 
document in question. The contributors have given permission for their 
contributions to be reproduced in this FAQ and only in the complete FAQ. 
To date, the contributors have not given permission for the FAQ material 
to be partially reproduced or reproduced for financial gain. Nor has 
permission been granted for any reproduction in another place, document 
or format. Any reproduction of material can only be permitted by the 
copyright holder(s).

Disclaimer
While all the comments and recommendations contained within this 
document are well-intentioned, they do NOT constitute a of guarantee 
that if some comment is applied to any specific situation, a perfect or 
improved result will deterministically follow. The contributions to this 
FAQ originate from a wide variety of career paths and scientific 
experiences, and these contributions are intended as points of 
discussion/consideration rather than a blueprint for success. All 
contributions are meant in good faith, but individual contributors do 
not and cannot accept any liability under any jurisdiction. The job 
market is a competitive and ruthless place, there are no simple answers. 
 Caveat Emptor.

Contributors (details in section E): Art Sowers, Brian Moore, Chris 
LaRosa, Derek Oliver, Jeff Potoff, Josh Halpern, Mark Bowes, Rob Bossio, 
Rich Lemert, Russell Martin, Rebecca Chamberlin.

Contributor(s) currently responsible for maintaining and re-posting this 
FAQ: {DRO}
A copy of this FAQ is also maintained by {RLM} on the www at:
http://www.rmartin.com/SRC_FAQ.html

Editorial Policy: The comments contianed in this FAQ are the words 
written by the contributors, not a collective or averaged set of 
statements. All contributions have been double-checked by the 
contributor in an effort to minimize errors, and suggested modifications 
not approved by a contributor are not included. If contributions are 
made anonymously they are designated {AN#}. Preserving the anonymity of 
the contributor takes precedence over handing over contact details to 
new collators/reviewers. Anonymous contributors will asked via the 
newsgroup to proactively contact any new collators/reviewers in order to 
keep in touch with the process and have their comments included in the 
next iteration of the FAQ.

In Section B the questions responded to within this FAQ post are listed, 
detailed responses are contained in Section C. Different contributors 
have a different opinions and all disciplines have their own character. 
Thus, the responses are listed separately, emphasizing the variety of 
opinion.

B - QUESTIONS
B.I - Issues arising during a PhD
1. Does a completing a PhD mean that I will get a job as an academic?
2. Should I do a PhD?
3. I want to do a PhD, how should I choose which 
projects/advisors/groups to apply to?
4. I am worried about whether I can complete my PhD, should I transfer 
enrollment to a Masters?
5. I am halfway through my PhD and want to change fields, what are the 
options?
6. I'm in trouble with my advisor/situation, and it is jeopardizing my 
graduate/future research career. What are my options?
7. What should I do while I'm still a student if I want to go into an 
academic position?
8. How should I present my application for an academic position?
9. What should I do if I want an industrial position?

B.II - Issues arising after completion of a PhD
1. Should I do a postdoc?
2. What do postdocs get paid?
3. Is it possible to get a career in academia without a postdoc?
4. How should I choose where to apply for postdocs?
5. Does postdoc employment help or hurt my chances at a career in academia?
6. Does postdoc employment help or hurt my chances at a career in industry?
7. Should I get involved with the local attempts to unionize or address 
campus postdoc issues?
8. When should I stop postdocing and get out?

B.III - "Alternative" Careers
1. Should I move on into an "alternative" career?
2. How do I go about moving into an "alternative" career?
3. I have a PhD. Am I employable outside the laboratory?
4. Do I need more education?
5. What types of jobs am I eligible for?
6. What are some resources for alternative careers?

B.IV - General Issues
1. Art Sowers' FUAQ
2. Responses/Comments to Art Sowers' FUAQ
3. Is there any security in a science-based career?
4. What is tenure and does it still exist?
5. Is getting a Masters a better strategy for an industrial career path?
6. What do science researchers (academics and industry) get paid?
7. Are there significant differences in the range of research 
opportunities currently available in different fields ?

B.V - Further Comments (not yet incorporated into the main formatting)


C - RESPONSES
Notes:
 - {XYZ} preceding the response indicates the contributor that wrote 
the response
 - <XYZ> following the response indicates that this contributor agrees 
with the content of the response

C.I - Issues arising during a PhD
Q1. Does a completing a PhD mean that I will get a job as an academic?
{DRO} No. While completion of a PhD is an important prerequisite to an 
academic career, there are (generally) more people completing PhD theses 
than there are openings.

{RL} Conversely, it is also possible to get a position in academia 
without a PhD, although generally not as an academic. There are many 
support positions that don't require an advanced degree - things like 
undergraduate lab manager in a biology or chemistry program, or someone 
in a central research office helping the faculty keep up to date on 
research opportunities or getting their proposals submitted correctly 
and in a timely manner. If you prefer to work in a community college 
environment (which carries its own risks and rewards), a Masters degree 
will likely be sufficient.

{RMC} Of course, some people do not have academic careers (or even 
"research careers") in mind when they decide to get the PhD.  For 
example, over 50% of PhD chemists work in industry, and many chemists go 
to graduate school with this as their career goal.

{RB} In some of the new fields, such as bioinfomatics and some 
cross-disciplinary fields on the horizon, the time is NOW to strike out 
into these new and unknown territories.  There is still a demand for 
academic positions in these areas, but you must move quickly while the 
"era of exponential growth" is still available for these fields.


Q2. Should I do a PhD?
{DRO} If you personally want to do one, because completing a PhD is 
something you aspire to, or will enable you to achieve something that 
you want to achieve, then yes, you should. If you are about to commence 
(or have commenced) a PhD because you can't think of anything else to do 
then you are on risky ground. A PhD is not an easy undertaking, and it 
does not come with any career guarantees. It can be personally 
rewarding, and it can become a personal trial. Choosing to commence a 
PhD is a choice that involves 3-5 years of your life, a great deal of 
self-discipline, and not a great deal of financial security. For some, 
it is an time/money/life investment that they regret, for some it is/was 
the culmination of their academic challenges, for some it is a one of 
the most rewarding times in their life. Personally, there were good 
times, frustrating times, and downright lousy times during my PhD 
candidature, but completing a PhD was something that I wanted to 
achieve, and I'm glad I did so for that reason alone.

{RB} Doing a PhD is, as stated above, a huge investment, up to 7 years. 
 If indeed you are doing this for a career, then plan VERY carefully 
your course, and have a backup plan in case something goes wrong.  It 
has its ups and downs, and science is VERY competitive.  Think on this 
path carefully.

{RL} Also, don't get trapped into thinking that you only do a PhD so you 
can do research. While it is true that the degree is a research degree, 
many people go into the program for little more than the intellectual 
challenge it provides, and plan to go into a position afterwards that 
they might have been able to do equally well without the degree. Some 
may debate whether this is the most efficient and cost effective way of 
running your career, but ultimately you're the one who's got to live 
with your choice.

Q3. I want to do a PhD, how should I choose which 
projects/advisors/groups to apply to?
{DRO} You can never have too much information. A PhD takes a lot of 
time, and the relationship with your supervisor is critical to your 
capacity to complete the degree/project. The ideal supervisor must be 
someone you can trust as a person, be current in their field, be 
well-funded and have a good working relationship with their department. 
Ideally choosing a supervisor needs to be preceded by meeting/talking to 
this person. Accepting recommendations from others is not necessarily a 
substitute, prospective candidates must be guided by their trust/opinion 
of the person making the recommendation. Is the potential 
supervisor/their group publishing regularly/useful work? Have alumni of 
the potential supervisor's group gone on to jobs? What sort of jobs 
(secure, industrial, postdocs etc)? Is the supervisor's group 
well-funded? Does the institution have a good reputation (i.e. will it 
help you later on to have it known that you went to "X"). Note that many 
institutions will not permit a PhD student to be taken in without any 
research funding, however the minimum amount of funding required to 
overcome this can be pitifully small. Does the group have a positive 
work environment? From the tone of these questions, the obvious 
recommendation is that prospective PhD candidates visit and "interview" 
potential supervisors/groups. But understand too that it is very rare 
that someone chooses a group with all this information to hand (for many 
reasons). One has to make a judgment call at some stage.

{JH} Meeting/talking to a potential supervisor prior to joining a group 
is not something that can be considered optional. Also, talk to current 
group members as well as senior students in the same area who DID NOT 
choose to work for the professor concerned.

{RL} At many schools there is a formal procedure in place to match 
students with advisors. Typically there will be a day or two where the 
faculty in the department describe their research and state how many 
students they're looking for. (Even faculty without current openings 
usually participate so that the new students get a feel for what's going 
on in the department.) Then there will be a period in which students get 
to meet with the different groups that interest them. At the same time, 
the faculty will be getting to know you! Finally, you submit your ranked 
list of preferences, and the department tries to match your interests 
with theirs to the extent possible. Thus, you may not always get your 
top selections. (If you can line up an advisor and a project before you 
show up on campus, your obviously way ahead of the game.)

Q4. I am worried about whether I can complete my PhD, should I transfer 
enrollment to a Masters?
{DRO} Some institutions actively make such a transfer difficult because 
(officially) they want to keep a sense of a Masters degree as having 
status in its own right, rather than simply being a "consolation prize". 
Some people who contemplate this pathway do so when they finally realize 
the sheer size of the task of completing a PhD, some because of other 
difficulties directly or indirectly related to their candidature. If you 
think the task of completing the PhD is too big, you may simply have 
realized the actual magnitude of the task, and you should talk to your 
advisor about whether the project is manageable, or should be somewhat 
re-defined. If there are other reasons for contemplating transferring to 
a Masters for other reasons (difficulties with supervisor/institution or 
in other aspects of your life) then you should seek advice from your 
institution on what options are available. If the cause of the worry is 
external to your work, suspension and later resumption of candidacy is 
possibly an option. If the cause of the concern is institutional or your 
supervisor you must tread carefully (see responses to Q6).

{RB}  Unfortunately, the Masters degree is, in spite of many peoples 
continuing efforts, seen as a "consolation prize" for not getting a PhD 
(for what ever reason).  It can be a kind of glass ceiling in industrial 
positions, requiring you to go back for more or different educational 
degrees if you want to advance.  A Ph.D. does remove many of these 
barriers, especially if you want to move on into management-type 
positions.  A Masters degree can open up some unusual doors, however, in 
alternate career settings.


Q5. I am halfway through my PhD and want to change fields, what are the 
options?
{DRO} This depends on how big the difference in fields is and how good 
your relationship with your supervisor is. If the desire to shift fields 
is because of something within your current work then it may be possible 
to re-structure your project. If this re-structuring takes the research 
outside the expertise of your current supervisor you would be 
well-advised to find a co-supervisor who has expertise in the new area, 
and you should be warned that some supervisors may react adversely to 
such a suggestion (a common human reaction). If you feel that your 
current field is a "dead end" and you want to pursue different opening 
then you must look at a number of issues. If you go to a new field, how 
can you be sure that after 1-2 years it won't be a dead end as well? Do 
you have the capacity to shift fields without "dumping" the work you 
have already done? Do you have a place lined up (field-jumpers are not 
always welcome). If you are close to completing a PhD, or even half-way 
through, it may be best to complete the project and make the shift at 
the post-doctoral level. This is about the only time the flexibility 
i.e. short-term and contractual nature of most postdoc employment works 
slightly in your favour. It is better to complete a project with a view 
to shifting afterwards, uncompleted work/goals can haunt a cv later in 
life.

Q6. I'm in trouble with my advisor/situation, and it is jeopardizing my 
graduate/future research career. What are my options?
{DRO} If the relationship between you and your supervisor is having a 
bad run, there may be some 'inbuilt' options. Some institutions mandate 
an examining committee or co-supervisor be nominated for each project so 
that the student and supervisor have access to one or more potential 
mediators in such situations. Almost always the departmental 
postgraduate tutor/advisor and then the head of department are obliged 
to mediate if the problem is still unresolved. But ultimately the 
student is in a difficult situation here, it is their PhD, and the 
supervisor has power/standing with their colleagues. Some universities 
have mediation structures that bring in people from outside the 
department. In each situation, it is important to know what these 
structures are, and if you have a complaint about your supervisor, you 
need to have records of what happened, when and where. Sometimes 
students are given a new co-supervisor for the same project in an effort 
to help the student complete. In some cases students are able to start a 
new project with a new supervisor. In all cases the process is 
emotionally draining - a graduate student invests a lot when enrolling 
in a PhD, and the relationship with a supervisor is inevitably a 
personal one. Leaving the programme either with no degree or with a 
Masters are possibilities - but leaving with nothing to show for the 
time spent is risky in terms of your capacity to 'explain' the time 
spent to a potential employer.

Q7.  What should I do while I'm still a student if I want to go into an 
academic position?
{RL} The obvious thing is to get as many quality publications and 
presentations as you can. Prospective departments are going to want to 
see someone who has demonstrated that they can "get the job done", and 
for them publications and presentations are coins of the realm. However, 
avoid publishing 'variations on a theme', as this becomes obvious that 
you are padding your cv. Get as much teaching experience as you can, and 
if your institution offers a course in effective teaching - take it 
(these can be very useful even if you don't go into teaching). As much 
as many research universities try to avoid the fact, a large share of 
your duties will be teaching. Good teaching alone will not get you the 
job, but a good researcher who can also teach will be hands down better 
than the typical good researcher who can't teach. Let your advisor know 
you're interested in an academic position, along with anyone else who 
will listen. Introduce yourself to people at conferences. Play the "good 
old boy" network for all it's worth.

{DRO} Good teaching skills can be described as good communication skills 
- very important if you are looking to a career beyond academia. 
Teaching can be fun too.

Q8. How should I present my application for an academic position?
{RL} Having a good publication record is probably not going to be 
sufficient, by itself, to get you an academic position. The world is 
full of people that are capable of carrying out the ideas of others but 
who couldn't generate an original idea to save their life. You need to 
demonstrate that you can plan and carry out a research program without 
having to resort to the help of others. The best way to do this is to 
prepare a set of mini-proposals. These should outline three or four 
ideas and explain a) why the idea is important, b) how you plan to 
accomplish your goal, and c) what resources you'll require.

Q9. What should I do if I want an industrial position?
{RL} Here again, exposure is the key word. This time, though, you want 
to make sure you expose yourself to people in industry. Depending on the 
field you might be able to do this at technical conferences 
(particularly in engineering), but you might have to consider trade 
shows instead. Also, become active in an appropriate technical society, 
or consider a trade organization if that's more appropriate for your 
field. The important thing is to let people know who you are. Don't 
worry as much about publications, though, since they don't carry the 
same weight in industry (except possibly for patents) that they do in 
academia. On the other hand, presentation practice is even more 
important for industry since you will constantly be presenting your work 
to your colleagues and your managers.


C.II - Issues arising after completion of a PhD
Q1. Should I do a postdoc?
{DRO} If you want to become an academic, then the answer is probably 
yes. In some fields (especially engineering) it is possible to go from 
completing a PhD to a tenure-track academic position, but in most fields 
this is a rare occurrence. One of the "professional" reasons for doing a 
postdoc is the fact that most funding agencies want to see evidence of a 
track record of research achievement and publication, and the number of 
fields where a completed PhD is competitive in this reference frame is 
small. If you want to change fields, a postdoc in a new field may be a 
good way to find out if you can get somewhere in another field. Equally, 
a postdoc is not a guarantee of a long-term career, and the employment 
market for postdocs is very volatile. It is possibly harder to gain 
employment outside of academia after doing postdocs than it is directly 
after completing a PhD, but the significance of the differences between 
these (other than age) is unclear to me.

{RMC} Or to make a smooth transition into the new field -- if you choose 
a postdoc advisor judiciously the transition can be almost seamless. 
Also for some industry and government employers, the postdoc is a trial 
period before they commit to hiring you permanently.  But conversely, 
some industrial employers have a firm policy to NOT use postdoc 
positions this way.

Q2. What do postdocs get paid?
{DRO} In the USA, US$20k-US$55k pa. In Canada CAN$25-CAN$30 pa. In 
Britain £13k-£22k pa. In Australia AUS$40k-AUS$50k. All these figures 
are approximate and depend on the project, funding agency, institution 
etc. Fringe benefits are highly variable, ranging from almost none (US & 
Canada) through to statutory superannuation contributions (Australia). 
Postdocs are contracted employees, the contract may be 1-2 years (most 
common) or up to 5 years, and renewal may depend on funding  decisions 
that the postdoc cannot themselves influence.

{JJP} In the US, engineering postdocs should expect substantial fringe 
benefits in the form of health insurance (my health insurance as a 
postdoc has been excellent).  Some may even get to participate in 
retirement plans depending on the classification of postdocs at that 
particular institution.  In terms of salary, the going rate for academic 
postdocs in chemical engineering is $32,000/year (1999).  Some academic 
postdocs (again, in engineering) will pay substantially more if you can 
secure an outside funding source, which in some cases is not terribly 
difficult. Postdocs at the national labs (US) start around $50,000/year 
and go up to $75,000+ for the "superstar" types.

{MPB} In regard to postdoc benefits, during my 2 postdocs I had good 
healthcare coverage at both. Maybe I just got lucky. One position (at 
UCSD) also had paid vacation time (24 days per year), although the other 
(at Medical College of Pennsylvania) had no paid vacation time. Also, at 
MCP, I was on some sort of fellowship under which I was potentially 
liable for the repayment of some or all of my fellowship salary if I 
left the lab for a non-science-related career. It might be worth noting 
for people looking for a postdoc that if they leave their fellowship in 
less than 2 years, they may be faced with repaying their previous year's 
salary.

{JH} Last I talked to some NRC postdocs (the national labs often run 
their postdoc program through NRC) the health insurance sucked.  That 
accounts for a lot of the better paid postdocs in the US In terms of 
academia, you generally get what the staff at an institution gets. 
Exceptions to this can be personal awards, which is one gotcha to watch 
out for.

{BGM} Also the fringe issue is different in Canada because most of the 
provinces there have very affordable, universal healthcare options.  At 
least that was the way it was when I was at UBC in 91-92.  I hear there 
has been erosion of their healthcare policies since then (i.e. moves to 
take them to more of a private model--higher premiums, etc.) but still 
it is a very different ball game than in the US.

Q3. Is it possible to get a career in academia without a postdoc?
{DRO} Yes, engineering disciplines stand out as those where this is most 
common, but it is rare in other areas.

Q4. How should I choose where to apply for postdocs?
{DRO} Roughly the same criteria as for the third question in the 
previous section. IMO the institutional reputation counts for a little 
less though, as a postdoc one is judged a little more on what one has 
actually done (i.e. published) rather than where one did it. But the 
essentials remain the same, funding, work environment, alumni placements 
etc.

{JJP} One also has to consider the resources available to complete your 
research.  Bigger universities tend to have more resources than smaller 
ones.

{RB}  The name of the laboratory, the person who heads it and their 
prestige are VERY important if you wish to continue on in academia.  If 
you are more interested in industrial or government positions, this is 
not as necessary.

{RMC} More importantly, the postdoc position should be adding something 
to your resume that you did not get from your PhD work.  This could be 
as mundane as gaining affiliation with a more prestigious institution, 
or writing a lot more papers (perhaps by choosing a less high-risk 
project than their PhD work).  It could also be used to mitigate the 
impact of a bad relationship with one's PhD advisor.  Most often, a 
postdoc is an opportunity to learn something new.

Q5. Does postdoc employment help or hurt my chances at a career in 
academia?
{DRO} After a certain amount of time it begins to hurt your chances, too 
many postdocs on a cv looks like the candidate can't get a permanent job 
for some reason, and a search committee may go look for that reason, or 
just trash the cv. There are no hard & fast rules here, only 
perceptions. IMO >5 years postdocing is very risky, >10 potentially 
fatal. For these purposes, the definition of "postdoc" essentially means 
any contract academic position.

{JJP} There is a fine balance between what is helpful and what is 
hurtful. In engineering, one postdoc is enough, and it had better be a 
productive one.  Anymore than that and your life gets progressively more 
difficult.  Why?  Because search committees are trying to gauge the 
potential of the candidates who apply.  If you do a postdoc, you need to 
be a level above those who apply right out of graduate school.  That 
means your postdoc had better be very productive. In chemistry 
departments, you need at least one postdoc, unless you're going to apply 
for a position at a teaching college.  And many people do two postdocs 
(~4 years).  If you don't find anything at this point, it's a tough call 
because the same thing that happens in engineering applies here.  The 
more postdocs you do, the better your cv needs to look.  It can't look 
like you've just been in a holding pattern for the last 4 years.

{RL} If you have a PhD, as far as industry is concerned you've 
demonstrated all the credentials you're ever going to need. At this 
point their interest is in "what can you do for me!" This means that 
you'll need to do some research in advance of any interviews to see what 
their problems are and figure out how your skills can be used to address 
those problems. (This is another good reason for meeting as many 
industrial people as you can and spending some serious time talking to 
them - whether you are actively looking for a job or not.) They won't 
care that you spent x number of years working for Bill Bigname - you 
could have just been taking up space in the group. They will want you to 
demonstrate how you solved problems that occurred while you were working 
for Bill, and how you'll continue to solve the problems they want solved 
when you work for them.

{RMC} Again, the key is that you are ADDING something new to your resume 
and your skill set each time you postdoc.  If you are just spinning your 
wheels working as a short-term employee in a string of similar jobs, 
without any real "growth" occurring, your career is probably doomed.

Q6. Does postdoc employment help or hurt my chances at a career in industry?
{DRO}  Certainly, outside the science research community the word 
"postdoc" doesn't mean much to many people. Some say that doing a 
postdoc can hurt your chances in industry. Others argue that industry 
wants to know first and foremost what you can do for them, and therefore 
it doesn't matter. I tend to side with the latter view, the rationale 
being that I wouldn't expect many people in industry to know much about 
what a postdoc does, but if I want them to employ me, I won't describe 
my work simply as a "postdoc", I'll talk about what I do, what I can do, 
how I do it etc.

{RMC}The above statement is CRITICAL in applying for industry (and most 
government) positions, where the culture is much more focused on how 
your results fit into the "big picture." Academia tends to consider 
scientific minutiae to be  inherently interesting, while industry (and 
most government agencies) consider minutiae to be interesting mainly 
when it illuminates some bigger question.  The way you present your past 
work must change accordingly.

Q7.  Should I get involved with the local attempts to unionize or 
address campus postdoc issues?
{DRO} Overt public lobbying and notoriety in the early stages of one's 
career can dramatically assist or dramatically curtail that career. Be 
careful, but good luck!

{RB}  This is indeed a hotbed of contention.  There is something of a 
larger movement occurring right now, with some support from the American 
science academies, but its still too early to tell how these efforts are 
going to go.  Be careful, and have some form of backup plan.  A little 
rocking of the boat can be good, but it can go horribly wrong too!

Q8. When should I stop postdocing and get out?
{RB}  If you are approaching being a postdoc for more than 5 years, you 
should definitely start thinking about your alternatives.  If you are 
approaching 10 years and have no real sense of a permanent or 
non-temporary position, then find some way out now.


C.III - "Alternative" Careers
Q1. Should I move on into an "alternative" career?
{DRO} If an exciting opportunity is presents itself, why not? I'd advise 
people to complete their degrees though, joining a startup because you 
are invited to is one thing, making squillions is another. At the end of 
a PhD you do not have to go on to academia.

{RMC} But recognize that it may be difficult to reconcile your interest 
in/desire for an alternative career with the "academia is best" message 
you may have received from your advisor during graduate study.

{RL} This is one area where engineering has an advantage over the more 
traditional sciences. Engineers are used to dealing with industry and 
get a lot of exposure to thinking about practical applications and "the 
bottom line". They don't feel that they're "settling" for an industrial 
position. Many in the sciences, though, feel that you are somehow 
"selling out" if you go into industry. Also, don't feel that you have to 
stay within your field. If you can do so it's nice and comfortable since 
you are staying with something familiar (the unknown can be very 
frightening). However, you've just spent several years learning how to 
learn something new (you'd better have, if your program is any good) and 
how to solve problems. Consider the need for a new career path to be a 
problem you have to solve, and figure out how to solve it.

{RB}  Sometimes, people have a change of heart, even when they started 
out with the intent of heading on to an academic career.  That is 
actually quite normal, statistics show that many people change career 
paths as much as 5 times in their life!  Why should scientists be any 
exception?  I agree though that unless something certain comes along, 
you should complete your degree, and as soon as possible.  There are 
options other than academia and industry, here are a few of them:

Patent clerk/agent (must pass patent bar exam)
Patent attorney (requires more education, a JD degree)
Lab management (may require an MBA)
Technical writing (ie writing the "fine manuals" that everyone is 
supposed to read BEFORE plugging in their computers!)
Science writing (ie writing for the science writing section in a local 
newspaper, public relations for a company, etc.)
Science policy (limited number of positions, also very competitive)
Sales
Start own company
Finance
Venture capitalism
Publishing
Teaching (high school, college, undergraduate only institution, commuter 
campuses)

Q2. How do I go about moving into an "alternative" career?
{RB}  As this is a somewhat new phenomenon, there are many ways to go 
about this.  Check with your campus job placement bureau, check the want 
ads, check some of the web sites posted below, check out books on career 
changes for scientists.  Ask around, network, and do "informational" 
interviewing.  Good Luck!

Q3. I have a Ph.D. Am I employable outside the laboratory?
{MPB} There are many employers, from government to nonprofit 
organizations and private corporations, that employ large numbers of 
individuals with laboratory science backgrounds. The odds are that your 
science training has given you several things that these employers are 
looking for, including problem solving ability, the ability to manage 
lower-level employees, excellent written communication skills, and the 
ability to stay in a job for an extended period of time. At least on the 
East Coast, the demand for technically trained people in the private 
sector appears to be quite high.

Q4. Do I need more education?
{MPB} Probably not, unless you want to do something very specialized 
(like practice law). You might need to go through a learning period 
during which your earnings will be relatively low, but probably still 
more than you are likely to be making as a postdoc.

Q5. What types of jobs am I eligible for?
{MPB} Many biologists work in biomedical communications, including 
medical or scientific journalism, medical publishing, pharmaceutical 
writing and consulting, advertising, and public relations. Scientists 
are often hired by law firms to consult on technical issues, or by 
government agencies or nonprofit organizations to oversee grant 
application processes or to manage programs related to health, medicine, 
or technology. Investment firms hire people with scientific and 
quantitative backgrounds to help with financial analyses of high-tech 
companies.

Q6. What are some resources for alternative careers?
{MPB} Science and Nature list small numbers of science-related jobs, 
such as positions with law firms. People interested in doing freelance 
medical writing should consider looking into the American Medical 
Writers' Association (AMWA; amwa.org), which has local and national 
meetings and offers networking and education programs. The 
pharmaceutical marketers' directory (the "PMD") lists the names and 
contact information of hundreds of people in the pharmaceutical 
communications industry and is invaluable to anyone considering working 
in pharmaceutical communications, especially as a freelance or consultant.

C.IV - General Issues
Q&A1: Art Sowers' FUAQ
{AES}***** Art's Frequently UnAsked Questions about Sci Careers *****
FUAQ: Frequently UnAsked Questions about Science Careers (a decidedly 
"biased" view of the science career situation but it may be more 
politely referred to as the unconventional viewpoint, or the contrarian 
viewpoint; it is being presented in the public interest)

disclaimer: The material below represents a mixture of the personal 
experience of the author, experiences of other PhDs as related to the 
author, and a synthesis of reports in the printed media, some websites, 
and other sources. The author has compiled a resource on careers in 
science (particularly in academia) on an open server at: 
www.magpage.com/~arthures. This website includes URLs of other websites 
numerous references to books dealing with science careers and PhDs, as 
well as newspaper, magazine, and journal articles. The internet 
"newsgroup" sci.research.careers is recommended as a total 
freedom-of-speech "chatroom" for you to express your experiences, state 
questions, and debate with others about sci careers. Answers to the 
Frequently UnAsked Questions are given as "partial" answers because a 
"good" answer will depend on the context of the situation and the track 
record of the person who is being "matched to" the situation. Readers in 
relevant situations are urged to ask the FUAQs of people they cross 
paths with in life for additional opinions, history, and experiences. 
This FUAQ is not all inclusive. The author reserves the right to modify 
and/or add to this document at a later time.

Copyright information: The author now places this document into the 
internet under the GPL (copyleft) license for all to reproduce under the 
following conditions: i) no charges for content, ii) all material to 
remain intact (no editing, no modification whatsoever), and iii) rights 
to reproduce are unlimited but nonexclusive to holders of this document.
 by Arthur E. Sowers, PhD

1. Statement/thought: "All I need is my PhD and then I'll have my career"
The frequently unasked question: What career problems do I need to be 
concerned about for the rest of my life?
Partial answer: PhD-requiring jobs and non-PhD requiring jobs that PhDs 
sometimes find themselves in are not much different from any other jobs. 
External circumstances such as project funding, corporate downsizings 
and reorganizations and mergers and job export and cheap labor import, 
political decisions and personality conflicts with supervisors, and 
technological evolution and revolution all represent career "hazards" 
that can block or kill a career. Tenure-track faculty appointments can 
lead to tenure denial which is the same as being fired. Non-tenure track 
faculty appointments mean that the chairperson or any administrator 
higher up can fire you at any time without giving a reason, or not renew 
a term contract without giving a reason.  Knowing how these events take 
place and making "fallback plans" for an alternative career, reading 
books about your legal rights in job environments, and seeking out as 
much information about "how things work" in hirings and firings will 
help you be forewarned and plan alternative strategies.

2. Statement/thought: "After I get my PhD, I'll do 'X'"
Frequently UnAsked Questions: How many applications will I need to make 
to get one interview? How many interviews to get one job offer? How much 
time should I expect to pass before I get one job offer? How many 
applications do they get for every job announcement? Is there a real job 
behind all job announcements?
Partial answer #1: For many fields in academia, one job opening will 
attract on the order of hundreds of applications. You will most likely 
need to make several hundred applications to get any interviews. 
Generally, for one job, about five to ten applicants will be 
interviewed. Sometimes a second and third interview will take place 
before a job is offered. All of this can take up to one to two years. 
You will need to be employed doing something relevant to your career 
objectives to keep your "track record" on your CV looking relevant to 
those career objectives. Some people manage to get job offers after a 
few applications; others may send out 500-1000 applications and not get 
either _any_ interviews or _any_ job offers.
Partial answer #2: There is controversy about whether more sci PhDs are 
being produced than the growth in jobs which require a PhD (in the 
"humanities" it has been known for decades that there are about twice as 
many PhDs as there are jobs for those PhDs). In the life sciences field, 
there is at least one national study which concludes that schools are 
overproducing PhDs. This leads to long and multiple postdoctoral periods 
which often end without a real career being started. This is because 
there are plenty of postdoctoral jobs, but not enough real faculty jobs.

3. Statement/thought: "My career will grow as I do research and publish"
The Frequently UnAsked Question: What factors influence whether a career 
grows, does not grow, or dies out?
Partial answer: Shortly after one receives a PhD, one either "pursues" 
an academic or a non-academic pathway. One "pursues" a teaching-related 
career or a non-teaching career. One spends time on a "post-doc" 
(usually for an academic career) or starts with some job in the 
non-academic sector. Staying on one or more "post-docs" for too long 
will hurt long term career growth. Being over 40 in age will start 
limiting what you can realistically expect; "post-doc" and other entry 
level jobs are typically offered to only young people who just got or 
recently got their PhDs. Most job openings are "entry level" and thus if 
you are "advanced" you will be passed over for interviews, let alone job 
offers. This is called age discrimination and it starts to show up 
around age 40. Most of the times careers grow when one is "recognized" 
by a superior and given a promotion or when one gets a promotion along 
with a job offer from a new location. There are many fine points in the 
growth, no growth, decline, or death of a career. It is important to 
learn about these but these issues are way beyond the scope of this 
partial answer.

4. Statement/thought: "I know all I need to know about sci careers"
The Frequently UnAsked Question: How do I find out more about sci careers?
Partial answer: There are a good number of books, websites, journal 
articles  and other relevant periodicals all dealing with sci careers. A 
large number of these do not go into much detail about the politics of 
jobs and careers or what actually happens to a population of people who 
start out in science careers but there are sources with some 
information. Career half-life is how long, out of a population of people 
starting a career how many years later pass and only half are still in 
that career. People leave a given career as a result of either a 
voluntary decision (eg. "I don't like what I'm doing anymore") or an 
involuntary decision ("I got fired, laid-off, downsized out, politically 
back-stabbed, etc."). There are more UnAsked questions for people who 
leave science careers, regardless of whether it is voluntary or not. 
Because of the intense competition, many of those who leave the science 
career will find that they cannot get back in.

5. Statement/thought: "All I know about careers is all the truth"
Frequently UnAsked Question: How do I figure out if what I know about 
careers isn't so or there is more to learn?
Partial answer: Try to look at such things as salary surveys, reports of 
unemployment, career changes, etc., and ask yourself what is missing 
(see item #2 above). Ask yourself if you know how they got their data. 
Ask yourself if you can tell what the job security and advancement 
possibilities are. Ask yourself if there may be a hidden agenda that 
would influence the conclusions they present. Ask yourself next time you 
see an educational advertisement that says "Get your 'X' degree and get 
a high paying job" how you would go about finding out how true (or 
realistic) that advertisement might be. Ask yourself if you know anyone 
(including yourself) who has sent out many applications and not gotten 
any response yet or waited longer than they thought for a response. Ask 
others in your institution who were newly hired what their job-finding 
experiences were. Ask older people in your institution what they have 
observed over the additional decades of life experience they had to tell 
you what they think.  Try to consider "official conclusions" against 
personal experience, the stories and opinions of colleagues and friends. 
Don't wait for them to volunteer these stories and opinions; actively 
ask them. Don't just ask one or two; ask at least about two dozen or 
more. Don't just ask them to tell you what you want to hear; ask about 
what bad things have happened that almost no one likes to talk about. 
When you watch the news on TV and read the paper and read about murders, 
robberies, assaults, fires, earthquakes, car accidents, etc., don't just 
say "that won't happen to me" or "that's just something on the news." 
That stuff happened to real human beings; you could be next.

6. Statement/thought: "Sci jobs are all the same, don't worry"
Frequently UnAsked Question: How are jobs in academia different from 
non-academic jobs?
Partial answer: Academic jobs (meaning faculty) have a different career 
scenario and these can be usually tracked and judged by looking at 
published journal papers on research that is usually non-proprietary. It 
is very rare for a faculty to not be publishing journal papers. 
Non-academic jobs can range from posts in government laboratories or 
agencies doing applied work, military defense-related work, or in 
corporations where the applied work will be closely targeted to making 
money from a product or services. Job security and advancement can be 
very different between academic and non-academic jobs as well as within 
the same institution. Be forewarned that "temporary" jobs are generally 
unstable jobs. Ask about fringe benefits and retirement. Your ultimate 
goal, as you get older, will be to be able to retire voluntarily and 
happily with sufficient resources to have a decent standard of living 
and have a good health plan.

Q&A2. Responses/Comments to Art Sowers' FUAQ
1. Statement/thought: "All I need is my PhD and then I'll have my career"
The frequently unasked question: What career problems do I need to be 
concerned about for the rest of my life?
{RL} In any position, whether it involves a PhD or not, the minute you 
start "resting on your laurels" is the minute you had better have a good 
resume ready for immediate distribution. The fact that you got your PhD 
is history the minute you earned it. Employers don't really care what 
you've _done_, they care what you're _going_ to do. If you can't solve 
their current problems they really don't have any reason to keep you, 
and even with tenure a way _will_ be found to get rid of you. Yes, there 
are politics and backstabbing in any job. However, if you think a PhD is 
an automatic ticket to life-long meaningful employment (with no further 
effort on your part), you won't last long enough in the job to even find 
out about them.<DRO>

2. Statement/thought: "After I get my PhD, I'll do 'X'"
Frequently UnAsked Questions: How many applications will I need to make 
to get one interview? How many interviews to get one job offer? How much 
time should I expect to pass before I get one job offer? How many 
applications do they get for every job announcement? Is there a real job 
behind all job announcements?
{RL}  Although you can't control how many applications it will take 
before you get an interview (or how many interviews you have to go 
through before you get a job), you can certainly influence these 
statistics. Blindly firing off resumes to everyone you can think of, for 
example, is a sure way of increasing you collection of rejection 
letters. Taking the time to understand the employer's needs and 
determining how you can fill those needs will go a long way for 
decreasing the number of rejections and increasing the number of 
interviews. Sometimes, in fact, your best bet with a specific employer 
is to just walk away from them without trying to apply in the first 
place. If it's evident right away that your background and their needs 
are not and will not be compatible, you're better off using the time you 
would have wasted applying to them preparing your application for a 
potentially more fruitful prospect.<DRO>

{RL} Don't let the apparent "number of applications per position" be too 
discouraging, either. Since most of your "competition" is using the 
scattershot approach, what you really have is something like 250 
candidates seeking the same 50 positions. In other words, the odds
are closer to 5 to one than 250 to one. However, it's also a good idea 
to stay aware of how you're doing in this competition. If you never (or 
almost never) survive the first cut, it's probably time to start 
considering your alternatives. If you regularly survive the first cut 
but never get on-site interviews, you can probably afford to continue to 
make the effort for a while longer, but you better see what you can do 
to improve your presentation (ie. your c.v. and application). If you 
regularly get invited to interviews but don't get the offers, you are in 
good shape but need
to find out what you're doing wrong in the interviews. Seek some good, 
hard, honest advice to find out what this is.<DRO>

6. Statement/thought: "Sci jobs are all the same, don't worry"
Frequently UnAsked Question: How are jobs in academia different from 
non-academic jobs?
{RL} There are actually more similarities between academic and 
industrial positions than many people realize. Both, for example, have 
to worry about the bottom line. In industry, that bottom line is 
probably related to what can be sold on the open market. In academia, 
though, you're going to have to sell your ideas to a funding agency. You 
may be looking at problems at a more fundamental than an applied level, 
but you still have to convince someone to 'buy' your product.
Your career in both environments will also undergo a strong shift almost 
immediately away from active research and into management. The shift is 
fairly obvious in industry, but even in academia you're going to be 
spending most of your time writing grant proposals, editing papers, and 
supervising the people that are actually doing the work. (Ask yourself 
when was the last time you saw a senior professor spending significant 
time in the lab doing his own experiments.) <DRO>


C.IV - General Issues (continued)
Q3. Is there any security in a science-based career?
{DRO} There is certainly no more security in a science or research 
career than anywhere else in the current job market. Whether there is 
markedly less security is a highly debatable question. Academic tenure 
is not the guarantee it used to be, but then there are few permanent 
positions anywhere these days. IMO it's no worse than anywhere else, the 
biggest catch comes from the fact that after 10-15 years investment of 
time and relatively low financial return (all university study plus 
postdocs), most people feel they deserve a return on their investment. 
Like all investments, there are (unfortunately) no guarantees.

Q4. What is tenure and does it still exist?
{DRO} Tenure once meant that an academic appointed to a permanent 
position would keep that job until retirement/death. It is meant to mean 
that now, but there are sufficient out-clauses in tenure contracts these 
days to make this perception more myth than reality. In some 
institutions, tenured staff are essentially appointed on rolling 5-year 
contracts, in some places the term "tenure" has been removed from the 
official lexicon. The older and more traditional the institution, the 
more likely something approximating tenure exists. The more recent the 
"tenured" appointment, the more likely that the contract contains lots 
of out-clauses.

{RB}  For the more recent programs/universities, there is a large 
movement towards contracts, which have some very limited notion of 
security.  But, as with all things, read the fine print.  The devil is 
in the details.

Q5. Is getting a Masters a better strategy for an industrial career path?
{DRO} Some people say that it is. In my experience (Physical 
Sciences/Engineering) this is something which I've heard said a lot, 
although in more recent times I've also heard it said that the fact that 
so many people have at least a masters has lessened the advantage 
somewhat. IMO, the key to industry is not what degree you finished with, 
but what skills and motivations you can bring.

{JJP} For those looking to go the Masters route in engineering, the 
Master of Engineering is a much better route than a traditional MS 
degree.  This is typically a one year program of courses and a small 
scale project.  I know a lot of people who were successful doing this. 
It is better for those geared toward industry (IMHO) because you get in 
and out quick. The program and projects are well defined so there's no 
"looks like I'm here for another year" when things don't work out with 
your research.

{RB} From the limited conversations I've had, it can get you some 
modicum of increased pay/authority/chance for advancement, but in some 
areas it exists as a glass ceiling.  Talk to some industry 
representatives at a scientific meeting if you are looking at working 
for a large company, and see how much latitude and longitude they give 
their masters degreed employees.  In a smaller company, a masters may 
allow for more upward mobility, but there it is probably more variable. 
 Again, ask around at scientific meetings, and talk to the company 
representatives.

{RL} Any degree, by itself, means very little. It's what you get out of 
the degree and what you can bring to the company that matters. Even the 
historical recommendation to follow up a BS with either an MBA or a law 
degree is no 'magic bullet'. You'll still have to bring something to the 
table to justify what the company pays you. The main reason these 
traditional 'paths to success' have been so successful in the past is 
the fact that they have generally attracted highly motivated people.

Q6. What do science researchers (academics and industry) get paid?
{DRO} This varies horrendously from field to field, country to country. 
The top in all lines of work people get paid well. All professional 
institutions publish tables of salaries, be careful to check the 
age/career stage range(s) associated with the data presented. Certainly 
in Engineering, industrial salaries in the US and Canada far outstrip 
academic salaries, hence the apparent relative "ease" of getting from 
PhD to academia described earlier. In science, the picture is harder to 
define, because the opportunities for doing 'research' outside academia 
vary so greatly from discipline to discipline, and the niches are so 
well-hidden that it is possible that many non-academic researchers are 
not 'covered' by the standard surveys.

{RMC} Also, remuneration varies greatly from employer to employer and 
sector to sector..

Q7. Are there significant differences in the range of research 
opportunities currently available in different fields ?
{DRO} Vast differences exist, and have underpinned many arguments on 
sci.research.careers!

{PCL} Various disciplines are highly fragmented, with differing 
potential for success, salary expectations, workloads etc. Off the top 
of my head , only 50 percent of the grad students in my program 
graduated, and of those that graduated, only about 2 out of 5 have a 
real job .  Of those that got jobs, a fair percentage just disappeared 
from the roles of the American Society of Plant Physiology. In order to 
succeed as a plant biologist, it takes a special kind of person: 
extremely dedicated scientist, often obsessed and unbalanced,  a very 
good salesman, lots of productivity and a certain mindset that allows 
one to exploit a bunch of underlings using them for your career. In 
biology in the US you are competing against 100 to 300 others for 
tenure-track jobs, of which the top 20 are really good, and have the 
qualifications that are consistent with the fad of the moment (currently 
functional genomics and bioinformatics). However, there are not a lot of 
positions out there and there is an increasing pool of permanent 
postdocs. There are a few industry jobs, but the public outcry against 
GM organisms has put a damper on industry looking for a lot of 
scientists. In my years in the American Society of Plant Physiology and 
American Society of Horticulture I observed an increase in the 
membership, and an increase in the population of students and postdocs. 
The academic pyramid was becoming heavy at the bottom and the steepness 
of the angle to get to the higher tiers increased tremendously. It 
became harder to publish papers because the quality of acceptable 
publications was increased.  Science and Nature have commented on the 
relatively flat or shrinking funding situation. In spite of the supposed 
great economy, federal spending has not increased over the last decade 
like the economy has supposedly increased.

C.VI - Further Comments (not yet incorporated into the formatting above)

{RMC} Might be interesting to put in some information about salaries, 
assistantships, fellowships, teaching/research jobs, benefits, etc in 
the grad school section.

{PCL} People should read the recent article in "The Scientist" 
(http://www.the-scientist.com) entitled  "Another Study Raps Ph.D. 
Overproduction" (Volume 14 No. 19, 2 October 2000). If this conservative 
organization is willing to admit that there is a PhD surplus, then you 
should assume the reality is 5 to 10 times worse.

D - ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
[Please forward additional www sites, links to book reviews, books you 
think are useful]

{AES} has archived his collated information & thoughts on careers in 
science at:
http://www.magpage.com/~arthures

{DRO} most professional societies have job advertisements and 
job-hunting advice. University careers advisors can be quite variable, 
IMO they are best-informed about those organizations which actively 
recruit on campus, and government positions. I have yet to meet one 
which understands the ins and outs of career choices and options for 
people with anything beyond a Bachelors degree. Talk to people you know, 
people you meet - you can never have too much information. Networking 
and schmoozing do not result in career guarantees, they are information 
gathering techniques, and can be quite inefficient at that. A sample of 
professional societies and other disciplinary resources are listed below:

American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/
American Physical Society (APS): http://www.aps.org
American Vacuum Society (AVS): http://www.vacuum.org/
Optical Society of America (OSA): http://w3.osa.org/
Materials Research Society (MRS): http://www.mrs.org/
American Chemical Society (ACS): http://www.acs.org/
Chemistry Societies Network: http://www.chemsoc.org/
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): 
http://www.ieee.org/
Institute of Physics (IoP): http://www.iop.org/
The Internet Pilot to Physics (TIPTOP): http://www.physicsweb.org/TIPTOP/
European Physical Society (EPS): http://www.eps.org/
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC): http://www.rsc.org/
The Australian Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org.au/
Royal Australian Chemical Institute: http://www.raci.org.au
Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP): http://www.CAP.CA/english.html

{JH} The NSF integrated database: http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/
and the following reports:
 - Education of Scientists and Engineers:
 - Survey of Earned Doctorates
 - Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and 
Engineering
 - Higher Education Surveys
 - Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Completions Survey

Science and Engineering Work Force; Survey of Doctorate Recipients:
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/ssdr/start.htm
 -  National Survey of Recent College Graduates
 -  National Survey of College Graduates
 -  Occupational Employment Statistics Survey
 -  Immigrant Scientists and Engineers

Links to which and INFORMATION ON THE SURVEY METHODS are available at 
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/survey.htm

A useful document for starting students might be: 
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/issuebrf/ib98320.htm
Are Forms of Financial Support and Employment Choices of Recent Science 
and Engineering Ph.D.s Related? (July 22, 1998)

{RB}  A very recent effort to address the science career situation is a 
website from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
called Next Wave.  It can only be accessed, however,by a subscription, 
either you or your local university has to shell out the money for it. 
Its URL is: www.nextwave.org

{RL} One of the biggest reasons for joining a professional society is 
the ready-made access it gives you to networking opportunities. This 
includes meeting people at the local level at local chapter meetings, 
and at the national level. It also gives you access to a lot of 
information you can use to aid your networking efforts. All societies 
maintain membership lists, and many of them are putting these lists on 
line (generally in a members-only section). If you want to find out 
what's of interest to companies in a certain industry, these lists will 
help you identify people working for those companies.


E - CONTRIBUTORS

AES - Art Sowers. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

BGM - Brian Moore. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

PCL - Chris LaRosa. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

DRO - Derek Oliver has a chemistry/physics background and is currently 
in Electrical Engineering at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 
Canada. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

JH - Josh Halpern. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

JJP - Jeff Potoff is presently in the Department Chemical Engineering at 
Wayne State University, and completed a PhD in Chemical Engineering at 
Cornell University. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

MPB - Mark Bowes is a freelance medical writer based in Portland, 
Oregon. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RB - Rob Bossio has a chemistry/biochemistry background. 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RL - Rich Lemert. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RLM - Russell Martin. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RMC  - Rebecca Chamberlin. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Derek R. Oliver    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg , Canada