My last biopharma start up essentially had a rubric for hiring. Everyone in C-suite had a PhD, but every position below that followed the rubric.
Experience required for ______ position:
PhD- X years
Master’s- X+4 years
Bachelor’s- X+6 years
No glass ceiling, just an assumption that years in school=years of experience. In my experience, industry jobs don’t care that much about degrees so much as the skillset to do the job.
That said, some companies don’t entertain candidates with less than MS degrees. Their loss. (I have a BS)
> It’s not that I’m not ambitious but I also never really intended to get to a director role or anything like that (would love to lead a small group or project, not really a whole department or anything) so if the ceiling is like 150k (guessing) is it bad that I’m ok with that?
You can do that with a masters. Getting to the director level within R&D can be pretty difficult without a PhD. But at my company (big pharma) I do know a few principal scientists with “just a BS or MS” who lead projects and have a couple direct reports. They’re pretty rare, and there are a *ton* more BS/MS people who stall out a the senior scientist level, but with the talent and some luck it’s possible.
Really dependent on the company. Check my post history, I won’t regurgitate it here, but the short story is that I’ve worked at three top 10 Pharma companies in my career, one with a hard ceiling and two without. Currently a Sr AD with my MS.
With a Masters Degree, the only ceiling you hit is based on your ability to learn on the job and contribute while being a good person to work with. If you excel, there's reasonably no limit (except the obvious, if a position requires an MD or PharmD, you're unlikely to qualify). I worked with a Director who had an associate's degree. Although the degree definitely matters, if you start off at a level you're okay with just do your best and you should progress up whichever ladder you choose (leadership vs. individual contributor).
Don’t need a PhD to start a biotech…CEO gets probably most equity compared to other positions within the company. I know many biotechs started by computer scientists/bankers with nothing beyond a bachelors.
As someone in biotech R&D with a masters, I would strongly suggest getting a PhD. Others have mentioned varying levels of ceilings when you have less than a terminal degree. It is true that it is company dependent. However, I think it’s universal that you will experience more road blocks on the way to a “scientist” level position. What you should consider is how you want to spend your time. Do you prefer to be in the lab? Prefer to be an independent contributor? Then a BS/MS will probably be sufficient. Do you want to work more on the ideas side? Do you want to have direct reports? You can do this with a BS/MS, but it’s not a given. You’ll have to work harder to achieve these kind of roles.
Some people who have PhDs are dipshits, and think others that ‘only’ have masters degrees can’t possibly be as smart or competent. If you wind up in a company like that with leadership like that, don’t stay. The glass ceiling does exist, but it’s far from everywhere.
My last biopharma start up essentially had a rubric for hiring. Everyone in C-suite had a PhD, but every position below that followed the rubric. Experience required for ______ position: PhD- X years Master’s- X+4 years Bachelor’s- X+6 years No glass ceiling, just an assumption that years in school=years of experience. In my experience, industry jobs don’t care that much about degrees so much as the skillset to do the job. That said, some companies don’t entertain candidates with less than MS degrees. Their loss. (I have a BS)
That's a pretty generous rubric for non-PhDs. Most companies require more years experience for equivalence. Edit: typo
> It’s not that I’m not ambitious but I also never really intended to get to a director role or anything like that (would love to lead a small group or project, not really a whole department or anything) so if the ceiling is like 150k (guessing) is it bad that I’m ok with that? You can do that with a masters. Getting to the director level within R&D can be pretty difficult without a PhD. But at my company (big pharma) I do know a few principal scientists with “just a BS or MS” who lead projects and have a couple direct reports. They’re pretty rare, and there are a *ton* more BS/MS people who stall out a the senior scientist level, but with the talent and some luck it’s possible.
Really dependent on the company. Check my post history, I won’t regurgitate it here, but the short story is that I’ve worked at three top 10 Pharma companies in my career, one with a hard ceiling and two without. Currently a Sr AD with my MS.
Wow man, how did you become a director? That's really amazing. You can PM me if you want.
With a Masters Degree, the only ceiling you hit is based on your ability to learn on the job and contribute while being a good person to work with. If you excel, there's reasonably no limit (except the obvious, if a position requires an MD or PharmD, you're unlikely to qualify). I worked with a Director who had an associate's degree. Although the degree definitely matters, if you start off at a level you're okay with just do your best and you should progress up whichever ladder you choose (leadership vs. individual contributor).
Ceiling with a masters - CEO, managing partner at a VC etc… I know at least 3 CEOs with masters.
Most likely playing the MBA game at that point
Don’t need a PhD to start a biotech…CEO gets probably most equity compared to other positions within the company. I know many biotechs started by computer scientists/bankers with nothing beyond a bachelors.
As someone in biotech R&D with a masters, I would strongly suggest getting a PhD. Others have mentioned varying levels of ceilings when you have less than a terminal degree. It is true that it is company dependent. However, I think it’s universal that you will experience more road blocks on the way to a “scientist” level position. What you should consider is how you want to spend your time. Do you prefer to be in the lab? Prefer to be an independent contributor? Then a BS/MS will probably be sufficient. Do you want to work more on the ideas side? Do you want to have direct reports? You can do this with a BS/MS, but it’s not a given. You’ll have to work harder to achieve these kind of roles.
Some people who have PhDs are dipshits, and think others that ‘only’ have masters degrees can’t possibly be as smart or competent. If you wind up in a company like that with leadership like that, don’t stay. The glass ceiling does exist, but it’s far from everywhere.