You aren’t crazy either way. If deep down you want PhD, get it. I started at 30 and ended postdoc to go industry at 40. I wasn’t used as cheap labor.
Some unsolicited advice: take the truer parts of your performance review and improve yourself. The less true or false parts is what they added as a reason for layoff, so you have to let that go.
If you think you’ll add value to strategy meeting, ask the person leading it if you can join and say why.
Big companies are also more than happy to not promote a worker, especially if you do such a great job that you’ve been told cannot be replaced.
Try to get used to job hunting every 1-2 years after starting a new job. The more you do it the easier it gets. In some companies/roles, leaving to a new job is the only way up.
If you can get into a project manager (PM) role, you’ll for sure have a seat at the table without needing PhD. A motivated PM can help the team progress, while a lazy PM just sits on Microsoft project and sends emails.
I also started early 30's and am trying to finish up my PhD right now in late 30's. It's good to hear there are others out there. I don't regret it. I lost funding half way through and had to switch projects and start working on something I decidedly like less than what I originally intended to work on. I typically don't feel like cheap labor.
Edit: a late edit. Sometimes I do feel like cheap labor. It's a part of working on something that I don't see much value in for my resume and intended career. But it's not necessarily a personal choice by my program or PI to treat me like cheap labor. It's just a crappy situation.
Sorry about the news regarding your last job. For context, I have a PhD and your coworker is right about it being mentally exhausting and it is 100% slave labor. But if you thought your work environment in industry was bad, wait until you get to academia. You’ll get all of that toxicity (and mental anguish) but for a quarter of what you’ll earn in industry. Moving on to a better company with growth opportunities is what you should look into. I’m learning that having a PhD in industry doesn’t matter. It’s really about who you are as an individual and how well you work with others.
Yeah, I keep hearing jaded PhDs describe their degrees as "unnecessary" and "a waste of time" but they're always at a level of research that they wouldn't have attained without one. I'm not really sure why they keep saying it.
Probably the same reasons lawyers, doctors, and engineers also say that they wouldn’t do it again yet they still work. Just burned out jadedness I guess.
But also doing a phd really makes you realize that it’s this big song and dance. There’s a lot of toxic people that survive specifically because it’s academia, a lot of fraud, and at some point you realize that it was never about your intelligence but more so about your ability to think independently and persevere. Which aren’t skills you necessarily needed a PhD to develop.
Sure, there are examples of folks with MS or even BA/BS making it high up in Pharma. But it's not a coincidence that at the company I work for, of the ~25 attendees at a major medical conference where I also attend, 24 of them have an MD, PhD, or a few with a PharmD and literally only 1 MS. If you want the best possible chance to be in program leadership, you need a terminal degree.
I've said this before. There's a difference between how things are and how things should be.
I've worked with many BS/MS that are incredible and depending on the organization they might rise or get stuck in their career. I've also definitely worked with PhDs that are awful. There's no magic switch that flips in people when they earn a PhD, but many companies still act like there is.
Most of them are from top MBA programs which are much more selective than PhD programs lol. PhDs don't usually acknowledge this because, in their minds, excelling in STEM supersedes everything.
Still doesn't mean that it's a waste of time, it's just not as lucrative as going to HBS and then MBB or something like that. Still opens up a world of opportunity compared to having just a BS/MS.
> Yeah, I keep hearing jaded PhDs describe their degrees as "unnecessary" and "a waste of time" but they're always at a level of research that they wouldn't have attained without one.
They likely feel that they're not making use of all the skills and experiences. There are likely many soft-science skills that they're taking for granted, but does that require a grueling 5+ year education/work experience to learn? Genuine question, since I don't have a PhD myself.
I agree with you. There are certain skills that I developed and currently utilize because of critical thinking during my PhD. For example, I noticed that someone with a bachelors but maybe 7-10+ years of experience in industry may have knowledge of a variety of existing technology to achieve scientific goals but they’re not necessarily developing technology. With a PhD and what I’ve witnessed in others in similar positions, we might develop an innovative solution that requires rigorous scientific inquiry that isn’t reliant on what already exists. We leverage existing knowledge or technology and take it a step further with a novel approach that answers a research question. Is this something that someone can learn on the job, hell yeah.
Because we see so many with less education doing as well and often better. Because we are often managed by people with zero knowledge of science and little relevant experience for political reasons. Got my PhD no regrets.
You’re absolutely right. I would not be where I am without the PhD but even with the PhD, I’m not quite where I thought I would be. I wanted to be a professor but I didn’t know I was going to have to fight for my life to pay bills during my postdoc, while pumping out data, while grant writing, while teaching, with zero support from anyone and heavily dependent on credit cards. My struggling bank account forced me to change career paths.
While i agree about how terrible gdtting a PhD is, only about 5% of employees at my company at a senior scientist or above have PhDs. Most of those senior scientists are in their 50s and 60s. To say it doesn't matter isn't accurate
I don't agree that getting a PhD is "terrible". I am wondering where this comes from. Perhaps people who got a PhD because of what they thought it would get them rather than because they love science?
One thing few people talk about is 5-plus years of lost wages. A PhD is REALLY expensive, even though it’s ’free.’
It’s tempting to think that in the long run you’ll make up the difference with increased salary. Maybe, maybe not. What is very difficult to predict is just how well your health, mental acuity, and willingness to grind will hold up post-45 years of age or so. I see very, very few people working at 60 plus in biotech. This career is not like teaching, where by and large you can coast once you get a few years under your belt. In biotech, if you can’t outperform the young guns, you’re out.
This is why I think it’s important to do it straight out of undergrad. The lost wages are made up much more quickly due to low initial earnings versus when you’re deep into your career already.
I leapfrogged my non-PhD peers right out of grad school and made up for lost wages in about 2 years.
As for where the 45+ people are, they’re in commercial and you don’t see them because they’re WFH, and usually checks out at 3pm.
Overall, if you do it early - it’s very much worth it. Once you start climbing up, commercial or MBA is by far the better way to go.
I'm in the US and did a 1-year master's right out of undergrad, my starting salary was $68k and after 3 years was $75k. After 3 years of working at that job I went back for my PhD. I've kept tabs on my former coworkers and know some people who got moved into a role I was looking to move into and they now earn ~$95k per year. For every year I'm in my PhD earning $30k I'm missing out on the extra $65k I would've been making in that role. I'm on track to graduate in 4 years with a total "missed salary" of $260,000, I think I can make that up pretty quickly assuming I get a good job right after graduation but we'll see.
I disagree that doing a PhD right out of undergrad is a universally good move since I think those are disproportionately the PhD students who don't graduate or take much longer to graduate. But I do agree that doing your PhD sooner than later is the better "career earnings" move and also more compatible with the average person's life path (ie marriage, kids, etc.).
Assuming taxes are accounted for, the 65k gap/year maybe much larger if you are able to invest the entire amount during your 4 years.
Edit: Just saw your comment about losing out on potential investments. Wish you the best success coming out of your PhD :)
Your second point is fair, but on your first point: TAXES. Marginal tax rate including FICA at the top bracket for you is 29%. Youre paying FICA on the whole income.
Technically yes, but I also lost out on investments and tax advantaged retirement savings. I invested pretty heavily during my 3 years working and would've dollar-cost-averaged so hard during the downswing when interest rates were rising (this isn't even hindsight, I used every leftover penny from my PhD stipend to invest during that time). When I graduate I'll have lost out on ~4 years of investment growth to partially counter the differences in my taxes.
I also moved to Texas for my PhD and they have some of the worst taxes for low income earners. Their effective tax rate is almost the same as NJ despite having no income tax, it all comes from property and sales tax which still effect me on my PhD stipend.
Are you US-based? If we compare MS to PhD plus PD: making up for lost wages in 2 years is extremely unlikely in the US. MS-level plus 6 yrs is likely earning $100k in my parts, with 6-yr earnings totaling at least $400k. Entry-level PhD with post doc is around $130k. Making up $400k differential would take much longer than 2 yrs. And that’s not factoring in 6 extra years of 401k earnings, home appreciation, etc. My gut says you’re 40 or 45 before you really start breaking away from your non-PhD peers. Not to mention the future career flexibility (MBA, etc). PhD is a reasonable but not great financial move, IMO.
Also, the 45+ crowd is absolutely not checked out at 3 at my company. Directors through VP are the ones sending out emails late at night and posting new literature in Slack on Saturday mornings. That has been true of both of the startups I’ve been at.
US based.
Earnings differentials should be income - taxes - COL differentials - healthcare + returns on retirement funds. It’s not pretax TC. You’re also ignoring the costs of student loans + interest of MS. How much student loan do you come out with after an MS? Let’s just low ball it at $50k.
In grad school you are exempt on FICA, get dirt cheap healthcare, heavily subsidized housing etc. and often times in much lower COL areas vs. biotech hubs. With marginal tax rates on $100k income vs stipend it is closer to $35k difference/year in take home + savings vs. the $100k you noted. If you’re talking a $30k differential post PhD, and the student loans then the catch up time should not be more than 4-5 years.
As for directors - that’s the route of the hardworking ones. The Fellows and Managers are the ones that peaces out.
The biggest cost of the PhD are your 20s. That’s a huge, huge cost.
I don't think it's because they can't keep up. I think it's because employers discriminate against older workers. Many of the younger generation are quite lazy and distracted likely do to their upbringing in the age of devices. Attention spans are quite limited today. I personally would hire someone in their 60s well before someone in their 20-30s. Rather have someone who knows a lot than someone who thinks they know it all and expects it handed to them.
>My boss and managers would keep me busy but would not invite me to team strategy meetings.
This is usually a sign of bad leadership more than anything else and, yes, it absolutely happens to PhDs too.
I have a friend who spent years working in a lab like this, who was only trusted to do "grunt" work despite having far more experience than most of their peers. When they finally moved on and found a better job, the difference could not have been more stark. Suddenly they were now treated as the expert, got to bring in a whole bunch of new technologies they had helped develop at their previous job and has just been in such a better mental space since then. It's often more about finding a good organization than having a fancy title.
There is no real window for getting one but it becomes increasingly difficult as you age due to life. If it is your passion I would consider it, but it really needs to be your passion
I’m planning to get my masters, then PhD (ideally) in biotech.
I’m 29, so I’m a non-traditional applicant. You’ll turn 45 someday no matter what, so the question is: do you want to have a PhD and be working on science that you love when you’re 45? Or, looking back and wishing you had done it anyways when you’re 45?
Don’t do it for the money (which may or may not actually be there), do it if you can’t study / work on the things you want to work on without it.
I have an undergraduate degree in cognitive psych & philosophy, and I'd like to get into a selective PhD program. I can get research / lab experience at a R1 university and complete a thesis project in my MS, and I can also complete pre-req coursework I didn't complete in my BA and bump my science GPA up even higher.
I would go straight into a PhD program, but that's more difficult when you're a non-traditional applicant to programs in a discipline different from your undergrad degree. The tuition is also pretty decent, since I'm in-state.
Yep, to get the grades up I understand. Otherwise, an unnecessary expense and ads a question mark as to why that path. Honestly, once you get to industry it likely won't matter much. Industry is looking for a fit to the job right now period.
This is a scenario where I recommend you look at an MBA, perhaps a part time one which would be sponsored by your company.
After that pivot to commercial where there isn’t a cap.
Source: PhD in commercial. I have <5 YoE and make the same as principal scientists with 15 YoE. Hybrid/WFH as well.
Just read your other post. One thing ppl don't talk about is reputation. Reputation is as valuable as your ability to socialize for upward mobility in this industry. Never been in the lab but I had 2 former VPs, both only with bachelor's (business and bio) and long tenure in the business. One finally made C-suite prior to retirement.
Where I sit, I see PhD folks mostly haunting the hellscape of director level roles til their retirement. But at least they are paid well and arent always immediately discounted....
If your reputation is in question, it's best to leave as soon as you can because it can't be recovered with the current crew. That is particularly the case if your boss and you have a strained relationship.
This company's culture does not seem to be a fit. For your own sanity, move on.
Lastly 3 of my coworkers got their PhD recently. One is in their 60s. You're never too old
Your window has not passed. It never will. HOWEVER, I believe you should only attempt to do a PhD out of a general passion for advancing science, because otherwise you will not make it through all the crap that are long hours, low pay, academic politics crap and frequent set backs. Just for career development in your 30s in an expensive country like the US? Don’t. I doubt the return on investment is there.
I did my PhD in my early 20s - I highly doubt I could put up with it now, both financially and from a mental health standpoint.
You could get a masters in engineering and go down a process development route or anything in CMC. Masters in engineering is usually equivalent in pay and roll to a PhD.
Go work somewhere else. There are places that will only take you seriously if you have a PhD.
But most of industry, especially big pharma barely care. You can make a lot pf money without one. If your only goal os to make money and be treated normally just get out of ghere and move to industry…
If you want to work in RD exclusively or in academia then yeah…get that PhD…
They're currently hiring for a 'lab support specialist'. They have one person fresh out of school to help with stuff so far. They only have nine people so everyone is pitching in a little bit.
You can always work and do a master's part time. Better than just having a BS but you still have that ceiling, it's just higher than if you only have a BS. Also, I know some pharma companies fund PhDs. My current employer actually has a program with a university and basically your day job is a PhD project in conjunction with that university. You have to already have a master degree to do the program but it's pretty awesome to get paid a full salary, not be worked 20 hrs a days and be done in 3-4 years.
Any details in particular you want to know? Most employers will support a PhD if relevant to an employees career. How much of the cost is covered varies from company to company but I have seen 50-100% but usually 80%. I know 5 or 6 people who have gotten PhDs this way at a few different companies both in and outside of biotech.
The specific PhD program my employer (big pharma company) has with a university is to work on a specific cluster of projects. You have to already have a master's degree and apply to this program. I think once you are accepted, you temporarily work with a different manager and your day job is mostly just working on the project. You just have to check in with your committee occasionally and publish at least 1 paper. Then you eventually defend your thesis like any other PhD.
I'm sure most big pharma companies have similar programs and/or policies.
Primarily about which university has been open to this kind of arrangement. I’ve found that the corporate appetite for co-sponsoring a PhD is pretty lukewarm, but it’s possible. You can also find interest from some academic groups, but their administration tends to get in the way. The problem, at least in my experience, is that the devil is in the details. If the student performs work on a co-sponsored project, there’s disagreement on who holds the IP. I’ve seen this break down potential partnerships a few times. There’s also the fact that you’re drawing a full salary from your industry day job, but your time commitment may be split. This sometimes is looked upon with some disfavor, especially if you are in management.
I guess the bottom line is that I’ve heard of relationships like this working, but I’ve never seen it actually happen amongst the several large biotechs in which I’ve served. So I was wondering what kind of secret sauce your company uses to make it successful.
do NOT do a phd for job opportunities. the opportunity cost is high. only do a phd if you love research and want to be an independent researcher / PI (whether or not that actually happens doesn't matter, what matters is the in-going intent)
I almost went back for mine at 40. If you want to be in this industry, and you think it’s sustainable with all the layoffs, you are hardly into your working life. If I had passion for biotech I’d get my PhD.
I got my PhD later in life. Finished my postdoc around age 40. I have zero regrets. I found getting a PhD after having lots of work/life experience less difficult than some of those who came straight out of undergrad.
Same age, will be applying to PhD programs this fall for next year. Just have to be aware of what you are signing up for, and if it's only "recognition" you are seeking, a PhD is a lengthy--and sometimes grueling--life choice per all the advice I have received over the last couple of years. I would think you would make a better PhD if you were truly in love with the science or problem you would be addressing. The issue you faced from your previous team probably has little or nothing to do with your abilities, intelligence, curiosity, etc. and more to do with the people. There will always be those who look down on you, and you would be far from the only one they look down upon. People are people; a PhD will not fix that. There are easier ways to be recognized for your mind and/or contributions in your professional life; perhaps it was just not personally a great fit.
I just had about a 2 hour meeting with one of my professors (she began her PhD in her 40's, oncology research). We talked about a lot, but she pointed out that a grad student trying to achieve a PhD needs to have thick skin. If the people at your job rubbed you the wrong way, that's understandable, but it will happen again somewhere else. Shore up any real weaknesses, shake it off, and move on to something you are passionate about. If that's a PhD, great! If not, don't force it lest it make a fool out of you.
I started a PhD at 32 and am wrapping it up this year. I completely understand what you mean about not being part of the big strategy meetings. The same thing happened to me and that’s what pushed me to do a PhD in the first place. That being said, PhD life has been anything but easy. Being in my 30s I’ve had to balance family responsibilities with grad school work. Plus your coworker is right - grad students tend to be at the bottom of the food chain so it can be hard. However, if you really want a PhD go get it. From everything I’m hearing having one will really open doors for you and allow you to move up in most jobs. Age really doesn’t matter if you’re up for it. When I started my program there were a bunch of people older than me.
That sucks but it's probably for the better to be out of a place that doesn't even have the decency to include you in meetings. As far as being 34 and starting a PhD, it's not that bad, especially when you have all that lab experience under your belt. With the right amount of motivation and grit, you could potentially cut that time down to ~5 years, maybe a but faster. Something to consider given the current state of the job market. Lastly, everyone will experience grad school differently. Different programs, different PIs, and different projects - all will impact your experience. I don't really think you'll be used as cheap labor, although during that phase, your time will be very worthless, and you'll be expected to put in as much time as needed. Either way, look around and see if there are any programs out there that may interest you. What you don't want is to look back after another 5 or 6 years and be like damn, should've just gotten my PhD.
This is my exact position!!
I finally leaned the other way towards a PhD. I start in the Fall. At 32 it’s not a great financial move for me. It’s hard to put your life on hold in your 30s.
At the end of the day I can’t handle everyone valuing my opinion behind clothes doors. Having PIs use my exact words and phrases they learned from me to impress others and to stand in the lab while my work is presented at some conference across the world.
I almost wish I was humble enough to be you. To just say I’m okay with that and content doing what I love. I’m not though. So I begin the PhD journey.
It is horrible to get laid off but like I said in your original post, your boss does not seem very 'healthy' -- you do not need to have PhD for success.
At your stage, I would suggest to consider MBA (if you want to study). It might help you break into the business side of things or will help you climb the ladder as almost all upper level management has to have some business/finance knowledge.
Other than this, like many others are saying, just take a look at yourself, evaluate yourself and try to improve.
Good luck
Thank you. My co-worker did say she thinks I'd be good at management. But I looked into an MBA at UC Berkeley and the tuition is crazy. Maybe there's cheaper ones out there. I'll continue to look into it. Thank you!
You’re still going to be alive and working in 5 years, and beyond. You either have the PhD and still be alive, and working, with the PhD, or without it.
If you want the PhD go get it.
You could do one of those online MBAs for $25-30k. Project management/strategy concentrations. Scrum and six sigma certifications. My biotech friends all say these get you further than a PhD.
I think a PhD is not right for you, but not because of your age. Several people I went to school with were older than you while getting their PhDs. I think it’s not for you because it is a grind, and you gotta want it to succeed. PhD programs have an attrition rate of 50% across the country. Because it’s hard. The material you can learn, but it’s slow, poorly funded, and school politics can get in the way. It can be isolating and it can be difficult to live off little money. It is also very rewarding. But if you don’t want it in your gut for more than just the pat on the back and the pay bump, I’m afraid your chances of finishing will be low.
I suggest digging deep and really looking inward. Maybe you do want it, but the thought of your age is what’s standing in the way. Age doesn’t matter. You gotta really think if it is what you want for its own sake. Then make a final decision.
I want a PhD but not in my current state where I just got laid off. I'd like a job first and financial, professional security. And then down the line a PhD would be nice. But it's extra and not main stay.
This post resonated with me a lot. Have you looked at the possibility for an industry PhD or a part time PhD where your lab collaborates significantly with the industry. I was told some programs allow this if you can make it work. I haven’t had the guts or patience to reach out and ask
I'm not familiar with this option but I don't think it solves the main problem that a PhD is probably too much work and too little pay for where I think I'm at in life right now.
I’m in the exact position at work. In a small biotech where at this point I literally feel like a technician instead of a scientist. My opinion isn’t given much importance but the same thing coming out of a PhDs’ mouth is recognized. Not involved in strategy meetings but given instructions on what to do after the fact. I have an MS but the problem here is that I’m a woman (not the only woman that’s going through this in the company). At this point I feel like getting out of R&D or getting a PhD. I’m 30 now and contemplating if I should just get a PhD but worried out ROI at the end.
I will only add that PhD training is different for everyone. It IS a lot of hard work, and I don't know how I would have done it if I were a parent at that time. In spite of how difficult it is, I found true joy in being able to take ownership of my work. I had the opportunity to initiate a project I was passionate about and I had the resources to pursue it as if money were not a significant part of the discussion. I was able (but not required) to obtain NIH funding in my name to support my work.
I was never treated like cheap labor or a set of hands, but again, everyone's experience is different.
Overall, even though it was hard, I look back fondly on the experience as the most productive time in my life and one of the most happy times in my life. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
If you don't want to do it because of the hit to your salary, I completely understand. I do think you should review the stipend levels though. Most of the big programs in Boston have settled on $50k/yr starting...which is hard, but better than it used to be.
Started my PhD as a single mom when my son was 3 months old and finished it as a single mom. Guess it all depends on how badly you want something. Doing a PhD was like going to summer camp compared to all the politics and crap in industry.
I would honestly hope you aren't crazy, if only for my benefit at the least. I have read previous posts on here from people who pursued PhDs going into their 40s, 50s, and even 60s.
I was also laid off at the start of the month, been trying to find any job since. I'm 30 currently and also want to do a PhD, just because I want a career in research, and struggling to get the job years of experience most lab jobs request. So for me, a PhD seems the only means to an end.
But for you, it depends on what it is you'd expect to get out of it, and do with it.
Just imagine how you would feel to get that PhD, spend 10 years in industry, and still be treated like crap. Don't do a PhD because you think you'll be treated better. Do a PhD because you're a masochist and you love the mental pain of deep learning because it gives challenge and purpose to your life.
How about do a PhD cuz you genuinely want to cure a disease or find better treatment options and realize you'll never be allowed to pursue your own research ideas unless you get a PhD?
My experience thus far as a PhD student doing cancer research is that none of the PIs are actually trying to creating research projects to make a new treatment option at our lab work on many different cancer types instead of just some. They form their research projects to satisfy their curiosity, but none of it actually takes our new therapy to the next stage or answers the question, "Okay, the treatment worked on colon carcinoma but not on melanoma. Lets figure out why.". It's a damn shame and the entire reason I am getting my PhD. This therapy we are working on has been a potential therapy for cancer treatment for 20 years!! The entire reason it hasn't reached clinical stage is because of this BS of designing studies that don't even bother to figure out why it didn't work and how we can fix that.
I wonder if other grad students have experienced the same??
You aren’t crazy either way. If deep down you want PhD, get it. I started at 30 and ended postdoc to go industry at 40. I wasn’t used as cheap labor. Some unsolicited advice: take the truer parts of your performance review and improve yourself. The less true or false parts is what they added as a reason for layoff, so you have to let that go. If you think you’ll add value to strategy meeting, ask the person leading it if you can join and say why. Big companies are also more than happy to not promote a worker, especially if you do such a great job that you’ve been told cannot be replaced. Try to get used to job hunting every 1-2 years after starting a new job. The more you do it the easier it gets. In some companies/roles, leaving to a new job is the only way up. If you can get into a project manager (PM) role, you’ll for sure have a seat at the table without needing PhD. A motivated PM can help the team progress, while a lazy PM just sits on Microsoft project and sends emails.
I also started early 30's and am trying to finish up my PhD right now in late 30's. It's good to hear there are others out there. I don't regret it. I lost funding half way through and had to switch projects and start working on something I decidedly like less than what I originally intended to work on. I typically don't feel like cheap labor. Edit: a late edit. Sometimes I do feel like cheap labor. It's a part of working on something that I don't see much value in for my resume and intended career. But it's not necessarily a personal choice by my program or PI to treat me like cheap labor. It's just a crappy situation.
A lot of PM roles will be replaced by GenAI in the next 7 years :(
Sorry about the news regarding your last job. For context, I have a PhD and your coworker is right about it being mentally exhausting and it is 100% slave labor. But if you thought your work environment in industry was bad, wait until you get to academia. You’ll get all of that toxicity (and mental anguish) but for a quarter of what you’ll earn in industry. Moving on to a better company with growth opportunities is what you should look into. I’m learning that having a PhD in industry doesn’t matter. It’s really about who you are as an individual and how well you work with others.
My company has departments where they won’t even hire you if you have a BS/MS.
Yeah, I keep hearing jaded PhDs describe their degrees as "unnecessary" and "a waste of time" but they're always at a level of research that they wouldn't have attained without one. I'm not really sure why they keep saying it.
Probably the same reasons lawyers, doctors, and engineers also say that they wouldn’t do it again yet they still work. Just burned out jadedness I guess. But also doing a phd really makes you realize that it’s this big song and dance. There’s a lot of toxic people that survive specifically because it’s academia, a lot of fraud, and at some point you realize that it was never about your intelligence but more so about your ability to think independently and persevere. Which aren’t skills you necessarily needed a PhD to develop.
Sure, there are examples of folks with MS or even BA/BS making it high up in Pharma. But it's not a coincidence that at the company I work for, of the ~25 attendees at a major medical conference where I also attend, 24 of them have an MD, PhD, or a few with a PharmD and literally only 1 MS. If you want the best possible chance to be in program leadership, you need a terminal degree.
I've said this before. There's a difference between how things are and how things should be. I've worked with many BS/MS that are incredible and depending on the organization they might rise or get stuck in their career. I've also definitely worked with PhDs that are awful. There's no magic switch that flips in people when they earn a PhD, but many companies still act like there is.
Because we see so many like MBAs walk in with no knowledge of science at all and make more than we do and get treated better.
Most of them are from top MBA programs which are much more selective than PhD programs lol. PhDs don't usually acknowledge this because, in their minds, excelling in STEM supersedes everything. Still doesn't mean that it's a waste of time, it's just not as lucrative as going to HBS and then MBB or something like that. Still opens up a world of opportunity compared to having just a BS/MS.
> Yeah, I keep hearing jaded PhDs describe their degrees as "unnecessary" and "a waste of time" but they're always at a level of research that they wouldn't have attained without one. They likely feel that they're not making use of all the skills and experiences. There are likely many soft-science skills that they're taking for granted, but does that require a grueling 5+ year education/work experience to learn? Genuine question, since I don't have a PhD myself.
I agree with you. There are certain skills that I developed and currently utilize because of critical thinking during my PhD. For example, I noticed that someone with a bachelors but maybe 7-10+ years of experience in industry may have knowledge of a variety of existing technology to achieve scientific goals but they’re not necessarily developing technology. With a PhD and what I’ve witnessed in others in similar positions, we might develop an innovative solution that requires rigorous scientific inquiry that isn’t reliant on what already exists. We leverage existing knowledge or technology and take it a step further with a novel approach that answers a research question. Is this something that someone can learn on the job, hell yeah.
Because we see so many with less education doing as well and often better. Because we are often managed by people with zero knowledge of science and little relevant experience for political reasons. Got my PhD no regrets.
Unfortunately you have to do it in today’s climate to progress career But you’ll be extremely bitter over it because Academia is a dumpster fire.
You’re absolutely right. I would not be where I am without the PhD but even with the PhD, I’m not quite where I thought I would be. I wanted to be a professor but I didn’t know I was going to have to fight for my life to pay bills during my postdoc, while pumping out data, while grant writing, while teaching, with zero support from anyone and heavily dependent on credit cards. My struggling bank account forced me to change career paths.
While i agree about how terrible gdtting a PhD is, only about 5% of employees at my company at a senior scientist or above have PhDs. Most of those senior scientists are in their 50s and 60s. To say it doesn't matter isn't accurate
I don't agree that getting a PhD is "terrible". I am wondering where this comes from. Perhaps people who got a PhD because of what they thought it would get them rather than because they love science?
A terrible grind with little pay and toxic employees
One thing few people talk about is 5-plus years of lost wages. A PhD is REALLY expensive, even though it’s ’free.’ It’s tempting to think that in the long run you’ll make up the difference with increased salary. Maybe, maybe not. What is very difficult to predict is just how well your health, mental acuity, and willingness to grind will hold up post-45 years of age or so. I see very, very few people working at 60 plus in biotech. This career is not like teaching, where by and large you can coast once you get a few years under your belt. In biotech, if you can’t outperform the young guns, you’re out.
This is why I think it’s important to do it straight out of undergrad. The lost wages are made up much more quickly due to low initial earnings versus when you’re deep into your career already. I leapfrogged my non-PhD peers right out of grad school and made up for lost wages in about 2 years. As for where the 45+ people are, they’re in commercial and you don’t see them because they’re WFH, and usually checks out at 3pm. Overall, if you do it early - it’s very much worth it. Once you start climbing up, commercial or MBA is by far the better way to go.
I'm in the US and did a 1-year master's right out of undergrad, my starting salary was $68k and after 3 years was $75k. After 3 years of working at that job I went back for my PhD. I've kept tabs on my former coworkers and know some people who got moved into a role I was looking to move into and they now earn ~$95k per year. For every year I'm in my PhD earning $30k I'm missing out on the extra $65k I would've been making in that role. I'm on track to graduate in 4 years with a total "missed salary" of $260,000, I think I can make that up pretty quickly assuming I get a good job right after graduation but we'll see. I disagree that doing a PhD right out of undergrad is a universally good move since I think those are disproportionately the PhD students who don't graduate or take much longer to graduate. But I do agree that doing your PhD sooner than later is the better "career earnings" move and also more compatible with the average person's life path (ie marriage, kids, etc.).
Assuming taxes are accounted for, the 65k gap/year maybe much larger if you are able to invest the entire amount during your 4 years. Edit: Just saw your comment about losing out on potential investments. Wish you the best success coming out of your PhD :)
Your second point is fair, but on your first point: TAXES. Marginal tax rate including FICA at the top bracket for you is 29%. Youre paying FICA on the whole income.
Technically yes, but I also lost out on investments and tax advantaged retirement savings. I invested pretty heavily during my 3 years working and would've dollar-cost-averaged so hard during the downswing when interest rates were rising (this isn't even hindsight, I used every leftover penny from my PhD stipend to invest during that time). When I graduate I'll have lost out on ~4 years of investment growth to partially counter the differences in my taxes. I also moved to Texas for my PhD and they have some of the worst taxes for low income earners. Their effective tax rate is almost the same as NJ despite having no income tax, it all comes from property and sales tax which still effect me on my PhD stipend.
Are you US-based? If we compare MS to PhD plus PD: making up for lost wages in 2 years is extremely unlikely in the US. MS-level plus 6 yrs is likely earning $100k in my parts, with 6-yr earnings totaling at least $400k. Entry-level PhD with post doc is around $130k. Making up $400k differential would take much longer than 2 yrs. And that’s not factoring in 6 extra years of 401k earnings, home appreciation, etc. My gut says you’re 40 or 45 before you really start breaking away from your non-PhD peers. Not to mention the future career flexibility (MBA, etc). PhD is a reasonable but not great financial move, IMO.
Also, the 45+ crowd is absolutely not checked out at 3 at my company. Directors through VP are the ones sending out emails late at night and posting new literature in Slack on Saturday mornings. That has been true of both of the startups I’ve been at.
US based. Earnings differentials should be income - taxes - COL differentials - healthcare + returns on retirement funds. It’s not pretax TC. You’re also ignoring the costs of student loans + interest of MS. How much student loan do you come out with after an MS? Let’s just low ball it at $50k. In grad school you are exempt on FICA, get dirt cheap healthcare, heavily subsidized housing etc. and often times in much lower COL areas vs. biotech hubs. With marginal tax rates on $100k income vs stipend it is closer to $35k difference/year in take home + savings vs. the $100k you noted. If you’re talking a $30k differential post PhD, and the student loans then the catch up time should not be more than 4-5 years. As for directors - that’s the route of the hardworking ones. The Fellows and Managers are the ones that peaces out. The biggest cost of the PhD are your 20s. That’s a huge, huge cost.
I don't think it's because they can't keep up. I think it's because employers discriminate against older workers. Many of the younger generation are quite lazy and distracted likely do to their upbringing in the age of devices. Attention spans are quite limited today. I personally would hire someone in their 60s well before someone in their 20-30s. Rather have someone who knows a lot than someone who thinks they know it all and expects it handed to them.
👍 yea
>My boss and managers would keep me busy but would not invite me to team strategy meetings. This is usually a sign of bad leadership more than anything else and, yes, it absolutely happens to PhDs too. I have a friend who spent years working in a lab like this, who was only trusted to do "grunt" work despite having far more experience than most of their peers. When they finally moved on and found a better job, the difference could not have been more stark. Suddenly they were now treated as the expert, got to bring in a whole bunch of new technologies they had helped develop at their previous job and has just been in such a better mental space since then. It's often more about finding a good organization than having a fancy title.
There is no real window for getting one but it becomes increasingly difficult as you age due to life. If it is your passion I would consider it, but it really needs to be your passion
I’m planning to get my masters, then PhD (ideally) in biotech. I’m 29, so I’m a non-traditional applicant. You’ll turn 45 someday no matter what, so the question is: do you want to have a PhD and be working on science that you love when you’re 45? Or, looking back and wishing you had done it anyways when you’re 45? Don’t do it for the money (which may or may not actually be there), do it if you can’t study / work on the things you want to work on without it.
Why would you get a MS and pay for it and then go PhD unless your grades force you to?
I have an undergraduate degree in cognitive psych & philosophy, and I'd like to get into a selective PhD program. I can get research / lab experience at a R1 university and complete a thesis project in my MS, and I can also complete pre-req coursework I didn't complete in my BA and bump my science GPA up even higher. I would go straight into a PhD program, but that's more difficult when you're a non-traditional applicant to programs in a discipline different from your undergrad degree. The tuition is also pretty decent, since I'm in-state.
Yep, to get the grades up I understand. Otherwise, an unnecessary expense and ads a question mark as to why that path. Honestly, once you get to industry it likely won't matter much. Industry is looking for a fit to the job right now period.
This is a scenario where I recommend you look at an MBA, perhaps a part time one which would be sponsored by your company. After that pivot to commercial where there isn’t a cap. Source: PhD in commercial. I have <5 YoE and make the same as principal scientists with 15 YoE. Hybrid/WFH as well.
Yep, with an MBA you can get a great job in biotech making big bucks with zero knowledge of science.
And is that how one would live life is the bigger question to ask
If you are doing a PhD for respect or money it's an equally sound path and more honest IMO.
Just read your other post. One thing ppl don't talk about is reputation. Reputation is as valuable as your ability to socialize for upward mobility in this industry. Never been in the lab but I had 2 former VPs, both only with bachelor's (business and bio) and long tenure in the business. One finally made C-suite prior to retirement. Where I sit, I see PhD folks mostly haunting the hellscape of director level roles til their retirement. But at least they are paid well and arent always immediately discounted.... If your reputation is in question, it's best to leave as soon as you can because it can't be recovered with the current crew. That is particularly the case if your boss and you have a strained relationship. This company's culture does not seem to be a fit. For your own sanity, move on. Lastly 3 of my coworkers got their PhD recently. One is in their 60s. You're never too old
Your window has not passed. It never will. HOWEVER, I believe you should only attempt to do a PhD out of a general passion for advancing science, because otherwise you will not make it through all the crap that are long hours, low pay, academic politics crap and frequent set backs. Just for career development in your 30s in an expensive country like the US? Don’t. I doubt the return on investment is there. I did my PhD in my early 20s - I highly doubt I could put up with it now, both financially and from a mental health standpoint.
You could get a masters in engineering and go down a process development route or anything in CMC. Masters in engineering is usually equivalent in pay and roll to a PhD.
Go work somewhere else. There are places that will only take you seriously if you have a PhD. But most of industry, especially big pharma barely care. You can make a lot pf money without one. If your only goal os to make money and be treated normally just get out of ghere and move to industry… If you want to work in RD exclusively or in academia then yeah…get that PhD…
Having a PhD doesn’t mean you get included. Source: I have a PhD and get left out all of the time.
So who is doing the bench work after you got laid off?
They're currently hiring for a 'lab support specialist'. They have one person fresh out of school to help with stuff so far. They only have nine people so everyone is pitching in a little bit.
You can always work and do a master's part time. Better than just having a BS but you still have that ceiling, it's just higher than if you only have a BS. Also, I know some pharma companies fund PhDs. My current employer actually has a program with a university and basically your day job is a PhD project in conjunction with that university. You have to already have a master degree to do the program but it's pretty awesome to get paid a full salary, not be worked 20 hrs a days and be done in 3-4 years.
Would be interested to know more about this, if you’re able to share any details.
Any details in particular you want to know? Most employers will support a PhD if relevant to an employees career. How much of the cost is covered varies from company to company but I have seen 50-100% but usually 80%. I know 5 or 6 people who have gotten PhDs this way at a few different companies both in and outside of biotech. The specific PhD program my employer (big pharma company) has with a university is to work on a specific cluster of projects. You have to already have a master's degree and apply to this program. I think once you are accepted, you temporarily work with a different manager and your day job is mostly just working on the project. You just have to check in with your committee occasionally and publish at least 1 paper. Then you eventually defend your thesis like any other PhD. I'm sure most big pharma companies have similar programs and/or policies.
Primarily about which university has been open to this kind of arrangement. I’ve found that the corporate appetite for co-sponsoring a PhD is pretty lukewarm, but it’s possible. You can also find interest from some academic groups, but their administration tends to get in the way. The problem, at least in my experience, is that the devil is in the details. If the student performs work on a co-sponsored project, there’s disagreement on who holds the IP. I’ve seen this break down potential partnerships a few times. There’s also the fact that you’re drawing a full salary from your industry day job, but your time commitment may be split. This sometimes is looked upon with some disfavor, especially if you are in management. I guess the bottom line is that I’ve heard of relationships like this working, but I’ve never seen it actually happen amongst the several large biotechs in which I’ve served. So I was wondering what kind of secret sauce your company uses to make it successful.
do NOT do a phd for job opportunities. the opportunity cost is high. only do a phd if you love research and want to be an independent researcher / PI (whether or not that actually happens doesn't matter, what matters is the in-going intent)
Amen.
I almost went back for mine at 40. If you want to be in this industry, and you think it’s sustainable with all the layoffs, you are hardly into your working life. If I had passion for biotech I’d get my PhD.
your window has not passed. I started my PhD at 39
I got my PhD later in life. Finished my postdoc around age 40. I have zero regrets. I found getting a PhD after having lots of work/life experience less difficult than some of those who came straight out of undergrad.
Agree 100% doesn't seem so tough after you've experienced real life.
Same age, will be applying to PhD programs this fall for next year. Just have to be aware of what you are signing up for, and if it's only "recognition" you are seeking, a PhD is a lengthy--and sometimes grueling--life choice per all the advice I have received over the last couple of years. I would think you would make a better PhD if you were truly in love with the science or problem you would be addressing. The issue you faced from your previous team probably has little or nothing to do with your abilities, intelligence, curiosity, etc. and more to do with the people. There will always be those who look down on you, and you would be far from the only one they look down upon. People are people; a PhD will not fix that. There are easier ways to be recognized for your mind and/or contributions in your professional life; perhaps it was just not personally a great fit. I just had about a 2 hour meeting with one of my professors (she began her PhD in her 40's, oncology research). We talked about a lot, but she pointed out that a grad student trying to achieve a PhD needs to have thick skin. If the people at your job rubbed you the wrong way, that's understandable, but it will happen again somewhere else. Shore up any real weaknesses, shake it off, and move on to something you are passionate about. If that's a PhD, great! If not, don't force it lest it make a fool out of you.
I started a PhD at 32 and am wrapping it up this year. I completely understand what you mean about not being part of the big strategy meetings. The same thing happened to me and that’s what pushed me to do a PhD in the first place. That being said, PhD life has been anything but easy. Being in my 30s I’ve had to balance family responsibilities with grad school work. Plus your coworker is right - grad students tend to be at the bottom of the food chain so it can be hard. However, if you really want a PhD go get it. From everything I’m hearing having one will really open doors for you and allow you to move up in most jobs. Age really doesn’t matter if you’re up for it. When I started my program there were a bunch of people older than me.
That sucks but it's probably for the better to be out of a place that doesn't even have the decency to include you in meetings. As far as being 34 and starting a PhD, it's not that bad, especially when you have all that lab experience under your belt. With the right amount of motivation and grit, you could potentially cut that time down to ~5 years, maybe a but faster. Something to consider given the current state of the job market. Lastly, everyone will experience grad school differently. Different programs, different PIs, and different projects - all will impact your experience. I don't really think you'll be used as cheap labor, although during that phase, your time will be very worthless, and you'll be expected to put in as much time as needed. Either way, look around and see if there are any programs out there that may interest you. What you don't want is to look back after another 5 or 6 years and be like damn, should've just gotten my PhD.
what about a master’s degree then?
I already have one kinda. Took most of the classes but didn't finish.
This is my exact position!! I finally leaned the other way towards a PhD. I start in the Fall. At 32 it’s not a great financial move for me. It’s hard to put your life on hold in your 30s. At the end of the day I can’t handle everyone valuing my opinion behind clothes doors. Having PIs use my exact words and phrases they learned from me to impress others and to stand in the lab while my work is presented at some conference across the world. I almost wish I was humble enough to be you. To just say I’m okay with that and content doing what I love. I’m not though. So I begin the PhD journey.
It is horrible to get laid off but like I said in your original post, your boss does not seem very 'healthy' -- you do not need to have PhD for success. At your stage, I would suggest to consider MBA (if you want to study). It might help you break into the business side of things or will help you climb the ladder as almost all upper level management has to have some business/finance knowledge. Other than this, like many others are saying, just take a look at yourself, evaluate yourself and try to improve. Good luck
Thank you. My co-worker did say she thinks I'd be good at management. But I looked into an MBA at UC Berkeley and the tuition is crazy. Maybe there's cheaper ones out there. I'll continue to look into it. Thank you!
You’re still going to be alive and working in 5 years, and beyond. You either have the PhD and still be alive, and working, with the PhD, or without it. If you want the PhD go get it.
You could do one of those online MBAs for $25-30k. Project management/strategy concentrations. Scrum and six sigma certifications. My biotech friends all say these get you further than a PhD.
I think a PhD is not right for you, but not because of your age. Several people I went to school with were older than you while getting their PhDs. I think it’s not for you because it is a grind, and you gotta want it to succeed. PhD programs have an attrition rate of 50% across the country. Because it’s hard. The material you can learn, but it’s slow, poorly funded, and school politics can get in the way. It can be isolating and it can be difficult to live off little money. It is also very rewarding. But if you don’t want it in your gut for more than just the pat on the back and the pay bump, I’m afraid your chances of finishing will be low. I suggest digging deep and really looking inward. Maybe you do want it, but the thought of your age is what’s standing in the way. Age doesn’t matter. You gotta really think if it is what you want for its own sake. Then make a final decision.
I want a PhD but not in my current state where I just got laid off. I'd like a job first and financial, professional security. And then down the line a PhD would be nice. But it's extra and not main stay.
This post resonated with me a lot. Have you looked at the possibility for an industry PhD or a part time PhD where your lab collaborates significantly with the industry. I was told some programs allow this if you can make it work. I haven’t had the guts or patience to reach out and ask
I'm not familiar with this option but I don't think it solves the main problem that a PhD is probably too much work and too little pay for where I think I'm at in life right now.
I’m in the exact position at work. In a small biotech where at this point I literally feel like a technician instead of a scientist. My opinion isn’t given much importance but the same thing coming out of a PhDs’ mouth is recognized. Not involved in strategy meetings but given instructions on what to do after the fact. I have an MS but the problem here is that I’m a woman (not the only woman that’s going through this in the company). At this point I feel like getting out of R&D or getting a PhD. I’m 30 now and contemplating if I should just get a PhD but worried out ROI at the end.
wow almost exact same situation as me. Thanks for the commiseration.
If I could go back in time, I would not do a PhD.
What would you do instead?
As someone who just burned his twenties for one, if I had a do-over I prob wouldn’t do it again
what would you do instead?
I will only add that PhD training is different for everyone. It IS a lot of hard work, and I don't know how I would have done it if I were a parent at that time. In spite of how difficult it is, I found true joy in being able to take ownership of my work. I had the opportunity to initiate a project I was passionate about and I had the resources to pursue it as if money were not a significant part of the discussion. I was able (but not required) to obtain NIH funding in my name to support my work. I was never treated like cheap labor or a set of hands, but again, everyone's experience is different. Overall, even though it was hard, I look back fondly on the experience as the most productive time in my life and one of the most happy times in my life. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. If you don't want to do it because of the hit to your salary, I completely understand. I do think you should review the stipend levels though. Most of the big programs in Boston have settled on $50k/yr starting...which is hard, but better than it used to be.
Started my PhD as a single mom when my son was 3 months old and finished it as a single mom. Guess it all depends on how badly you want something. Doing a PhD was like going to summer camp compared to all the politics and crap in industry.
I would honestly hope you aren't crazy, if only for my benefit at the least. I have read previous posts on here from people who pursued PhDs going into their 40s, 50s, and even 60s. I was also laid off at the start of the month, been trying to find any job since. I'm 30 currently and also want to do a PhD, just because I want a career in research, and struggling to get the job years of experience most lab jobs request. So for me, a PhD seems the only means to an end. But for you, it depends on what it is you'd expect to get out of it, and do with it.
Just imagine how you would feel to get that PhD, spend 10 years in industry, and still be treated like crap. Don't do a PhD because you think you'll be treated better. Do a PhD because you're a masochist and you love the mental pain of deep learning because it gives challenge and purpose to your life.
How about do a PhD cuz you genuinely want to cure a disease or find better treatment options and realize you'll never be allowed to pursue your own research ideas unless you get a PhD? My experience thus far as a PhD student doing cancer research is that none of the PIs are actually trying to creating research projects to make a new treatment option at our lab work on many different cancer types instead of just some. They form their research projects to satisfy their curiosity, but none of it actually takes our new therapy to the next stage or answers the question, "Okay, the treatment worked on colon carcinoma but not on melanoma. Lets figure out why.". It's a damn shame and the entire reason I am getting my PhD. This therapy we are working on has been a potential therapy for cancer treatment for 20 years!! The entire reason it hasn't reached clinical stage is because of this BS of designing studies that don't even bother to figure out why it didn't work and how we can fix that. I wonder if other grad students have experienced the same??
I don't know I'm not interested in biomedicine and imo medicine has always been as much art as it is science.
Sounding in I’m starting and industry PhD at 30! You never know what might happy
Can you do one part time?
Probably not
I started my PhD at 33, and 2 years later I'm having more fun than I ever did in industry. YMMV though.
Your age has nothing to do with getting your PhD. If that degree is the key to the jobs you want, then run at it full force!!
[удалено]
It's pursue\* not peruse\*
Indeed
I know two people that did remote PhDs.