<p>It looks OK. There are so many new programs popping up and overlapping programs with different names it is hard to say. Surely any of those is good.</p>
<p>I couldn't find Cornell on the list (which many here have suggested). How good is Cornell's Biotech. program compared with say JHU.</p>
<p>
[quote]
An "industry" company founded by academics. (going public any day)</p>
<p>There are dozens of examples in Madison.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are hundreds more in SF, Boston and San Diego.</p>
<p>There are no programs that are going to prepare you for all the different types of biotechnology companies out there at the undergrad level. The industry is not like investment banking where you can just leave one firm and do the exact same work for another. Each company has a different technology and requires different skills. Most research associate positions (entry level) biotech look for standard skils (PCR, ELISA, Western Blot, etc) which you can learn at any school even community colleges. What's more important is your level of skills using these skills and if you have trouble shooting capabilities which come from experience. </p>
<p>If you want to work in biotech, you should look into what type of sub segments do you want to work in. (Reagents, medical devices, biopharmaceuticals, diagnostics, small molecule)</p>
<p>The best schools are the ones that are around a biotech region enabling you to get experience in the field. Going into an academic biotech program does not give you an advantage over a standard life science major in getting jobs in industry.</p>
<p>That would be Biopharma Mike. I still think Prestige vs. Real World Experience matters especially in such a "new" field as this. I mean schools like Cornell, MIT obviously have more money to throw around for research etc that others ? No ? I'm planning on working at the Biotech labs at these schools.</p>
<p>Does working really in a real company make such a big difference ?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>The biotech labs at the school are not much differen than other research labs. The reality is that schools do not have the same type of money that companies typically do and do more hardcore research than what is practiced in industry. Look at the type of jobs out there on Biospace and the types of equipment you would use in industry are much different. Take for example, you won't find a high throughput screening machine in academics because all it does is run hundreds of assays looking for entities that can be drugs. Programs like MIT, Cornell can't publish results like that in science because it is not academic in nature. Those skills and experiences are gained primarily in industry. As for Bioengineers, most get jobs at Genentech doing validation which is just making sure a process reproduces the same results over and over. For chemical engineers, they do mostly media work where they monitor pH and dissolved oxygen to see if they can maximize yield to produce more protein aka drugs like Avastin. The interesting work is still done in academics and a good academic scientist does not necessarily make a good industry one. </p>
<p>Yes, working in real companies makes a huge difference.</p>
<p>Look at how many Ph.D's ***** about how hard it is to get an industry job without industry experience. The work culture is different, it's more team work oriented, and the objectives are different. </p>
<p>You can read about the plethora of scientist who stayed in academics too long and find a rather large wall into getting an industry job.</p>
<p>Forgive me for being a bit late to post. Neverthelesss, I'll add Worcester Polytechnic Institute to the list.</p>
<p>"As for Bioengineers, most get jobs at Genentech doing validation which is just making sure a process reproduces the same results over and over."</p>
<p>And the Exec VP for research at Genentech went where for undergrad bioscience??</p>
<p>Yes Barron, if you go to UW, you too will have a VP position waiting for you.</p>
<p>Look, stop touting UW like its the grand all of biotech schools. It's a great science school but isn't like it's some superior school where companies go first looking for scientific talent. They go to specific PI's at certain schools and look for people in their lab if there is certain need they need. That can be from MIT, UCSF, UCLA or even University of Colorado. They come from all over. </p>
<p>Second, the VP wasn't recruited into Genentech based on where he did he undergrad but for his graduate and post doctoral work and the skills he aquired from it.</p>
<p>And yes most Bioengineers at Genentech work in validation or process development (manufacturing development) not R&D like how most chemical engineers work in manufacturing facilities of chemical plants.</p>
<p>I don't think you get the point, there is no better biotech school academic curriculum wise. You should focus on going to a good school, acquiring a breadth of lab skills and experience. Schools that are in hubs allow you to get industry experience (since that is the goal) and because industry experience is often differently than academic experience.</p>
<p>And What exactly are these "good schools" that are in or out of the hub Mike? I think you are right. I'll look into UCLA more (I doubt I have a shot at MIT)</p>
<p>It certainly is in the top few where all types of firms and academia come looking for biotech talent. It is #1 in total bioscience research funding. There is only one #1 school. I don't believe you know much about it. They hold and produce more patents in the area than nearly any other school. Here's one reason:</p>
<p>Founded in 1925, WARF is higher education's oldest technology-transfer office. With an endowment of $1.6-billion, it is also the richest and most independent university-related patent foundation in the country. That wealth and autonomy has allowed it to play an unusually high-profile role, both on this campus and on the national stage.</p>
<p>Thanks in part to negotiations by WARF, Madison in 1968 became the first university in the country to win the right to own patents on inventions financed with federal money. The arrangements, later extended to other universities, eventually became the basis for the Bayh-Dole Act, the 1980 federal law that gives all universities the right to own and exploit inventions developed with federal grants.</p>
<p>Commercialization of research is now a major focus for colleges and universities, in some cases yielding tens of millions of dollars in revenue. WARF itself now earns tens of millions annually — $56-million in the 2006 fiscal year. (Although the foundation's annual licensing revenues typically land it among the top 10 academic licensers in earnings, the amount pales next to the money it earns each year from its hefty endowment, which in the past few years has seen returns in the range of 9 percent to 11 percent.)</p>
<p>WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION: A SNAPSHOT</p>
<p>Founded: 1925</p>
<p>In its history: The foundation has been awarded more than 1,540 U.S. patents, completed more than 1,390 licensing agreements with companies, and given more than $800-million to the University of Wisconsin at Madison for research programs, professorships, and buildings (including the 14-story tower that houses its offices).</p>
<p>As of today: The foundation manages more than 880 issued and 720 pending U.S. patents, and hundreds more in other countries; offers more than 3,800 technologies for licensing; maintains more than 940 commercial license agreements with companies; and holds equity in more than 40 spinoff companies that are based on university research.</p>
<p>Value of its endowment: $1.6-billion. Its annual return in the 2005-6 fiscal year was 11 percent.</p>
<p>Revenues from licenses on patents in the 2005-6 fiscal year: $54-million.</p>
<p>The foundation's "big hits" include: Vitamin-D derivatives; technology used in magnetic-resonance imaging; UW Solution, used to preserve organs during transplants; and a breed of cranberries known as HyRed.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Thanks coureur. Which UCs are considered the best ?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>All of them are strong and careerwise will get you where you want to go, but if I had to pick just one I'd choose UCSD. It's enormously connected with the hundreds of biotech companies in San Diego plus the big research institutes such as Scripps and Salk.</p>
<p>UCSD is excellent too.</p>
<p>Ka Ching for UW/WARF</p>
<p>
[quote]
It certainly is in the top few where all types of firms and academia come looking for biotech talent. It is #1 in total bioscience research funding. There is only one #1 school. I don't believe you know much about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How would I know little about something when I work in the industry? What's your stake to credibility? Reading some article that was written by a journalist who was english major and knows nothing about a particular field?</p>
<p>No, top firms do not go out of their way to recruit at UW-M as much as they would be on campus at any other top science school.</p>
<p>Academia does not look for biotech talent? The whole point of academia is that does academic research which is why it isn't industry. Biotech is an industry hence with the purpose of commercialization and why there is a distinction between it and academics. They don't give a rats ass about some mechanism of a certain disease, they take the knowledge of what academia does and finds compounds for that mechanism of the disease as a therapeutic.</p>
<p>Who cares about the # patents, as far I am concerned and most people who actually work in industry know that there are 3 major biotech hubs : San Diego, Boston and San Francisco. PERIOD. If UW-M was soo great with all these patents, why aren't there many VC firms there, or major companies that have headquarters there, UW-M may have the most life science research funding but that is academic research. Obviously, you don't understand the difference between the two. If UW-M was sooo great, it would being a huge epicenter like Boston, SF and SD. So what if it has lots of patents, I guess most of the patents it produces are just **** then if they haven't been commercialized. </p>
<p>Why don't you read this thread: <a href="http://www.biofind.com/Rumor/Default.aspx?ID=78006%5B/url%5D">http://www.biofind.com/Rumor/Default.aspx?ID=78006</a></p>
<p>And you will see that Madison is a mini-center or small pocket of biotech but not a major player as the other top 3 regions.</p>
<p>UCSD is not that connected to Biotech as you may think. There are certain professors who are and some also have joint appointments at the Salk or Scripps Research Institute but no major research university specifically has a program dedicated to preparing its students for industry. If they did and it was taught by all academic professors without industry experience or without an industrial advisory board, then it is useless.</p>
<p>Milken Institute Technology Transfer and Commercialization Index Top 10: 2000-2004
1 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT)
2 University of California System
3 California Institute of Technology
4 Stanford University
5 University of Florida
6 University of Minnesota
7 Brigham Young University
8 University of British Columbia
9 University of Michigan
10 New York University</p>
<p>Click on the links below to view the complete rankings.</p>
<p>The Top Ten Biotech Clusters
Metro Area Composite Score
San Diego 100
Boston 95.1
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 92.5
San Jose 87.8
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett 83.8
Washington, D.C. 79.4
Philadelphia 76.5
San Francisco 75.8
Oakland 74.3
Los Angeles-Long Beach 66.5</p>
<p>The Bay area should be #1 if you Include (Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose)</p>
<p>Where is Wisconsin?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.biospace.com/jobs/%5B/url%5D">http://www.biospace.com/jobs/</a></p>
<p>Look how WI is lumped in the group with 7 other states while MA gets its own job section. Southern CA and Northern are split. Even NC gets its own section.</p>
<p>Obviously those are all major cities. This discussion is like talking about restaurants--yes LA probably has 10 times as many but you won't starve in Madison. I see UW was in theTop 10 in biotech patents well ahead of most of those schools you listed. You are going on and on about where the major firms are located but that has little to do with where the action is in colleges for biosciences. </p>
<p>Also INC Magazine named it one of the Top 5 universites to do business with.</p>
<p>Well if you want to talk patents,</p>
<p>UW-M is ranked 9th.</p>
<p>You can patent all the crap you want, but its quality of patents that matters. VC see hundreds of proposals each year but fund very few of them. Just because it's good science doesn't mean there is a market for it and even if there is, it might not be big or is reproducable on a large scale (aka mass produced).</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>UCSD is not that connected to Biotech as you may think.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Huh? I work in San Diego in the biotech industry, and I'd say UCSD is enormously connected. It's a major source of talent as well as ideas to the industry. At least 2/3rds of my scientific staff graduated either undergrad or grad school or both from UCSD, and it's much the same story at most biotechs in San Diego. So they must be doing something right in preparing their students for biotech careers. Plus UCSD founded the hugely successful UCSD Connect program, which is recognized as perhaps the world's most successful program for bringing together academia and the biotech business, pulling together the science, the managment, and money to found hundreds of companies: <a href="http://www.connect.org/about/index.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.connect.org/about/index.htm</a></p>
<p>If it weren't for UCSD, the vibrant San Diego biotech industry wouldn't be 1/10th of what it is today.</p>
<p>Mike--read up. You just don't know what you are talking about. Madison does not need VC money with the WARF money and state contributions. Why should they give away their stuff to some VC firms? </p>
<p>Also UW is third in total patent income so they are selling stuff people are buying. NYU had a big payoff that will go away next year so UW is just behind the entire UC system with nearly $50 Million. </p>
<p>New York U. $109,023,125
U. of California system $74,275,000
U. of Wisconsin at Madison $47,689,165
Stanford U. $47,272,397</p>