<p>What types of degrees are valuable for the BioTech industry, i.e. what are the most marketable/ profitable PhD's for biotech research. I'm going into my frosh year at Emory next year, so it's still early for me, therefore any information would be appreciated.</p>
<p>the most profitable/marketable PhD is the one you get
1. from a well-known school such as UC Berkeley or Harvard (preferably in no more than 4-5 years)
2. working with the most well-known advisors such as the ones with a Nobel Prize or alike
3. and getting at least some publications in top rated journals of your field while you engage in your PhD work</p>
<p>My understanding, K, is that you are listing those from least to most important, right?</p>
<p>Actually-I think it would be 3, 2, 1 (or maybe 3/2 (tie), 1). But in the end your success depends more on your own drive, work ethic, luck and intelligence than anything else.</p>
<p>I think finishing too quickly (e.g., 4 years or less) can actually hurt you-less publications and less time to establish yourself in your field. I would think that 4 years would be a minimum but anything under 8 or 9 years should be fine. But it really isn't your decision when you leave anyway and some professors don't like letting their most productive grad-student/indentured servants leave too quickly. Not enough return on their investment.</p>
<p>oh sorry, you people are right - i got the order wrong - it should be 2,1,3
in my experience, recommendation letters weight very heavily when you're trying to find a job -- unless you have exceptional success and publish in very high profile journals ... but i'm giving an answer geared toward an average PhD graduate, not an exceptional one, who can pave the entire road for him or herself</p>
<p>the employer will most likely not get into the essence of the work you've done and won't read the 5-6 articles that have your name on them -- before you show up to the interview, they have already probably screened a number of potential candidates and no, they will not get into the details of their projects either (quite often they'll know a bit more than what you present to them during the interview) .... and may be your project does not have very much to do with what your potential employer is doing, which is common, and so how is the employer to estimate the value of your work, as you compare to all those other people they interviewed?</p>
<p>it is much easier for employer to seek graduates from strong programs and from advisors they know -- it is much less time consuming than reading publications of everyone you interviewed and trying to assess the value of these .... it happens that an employer has great success with a graduate or couple graduates from a particular professor -- the employer will then directly contact this professor in some time asking if anyone else is on their way to graduate to make them an offer ... otherwise if they know the group you came from is reputable and recommendations letters are strong, that is the biggest advantage to stand on your side</p>
<p>therefore my rating is 2,1,3 for average PhD graduates (3,2,1 for exceptional ones)
if you will publish in crappy journals being in a good group, then estimating that you're not as competitive as some others, the salary stated in the offer is likely to be not very competitive too</p>
<p>finishing in 4 years or less sometimes implies that a deal was struck with advisor -- and other times that you've been incredibly lucky all along the way -- i've heard of people get their PhD's in 3 years, but in this case the person brings an exceptional skill that the group needs, so the person and advisor strike a deal -- the person helps advisor accomplish something and as soon as they're done, the person gets a PhD -- since the work is not always experimental in nature, it may take 4 or less years</p>
<p>PhDs in general are not profitable. The time you spend in school is not worth it if you want to make money.</p>
<p>I agree with polo08816 that if you just want to make money, even if it is in biotech, then don't get a PhD. Go join an investment bank, a VC, or some other financial firm that specializes in biotech investment. Or join a management consulting company that advises biotechs. A more lucrative graduate degree than a PhD would be an MBA.</p>
<p>As far as those 3 attributes mentioned, I would say that you are missing the most important one - which is the sheer marketability of you and your research. For example, you can have the best published research coming out of the best school, working with a world-class advisor, but if your research happens to be in a field that is not popular with Wall Street, then you are going to have trouble finding a job. In contrast, even those who graduate from mediocre schools with advisors who are not prominent and have few publications that are not academically respected can nonetheless become the center of huge bidding wars and giant salary offers if they just happen to be working in a field that is hot. To give you an example from computer science, in the last few years, newly minted CS Phd's who've worked in algorithmic search have been highly coveted prizes because of the competition between Google, Yahoo, and MSN to hire anybody who knows anything about search, as well as as a bevy of venture-capital infused startup companies who are concentrating on a certain niche of search (i.e. podcasting search, corporate search, etc.) in the hopes of getting acquired from one of the 3 big boys. You don't even have to be very good - as long as your research has to do with algorithmic search, these companies will find you.</p>
<p>Now obviously a lot of that has to do with simple luck - you just happen to be working on a topic that happens to become extremely hot. However, part of it is a matter of 'creating your own luck', in the sense that you are keeping tabs on what are the big commercial trends of the time and therefore adjusting your research to be more marketable. Then there is also a simple matter of networking and socialization. I have seen a very strong temptation among many academics to either be highly antisocial, or to socialize only with other academics. However, if you want to improve your marketability, you have to also meet with venture capitalists, investment bankers, budding entrepreneurs, consultants, industry pundits and the like. If you happen to be getting your PhD at a place that has a prominent business school (and places like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley all do), then it behooves you to spend time networking with the people at the business school, joining the MBA biotech club, the VC club, or the entrepreneurship club, and so forth. Even if your school doesn't, then it still behooves you to keep in touch with the venture capital industry or any other sort of industry trade group that is around. And it is always helpful to be constantly improving your public speaking skills and general communications skills. A lot of success has to do with not just producing good ideas, but also convincing others that your ideas are good, which gets down to who has the better communications skills. What would also help is if you can do some high-profile non-academic work - for example, writing editorials for the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, or some other mass-media publication, testifying before Congress about technology trends, and otherwise being recognized as an authority to the mainstream public about biotech.</p>
<p>As a case in point, I would point to the example of Charles Ferguson who founded Vermeer Technologies, which we now know as Microsoft FrontPage. He got his PhD in political science from MIT, where he became known as an authority on US-Japanese trade relations, especially in the tech industry, at a time when this was an extremely popular topic because of the relentless assault of the Japanese semiconductor firms on the US industry. While I don't believe Ferguson ever produced research that was extremely well respected by the political science academic world (i.e. he was not offered a faculty position), his work was of extreme interest to both the US government and to industry. He was invited to testify before Congress, was invited to write op-ed pieces for several major newspapers including the Wall Street Journal, was integral to the creation of Sematech, the non-profit alliance of US microchip manufacturers with the US government to meet the Japanese high-tech threat, and became a featured (and well paid) speaker to numerous industry trade groups. All this happened before he had even graduated. When he did graduate, he was offered numerous high-level positions with industry consulting firms and lobbying groups, eventually making half-a-million dollars a year in consulting (and that's in early 90's dollars, hence that's probably 750k-1m in today's money). Then he went on to found Vermeer Technologies, becoming filthy rich in the process, etc.</p>
<p>Now, again, a lot of that has to do with luck - his political science research on US-Japan trade relations happened to be highly valued by the market. But part of it had to do with him seizing the opportunities that were available to him. For example, he took advantage of the opportunities to write articles for the mass media, to work with Congress, and to basically network and hobnob with all of the bigwigs before he graduated. So when he graduated, he had an extremely well established social network. I think more science and engineering PhD's could do better networking.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^
what sakky said is very true</p>
<p>i remember my very first advisor who was not a very bright guy (as eventually i understood) but he could describe something as simple as addition of NaCl to water as project of great scientific importance! naturally he never ran out of grant money even though, after some time working with him, I started thinking that his ideas sucked (and it wasn't only me thinking that...)</p>
<p>there is nothing you can do if the so-called "hot" fields do not hold your interest -- sentiments do change however and what was hot becomes not and vice versa ... older advisors tend to be working on less than modern projects so if you want to avoid these you might want to go for someone younger</p>
<p>Could a Ph.D. in Business Management be better than M.B.A.?</p>
<p>Dude, why are you posting the same question in all these different threads?</p>
<p>Ok, so if I ultimately want a MBA, and I get into Biotech by joining a "financial firm that specializes in biotech investment" (sakky), what type of undergrad education would you recommend? Basically, how would I, as an undergrad, balance science and business in such a way that a job at an investment bank specializing in biotech would be feasible? Emory offers: BBA (only as a major), Major/Minor in Econ., Major/Minor in Bio/Chem/Etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Could a Ph.D. in Business Management be better than M.B.A.?
[/quote]
If you are after the money, then no. It's probably a waste of time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok, so if I ultimately want a MBA, and I get into Biotech by joining a "financial firm that specializes in biotech investment" (sakky), what type of undergrad education would you recommend? Basically, how would I, as an undergrad, balance science and business in such a way that a job at an investment bank specializing in biotech would be feasible?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, the truth is, I would worry far more about just getting into investment banking of any kind, especially just as an undergrad. It is difficult for anybody to get into IB. It generally takes a certain kind of personality, as well as lots of networking. You can work on it by improving your social skills and your communications skills (especially your public speaking skills), as well as just attending lots and lots of social functions that have to do with banking and finance, where you can hope to meet some big players. </p>
<p>After you have done your analyst stint (you have "punched your ticket"), then you can go to MBA school with the intent of getting into biotech finance, which means more networking and basically looking for another big bank and expressing an interest in being in the biotech area, or looking for a boutique bank that specializes in biotech, or looking for a VC firm that does lots of biotech. Again, it has a lot to do with networking and social skills. </p>
<p>The truth is, you really don't need to know that much about the science of biotech in order to get into the finance side of biotech. Does it help? Sure, and you probably want to keep up with the biotech news, and maybe take or audit a few classes. But the truth is, you really don't need to know that much about the science, and you certainly don't need a science degree to get into the finance side. Look at the CFO's of the major biotech firms and you will note that many of them do not have any science background. </p>
<p>For example, the largest biotech firm in the world is Genentech. The CFO of Genentech is David Ebersman. He does not have a science degree. His bachelor's degree is in economics and international relations from Brown. He then joined a boutique investment bank, doing biotech research. From there, he jumped to Genentech. He never got his MBA. </p>
<p>Or take David Nanula, CFO of Amgen. While his bio doesn't list his education, I see that his previous professional experience had nothing to do with biotech at all. Instead, he worked in management positions at Disney, at a hotel chain, and an Internet media company. It's not clear to me what these have to do with biotech. But Amgen hired him anyway. </p>
<p>Or how about the CEO of Amgen, Kevin Sharer? He doesn't have a science background either. He was a consultant at McKinsey, and then was at GE, then at MCI. These jobs clearly have nothing to do with biotech. But it doesn't matter, as Amgen hired him anyway.</p>