<p>I'm pretty sure I want to be involved in the development of cutting edge technology (specifically in clean energy and/or biotech). However, in spite of being quite quantitatively competent, I don't see myself being able to produce a ground-breaking innovation in either of those fields. I guess I'm not that interested in drilling down into the nitty-gritty of, say, photovoltaic cells or cellular biology. What I'm more excited by is the impact that new technology can have on society and the world, and of course, the novelty of working on something new all the time, right at the very frontier of human knowledge.</p>
<p>So...what kind of jobs exist that will allow me to get involved in clean energy and/or biotech, without being the actual engineer/researcher working with all the sciency details? Venture capital would be the first thing that comes to mind, but wouldn't you need a ton of experience in a specific sector beforehand in order to know what has a good chance of working and what doesn't? Any other ideas? Thanks.</p>
<p>You would think that, wouldn’t you? Yet the fact of the matter is that many venture capitalists know none of that. Instead, many of them have elite MBA’s from schools such as Harvard, Stanford, or Wharton but who have zero technology background. </p>
<p>Consider Michael Moritz, partner at Sequoia Capital and one of the most famous and richest venture capitalists of all time. He majored not in engineering or science, but in history. Then he picked up an MBA from Wharton, and then worked not as a technology manager or consultant…but as a reporter for Time Magazine, where in his spare time wrote several books, including one about the early history of Apple. Then he co-founded a tech media firm which was bought by what is now News Corp, and that’s how he started. </p>
<p>Another road is to be a salesman. After all, it is clearly insufficient to actually invent a wonderful new technology, as you still need somebody who can effectively sell it. And as much as we engineers might wish otherwise, good technology doesn’t simply sell itself. John Doerr, another famous venture capitalist, began his career as a salesman for Intel - in fact, one of the most successful salesmen in Intel history. {Then he earned a Harvard MBA and later joined Kleiner Perkins.} </p>
<p>Yet another road is to become a consultant for the tech industry. It is one of the business world’s enduring mysteries as to why they continue to hire consultants who have no background in their industry to advise them on how to improve. But what can I say? It happens. Hence, you could be like Roelof Botha, who was an actuary, before earning an MBA at Stanford and then joining McKinsey where he consulted for numerous tech firms. {And now he’s a partner at Sequoia.}</p>
<p>All types of companies have “company infrastructure” type of people such as:</p>
<p>Accounting
Finance
HR
IT
Legal
Marketing
Sales</p>
<p>Most of these do not require much technical background in the technology that the company is working on. It may be desirable for the patent / intellectual property lawyer (though other lawyers and staff would not need it). If the primary buyers or decision makers for buyers are technical people, then it may be desirable for marketing and sales to have some knowledge of the technical area (which need not be anywhere near as much as the engineers or scientists actually working on the technical stuff).</p>
<p>Of course, if you have free elective space, you certainly can take a few courses in those technical areas, even if you do not want to major or minor in them. Though the hard part may sometimes be finding good introductory overview courses for non-majors that are not completely dumbed down – sometimes the choice is between a very dumbed down non-majors’ course, or a long sequence of science and engineering courses for majors.</p>
<p>One word- Computation. Ok, I should say three words- High powered computation. Almost all of the big advances in sciences from the 21st century forward will involve scientific computation.</p>
<p>ShruggingSheep, we should talk or something because me and you have nearly the EXACT same vision for our futures. That is exactly what I want be involved with in my career, but I’m sort of like you in that I’m more of a big picture type and I enjoy solving big picture problems in a creative way. Not too long ago I realized the nearly perfect path for myself, which is an undergrad degree in applied math and economics with a CS minor, and a grad degree in a field related to computational science. From there I feel very confident that I can be a major contributor to a team of researchers or capitalists.</p>
<p>Wow, never thought I’d see this thread resurface. I was originally on the Applied Math + Econ route as well, but after taking some math classes, I found that what we were doing was incredibly micro-level, as in, taking a formula, applying it to a certain form of problem, and getting an answer. Not a whole lot of creativity there either because you are simply plugging and chugging, maybe moving some variables around so that it fits the form of the formula you are using. I guess that might be an issue that speaks more to the teaching quality at my school, but I’d be interested to hear how you think studying math satisfies your “big picture”/creative type of interests.</p>
<p>Another thing that worries me about the computational route (besides the fact that I am painfully mediocre at CS) is that it seems like you either end up with a really cool job (tech entrepreneur, or working for one like Facebook or Google), or you end up pigeonholed into a mundane programming role in a huge organization where you can’t see how your work is creating value or generating revenue. There’s no middle ground for computational type jobs as far as I can see - you either love your it, or feel crushed under the weight of its meaninglessness (at least I would).</p>
<p>My understanding was that upper-level math courses, the ones that require proofs were the ones that required creativity. And engineers go through the exact same thing, as many of the formulas they learn in school will never be applied at their jobs. The point of learning those math problems is to train your mind to think in a certain logical fashion. I’m not doing applied math so that I can perform specific math problems, I’m doing to learn a valuable skill set and so I can be a highly skilled thinker who can take any problem and use math and computers to come up with an optimal solution.</p>
<p>I see computational science (not the same thing as computer science) as being more oriented towards either tech/data consulting or academia.</p>
<p>This report was intriguing to say the least. Got it off of the MIT website. Some money quotes:</p>
<p>“Computational science is now indispensable to the solution of complex
problems in every sector, from traditional science and engineering domains to
such key areas as national security, public health, and economic innovation.
Advances in computing and connectivity make it possible to develop
computational models and capture and analyze unprecedented amounts of
experimental and observational data to address problems previously deemed
intractable or beyond imagination.” </p>
<p>“Though the information technology-powered revolution is accelerating,
this country has not yet awakened to the central role played by computational
science and high-end computing in advanced scientific, social science,
biomedical, and engineering research; defense and national security; and
industrial innovation.” </p>
<p>“While it is itself a discipline, computational science serves to advance all of
science. The most scientifically important and economically promising
research frontiers in the 21st century will be conquered by those most skilled
with advanced computing technologies and computational science
applications.”</p>
<p>I think computational science/computational engineering is a great area to get into. For one, it is one of those disciplines that even if the industry stalls, graduates would be more than enough prepared to work in the other areas of computer science.</p>
<p>Inmotion12: I thought of a better way of explaining my problem. I like reading Malcolm Gladwell books (i.e. reports like the one you posted), but I wouldn’t like being the one to analyze the data sets (i.e. run the simulations, do the actual modeling with differential equations and all that stuff). </p>
<p>It seems like you are interested in getting into the real nitty-gritty details of the research, which is why Applied Math/Scientific Computation would be a good path for you. I would like to be “involved” in bringing these new technologies to market, instead of being the actual one to come up with them (combination of lack of interest and lack of mathematical skill).</p>