Re:A Career in Science Will Cost You Your Firstborn
by Fomite on Friday January 09, 2015 @04:08PM
(#8864530)
Bio is dire for two reasons, IMO:
1. NIH stipend levels are pretty low. When you talk to people on NSF or DoD funding, they're like "You pay your postdocs what!?"
2. There are fewer "eject" options. Physics, for example, has a long and established pipeline into finance. The group I'm with does lots of work on complex networks - that has applications in tech. Bio work, for the most part, leaves you qualified to do bio work. So there's both less salary pressure for "We have to pay you or you'll go work for tech instead" and the feeling of your education being a sunk cost.
Re:A Career in Science Will Cost You Your Firstborn
by 0xgrr on Friday January 09, 2015 @06:10PM
(#8865084)
Don't worry about the stipend levels. Many institutions are now in a race to the bottom where they're adapting to paying everyone the minimum allowed by NIH.
1. NIH stipend levels are pretty low. When you talk to people on NSF or DoD funding, they're like "You pay your postdocs what!?"
2. There are fewer "eject" options. Physics, for example, has a long and established pipeline into finance. The group I'm with does lots of work on complex networks - that has applications in tech. Bio work, for the most part, leaves you qualified to do bio work. So there's both less salary pressure for "We have to pay you or you'll go work for tech instead" and the feeling of your education being a sunk cost.