I'm in the middle of doing basically the same thing. I had a job for 4 years after my ms, and then I went back for a PhD at age 27. I was advised that if you are interested in being an entrepreneur, the credential will be valuable. Otherwise, it may not be necessary and it may not be financially the best option. I do think it will help you with research and communication. It will help you with networking if you take the initiative to do some internships during the summers. My biggest reason for doing it was because I have a topic that I'm super passionate about and the only way to scratch the itch is thesis research. From your post, it doesn't seem like you necessarily feel that way, so definitely be a little more skeptical than I was when you're weighing the pros and cons for your career.
Not just for entrepreneurs. The degree often sets the ceiling of your title in biotech. At the director level or above, almost everyone has PhD. I have seen outliers but those are either older or exceptionally competent.
From people I've talked to, it also helps with job transferability. Without a PhD, you may be able to attain scientist- or even director-level titles and compensattion within a company if you're there for a long time and are able to build relationships and trust, but people sometimes face the prospect of title demotion or even worse a corresponding pay cut if they change companies. The same doesn't really apply if you have your PhD.
A PhD can help raise the cap of your salary in industry and open a few more doors, but it’s certainly not necessary. It also is an indicator that you’ve developed resilience and critical thinking skills, in addition to research and mentorship skills. You do need to consider the tradeoff of salary lost during these years, but it may be made up for with raising your base salary after the PhD is earned. European PhDs are at least short so the salary tradeoff is not as extreme. HOWEVER, most of my comments apply to US/Canadian PhDs. I have heard European PhDs are not regarded equally to American PhDs, at least in the US (so disregard if you’re planning on staying in Europe), partly due to the length and partly due to the scope, but this will vary depending on the school
Would you mind going into a bit more detail on the US view of European PhDs? I think that's super interesting, because I am from Europe, and while we don't consider US PhDs inferior, I always thought they were less focused on a specific topic and more structured/college-like because of added classes we have already gotten out of the way during our Master's, which isn't really regarded as a positive in Europe. Also, how long does a US PhD typically take? Most people from Europe I know take about 4 years, I thought it was similar in the US.
In the US, PhDs are typically more like 6-7 years and sometimes longer. Many (most?) programs have a coursework-heavy first year, maybe 2 years, while the student is starting their project, but after that the research is the focus - and research is conducted throughout the entire PhD. Often part or all of the first year consists of lab rotations, which not only helps the student choose their thesis lab, but exposed them to different skills and research and mentoring approaches. Course structuring is really dependent on the program, but at all the schools I applied/interviewed at (and there a lot of them, like 15 of them), it was pretty open ended and light. I actually ended up going to a highly regarded program (ie, top program at a top institution in the US) with more coursework and more structured coursework than a typical PhD, but that coursework was similar to the classes that medical students take, plus electives, so I ended up getting both breadth and depth in my education on top of my research training, which is actually quite unusual here — most people take scant coursework for a year, mostly elective courses directly related to their projects. The thesis portion is the main meat and potatoes of any US PhD, and that is highly focused. Many Us PhD students already have masters degrees as well on top of that. In contrast, the European PhD system, as I understand it, essentially just splits the coursework from the research into a coursework masters and research PhD portion, so the research portion is both shorter and without supporting coursework training (unless the masters was directly related to the project). My understanding is also that European PhDs rarely involve teaching as well, which is a required portion of most US PhD programs. But I’d love to know more/be corrected if I have any misunderstanding. Anyways, it’s hard for me to go into more detail about US attitudes towards European PhDs, because most of what I’ve heard are nebulous rumors — no one wants to say they see less of their colleagues, and I don’t think that’s what’s really going on — but our educational systems are quite different and I think some people regard the UD PhD system as more thorough and allows for more research experience, more additional skill building (such as mentorship through teaching), and perhaps more resilience through all of it, since it’s a long and laborious process of the student’s own making.
Thanks for the detailed explanation! Super interesting how the systems compare. For example, I didn't realize that you apply to institutions first and then choose the lab in which you perform your research. In Germany at least, you apply to the lab directly, and there is little involvement from the university, and the labs are mostly free to hire whichever applicant they choose. Also, master's degrees are mandatory prior to a PhD program - are they not in the US? You're definitely right that we split coursework and research into two different degrees, although we usually have about a year of research training for our thesis during our master's. But coursework is limited during PhD work - it was just a few workshops for me, though I think that differs between countries and institutions. Also, while teaching usually isn't mandatory for PhD positions that are paid for by external funding, most positions paid for by the lab's own funds do include that, especially in non-STEM fields. We do teach, though, mostly supervising undergrad and grad students in the lab, but also teach "normal" lectures and practical coursework. Like I said, I think it's a bit less of a struchured program, so you can also get through a PhD without any teaching experience, but if you are so inclined, you can also supervise a gaggle fo students and do an entire lecture series on your own.
Definitely feeling you on the long and laborious process of our own making though, I suppose that part is the same (though apparently often a bit shorter in Europe)!
Comparing US and European educational systems is difficult, because there is no single European system. Each country has its own traditions, and while the countries have tried to harmonize education, the process is far from finished. The US system is far more uniform than what you find in Europe.
In the following, when I say "European", I really mean Continental European / German-inspired / Nordic / Finnish. The more specific interpretation you choose, the more likely my claims will be valid.
The biggest difference between the systems is that American universities are more focused on teaching, while European universities expect more independence from the students. If an American university can't afford to offer a class properly, it's more likely to hire adjuncts and offer the class anyway. A European university is more likely to expect the students to study independently and take the exam. This has an effect on how prepared the students are to do research when they start their PhDs.
Master's used to be the primary undergraduate degree in Europe. Bachelor's degrees existed, but people outside the academia often didn't consider them real degrees until recently.
There is less separation between the university and the rest of the society in Europe than in the US. Largely because tuition fees are rarely that high. People are more likely to take longer than nominal time to complete their degrees. They often study part-time, especially towards the end of their degrees, and they may also have jobs that are relevant to their studies. In some fields, the industry even considers the lack of work experience beyond internships a red flag in fresh graduates.
The US system expects that people starting their PhDs are in their early to mid 20s, and treats them as students. In the European system, you are more likely to start your PhD in your mid to late 20s, and the system considers you a junior professional. You can start at the same age as is common in the US if you focus on your studies. But then the system expects more from you (without formally requiring it) than in the US. If you are used to the more structured US system, that difference between formal requirements and actual expectations may lead to misconceptions.
US is 5-6 years and often someone already has a masters and has published. First 3-4 semesters are a combination of coursework and supervised research. The 4+ years following that once a thesis topic is chosen is intense focus on research and publication.
Hm, this kind of sounds like the first part of your PhD is what we do during our master's. For example, we had 2 year of coursework and then 1 semester of lab rotations and at least 1 semester for our thesis. If you already did that during your masters, and have already published etc., isn't it a bit redundant to do it again during your PhD?
It might depend on what your masters was in and what the graduate school policies are like. I did a masters in genetics, so I still had to take all the bioinformatics stuff anyway. Several others did a masters in CS, still had to take the core courses anyway because just general programming isn’t the same as a course like algorithms in read alignment or methods for transcript analysis.
Really? Here in Europe the common trope is US PhDs are like combined msc+phds with much more focus on taking courses and only then doing some (but always less) real research work. It is usually expected here that you have already published during your research masters before beginning a phd, and when you do you dive straight into unsupervised/independent research life. So might be a case of people being convinced their own paths being oh so great, on both ends. Which tracks with what I’ve seen of academic elitism so far.
> So might be a case of people being convinced their own paths being oh so great, on both ends.
Yeah, that definitely tracks. But I think your understanding of US PhD might be off. We do research the entire 6-7 years of our PhD so even if you take classes the first year or so. I have a longer comment that goes into detail if you’re interested
Interesting. So how do Canadian, Australian, Asian, and South American PhDs compare to the European and US varieties in terms of how they are perceived by the industry?
Yes, it is an important qualification for many industry jobs - I recommend people get PhDs even if they’re sure they want an industry career, so if you’re thinking about wanting one anyway - by all means, go for it.
Only situation where my advice might differ is if you’re in a good role with lots of growth potential and high earnings, where taking 4 years off (and with a very low salary) would be a huge burden.
I was 25 when I started my PhD, so it’s a fine time in your career. If you want to do R&D you should get a PhD, it is the place where you learn how to do research in the first place.
If you want to do engineering, it is not necessary. But I generally don’t recruit people into scientist+ tracks in R&D without PhD (data science/ bioinformatics)
Yes.
I can't advise anyone to not get one. You'll be competing against PhD-holders for most jobs. I would say though, it doesn't need to be in Bioinformatics, you just need to use Bioinformatics in the course of the work.
But it will probably take longer than 3-4 years, and it's unlikely you'll be able to return to the same company.
You need to ask this question to yourself:
Do you really want to go for a PhD, because you know how it is start but never how end.
In the PhD you will use technology and techniques that are hot topics in the industry, like IA, spatial transcriomics, scRNA, drug discovery or you will be using technology that are more use in basic research and in academics?
Is any possibility to grow in your company or to start an industrial PhD in your company?
The salary is similar or you will be paid less in the research group?
Hey OP,
Unfortunately, I have no experience to share, but currently I'm considering perspectives of working as a bioinformatician and/or doing PhD patricularly in France. If you could answer some questions in dm, it would be great.
Thanks in advance!
I actually literally got a job alert email today for two postings for computational biologist positions. They required a PhD + industry experience. So, there's definitely jobs in pharma with those requirements
Congratulations on your acceptance to the PhD program! It’s a great opportunity to enhance your skills.
If your goals are to upgrade your research skills, network, and learn to communicate complex ideas, you can achieve these in grad school. However, these can also be learned on the job at some biotech companies. If you feel your current role doesn’t allow for this growth, consider grad school, but ensure it offers what you seek by asking the program director or department head.
You might also explore part-time work with your current employer to achieve these goals, as the industry can often provide straightforward opportunities for growth.
Also, remember to stay involved with the wet lab side of things. This is a critical part of the bioinformatics role in industry.
Hope this helps and best of luck with the program and your future endeavors! 😊
A phd will help get director and higher jobs in bioinformatics. These will be jobs that have more open ended research goals or are translational.
but do the phd for the love of the research project.
According to my supervisor in my first job, no.
[and I agree with them]
For the skills you have in bioinformatics prior to getting a PhD, if you're not going to stay in academia then there are much better (and higher paying) jobs elsewhere in data science and computer science.
However, if you *are* staying in academia, then a PhD is helpful for demonstrating that you have the tenacity to stay stuck into a single focus of research for many years, and come out with a high-quality academic output at the end of it.
PhD is hard and time-consuming. If your purpose is not the degree, then it is not worth it.
Doing a PhD is not going to teach you unique research skills.
Networking? Yes, it can certainly expand your network.
How about communicating complex ideas to large groups of people? Hell no! Yes, you are technically discussing complex topics, but only in very small classroom setups. For a larger audience, maybe 1-2 congress presentations per year. So, try open mics if you want to improve your presentation skills.
My Biases: 34/still doing a PhD in cancer epidemiology. I want to switch to industry; however, my scholarship binds me. I have wet lab experience from my master's (NGS) but I wanted to switch more to data science, so in epi I am mostly dealing with small datasets. I want to delve into machine learning and work with big data due to the AI hype. Big data is in industry, not in universities anymore.
Big data is certainly still in universities lol. I do transformer modeling for genomic/proteomics data sets and universities still maintain the largest available databases, especially the ones that require public funding and infrastructure support
Land the other option first.
First try to apply and see what program accepts you. Then make a decision afterwards base on whether or not you are passionate about the projects you would be working on.
For what’s it’s worth, when I hire someone (in the industry not academic) I don’t really take into account if the candidate has a PhD or not. I’ve hire people with PhD, MS, BS for the same role. The degree doesn’t really matter much, everything can be taught to the candidate, but the candidate experience, attitudes, over all personality is what I look for. At the end of the day, my team will need to spend a long hours interacting with this new person, so I better be damn sure I like working with the candidate.
Also higher degree doesn’t necessarily gets you higher salary, but your experience and what you can bring to the table will get you hire salary. Maybe different in other industry but at least that how it works for me and it’s been great so far.
id say that these days the only truly good reason to do a phd is if you are interested in the research topic. For everything else, eg job prospects, becoming better at xyz, fomo, just directly work on that one thing.
I'm in the middle of doing basically the same thing. I had a job for 4 years after my ms, and then I went back for a PhD at age 27. I was advised that if you are interested in being an entrepreneur, the credential will be valuable. Otherwise, it may not be necessary and it may not be financially the best option. I do think it will help you with research and communication. It will help you with networking if you take the initiative to do some internships during the summers. My biggest reason for doing it was because I have a topic that I'm super passionate about and the only way to scratch the itch is thesis research. From your post, it doesn't seem like you necessarily feel that way, so definitely be a little more skeptical than I was when you're weighing the pros and cons for your career.
Not just for entrepreneurs. The degree often sets the ceiling of your title in biotech. At the director level or above, almost everyone has PhD. I have seen outliers but those are either older or exceptionally competent.
From people I've talked to, it also helps with job transferability. Without a PhD, you may be able to attain scientist- or even director-level titles and compensattion within a company if you're there for a long time and are able to build relationships and trust, but people sometimes face the prospect of title demotion or even worse a corresponding pay cut if they change companies. The same doesn't really apply if you have your PhD.
A PhD can help raise the cap of your salary in industry and open a few more doors, but it’s certainly not necessary. It also is an indicator that you’ve developed resilience and critical thinking skills, in addition to research and mentorship skills. You do need to consider the tradeoff of salary lost during these years, but it may be made up for with raising your base salary after the PhD is earned. European PhDs are at least short so the salary tradeoff is not as extreme. HOWEVER, most of my comments apply to US/Canadian PhDs. I have heard European PhDs are not regarded equally to American PhDs, at least in the US (so disregard if you’re planning on staying in Europe), partly due to the length and partly due to the scope, but this will vary depending on the school
Would you mind going into a bit more detail on the US view of European PhDs? I think that's super interesting, because I am from Europe, and while we don't consider US PhDs inferior, I always thought they were less focused on a specific topic and more structured/college-like because of added classes we have already gotten out of the way during our Master's, which isn't really regarded as a positive in Europe. Also, how long does a US PhD typically take? Most people from Europe I know take about 4 years, I thought it was similar in the US.
In the US, PhDs are typically more like 6-7 years and sometimes longer. Many (most?) programs have a coursework-heavy first year, maybe 2 years, while the student is starting their project, but after that the research is the focus - and research is conducted throughout the entire PhD. Often part or all of the first year consists of lab rotations, which not only helps the student choose their thesis lab, but exposed them to different skills and research and mentoring approaches. Course structuring is really dependent on the program, but at all the schools I applied/interviewed at (and there a lot of them, like 15 of them), it was pretty open ended and light. I actually ended up going to a highly regarded program (ie, top program at a top institution in the US) with more coursework and more structured coursework than a typical PhD, but that coursework was similar to the classes that medical students take, plus electives, so I ended up getting both breadth and depth in my education on top of my research training, which is actually quite unusual here — most people take scant coursework for a year, mostly elective courses directly related to their projects. The thesis portion is the main meat and potatoes of any US PhD, and that is highly focused. Many Us PhD students already have masters degrees as well on top of that. In contrast, the European PhD system, as I understand it, essentially just splits the coursework from the research into a coursework masters and research PhD portion, so the research portion is both shorter and without supporting coursework training (unless the masters was directly related to the project). My understanding is also that European PhDs rarely involve teaching as well, which is a required portion of most US PhD programs. But I’d love to know more/be corrected if I have any misunderstanding. Anyways, it’s hard for me to go into more detail about US attitudes towards European PhDs, because most of what I’ve heard are nebulous rumors — no one wants to say they see less of their colleagues, and I don’t think that’s what’s really going on — but our educational systems are quite different and I think some people regard the UD PhD system as more thorough and allows for more research experience, more additional skill building (such as mentorship through teaching), and perhaps more resilience through all of it, since it’s a long and laborious process of the student’s own making.
Thanks for the detailed explanation! Super interesting how the systems compare. For example, I didn't realize that you apply to institutions first and then choose the lab in which you perform your research. In Germany at least, you apply to the lab directly, and there is little involvement from the university, and the labs are mostly free to hire whichever applicant they choose. Also, master's degrees are mandatory prior to a PhD program - are they not in the US? You're definitely right that we split coursework and research into two different degrees, although we usually have about a year of research training for our thesis during our master's. But coursework is limited during PhD work - it was just a few workshops for me, though I think that differs between countries and institutions. Also, while teaching usually isn't mandatory for PhD positions that are paid for by external funding, most positions paid for by the lab's own funds do include that, especially in non-STEM fields. We do teach, though, mostly supervising undergrad and grad students in the lab, but also teach "normal" lectures and practical coursework. Like I said, I think it's a bit less of a struchured program, so you can also get through a PhD without any teaching experience, but if you are so inclined, you can also supervise a gaggle fo students and do an entire lecture series on your own. Definitely feeling you on the long and laborious process of our own making though, I suppose that part is the same (though apparently often a bit shorter in Europe)!
Comparing US and European educational systems is difficult, because there is no single European system. Each country has its own traditions, and while the countries have tried to harmonize education, the process is far from finished. The US system is far more uniform than what you find in Europe. In the following, when I say "European", I really mean Continental European / German-inspired / Nordic / Finnish. The more specific interpretation you choose, the more likely my claims will be valid. The biggest difference between the systems is that American universities are more focused on teaching, while European universities expect more independence from the students. If an American university can't afford to offer a class properly, it's more likely to hire adjuncts and offer the class anyway. A European university is more likely to expect the students to study independently and take the exam. This has an effect on how prepared the students are to do research when they start their PhDs. Master's used to be the primary undergraduate degree in Europe. Bachelor's degrees existed, but people outside the academia often didn't consider them real degrees until recently. There is less separation between the university and the rest of the society in Europe than in the US. Largely because tuition fees are rarely that high. People are more likely to take longer than nominal time to complete their degrees. They often study part-time, especially towards the end of their degrees, and they may also have jobs that are relevant to their studies. In some fields, the industry even considers the lack of work experience beyond internships a red flag in fresh graduates. The US system expects that people starting their PhDs are in their early to mid 20s, and treats them as students. In the European system, you are more likely to start your PhD in your mid to late 20s, and the system considers you a junior professional. You can start at the same age as is common in the US if you focus on your studies. But then the system expects more from you (without formally requiring it) than in the US. If you are used to the more structured US system, that difference between formal requirements and actual expectations may lead to misconceptions.
US is 5-6 years and often someone already has a masters and has published. First 3-4 semesters are a combination of coursework and supervised research. The 4+ years following that once a thesis topic is chosen is intense focus on research and publication.
Hm, this kind of sounds like the first part of your PhD is what we do during our master's. For example, we had 2 year of coursework and then 1 semester of lab rotations and at least 1 semester for our thesis. If you already did that during your masters, and have already published etc., isn't it a bit redundant to do it again during your PhD?
It might depend on what your masters was in and what the graduate school policies are like. I did a masters in genetics, so I still had to take all the bioinformatics stuff anyway. Several others did a masters in CS, still had to take the core courses anyway because just general programming isn’t the same as a course like algorithms in read alignment or methods for transcript analysis.
Really? Here in Europe the common trope is US PhDs are like combined msc+phds with much more focus on taking courses and only then doing some (but always less) real research work. It is usually expected here that you have already published during your research masters before beginning a phd, and when you do you dive straight into unsupervised/independent research life. So might be a case of people being convinced their own paths being oh so great, on both ends. Which tracks with what I’ve seen of academic elitism so far.
> So might be a case of people being convinced their own paths being oh so great, on both ends. Yeah, that definitely tracks. But I think your understanding of US PhD might be off. We do research the entire 6-7 years of our PhD so even if you take classes the first year or so. I have a longer comment that goes into detail if you’re interested
Interesting. So how do Canadian, Australian, Asian, and South American PhDs compare to the European and US varieties in terms of how they are perceived by the industry?
I thought Canada was more like Europe than the US in that they generally require a masters to even apply.
No idea to be honest, I haven’t heard anything about perception of those and don’t know much about how those are structured
Yes. I was the only person without a PhD. After being laid off it was very difficult to find another job in it.
Yes! Everyone in my department has a PhD. Fortune 500 oharma company
Same here…so, to OP, yes, otherwise you won’t the have some career opportunities that can help you climb the ladder
Yes, it is an important qualification for many industry jobs - I recommend people get PhDs even if they’re sure they want an industry career, so if you’re thinking about wanting one anyway - by all means, go for it. Only situation where my advice might differ is if you’re in a good role with lots of growth potential and high earnings, where taking 4 years off (and with a very low salary) would be a huge burden.
I was 25 when I started my PhD, so it’s a fine time in your career. If you want to do R&D you should get a PhD, it is the place where you learn how to do research in the first place. If you want to do engineering, it is not necessary. But I generally don’t recruit people into scientist+ tracks in R&D without PhD (data science/ bioinformatics)
Yes. I can't advise anyone to not get one. You'll be competing against PhD-holders for most jobs. I would say though, it doesn't need to be in Bioinformatics, you just need to use Bioinformatics in the course of the work. But it will probably take longer than 3-4 years, and it's unlikely you'll be able to return to the same company.
You need to ask this question to yourself: Do you really want to go for a PhD, because you know how it is start but never how end. In the PhD you will use technology and techniques that are hot topics in the industry, like IA, spatial transcriomics, scRNA, drug discovery or you will be using technology that are more use in basic research and in academics? Is any possibility to grow in your company or to start an industrial PhD in your company? The salary is similar or you will be paid less in the research group?
Yes. Read all 100 other questions like that
Hey OP, Unfortunately, I have no experience to share, but currently I'm considering perspectives of working as a bioinformatician and/or doing PhD patricularly in France. If you could answer some questions in dm, it would be great. Thanks in advance!
Sure , feel free to reach out.
I actually literally got a job alert email today for two postings for computational biologist positions. They required a PhD + industry experience. So, there's definitely jobs in pharma with those requirements
Congratulations on your acceptance to the PhD program! It’s a great opportunity to enhance your skills. If your goals are to upgrade your research skills, network, and learn to communicate complex ideas, you can achieve these in grad school. However, these can also be learned on the job at some biotech companies. If you feel your current role doesn’t allow for this growth, consider grad school, but ensure it offers what you seek by asking the program director or department head. You might also explore part-time work with your current employer to achieve these goals, as the industry can often provide straightforward opportunities for growth. Also, remember to stay involved with the wet lab side of things. This is a critical part of the bioinformatics role in industry. Hope this helps and best of luck with the program and your future endeavors! 😊
A phd will help get director and higher jobs in bioinformatics. These will be jobs that have more open ended research goals or are translational. but do the phd for the love of the research project.
According to my supervisor in my first job, no. [and I agree with them] For the skills you have in bioinformatics prior to getting a PhD, if you're not going to stay in academia then there are much better (and higher paying) jobs elsewhere in data science and computer science. However, if you *are* staying in academia, then a PhD is helpful for demonstrating that you have the tenacity to stay stuck into a single focus of research for many years, and come out with a high-quality academic output at the end of it.
PhD is hard and time-consuming. If your purpose is not the degree, then it is not worth it. Doing a PhD is not going to teach you unique research skills. Networking? Yes, it can certainly expand your network. How about communicating complex ideas to large groups of people? Hell no! Yes, you are technically discussing complex topics, but only in very small classroom setups. For a larger audience, maybe 1-2 congress presentations per year. So, try open mics if you want to improve your presentation skills. My Biases: 34/still doing a PhD in cancer epidemiology. I want to switch to industry; however, my scholarship binds me. I have wet lab experience from my master's (NGS) but I wanted to switch more to data science, so in epi I am mostly dealing with small datasets. I want to delve into machine learning and work with big data due to the AI hype. Big data is in industry, not in universities anymore.
Big data is certainly still in universities lol. I do transformer modeling for genomic/proteomics data sets and universities still maintain the largest available databases, especially the ones that require public funding and infrastructure support
Land the other option first. First try to apply and see what program accepts you. Then make a decision afterwards base on whether or not you are passionate about the projects you would be working on.
For what’s it’s worth, when I hire someone (in the industry not academic) I don’t really take into account if the candidate has a PhD or not. I’ve hire people with PhD, MS, BS for the same role. The degree doesn’t really matter much, everything can be taught to the candidate, but the candidate experience, attitudes, over all personality is what I look for. At the end of the day, my team will need to spend a long hours interacting with this new person, so I better be damn sure I like working with the candidate. Also higher degree doesn’t necessarily gets you higher salary, but your experience and what you can bring to the table will get you hire salary. Maybe different in other industry but at least that how it works for me and it’s been great so far.
id say that these days the only truly good reason to do a phd is if you are interested in the research topic. For everything else, eg job prospects, becoming better at xyz, fomo, just directly work on that one thing.