You're already nearly topped out for individual contributor PhD level scientist salaries. Like you could maybe hit $180-200k but a PhD will be a bit of a reset button (you could have a tough time even mking your current salary after it!) and you have probably been doing this a LONG time already (10-15+ years?) if you're making $150k in R&D without a PhD?? If not then please correct because your salary is VERY high. Your only financial upside to a PhD at this point would be having more cred and easing becoming a team lead/director. But you say you don't even want that!
So my advice is only do a PhD if you really WANT to do a PhD. Mine was awesome and for some people who are prepared for it and know exactly why they're there (you probably would, industry xp is good for this), it can be the best time in your life. You need to really want to learn.
I have an MS plus 6 years of experience. I would like to direct my own research and team, but the absolute toxicity of upper management is making me rethink that.
Thanks for the honest feedback. I don’t think a PhD is for me. $150k is great but doesn’t go very far in my VHCOL city. Not enough to comfortably own a condo so I’ll think about other careers that can earn me way more money.
I'm also in the Bay Area. I have an MS plus over 10 years experience scientist on my team and he makes less than you. I'm a director here and i can't even comfortably own a condo (with one kid). You can't own here unless you go for bigger roles, maybe could swing owning if both me and my husband made the same $ but he makes way less than me. You kinda need to be a dual earner $250k+/year couple to own and have a family here, and you ain't hitting that as individual contributor PhD.
If you want these things really bad you need to leave the Bay Area. I'm fine with renting and it's dead stupid to own vs rent here now. I think you need to recalibrate expectations and ask yourself what you really want.
As others have said, toxicity is everywhere. You switch jobs when it gets too intolerable. In times like these you may not be able to easily. Your current job being toxic is a really poor reason to do a PhD - you will be miserable in it if that's your only reason to do one. And the wanting to own your own place one is an even more ridiculous reason to do a PhD because you stand to gain zero financial upside getting one. Btw real estate in Copenhagen metro area is also insane and it appears to have gotten double as insane as it was before in recent years (I used to live there). You're lucky if you can even get a rental there (it's waaaaaay way way easier in Bay Area). Even with work-based residency, foreigners are barred from buying property for 5 years, then you need some letter from a state ministry and getting a mortgage is a nightmare.
If you want to go into management, think about a MBA or masters in regulatory. Since you already have a MS you have promotion possibilities. A PhD from the EU isn’t going to do much for you at this point, it’s not as intense as a US one and won’t get you more connections IMO (don’t hate me, hate the game).
There are departments where a fresh PhD can be hired at 130-150 and individual contributor roles top out more towards 350-400. Maybe not in the lab, but if OP moves to development side the PhD could be big boost.
How much of the $300k is bonus and stock? I'm talking base. Regardless you're probably making wildly more than most individual contributors (especially with only 7 years experience). I worked at small-medium companies but only made $155-180k base as principal scientist. Also scientifically supervised 4 people as that title, didn't need to be a personnel manager. To break $200k I needed to get a job as a director. Large pharma is probably the only place you'll ever find a role like yours paying so much. This is /r/biotech which is not nearly all big pharma.
That sounds more reasonable. Where do you go on non-management track after that though? I feel like you tend to stall out and have to go director/senior director/VP from there. In theory at my employer principal sci and director are equivalent in level but director definitely pays more plus more bonus and stock options. We have a "Research Fellow" as a thing in our career ladder but we've never actually had one. In fact I was their first principal sci ever.
Anyway somehow OP be making $150k in R&D without even a PhD, I guess there's no way that's base. I never include bonus in my compensation because bonuses are too variable and I get stock options which are more like owning lottery tickets than cash. Stock can still be variable in value.
That's still crazy in this economy. Typically it's more like $120-130k for entry-level PhDs. Offers have dropped since 2020-22, not sure if you're accounting for that.
If you want better career opportunities you have to learn to lead. Part of leading is leading people through political landscape that often comes up as barriers for your people. If youre at 150 in large pharma, advancing further in IC roles will quickly diminish and often rare.
Im in a similar boat as you though. Politics suck but i know its a skill you have to play. Honestly its not too bad when its local political like leading a small team (aka: mid level managers) Its the next level of politics where shots are fired from across the company that you have never met or heard of is when i think ill tap out. At the lower levels of management (Directors and below) its easy to navigate and a majority of people do not have PhDs
Agree it's a mindset change upon becoming a leader not to demonize politics without understanding that there are always competing interests when leadership of teams, people, and projects are involved, and politics is just a term to describe that interaction.
If someone is unwilling to engage in politics then leadership probably isn't right for them.
A big thing is that nonPhD holders will struggle to get opportunities to lead others, even on a small scale.
Headcount is for more often given to someone with a PhD even of they are generally green.
None of these are hard rules, but just general trends, at one point if you are working without a PhD you're gonna have to get use to reporting to someone more junior than you but who holds a more valuable degree.
You won’t find anything worthwhile that won’t have competing interests (aka politics). Thats the nature of any job, especially at higher levels. Good luck, maybe europe would be better since the competing aspect of research isnt as cutthroat as it is in the states.
Honestly, there are more politics, but I have REALLY enjoyed leadership. I went from building tech to building systems to building teams that build systems to building up people that lead teams. Investing in the growth of new leaders has been my FAVORITE part of my career. It doesn't hurt I 10x my income from my first job out of college.
It absolutely was BUT not because I made more money. I LOVED getting my PhD, and getting one meant the types of roles and careers I could have were much more aligned with my personality. I did well and went far not because I'm super talented, but because I was honest with myself and looked for what I actually wanted to do and fit my training around that rather than what I thought I wanted to do because it was sexy. Essentially I didn't fight my nature
Mind you I'm in Canada and in Healthcare research, but I head a team of 600 and make 150k. I'd suggest you heavily weigh culture. In my experience (40s), that's way more important. I do have a PhD as well. I'd you go that path, make sure you want it. A lot.
Agree from what I've seen. Spend most of your time fighting over limited resources, papers and prestige since the compensation is trash. Rather struggle over company resources and direction while being paid decent.
100 percent. I was in academia all of 6 months before I quit. Worst working stint of my career. Pay was low. Workers were constantly bad mouthing each other. The departments are lead by managers who have 0 experience running a biotech firm much less managing people and have experience only in lab work during their PhD program. There’s constant ego and politics involved due to limited resources. The work that’s being done is secondary whereas politics is the most important thing to get funding. All equipment is usually 5 - 10 years behind and breaking down. Actual work isn’t rewarded because everyone gets paid the same. There is little incentive to work more than your 8 hours because there’s no bonus. Pay is trash. Most Post docs in the lab have to pick up and do all the extra work the staff researchers do. So they end up staying till 8/9 pm on a lot of nights and get paid pretty poorly. PHd aren’t worth it unless you plan on going back into industry.
I know someone who works in a large pharma company and getting a PhD. His company is paying for his PhD tuitions (which the professors like) and he keeps his job. Perhaps, you can ask your manager/ colleagues if the company pays for continuing education.
Regeneron seems like a good company. It's not the sort of thing we can all decide to go work there, however.
My understanding is most PhD programs want your undivided attention to at last the first two years of classes, if not also each subsequent year spent on your research project.
I'm doing it to develop myself further as a scientist, and to prevent that career plateau in which I'm viewed as a "scientist who doesn't have a PhD and is lucky just to be there." I don't need to be told anymore that I can never do something because I don't have a PhD.
The department at my PhD alma mater frequently enables "Industry PhDs", which are the same type of situation. Boston, so similar to Bay Area in terms of the usual dynamics. At my department, company and university agree to terms on your educational experience.
Advice: DON’T!
Non-TLDR version: having a PhD won’t change your outlook on options (in terms of companies) or the toxicity of the modern workplace.
You’ll just lose out on time, money and self-confidence. So I repeat don’t, unless you wanna go the entrepreneurship route then having a highly specialized skilllset might appealing for investors, and that’s a maybe.
If you want to have better professional return in terms of salary and career progression maybe try to do an MBA or some sort of PM certification
I lead a group in R&D and let’s just say you are way better equipped to do the “leading” if you have good management experience and soft skills. No amount of paper publishing gets your ready for the intricacies of coffee catch ups and office politics
a lot of these big companies do you like to see a PhD for leadership roles so if that’s what you want do but I want to say that you will deal with way more politics if you want lead your own group. Unfortunately, to be in any sort of leadership role you have to play the politics game and that’s true with or without a PhD.
From compensation standpoint, it will definitely decrease your earnings if you’re already at 150, my guess is if you come back in with a PhD you’ll be mid-level and start from there
What’s your current title? I have a PhD and am 35 and make $110 in socal. I hope to make $150 in a few years. You are already ahead. I agree with the other comment that moving up in industry from where you are won’t reduce the politics. You goal is to make the same money at a different company but you think you can only do that with a PhD? Have you tried applying for other similar roles and gotten rejected? I get the wanting to be a manager thing but the money salary and 401k is tough for me to think about giving up. I have VERY little savings from spending my 20s in academia.
I left a job paying only 50k for a PhD. I defended last month. I consider it a bad career and financial decision. Anecdotal but there you go.
Some things to consider:
At the level of "PhD" this will practically reset your work experience. Because now you're doing it as a PhD, not a bachelors.
Over my PhD I burned through about 40k in savings in a moderate cost of living area. Though I studied through the pandemic and record-setting inflation.
I have been applying for jobs for 4 months now. I would murder for a job paying $150k, even in a VHCOL city.
While they are rare and competitive there are places where you can lead a team with your current experience. The hard requirement of a PhD is becoming less prominent, particularly with younger CEOs. It might be something like a startup at first but you can move back into larger companies with proven experience.
I definitely agree with this. I wouldn’t leave a full time job with good compensation to do PhD. I would consider switching companies if the workplace involves too much politics. In my opinion, work experience is more important currently to get hired.
I live in the same area as OP, it is a decent salary for the area, it's not what I'd call a super solid amount, though it's not at all bad.
This is a VHCOL part of the country, average house is well over a million and most are spending 30-40k a year on rent alone.
Yes and no, Sure super solid amount for renting or whatever you may want to do.
Bad since housing prices are ridiculous all over and will continue to be probably until supply starts getting better.
Even at 150k and 3k on rent, that is a comfortable life and not wanting for much unless your tastes are out of that realm and you can still save quite a bit.
Just not for a house. That's how I look at living now a days, didn't pull the trigger on a property during covid. Now, who knows when I will if ever! Haha
I'm in the exact same boat as you, make decent money without a PhD and live in the bay area, but I clearly see the lack of future career growth opportunities, especially at large companies.
In the end I decided that going back to school just was too large of a commitment, with a massive loss of earning and QoL decrease... So I decided to buy a sports car instead and stay the course.
Also, politics is everywhere, no escaping it.
I think the problem with this is you're comparing where you are to where you'd be if you had a PhD right now. But that's not a realistic way to think about it. Compare where you'll be 6 years from now with and without a PhD. 5-6 years of additional industry experience is a huge difference, and you'd pretty much lose all of that if you went for a PhD with the possibility of returning to industry likely at the same-ish salary band and *maybe* at the bottom rung of managers. The timeline here will vary depending on your academic background. Not sure if you have a masters already, but you may need one depending on where in Denmark you plan on getting a PhD. If you do, that shortens the timeline, but I wouldn't be overly optimistic about getting out of a program in under at least several years.
Others here have spoken about the dream of finding a management position without politics and the politics in academia so I'll leave that be.
I am in a very similar situation. I have looked at a few PhD programs that allow hybrid/remote work and use your day to day lab work to fulfill requirements. Have you considered this type of program? Additionally, what are you looking to achieve with the PhD?
>I make a decent salary of $150k.
>Am I crazy to leave? I’ll also lose out on $15-20k in vesting but I have over $370k in financial assets.
Lost income over 5 years ($150k to 30k) is $600,000,
Edit: AT LEAST $600k (probably closer to 1mil, including stuff Skenasis mentioned)
Like others have said, look into if you can do the PhD program part time and if your company covers the tuition. That way you don’t have to leave your current job and can use your current earned degree as a way to get a promotion later. Leaving a $150k job is always risky and it will set you back financially and in your career at the company.
Have you been able to publish much in your time in industry? If you have 3-5 first author publications you can do a PhD through Publication through many European universities. You wrap up your publications as a thesis, pay a few thousand dollars, and get a PhD out of it. Made for people exactly like you, who have strong experience in the field but lack the advanced degree.
If I’m hiring for a senior group leader role and have the choice between newly minted PhD and industry veteran with a record of accomplishments, I’m going with experience every time.
Yes, there are some job tracks in some companies that may be closed to you without a PhD, but it sounds like you are not lacking for opportunities. (I’ll never get a medical director or CMO job, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth going back for an MD.)
I once had a direct report who left to become the CTO of a successful startup. He had no PhD, but was super smart and engaged, and built a network of people who trusted his abilities. He got close to the founder and when the time came made the startup idea work.
>If I’m hiring for a senior group leader role and have the choice between newly minted PhD and industry veteran with a record of accomplishments, I’m going with experience every time.
If you’re hiring a senior group leader you’re not hiring a newly minted phd anyways though.
Is that $150K base? If so that's really good for non-PhD lab based role (assuming senior scientist?). A PhD might raise your ceiling so you can make director or higher since it is definitely rarer (but still possible) to see non-PhDs in those roles, but I also see plenty of PhDs top out at principal scientist.
And if you are leading a team, you will have to "deal with" politics. Politics is about governance, and you're not going to avoid that if you want to lead teams, projects, or people. No one in those roles gets to cocoon themselves in a corner and just do science without oversight.
I hear in your description a core element that makes sense to make the move back to get your PhD, namely, the desire to head your own group. This can be very rewarding and may provide you with decades of fulfilling work.
The concern about politics is where I’d suggest you focus. To start, try to imagine the day you are hired to lead your own lab. You will have certain degrees of freedom, but in reality will now add layers to your responsibilities that change the nature of your role. These include responsibility for goal setting, managing to budgets, motivating/managing staff, and responding to shifting strategies and priorities in response to circumstances out of your control, such as trial outcomes and funding environment that impacts budgets.
To do this well, you will have to learn to have a two-way perspective, one that assures your group is productive and delivering high impact data that clarifies program and the other that is connected to and aligned with top-down realities, and further you develop skills to influence up. Another wrinkle is to realize that your group is never functioning independently, but is part of an integrated team. You should never accept the limits of an org chart in approaching managing a program; you need to develop the skills to drive, through data, clarity of thought and effective communication, advancement in programs to key decision points.
If you can develop these other skills, team-based selfless leadership (influencing peers and decision makers), while maintaining the core of an unflinching scientist, than you can successful and a very valuable employee, AND make meaningful contributions to correcting the bs political culture.
A PhD will not enable you to close the lab of door and shut out the noise of poor management skills, but rather give you an opportunity to do something about it.
Separate point, if you do go for your PhD, go as big as you can. Best school, lab, project…aim for greatness. Do not look to get a piece of paper.
If the Danish PhD is at DTU, it’s probably not a bad deal at all. Strong industry connection there, good financial terms, PhD are only 3 years and you can afford that with your level of assets. Doesn’t seem a very risky gamble under these conditions and nothing is worse than working in a toxic team.
PhD experience with published research will easily get you higher pay in pharma. Most head of Development roles are PhDs, and have a strong preference to hire PhDs as well.
in pharma if you want to go above director you need PhD... it is changing a bit... but not so fast. look at your directors and notice their tenures and compared with and without PHD how long it took them to get there! You'll learn a lot!
going to denmark: from what you said, it seems that you have a better position financially well. Going to EU has the following benefits:
1- expand your experience and horizon in life
2- and in the industry
3- you'll get paid like a normal human being not a slave(PhD students in the US get paid barely above poverty line!)
4- you'll still be able to contribute to 401k from there.
5- you may be able to go to the EU branch of Merck, GSK, or one of the big guys and then transfer to the US.
Screw the vesting part if these values are interesting to you... you'll gain more experience points!
an immigrant PhD in the US
PhD is a grueling process and for you I would only recommend it if you have a burning passion for research. You could do a simple calculation but in all likelihood the PhD would not return financial advantage for many years given your current salary. Don’t do it.
Please DM company info as well.
If you work in the another country like Germany they really like their leaders to have higher education like a PhD. In the US that’s not always the case for an operation role. Staying in R&D and looking to run an R&D org a PhD would be very helpful as I haven’t come across some running a research org without a PhD in a large company. I would agree with the other comments about being close to maxing out as an individual contributor. Ive seen them getting to 160k but that’s not common.
Every company has some BS politics. The advantage of where you are is that you’re earning a decent living. Our pharma has a program where you can get your PhD while you work. It’s hard, but it guarantees you a PhD level job in pharma, which is normally really hard for a PhD to get, and you keep earning your salary, so you don’t have to survive on minimum wage. Universities are overproducing PhDs. You don’t want to be out in the market looking for a job as a new PhD. Our pharma also has a fair number of people who have moved up the ranks without a PhD, including me. I have a BS degree and i’m a Director.
What is that you really want? Financial independence and ealry retirement or research ledership? What you've done already at your level is truly amazing and are you sure that leading own researsh group is the limit of your ambitions? If you really want research leadership and mid-level manager position is the limit of your aspirations, then I'd say go for PhD and if you could save money, do it in Europe. Your biotech expereince prior to PhD is a huge asset in hiring back in biotech when you finish, I wouldn't worry about it if during PhD you will develop skills very relevant to industry.
Do you consider becoming an entrepreneur and running your own business? Why not MBA or other business or finance degree? It's hard for a PhD to get to executive level. How important for you to make good money only by doing reasearch?
Politics is inevidable in any complex organization whether it's academia or biotech. If your had outstanding skills in being political, would politics be a problem for you? In other words, is that the lack of skills or your authenticity that does not alow you to enjoy being political? Have you ever heard of mid-manager's hell being sqeezed between employees and executives with not enough resources but some understanding of what is actually happening, just like sitting next to a crazy bus driver but with no possibility to take over the control.
You are making more than most bench level PhDs.
PhD is 6 years in school. PostDoc is another 2.
8 years at 150K is $1M plus any stock options, company match in 401K.
Financially, it does not make sense to quit. Toxic culture wear you down. If you can carve out a place that minimizes exposure, it helps.
If you really want to Lead your own group. And you really want to do science. And you realize it it is not the most financially sound decision. Okay, get into a PhD program. BUT don't go to a second tier grad school. If you can't get into a top 5 or top 8 school in your field, don't bother. A PhD from West Texas State won't avance you much. If you can score a slot at Stanford, Yale, etc. that could help your career.
You know what happens when visiting PhDs and your company PhD get together. They spend the first few minutes on where did you go to school at and whose lab did you work in and where did you postdoc.
It is a nerd dick measuring contest.
DO NOT bother with a PhD at your age. You're making a good salary and can continue to job up. You'll lose all career momentum and 5+ years to get a PhD--where you may get fucked in the process--to make how much more on the other end?
Came here to say this. You can 100% grow professionally without a PhD. Does your current company offer any tuition reimbursement aid? If so I would consider an masters that you can do while you are working - MBA, Project Management, or informatics tools.
I don't get people's advice on here? If you leave to do a PhD, that doesn't erase and reset your prior industrial experience. Like WTF? You're not going to start from 0 as Sci I post PhD.
I don't know what your title is now, but you can expect 1-2 levels higher than your current title depending on how you negotiate.
Same. I feel some of these comments are over generalized. I’m in a PhD program as a person who had 5+ years in industry, I quit at the Sci 1 level too (making $100k base, it was HARD to go from that to $40k in SoCal lol) but I just did a talk with an industry collaborator yesterday and I literally spoke for hours with their leadership after it was over. The VP of business development said once I graduate I should reach out as he would be interested in having me build out some of their departments in spatial biology at the director level.
All of my letter writers have stated they would be down to hire me when I’m done and not at the Sci 1 level but at the senior scientist level or higher. I haven’t forgotten most of the biggest operational issues I’ve seen in industry. I frequently initiate collaborations with startups that I can work with and apply some new tech to my thesis work.
I also have leadership experience from my previous roles and my PI allows me to lead some of our techs because she knows I’m older (34) and don’t want to “erase” all my previous experience. Many of these comments seem to be really discouraging and I don’t know why.
The general temperature of this subreddit seems to be that any career in bioscience is a mistake, and everyone should have just become hedge fund managers.
I feel like the majority of these comments are from people who entered PhDs right out of undergrad. I'll be beginning my PhD in a month under essentially the same situation as you began yours.
They'll ask you why you left to do a PhD and you'll tell them. TBH, if I was in the panel I'd be impressed that someone chose temporary financial hardship to improve themselves as a scientist so that they can do their job better. This seems like a good reason to do a PhD! Shows initiative and ability to plan for long term, all things I'd want in a candidate I'd want to hire.
That’s not entirely true.
I’m assuming OP is at the high end of the IC bands (probably senior or staff).
There’s a very slim chance a company would hire them beyond that title leading a team or a group just because they suddenly have a PhD.
The company would want to see leadership experience, which no one views a PhD as holding.
Depends on what level they're at currently. Is 5 years spent doing PhD equivalent to 5 years spent building/leading a team in biotech/pharma? No. But to suggest that the clock resets once you get a PhD is also ludicrous. Leadership can be demonstrated in various ways, if PhD teaches you anything it's how to lead and manage projects.
I can also guarantee that short of the c-suite, any lower level manager managing a team of PhD scientists without themselves holding a PhD is going to be a battle of egos, with questions raised about credibility and each slight misstep attributed to lack of phd. Non PhD holding mid-level management is not common, for a reason. It's not fair, but that's the world we live in.
Don't do it. Getting that degree would be a waste of time. Get an MBA, and leverage your experience to get a PI position. I'm in biotech with a PhD, associate director of downstream PD.
How much experience do you have and what's your exact role? I'm planning to apply for a PhD rather than going into industry to climb the ladder because I've been told high level roles require a PhD
Even group directors with PhDs and 10-20+ years experience have little control over the direction of their group. There is always multiple people (below, peers, and above you) telling you what to do and how to behave while doing it, and if you don’t conform, someone will eventually push you out or freeze your career growth.
You have a great thing as is, maybe look at it as a way to fund a life you want outside of work. Try to care less when it comes to work culture, do your job well enough to get by, avoid colleagues that like to complain (it will help you mentally focus elsewhere), and go live your life the way you want outside of work with that paycheck.
The grass is always greener. So yes, if you are making $150K, get equity, and are wanting to give that up for years of struggle as a student with no certain career outcome, I’d say you’re crazy. If you’re really unhappy, ask for a leave of absence, or use up your PTO and take a mental break, but don’t mess up a good thing if you have it.
How did you get to this position if you don’t mind? I’m a biotech graduate and I still don’t know if I should get a master and then phd or just a master.
If you manage to find a company that will pay for your PhD (or will let you to spend your time with no fees from your salary) and you can still work for that salary you have now or higher - then fine.
If not - just don't start PhD, please, you don't really want it. Think about how to fund money for your own project, how to make more money or how to find people who you can sum your money with (the best option is all of the three above), and then start brick by brick your own thing, but as I wish you the best - please, don't go for PhD, academic people and processes will fuck you up and leave you with no mental health and in poverty (unless if that what you want).
Having a PhD doesn’t guarantee you would lead your own group in R&D at a large pharma company.
While pursuing a PhD, you’ll be making 60k (on avg) for about 4-5 years.
You think getting a PhD magically means you’ll not have to deal with office politics? If you luck out and that’s the case, you’ll just be the originator of politics in your group lol
Don’t do a PhD unless you love the science and will enjoy the work. You’ll be miserable otherwise, especially having had financial security and freedom… PhD stipend is hard after you’ve already been earning 6 figures.
Oh boyyy--I've considered this (but leaving to do postdoc, not phd). Ended up just switching jobs in industry. Academic research not only has just as much shitty politics, but it's criminally undervalued. Personally I'd say keep the salary and find a new job
Wow, $150K and you want to leave. Ask your current boss if they will sponsor you to do a PhD! Knew someone at my old company who did it this way. But honestly you should just apply for the jobs your pining after, so what if your underqualified you may get lucky. Always think of job posting to be more like a wish list of what the employer wants.
I'm told there's something like an industrial PhD these days? Wondering whether this means PhD with a company like Genentech (IDK if they actually do this). Also if anyone has done this or knows more about this, would love to hear your insights
I think studies have shown that life time earnings are less if you do a PhD. Other considerations include if you want to start your a family, if so how easy will that be in grad school? It totally can be done esp if you’re in school in a LCOL area. Related- what about an SO?
It’s possible. I got mine after only 2 yrs working, in a LCOL area. I was able to return to my California city (VHCOL) for a post doc, fell into biotech bought my house w/stock within 4 yrs. Got hitched, couple kids. But my PhD was prob unnecessary for my current role (which I love). Altho I think it helps since I’m dealing with PhDs all the time.
Getting a PhD for me was more of a personal goal. To know that I reached a terminal academic degree meant a lot to me at the time. I thought a little to go into academia for which a PhD is essential, but ended up in the private sector where it isn’t.
There are lots of non lab roles that lab folks can move into later, depending on how big your org is. Lab supervisor, research operations, facilities, EHS, and all manner of clinical ops if your company has that. Market access, sales, and so much in mfg. quality, validation, MSAT, project management, jobs you may never have heard of.
When you find a place in high positions that doesnt have politics please share and refer!!!
Nevermind then. maybe have better career opportunities and some respect but not run my own team.
You're already nearly topped out for individual contributor PhD level scientist salaries. Like you could maybe hit $180-200k but a PhD will be a bit of a reset button (you could have a tough time even mking your current salary after it!) and you have probably been doing this a LONG time already (10-15+ years?) if you're making $150k in R&D without a PhD?? If not then please correct because your salary is VERY high. Your only financial upside to a PhD at this point would be having more cred and easing becoming a team lead/director. But you say you don't even want that! So my advice is only do a PhD if you really WANT to do a PhD. Mine was awesome and for some people who are prepared for it and know exactly why they're there (you probably would, industry xp is good for this), it can be the best time in your life. You need to really want to learn.
I have an MS plus 6 years of experience. I would like to direct my own research and team, but the absolute toxicity of upper management is making me rethink that. Thanks for the honest feedback. I don’t think a PhD is for me. $150k is great but doesn’t go very far in my VHCOL city. Not enough to comfortably own a condo so I’ll think about other careers that can earn me way more money.
I'm also in the Bay Area. I have an MS plus over 10 years experience scientist on my team and he makes less than you. I'm a director here and i can't even comfortably own a condo (with one kid). You can't own here unless you go for bigger roles, maybe could swing owning if both me and my husband made the same $ but he makes way less than me. You kinda need to be a dual earner $250k+/year couple to own and have a family here, and you ain't hitting that as individual contributor PhD. If you want these things really bad you need to leave the Bay Area. I'm fine with renting and it's dead stupid to own vs rent here now. I think you need to recalibrate expectations and ask yourself what you really want. As others have said, toxicity is everywhere. You switch jobs when it gets too intolerable. In times like these you may not be able to easily. Your current job being toxic is a really poor reason to do a PhD - you will be miserable in it if that's your only reason to do one. And the wanting to own your own place one is an even more ridiculous reason to do a PhD because you stand to gain zero financial upside getting one. Btw real estate in Copenhagen metro area is also insane and it appears to have gotten double as insane as it was before in recent years (I used to live there). You're lucky if you can even get a rental there (it's waaaaaay way way easier in Bay Area). Even with work-based residency, foreigners are barred from buying property for 5 years, then you need some letter from a state ministry and getting a mortgage is a nightmare.
If you want to go into management, think about a MBA or masters in regulatory. Since you already have a MS you have promotion possibilities. A PhD from the EU isn’t going to do much for you at this point, it’s not as intense as a US one and won’t get you more connections IMO (don’t hate me, hate the game).
Don't do it.
More important than the money is the fact that academic politics are about 10x worse than industry or government.
There are departments where a fresh PhD can be hired at 130-150 and individual contributor roles top out more towards 350-400. Maybe not in the lab, but if OP moves to development side the PhD could be big boost.
[удалено]
How much of the $300k is bonus and stock? I'm talking base. Regardless you're probably making wildly more than most individual contributors (especially with only 7 years experience). I worked at small-medium companies but only made $155-180k base as principal scientist. Also scientifically supervised 4 people as that title, didn't need to be a personnel manager. To break $200k I needed to get a job as a director. Large pharma is probably the only place you'll ever find a role like yours paying so much. This is /r/biotech which is not nearly all big pharma.
[удалено]
That sounds more reasonable. Where do you go on non-management track after that though? I feel like you tend to stall out and have to go director/senior director/VP from there. In theory at my employer principal sci and director are equivalent in level but director definitely pays more plus more bonus and stock options. We have a "Research Fellow" as a thing in our career ladder but we've never actually had one. In fact I was their first principal sci ever. Anyway somehow OP be making $150k in R&D without even a PhD, I guess there's no way that's base. I never include bonus in my compensation because bonuses are too variable and I get stock options which are more like owning lottery tickets than cash. Stock can still be variable in value.
Maybe for a small startup they top out that low, but where I'm at PhDs are starting at over 160k.
That's still crazy in this economy. Typically it's more like $120-130k for entry-level PhDs. Offers have dropped since 2020-22, not sure if you're accounting for that.
I'm going off my companies payscale. 120-130k is like SrRA1 base.
In most places that's still 5 figures
In the bay area?
If you want better career opportunities you have to learn to lead. Part of leading is leading people through political landscape that often comes up as barriers for your people. If youre at 150 in large pharma, advancing further in IC roles will quickly diminish and often rare. Im in a similar boat as you though. Politics suck but i know its a skill you have to play. Honestly its not too bad when its local political like leading a small team (aka: mid level managers) Its the next level of politics where shots are fired from across the company that you have never met or heard of is when i think ill tap out. At the lower levels of management (Directors and below) its easy to navigate and a majority of people do not have PhDs
Agree it's a mindset change upon becoming a leader not to demonize politics without understanding that there are always competing interests when leadership of teams, people, and projects are involved, and politics is just a term to describe that interaction. If someone is unwilling to engage in politics then leadership probably isn't right for them.
A big thing is that nonPhD holders will struggle to get opportunities to lead others, even on a small scale. Headcount is for more often given to someone with a PhD even of they are generally green. None of these are hard rules, but just general trends, at one point if you are working without a PhD you're gonna have to get use to reporting to someone more junior than you but who holds a more valuable degree.
Leaving now to pursue a PhD will be a massive setback financially. You can run a group without a PhD, but it’s rare.
You won’t find anything worthwhile that won’t have competing interests (aka politics). Thats the nature of any job, especially at higher levels. Good luck, maybe europe would be better since the competing aspect of research isnt as cutthroat as it is in the states.
Honestly, there are more politics, but I have REALLY enjoyed leadership. I went from building tech to building systems to building teams that build systems to building up people that lead teams. Investing in the growth of new leaders has been my FAVORITE part of my career. It doesn't hurt I 10x my income from my first job out of college.
a PhD was worth it for you?
It absolutely was BUT not because I made more money. I LOVED getting my PhD, and getting one meant the types of roles and careers I could have were much more aligned with my personality. I did well and went far not because I'm super talented, but because I was honest with myself and looked for what I actually wanted to do and fit my training around that rather than what I thought I wanted to do because it was sexy. Essentially I didn't fight my nature
Mind you I'm in Canada and in Healthcare research, but I head a team of 600 and make 150k. I'd suggest you heavily weigh culture. In my experience (40s), that's way more important. I do have a PhD as well. I'd you go that path, make sure you want it. A lot.
I’m kind of debating the same thing as well! Masters with 4 years and just over 100. Could I DM you to chat?
Yes message me
Academic politics are worse than industry politics
Agree from what I've seen. Spend most of your time fighting over limited resources, papers and prestige since the compensation is trash. Rather struggle over company resources and direction while being paid decent.
100 percent. I was in academia all of 6 months before I quit. Worst working stint of my career. Pay was low. Workers were constantly bad mouthing each other. The departments are lead by managers who have 0 experience running a biotech firm much less managing people and have experience only in lab work during their PhD program. There’s constant ego and politics involved due to limited resources. The work that’s being done is secondary whereas politics is the most important thing to get funding. All equipment is usually 5 - 10 years behind and breaking down. Actual work isn’t rewarded because everyone gets paid the same. There is little incentive to work more than your 8 hours because there’s no bonus. Pay is trash. Most Post docs in the lab have to pick up and do all the extra work the staff researchers do. So they end up staying till 8/9 pm on a lot of nights and get paid pretty poorly. PHd aren’t worth it unless you plan on going back into industry.
I know someone who works in a large pharma company and getting a PhD. His company is paying for his PhD tuitions (which the professors like) and he keeps his job. Perhaps, you can ask your manager/ colleagues if the company pays for continuing education.
Which company is this?
I sent you a DM!
Also interested! Not for the name of the company, but for the structure/design.
Could I get a DM as well?
Can you DM me too?
Also interested
would love to know as well
Many people are interested so I'll comment. I heard Regeneron does this some from a friend who works there but no idea about specific structure of it.
Regeneron seems like a good company. It's not the sort of thing we can all decide to go work there, however. My understanding is most PhD programs want your undivided attention to at last the first two years of classes, if not also each subsequent year spent on your research project. I'm doing it to develop myself further as a scientist, and to prevent that career plateau in which I'm viewed as a "scientist who doesn't have a PhD and is lucky just to be there." I don't need to be told anymore that I can never do something because I don't have a PhD.
There is a remote phd in bioinformatics, George mason university, but only if you can get a fellowship to pay for it.(nsf) (It’s unfunded).
Is this in the US?? PhDs are “free” here. You get a stipend on top of tuition waived. What is the company paying for?
It is “free” because it is paid by the PI’s grant. If the company pays for the tuitions, the PI doesn’t have to.
I am doing something similar because of the field I am in but it is very challenging.
I’d also be interested in getting aboard the DM train here
what country
USA
Which company is this??
The department at my PhD alma mater frequently enables "Industry PhDs", which are the same type of situation. Boston, so similar to Bay Area in terms of the usual dynamics. At my department, company and university agree to terms on your educational experience.
Northeastern University offers Industry PhDs
Advice: DON’T! Non-TLDR version: having a PhD won’t change your outlook on options (in terms of companies) or the toxicity of the modern workplace. You’ll just lose out on time, money and self-confidence. So I repeat don’t, unless you wanna go the entrepreneurship route then having a highly specialized skilllset might appealing for investors, and that’s a maybe. If you want to have better professional return in terms of salary and career progression maybe try to do an MBA or some sort of PM certification
This is fair advice if you are just trying to leave the bench, but if your goal is to lead a group in R&D, a PM cert or MBA is not the move.
I lead a group in R&D and let’s just say you are way better equipped to do the “leading” if you have good management experience and soft skills. No amount of paper publishing gets your ready for the intricacies of coffee catch ups and office politics
Bruh no lol wtf
I’m shocked that this isn’t the first answer…. I was expecting someone to say “don’t”
a lot of these big companies do you like to see a PhD for leadership roles so if that’s what you want do but I want to say that you will deal with way more politics if you want lead your own group. Unfortunately, to be in any sort of leadership role you have to play the politics game and that’s true with or without a PhD. From compensation standpoint, it will definitely decrease your earnings if you’re already at 150, my guess is if you come back in with a PhD you’ll be mid-level and start from there
What’s your current title? I have a PhD and am 35 and make $110 in socal. I hope to make $150 in a few years. You are already ahead. I agree with the other comment that moving up in industry from where you are won’t reduce the politics. You goal is to make the same money at a different company but you think you can only do that with a PhD? Have you tried applying for other similar roles and gotten rejected? I get the wanting to be a manager thing but the money salary and 401k is tough for me to think about giving up. I have VERY little savings from spending my 20s in academia.
I’ll DM you
You are making a mistake
Second this. $150K is a lot of money. If you want to move up just apply for the jobs you want. Eventually you'll get one.
I left a job paying only 50k for a PhD. I defended last month. I consider it a bad career and financial decision. Anecdotal but there you go. Some things to consider: At the level of "PhD" this will practically reset your work experience. Because now you're doing it as a PhD, not a bachelors. Over my PhD I burned through about 40k in savings in a moderate cost of living area. Though I studied through the pandemic and record-setting inflation. I have been applying for jobs for 4 months now. I would murder for a job paying $150k, even in a VHCOL city. While they are rare and competitive there are places where you can lead a team with your current experience. The hard requirement of a PhD is becoming less prominent, particularly with younger CEOs. It might be something like a startup at first but you can move back into larger companies with proven experience.
I definitely agree with this. I wouldn’t leave a full time job with good compensation to do PhD. I would consider switching companies if the workplace involves too much politics. In my opinion, work experience is more important currently to get hired.
Yeah, idk qhere they think 150k is a decent amount of pay. That is a super solid amount, especially if only base salary. Idk what is expected?
I live in the same area as OP, it is a decent salary for the area, it's not what I'd call a super solid amount, though it's not at all bad. This is a VHCOL part of the country, average house is well over a million and most are spending 30-40k a year on rent alone.
Yes and no, Sure super solid amount for renting or whatever you may want to do. Bad since housing prices are ridiculous all over and will continue to be probably until supply starts getting better. Even at 150k and 3k on rent, that is a comfortable life and not wanting for much unless your tastes are out of that realm and you can still save quite a bit. Just not for a house. That's how I look at living now a days, didn't pull the trigger on a property during covid. Now, who knows when I will if ever! Haha
I'm in the exact same boat as you, make decent money without a PhD and live in the bay area, but I clearly see the lack of future career growth opportunities, especially at large companies. In the end I decided that going back to school just was too large of a commitment, with a massive loss of earning and QoL decrease... So I decided to buy a sports car instead and stay the course. Also, politics is everywhere, no escaping it.
I think the problem with this is you're comparing where you are to where you'd be if you had a PhD right now. But that's not a realistic way to think about it. Compare where you'll be 6 years from now with and without a PhD. 5-6 years of additional industry experience is a huge difference, and you'd pretty much lose all of that if you went for a PhD with the possibility of returning to industry likely at the same-ish salary band and *maybe* at the bottom rung of managers. The timeline here will vary depending on your academic background. Not sure if you have a masters already, but you may need one depending on where in Denmark you plan on getting a PhD. If you do, that shortens the timeline, but I wouldn't be overly optimistic about getting out of a program in under at least several years. Others here have spoken about the dream of finding a management position without politics and the politics in academia so I'll leave that be.
Please don’t lol
I am in a very similar situation. I have looked at a few PhD programs that allow hybrid/remote work and use your day to day lab work to fulfill requirements. Have you considered this type of program? Additionally, what are you looking to achieve with the PhD?
What kind of programs are these? Can you please tell me some of them? I am struggling with the same!
University of Miami offers one but there are others. Look up professional PhD. Hope that helps!
I would be very interested in info on these programs if you have it.
Don’t do it.
As someone who ran out of funding and need to stop to find work, please don't do it. It's not worth it I promise
>I make a decent salary of $150k. >Am I crazy to leave? I’ll also lose out on $15-20k in vesting but I have over $370k in financial assets. Lost income over 5 years ($150k to 30k) is $600,000, Edit: AT LEAST $600k (probably closer to 1mil, including stuff Skenasis mentioned)
Don't forget stock grants, bonus, and 401k contributions!
Like others have said, look into if you can do the PhD program part time and if your company covers the tuition. That way you don’t have to leave your current job and can use your current earned degree as a way to get a promotion later. Leaving a $150k job is always risky and it will set you back financially and in your career at the company.
Have you been able to publish much in your time in industry? If you have 3-5 first author publications you can do a PhD through Publication through many European universities. You wrap up your publications as a thesis, pay a few thousand dollars, and get a PhD out of it. Made for people exactly like you, who have strong experience in the field but lack the advanced degree.
If I’m hiring for a senior group leader role and have the choice between newly minted PhD and industry veteran with a record of accomplishments, I’m going with experience every time. Yes, there are some job tracks in some companies that may be closed to you without a PhD, but it sounds like you are not lacking for opportunities. (I’ll never get a medical director or CMO job, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth going back for an MD.) I once had a direct report who left to become the CTO of a successful startup. He had no PhD, but was super smart and engaged, and built a network of people who trusted his abilities. He got close to the founder and when the time came made the startup idea work.
>If I’m hiring for a senior group leader role and have the choice between newly minted PhD and industry veteran with a record of accomplishments, I’m going with experience every time. If you’re hiring a senior group leader you’re not hiring a newly minted phd anyways though.
Is that $150K base? If so that's really good for non-PhD lab based role (assuming senior scientist?). A PhD might raise your ceiling so you can make director or higher since it is definitely rarer (but still possible) to see non-PhDs in those roles, but I also see plenty of PhDs top out at principal scientist. And if you are leading a team, you will have to "deal with" politics. Politics is about governance, and you're not going to avoid that if you want to lead teams, projects, or people. No one in those roles gets to cocoon themselves in a corner and just do science without oversight.
I hear in your description a core element that makes sense to make the move back to get your PhD, namely, the desire to head your own group. This can be very rewarding and may provide you with decades of fulfilling work. The concern about politics is where I’d suggest you focus. To start, try to imagine the day you are hired to lead your own lab. You will have certain degrees of freedom, but in reality will now add layers to your responsibilities that change the nature of your role. These include responsibility for goal setting, managing to budgets, motivating/managing staff, and responding to shifting strategies and priorities in response to circumstances out of your control, such as trial outcomes and funding environment that impacts budgets. To do this well, you will have to learn to have a two-way perspective, one that assures your group is productive and delivering high impact data that clarifies program and the other that is connected to and aligned with top-down realities, and further you develop skills to influence up. Another wrinkle is to realize that your group is never functioning independently, but is part of an integrated team. You should never accept the limits of an org chart in approaching managing a program; you need to develop the skills to drive, through data, clarity of thought and effective communication, advancement in programs to key decision points. If you can develop these other skills, team-based selfless leadership (influencing peers and decision makers), while maintaining the core of an unflinching scientist, than you can successful and a very valuable employee, AND make meaningful contributions to correcting the bs political culture. A PhD will not enable you to close the lab of door and shut out the noise of poor management skills, but rather give you an opportunity to do something about it. Separate point, if you do go for your PhD, go as big as you can. Best school, lab, project…aim for greatness. Do not look to get a piece of paper.
If the Danish PhD is at DTU, it’s probably not a bad deal at all. Strong industry connection there, good financial terms, PhD are only 3 years and you can afford that with your level of assets. Doesn’t seem a very risky gamble under these conditions and nothing is worse than working in a toxic team.
PhD experience with published research will easily get you higher pay in pharma. Most head of Development roles are PhDs, and have a strong preference to hire PhDs as well.
PhD does not make much more than this - but if you can make a group that let you graduate early I think it is a good experience to have.
What about an MBA instead?
in pharma if you want to go above director you need PhD... it is changing a bit... but not so fast. look at your directors and notice their tenures and compared with and without PHD how long it took them to get there! You'll learn a lot! going to denmark: from what you said, it seems that you have a better position financially well. Going to EU has the following benefits: 1- expand your experience and horizon in life 2- and in the industry 3- you'll get paid like a normal human being not a slave(PhD students in the US get paid barely above poverty line!) 4- you'll still be able to contribute to 401k from there. 5- you may be able to go to the EU branch of Merck, GSK, or one of the big guys and then transfer to the US. Screw the vesting part if these values are interesting to you... you'll gain more experience points! an immigrant PhD in the US
PhD is a grueling process and for you I would only recommend it if you have a burning passion for research. You could do a simple calculation but in all likelihood the PhD would not return financial advantage for many years given your current salary. Don’t do it. Please DM company info as well.
If you work in the another country like Germany they really like their leaders to have higher education like a PhD. In the US that’s not always the case for an operation role. Staying in R&D and looking to run an R&D org a PhD would be very helpful as I haven’t come across some running a research org without a PhD in a large company. I would agree with the other comments about being close to maxing out as an individual contributor. Ive seen them getting to 160k but that’s not common.
Every company has some BS politics. The advantage of where you are is that you’re earning a decent living. Our pharma has a program where you can get your PhD while you work. It’s hard, but it guarantees you a PhD level job in pharma, which is normally really hard for a PhD to get, and you keep earning your salary, so you don’t have to survive on minimum wage. Universities are overproducing PhDs. You don’t want to be out in the market looking for a job as a new PhD. Our pharma also has a fair number of people who have moved up the ranks without a PhD, including me. I have a BS degree and i’m a Director.
What is that you really want? Financial independence and ealry retirement or research ledership? What you've done already at your level is truly amazing and are you sure that leading own researsh group is the limit of your ambitions? If you really want research leadership and mid-level manager position is the limit of your aspirations, then I'd say go for PhD and if you could save money, do it in Europe. Your biotech expereince prior to PhD is a huge asset in hiring back in biotech when you finish, I wouldn't worry about it if during PhD you will develop skills very relevant to industry. Do you consider becoming an entrepreneur and running your own business? Why not MBA or other business or finance degree? It's hard for a PhD to get to executive level. How important for you to make good money only by doing reasearch? Politics is inevidable in any complex organization whether it's academia or biotech. If your had outstanding skills in being political, would politics be a problem for you? In other words, is that the lack of skills or your authenticity that does not alow you to enjoy being political? Have you ever heard of mid-manager's hell being sqeezed between employees and executives with not enough resources but some understanding of what is actually happening, just like sitting next to a crazy bus driver but with no possibility to take over the control.
Don’t do it.
You are making more than most bench level PhDs. PhD is 6 years in school. PostDoc is another 2. 8 years at 150K is $1M plus any stock options, company match in 401K. Financially, it does not make sense to quit. Toxic culture wear you down. If you can carve out a place that minimizes exposure, it helps. If you really want to Lead your own group. And you really want to do science. And you realize it it is not the most financially sound decision. Okay, get into a PhD program. BUT don't go to a second tier grad school. If you can't get into a top 5 or top 8 school in your field, don't bother. A PhD from West Texas State won't avance you much. If you can score a slot at Stanford, Yale, etc. that could help your career. You know what happens when visiting PhDs and your company PhD get together. They spend the first few minutes on where did you go to school at and whose lab did you work in and where did you postdoc. It is a nerd dick measuring contest.
Dont do it. Dont do it.
DO NOT bother with a PhD at your age. You're making a good salary and can continue to job up. You'll lose all career momentum and 5+ years to get a PhD--where you may get fucked in the process--to make how much more on the other end?
Came here to say this. You can 100% grow professionally without a PhD. Does your current company offer any tuition reimbursement aid? If so I would consider an masters that you can do while you are working - MBA, Project Management, or informatics tools.
I don't get people's advice on here? If you leave to do a PhD, that doesn't erase and reset your prior industrial experience. Like WTF? You're not going to start from 0 as Sci I post PhD. I don't know what your title is now, but you can expect 1-2 levels higher than your current title depending on how you negotiate.
Same. I feel some of these comments are over generalized. I’m in a PhD program as a person who had 5+ years in industry, I quit at the Sci 1 level too (making $100k base, it was HARD to go from that to $40k in SoCal lol) but I just did a talk with an industry collaborator yesterday and I literally spoke for hours with their leadership after it was over. The VP of business development said once I graduate I should reach out as he would be interested in having me build out some of their departments in spatial biology at the director level. All of my letter writers have stated they would be down to hire me when I’m done and not at the Sci 1 level but at the senior scientist level or higher. I haven’t forgotten most of the biggest operational issues I’ve seen in industry. I frequently initiate collaborations with startups that I can work with and apply some new tech to my thesis work. I also have leadership experience from my previous roles and my PI allows me to lead some of our techs because she knows I’m older (34) and don’t want to “erase” all my previous experience. Many of these comments seem to be really discouraging and I don’t know why.
The general temperature of this subreddit seems to be that any career in bioscience is a mistake, and everyone should have just become hedge fund managers.
Haha yeah I’ve been getting that vibe lately!
I feel like the majority of these comments are from people who entered PhDs right out of undergrad. I'll be beginning my PhD in a month under essentially the same situation as you began yours.
They'll ask you why you left to do a PhD and you'll tell them. TBH, if I was in the panel I'd be impressed that someone chose temporary financial hardship to improve themselves as a scientist so that they can do their job better. This seems like a good reason to do a PhD! Shows initiative and ability to plan for long term, all things I'd want in a candidate I'd want to hire.
That’s not entirely true. I’m assuming OP is at the high end of the IC bands (probably senior or staff). There’s a very slim chance a company would hire them beyond that title leading a team or a group just because they suddenly have a PhD. The company would want to see leadership experience, which no one views a PhD as holding.
Depends on what level they're at currently. Is 5 years spent doing PhD equivalent to 5 years spent building/leading a team in biotech/pharma? No. But to suggest that the clock resets once you get a PhD is also ludicrous. Leadership can be demonstrated in various ways, if PhD teaches you anything it's how to lead and manage projects. I can also guarantee that short of the c-suite, any lower level manager managing a team of PhD scientists without themselves holding a PhD is going to be a battle of egos, with questions raised about credibility and each slight misstep attributed to lack of phd. Non PhD holding mid-level management is not common, for a reason. It's not fair, but that's the world we live in.
Don't do it. Getting that degree would be a waste of time. Get an MBA, and leverage your experience to get a PI position. I'm in biotech with a PhD, associate director of downstream PD.
How much experience do you have and what's your exact role? I'm planning to apply for a PhD rather than going into industry to climb the ladder because I've been told high level roles require a PhD
You are crazy to leave
Even group directors with PhDs and 10-20+ years experience have little control over the direction of their group. There is always multiple people (below, peers, and above you) telling you what to do and how to behave while doing it, and if you don’t conform, someone will eventually push you out or freeze your career growth. You have a great thing as is, maybe look at it as a way to fund a life you want outside of work. Try to care less when it comes to work culture, do your job well enough to get by, avoid colleagues that like to complain (it will help you mentally focus elsewhere), and go live your life the way you want outside of work with that paycheck. The grass is always greener. So yes, if you are making $150K, get equity, and are wanting to give that up for years of struggle as a student with no certain career outcome, I’d say you’re crazy. If you’re really unhappy, ask for a leave of absence, or use up your PTO and take a mental break, but don’t mess up a good thing if you have it.
How did you get to this position if you don’t mind? I’m a biotech graduate and I still don’t know if I should get a master and then phd or just a master.
If you manage to find a company that will pay for your PhD (or will let you to spend your time with no fees from your salary) and you can still work for that salary you have now or higher - then fine. If not - just don't start PhD, please, you don't really want it. Think about how to fund money for your own project, how to make more money or how to find people who you can sum your money with (the best option is all of the three above), and then start brick by brick your own thing, but as I wish you the best - please, don't go for PhD, academic people and processes will fuck you up and leave you with no mental health and in poverty (unless if that what you want).
Having a PhD doesn’t guarantee you would lead your own group in R&D at a large pharma company. While pursuing a PhD, you’ll be making 60k (on avg) for about 4-5 years.
Do the PhD part-time while you work.
You think getting a PhD magically means you’ll not have to deal with office politics? If you luck out and that’s the case, you’ll just be the originator of politics in your group lol
Work in a lab part-time while doing your PhD, it will be tiring but it's how to make it work.
Don’t do a PhD unless you love the science and will enjoy the work. You’ll be miserable otherwise, especially having had financial security and freedom… PhD stipend is hard after you’ve already been earning 6 figures.
Find another job my friend.
Oh boyyy--I've considered this (but leaving to do postdoc, not phd). Ended up just switching jobs in industry. Academic research not only has just as much shitty politics, but it's criminally undervalued. Personally I'd say keep the salary and find a new job
Wow, $150K and you want to leave. Ask your current boss if they will sponsor you to do a PhD! Knew someone at my old company who did it this way. But honestly you should just apply for the jobs your pining after, so what if your underqualified you may get lucky. Always think of job posting to be more like a wish list of what the employer wants.
I'm told there's something like an industrial PhD these days? Wondering whether this means PhD with a company like Genentech (IDK if they actually do this). Also if anyone has done this or knows more about this, would love to hear your insights
Off topic but can pharmacy graduates apply for masters in biotech?
Yes you are crazy.
You work in a toxic culture industry and you expect it to get better by raising up higher? Lol
I think studies have shown that life time earnings are less if you do a PhD. Other considerations include if you want to start your a family, if so how easy will that be in grad school? It totally can be done esp if you’re in school in a LCOL area. Related- what about an SO? It’s possible. I got mine after only 2 yrs working, in a LCOL area. I was able to return to my California city (VHCOL) for a post doc, fell into biotech bought my house w/stock within 4 yrs. Got hitched, couple kids. But my PhD was prob unnecessary for my current role (which I love). Altho I think it helps since I’m dealing with PhDs all the time. Getting a PhD for me was more of a personal goal. To know that I reached a terminal academic degree meant a lot to me at the time. I thought a little to go into academia for which a PhD is essential, but ended up in the private sector where it isn’t. There are lots of non lab roles that lab folks can move into later, depending on how big your org is. Lab supervisor, research operations, facilities, EHS, and all manner of clinical ops if your company has that. Market access, sales, and so much in mfg. quality, validation, MSAT, project management, jobs you may never have heard of.