![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bronwynrhSo here's the scoop. I'm having a small crisis. Really, it's a crisis I think a lot of people would love to have. As I told my buddy Dave, I feel as though I have all these rainbows in front of me, each with a pot of gold at its end. The crisis is, how do I choose?
Out of all the labs I wrote to with inquiries regarding post-docs, all have expressed sincere and enthusiastic interest in me and my skills. All but three have said that their funding situations are uncertain, and they do not know if they would have the funding for me.
Of the three, one has been ruled out because the project is not where I'd like it to be for the applications I would want to pursue. Yes, I am just so forward thinking that the field isn't ready for me, yet. Ok, sort of. Another would be fine, good people, rising star advisor, easily funded work. I would only be switching to a new bug species, and would be applying pretty much the same skills and applications that at which I have become expert. The opportunity for broadening my experience - beyond further honing my skills and playing with better technology - is somewhat limited. The third would be a change of field and research focus, much like the first opportunity. I'd be working in a new system, applying my skills and knowledge, and picking up a whole new set of skills and knowledge. It's a high-powered lab, well funded.
For those of you who don't know, a post-doc typically lasts for 2-3 years, during which time the postdoc works very hard at the bench and publishes at least one, if not 3 or more papers. Then the postdoc finds a tenure-track associate professorship at a university, and starts his/her own research program with institutional funding and outside grants - all of which must be applied for. Or, the postdoc joins a company and does the research they ask of him/her and worries not about funding, but about project longevity and proprietary issues. On this path, one goes from making between $15-20k as a graduate student, to $35-40k as a postdoc, to ~$55 as a starting faculty. Salaries in industry are significantly higher.
These are the most common paths for someone of my ilk.
Now, there's another option. The field of patent law has, for the past couple of decades, moved deeply into the fields of science and technology - as I'm sure you can well imagine. Your typical lawyer however, even if he/she specializes in patent law, does not have much of a background in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, computer science and what-not. Those are the kinds of skills and expertise held by folks like me. So the world of patent law needs two kinds of people - lawyers, and scientists. In many cases, the two are combined, so that a PhD then goes to law school and becomes a PhD, JD.
Yes, that would be doctor, doctor. . . or would it be doctor, esquire? Hard to say.
Anyway, IP (Intellectual Property) firms hire scientists as technical specialists and scientific advisors alongside patent agents and attorneys. These firms will pay for the review and patent bar exams of scientific advisors who wish to become patent agents, and will pay for law school (and full-time salary) of those who wish to become patent attorneys. I have been told the starting salary for a scientific advisor is between $75-95k. I have seen some firms where the starting salary is even higher.
Caveats: No more benchwork, no more scientific creation or publication. Probably no Nobel Prize.
Upshots: Having a PhD/JD, one would be able to move back into the science industry. . . in an industry position. I imagine all the major pharm/biotech/genomics corporations would love to have a PhD/JD working for them. Also, one's career starts right away, rather than after a 3-year postdoc (which is essentially like an apprenticeship, but more high-powered and driven).
So. What do you guys think?
No, I'm not actually expecting or hoping for any of you to make the decision for me. I'm just looking for thoughts and perspectives. I know a couple of you are scientists, by trade or by education, so I would really like to know your thoughts especially.
Go ahead and take my goofy little poll, and then tell me what you think. I'm listening.
[Poll #290110]
Alrighty then. . . talk to me.
Edited to add: You guys are fantastic. Keep it coming! I forgot that we don't get email notification of poll responses. . . I had no idea this thing was going anywhere. Hee hee! Love you!
Potchy, are you being a smartass? :-)
Out of all the labs I wrote to with inquiries regarding post-docs, all have expressed sincere and enthusiastic interest in me and my skills. All but three have said that their funding situations are uncertain, and they do not know if they would have the funding for me.
Of the three, one has been ruled out because the project is not where I'd like it to be for the applications I would want to pursue. Yes, I am just so forward thinking that the field isn't ready for me, yet. Ok, sort of. Another would be fine, good people, rising star advisor, easily funded work. I would only be switching to a new bug species, and would be applying pretty much the same skills and applications that at which I have become expert. The opportunity for broadening my experience - beyond further honing my skills and playing with better technology - is somewhat limited. The third would be a change of field and research focus, much like the first opportunity. I'd be working in a new system, applying my skills and knowledge, and picking up a whole new set of skills and knowledge. It's a high-powered lab, well funded.
For those of you who don't know, a post-doc typically lasts for 2-3 years, during which time the postdoc works very hard at the bench and publishes at least one, if not 3 or more papers. Then the postdoc finds a tenure-track associate professorship at a university, and starts his/her own research program with institutional funding and outside grants - all of which must be applied for. Or, the postdoc joins a company and does the research they ask of him/her and worries not about funding, but about project longevity and proprietary issues. On this path, one goes from making between $15-20k as a graduate student, to $35-40k as a postdoc, to ~$55 as a starting faculty. Salaries in industry are significantly higher.
These are the most common paths for someone of my ilk.
Now, there's another option. The field of patent law has, for the past couple of decades, moved deeply into the fields of science and technology - as I'm sure you can well imagine. Your typical lawyer however, even if he/she specializes in patent law, does not have much of a background in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, computer science and what-not. Those are the kinds of skills and expertise held by folks like me. So the world of patent law needs two kinds of people - lawyers, and scientists. In many cases, the two are combined, so that a PhD then goes to law school and becomes a PhD, JD.
Yes, that would be doctor, doctor. . . or would it be doctor, esquire? Hard to say.
Anyway, IP (Intellectual Property) firms hire scientists as technical specialists and scientific advisors alongside patent agents and attorneys. These firms will pay for the review and patent bar exams of scientific advisors who wish to become patent agents, and will pay for law school (and full-time salary) of those who wish to become patent attorneys. I have been told the starting salary for a scientific advisor is between $75-95k. I have seen some firms where the starting salary is even higher.
Caveats: No more benchwork, no more scientific creation or publication. Probably no Nobel Prize.
Upshots: Having a PhD/JD, one would be able to move back into the science industry. . . in an industry position. I imagine all the major pharm/biotech/genomics corporations would love to have a PhD/JD working for them. Also, one's career starts right away, rather than after a 3-year postdoc (which is essentially like an apprenticeship, but more high-powered and driven).
So. What do you guys think?
No, I'm not actually expecting or hoping for any of you to make the decision for me. I'm just looking for thoughts and perspectives. I know a couple of you are scientists, by trade or by education, so I would really like to know your thoughts especially.
Go ahead and take my goofy little poll, and then tell me what you think. I'm listening.
[Poll #290110]
Alrighty then. . . talk to me.
Edited to add: You guys are fantastic. Keep it coming! I forgot that we don't get email notification of poll responses. . . I had no idea this thing was going anywhere. Hee hee! Love you!
Potchy, are you being a smartass? :-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
platitudes
Date: May 7th, 2004 10:47 am (UTC)First of all, I think that a PhD/JD patent lawyer has far more income potential than a PhD patent agent. So I salute your viewing the issue as a Phd/JD choice.
I am a patent lawyer, you know, although it's almost amusing to say that, because I have only a bachelor's degree in physics, and I don't prosecute patent applications. I am a patent lawyer in the sense that I am licensed to do so. In fact, I do commercial litigation and commercial transactions, but the knowledge I gained taking the patent bar was of immense use to me, and actually led to commercial transactional/commercial litigation work with high tech companies.
I think that patent law stretches many brain muscles, is much less high stress than other areas of law, and
is extremely well paid. But it's not discovery, but documentation. How important would giving up research be to your heart?
You're probably emotionally older than I am, although I think that you're actual age is a bit less. But I caution you that's it's a bit "young" to get caught up on "this is what I'm good at" thinking. I can almost certainly assure you that whatever you are good at now will not be what you'll do for life. You don't want to be someone obsolete at 50, but that happens to too many researchers and science folks through that kind of "stick with what I know" thinking.
I like money, and it's good to earn a lot if you can do so consistent with your values. But I also caution against "money at all costs" thinking. But I also caution about its converse--"if it pays a lot, it must be bad". Profit is not a dirty word.
Why can't you have your cake and eat it, too? Also, why play all your cards now? Here's my suggested roadmap:
1. Take the postdoc that will get you in line for the best possible resume item for a professorship.
2. When your postdoc is up, see if you can get a really plum "worthy entry level" professorship. If you can, so that you can see yourself a hop or 2 from a prestigious professorship someday, play that card, as it's near your heart.
3. If you can't, go to a major IP law school and get your JD. The post-doc will be a minor help to you in establishing cred as a scientist. The major IP schools differ a bit from the "top 10 law schools", and I'd be happy to help you identify them.
4. If you run out of school patience, and no desirable faculty position arises, take a corporate job doing real research.
In all of these scenarios, you assess the condition on the ground at the time, and play your cards. You also keep your options open. But you'll want a post-doc if you ever decide to do teaching, and thus I suggest you get a post doc no matter what you decide to do after.
(no subject)
Date: May 7th, 2004 11:01 am (UTC)Re: Go for it kiddo!
Date: May 7th, 2004 04:44 pm (UTC)Check her out!
:-D
Love you!
(and, of course, you are now on my friends list)
(no subject)
Date: May 7th, 2004 04:56 pm (UTC)Something about family, and not following a path just because it's expected of me, or even if I just assumed it was the path I would take.
I'm working on it, and definitely need to talk to my boy. It was good to lay it all out here, though.
Re: platitudes
Date: May 7th, 2004 04:59 pm (UTC)I try to approximate what I'm getting at, and hope everyone figures out what I really mean. Sometimes it's a stretch.
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
After three sleepless nights, I'm hoping I can relax enough about this to rest and fend off this awful headache.
All of this will be moot if I don't finish up the dissertation. *sigh*
Re: Go for it kiddo!
Date: May 10th, 2004 05:55 am (UTC)Grab your dreams and run with them. And if it turns out that it wasn't what you thought you wanted, you at least won't ever have to look back and say "if only I'd tried that." I'm proud of you, whatever you end up doing.
BTW, Wistfulunicorn is the name of a book. I bought it years ago and gave it to Phil as an anniversary card. You'll find it in the children's section of the bookstore. Check it out sometime.
I tried posting this once and it duplicated everything. HMMM... Monday morning hick-up.