inadequate

Yes. Please downvote me for responding to someone calling my question stupid in multiple ways. Thank you.

"It is impossible to predict what will be hot in six years (also, six years?)" Not my question. My question was about the rate of change. And obviously it would be ridiculous to expect anyone to accurately predict what will be popular in half a decade or more. But I'm asking about the rate of change. This can be as simple as saying, "Cloning was a hot skill 5 years ago, but now it's worthless because chemical synthesis is about to supplant cloning and people will just buy a gblock of whatever genetic construct they want." (This is just a made up example.) "(also, six years?)" ...Yes? Go look up your program and tell me six years isn't a good approximation of whatever number they give you for earning a phd. "Instead, study what interests you and learn the techniques that will help you examine your topic of interest with the highest resolution." Thank you, but: 1. I'd still like to be aware of how my job sector works. 2. You can't just say "Go with the technique with the highest resolution." It's not that clear-cut. And my personal experience is that people have more control over the direction of their project than they might appreciate.

How fast does the field change? For example, if I worked a lot with flow cytometry, how confident could I be that it will still be hot when I finish my phd in six years?

Actually, just because I'm lucky enough to have you here, would you mind expanding on the skills that are particularly valuable for biotech?

It helps a lot. Thank you.

Really? Hiring managers would see them as equivalent? And you know this from experience in industry? Sorry, I realize it sounds like I'm doubting you, but I need to be sure.

Significantly? Or just a little?

They're pretty similar. And unfortunately in a bad way. I'm not as excited about any of the labs as I was in the past. But that's another discussion. In this thread, I'm just hoping I can get a feel for how significantly each school's name/prestige will affect my marketability.

I'm trying to make the decision here between these 3 programs. I know a lot of it's personal, but not all of it is. In terms of "career success" (whatever that means), do you think one stands out? Like I enjoyed my visit to Berkeley a lot, but I worried I'm harming my career if I don't pick Stanford.

All right. Applied to: Caltech Biology, Stanford Biosciences, Berkeley MCB, and UCSF Tetrad Accepted to: Stanford Biosciences, Berkeley MCB, and UCSF Tetrad Caltech never got back to me that after that online interview. What was it you gleaned from that 10 minute window, Caltech? Fuck you.

Sounds like your program is about to send out their invites. Which program is it? Edit: Just realized you probably literally meant the Stanford "Biology" program. I was reading it as Stanford Biosciences.

Any word about other Stanford Bioscience programs? Sounds like Genetics is passing out their invites.

Their biochemistry department emailed me in mid December.

Are you serious..... Berkeley mcb, UCSF tetrad, and Stanford biosciences all want me and say I was a great candidate, but Caltech rejects me like that? I am crushed. When are the interview dates?

Has anyone heard from Caltech biology program? I had an online interview with them, but nothing since and I'm freaking out.