inadequate
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by inadequate
-
-
7 hours ago, blc073 said:
It is impossible to predict what will be hot in six years (also, six years?). You should not learn a technique just because you think it will make you a more attractive candidate for jobs. Instead, study what interests you and learn the techniques that will help you examine your topic of interest with the highest resolution. I started grad school with no intention of doing NGS, big data manipulation, CRISPR, or iPSCs, but my sincere interests put me in a lab that does all four.
Pick the field that interests you the most, then learn the techniques that will help you do the best science. Use your PhD to learn to be the best scientist you can be. Techniques are secondary to that.
"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.
- CavityQED and Bioenchilada
-
2
-
1 hour ago, LoveMysterious said:
Sure. (And other people, feel free to chime in!)
Bioinformatics/big data genomics coupled with Next Gen Sequencing is super hot right now. The ability to analyze large sets of data is invaluable in the field. Lots of companies are doing flow cytometry or microarray work. CRISPR is also starting to boom along with other genetic engineering techniques. Personalized medicine is the up-and-coming thing in clinical settings, along with immunotherapy and gene therapy for disease treatment. You'll have plenty of opportunities to work with these technologies at your schools in question, especially at UCSF, who helped pioneer some of the technologies.
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?
- Cancerbio1001 and jmillar
-
2
-
3 minutes ago, LoveMysterious said:
Yeah, you're seriously overthinking how much people care. Hiring managers care about your research experience, skill set, and how well you'd fit in a team dynamic. No one cares where you went to school unless its a top tier school (which all three of your choices are) and in that case maybe - and I seriously mean MAYBE - it will give you a tiny extra advantage over other candidates. For the most part though, no one cares. This isn't like law or business; in biotech, your skill set matters exponentially more than what school you went to. If you want to go into biotech, your number one goal should be to expose yourself to as much cutting-edge technology as possible (NGS, CRISPR, flow cytometry, etc). The exact ranking of an already elite university will mean literally nothing.
And no need to apologize from doubting a random person from the internet. But yeah, I've been in the industry (and multiple companies) for the past 4 years so I do know what I'm talking about here. Hope this helps.
Actually, just because I'm lucky enough to have you here, would you mind expanding on the skills that are particularly valuable for biotech?
- LoveMysterious, jmillar, Albert Wesker and 1 other
-
1
-
3
-
1 minute ago, LoveMysterious said:
Yeah, you're seriously overthinking how much people care. Hiring managers care about your research experience, skill set, and how well you'd fit in a team dynamic. No one cares where you went to school unless its a top tier school (which all three of your choices are) and in that case maybe - and I seriously mean MAYBE - it will give you a tiny extra advantage over other candidates. For the most part though, no one cares. This isn't like law or business; in biotech, your skill set matters exponentially more than what school you went to. If you want to go into biotech, your number one goal should be to expose yourself to as much cutting-edge technology as possible (NGS, CRISPR, flow cytometry, etc). The exact ranking of an already elite university will mean literally nothing.
And no need to apologize from doubting a random person from the internet. But yeah, I've been in the industry (and multiple companies) for the past 4 years so I do know what I'm talking about here. Hope this helps.
It helps a lot. Thank you.
- LoveMysterious and jmillar
-
2
-
47 minutes ago, LoveMysterious said:
Agreed. I'm currently in the industry and have interviewed many people. No one cares if you went to Stanford vs Cal vs UCSF. They're all top tier, have their own extensive networking opportunities, and it makes zero difference to hiring managers. Go with the school you actually like the best.
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.
-
1 minute ago, prospectivegrad1 said:
Okay, if you are equally as happy at all 3 schools, then I think Stanford will give you an advantage in terms of marketability.
Significantly? Or just a little?
-
37 minutes ago, prospectivegrad1 said:
Which school has more PIs you are interested in rotating with?
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.
-
2 hours ago, Kaede said:
A potential PI just emailed me congratulating me on getting admitted into Stanford Bio, but I haven't actually heard back yet!
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.
-
3 minutes ago, prospectivegrad1 said:
Stanford Biosciences sent out their invites already?
Their biochemistry department emailed me in mid December.
-
33 minutes ago, hippopotamus said:
I heard back towards the end of 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.
Stanford biosciences, Berkeley mcb, UCSF tetrad
in Biology
Posted
Yes. Please downvote me for responding to someone calling my question stupid in multiple ways.
Thank you.