samman1994

So a couple of quickies. 1) I wouldn't be so quick to throw your PI under the bus, from what you've stated it appears she hasn't done anything but try to advise you as to what your best options are. 2) I also wouldn't be so quick to assume the new PI you're trying to join is saying no to you because of your previous PI. There could be a wide variety of reasons why he said no. 3) This is one of the crucial reasons why it is so highly advised to go to a school with multiple labs you'd like to join (possibly with rotations). So that if one doesn't work out, you have back up plans. So all this being said, it doesn't sound like the department is doing anything bad perse, but rather, you decided you wanted to change labs after your first year, but had no lab to go to (in your own school). This is not the school nor faculty members fault, but rather a bad situation and poor planning. I also wouldn't go all out saying they are out to get you either. From my experience, the school and faculty members want you to succeed, but there are guidelines and rules, and just because they don't make exceptions for you doesn't mean its anything personal or they want you to leave the school. Finally, for obvious reasons, schools don't like it when you join and then leave. A future school may be concerned they'd accept you, only to have you leave a year in. Now this being said, it doesn't mean the school will immediately rip you apart in a letter, or that you're doomed and no other grad school will take you. If you really can't find anything in your program that you like, then I think maybe leaving would be your best choice. Keep in mind, the GRE is good for 5 years, so you may not have to retake. At the end of the day, it's not the end of the world. It's fine, these scenarios suck, but they do happen and people do get past them. Let this just be a lesson so you don't make the same mistake twice (i.e. go into another grad program without any back ups). Good luck!

Hello everyone, I am interested in structural biology and biophysics, and have been applying to schools with labs that have interesting structural bio research programs. I was told by one of the professors at one of the schools however, that their Biochemistry program is relatively small, and that he can guarentee me entrance via the Chemistry program (he's gone so far to say he's already discussed it with the committee and even has looked me up on Linkdn). I plan to apply to both the Biochem and Chem, but if on the off-chance I don't get into Biochem, and get into Chem instead, I'm curious as to how much of a factor this is in the PhD program. I've looked at both programs, and the primary difference is simply the classes you take. You have to take 6 classes in the major, so that means I'd have to take 6 chemistry classes. I don't really have any desire for synthetic or physical chemistry, albeit some NMR classes might be cool. I've discussed this topic with my previous PI, and she told me she knew a person during her PhD program who did something similar (got a PhD in inorganic chemistry even though she was in a Biochem lab), and she hated it because she thought all the biochem classes were cool and thought all the inorganic classes were boring. However, outside these 6 classes, everything else is the same. Has anyone been in a similar situation? I.E. majoring in something outside your field, but working in a lab in the field you are interested in (and doing your dissertation in that field). I don't want to be miserable during my PhD program, but if that is my only option to get into a PhD program, I also think it would be foolish to turn it down just because of 6 boring classes. Thank you ahead of time!

Damn, wish mine told me. I had a verbal one, but didn't know which one was the experimental one or not.

For a top-tier school, I think your GPA is a bit low. However, since your GRE scores are high, if you can explain why your GPA is so low (in your SOP), you may have a chance for a PhD at those institutions.

Hello everyone, The topic and question are the same. I know you can either have a quant or verbal experimental section, but does it show up for everyone on every test? I.E. Could you take the GRE and not come across an experimental section? Thank you ahead of time!

jesus 9 years? My longest was 2 months and I started to lose my mind shortly after.

Hello everyone, So I've done the 5lb book, and Magoosh as well, and have been able to increase my score by a consistent 2 points or so. My main issue previously was just being too slow, and I've slightly been able to speed it up just through practice, but I still have been unable to solve my second major issue, that being test taking fatigue. I just get really tired after 2+ hours of test taking. This has never been a problem in my classes because even during finals, I was always able to finish my exams within 2 hours (major problem in 3 hour classes though). Therefore, I usually do well on the first quant/verbal section, then I struggle with the 3rd and 4th sections. Initially I thought this was simply because if you do well on the first half, it makes the 2nd half harder, but after taking a pause on the practice test (took about an hour break or so), I was actually able to do the 2nd sections much better than I usually do (my scores jumped 6+ points when I took a long break). This leads me to conclude, it's not really the difficulty spike that brings my scores down, but the fatigue. Normally if I were to come across something like this (such as long studying hours), I'd usually just pace myself and that would work, for obvious reasons, that's not possible on this exam. Anyone have any advice on how you dealt with test fatigue? Any tips and tricks to help me out?

@TakeruK summed it best then. It is completely possible to go into academia without breaking your moral/ethical code (unless it's too strict). The instances I stated above do happen, but it is very much possible to avoid them by the methods I stated, and in addition, they are not the norm. In regards to the politics, industry and academia aren't all that different, so you can handle it the same way you did in industry. Yes you have the whole pre-tenure publication rush, and the entire students/teaching "good grades" thing, but those can all be done without breaking that moral/ethical road. My personal PI was an extremely blunt honest individual. She didn't insult anyone outright, and was very friendly, but she was very straight forward with a lot of people and had a strict/strong moral/ethical code. She was able to get tenure, and most people failed her class because she was more strict than others. It was definitely stressful (pre-tenure), and it probably would've been easier if she did just give students A's or manipulate publications, but she didn't need to, nor want to. She constantly got into fights (disagreements) with higher ups and other faculty members, but again, she was always respectful and nice, she just had strong opinions. So you can definitely make it in academia without breaking any moral codes, you'll just have to learn to "play the game" properly.

Not in the social sciences, but STEM has very similar situations, and as the above have stated, there is always politics in every field. Best stated by "ideal vs. reality". I have seen professors get fired (non-tenure) just because they pissed off the dean, I've seen TAs that give A's get more classes/opportunities than those that grade more fairly (or harsher), I've seen PhD students have their programs extended so the PI could just keep them around longer, I've seen PIs try to forcibly get their students kicked out of the entire PhD program (because they didn't like them), I've seen PIs throw their students under the bus and put their name first author and the student last because the student pissed them off, etc. etc. etc. Every field will have some politics in it, and you will have to learn how to play the game properly to succeed smoothly. For example, trying to find out the most about your POI so you don't get stuck with an asshat, trying to get on friendly terms with your PI and the schools higher ups and faculty members, trying to be on friendly terms with those in your lab, etc. And that's only on a student level (since that's where I'm at), I've heard a lot of stories of the political factors faculty members themselves go through. However, I don't think "playing the game" is really a morally or ethically bad thing. Its more of psychologically understanding how people work, and trying to understand that so you know how to put yourself in a position to succeed in life. This applies to everything: academia, work (industry), relationships, family, friends, etc.

Hello everyone, So I have been on the job search now for 3 months, applied to over a billion places (literally everything under the biotech sun), and got a bunch of interviews, but no job offers. Overtime, I learned a few tactics, and went from getting one interview a week, to getting an interview for almost everything I applied for. From getting no job offers, to getting 3 job offers in one week. I thought I'd come here and just give some feedback on what I've learned through my application process, and state what I was doing wrong and how I fixed it. Now a lot of this advice is actually pretty cliche. It's nothing new, just things that I had heard but never paid attention to or never realized how important they would be. Nor did I know how to implement them until recently. My experience is from the Biotech field, but I think this advice can extend to probably all fields. Resume: This is what any employer will see first. I had made a resume, fine tuned it, had it looked at and edited by multiple people, and everyone said it was great. However, it was a very great but generic resume. 1) DO NOT send the same application to everything. Fine tune your application to every job you are applying to. Everyone told me you don't want your cv/resume more than 2 pages. This is absolute blasphemy for my field. Do not be afraid to go over to 3 or even four pages if you need to emphasize specific skill sets or techniques that are relavent to the position you are applying to. I.E. In my lab, we did everything from protein expression, to purification, to NMR analysis, to binding and mutagensis studies, all the way to computational work. I very briefly have stated all that on my generic all encompassing resume. However, when I apply to say a Cell Therapy Specialist (basically a job focusing on cell culture and expression), I modify my resume to focus on my protein expression work. Everything from what cell lines I used, to what ingredients I used, to what antibiotics I used, etc. I went from 2 pages, to 3 by just discussing the details of my cell culture experience. Again, you want to keep it brief, but if it relates to the job at hand, don't be afraid to go into detail. They want to know you have plenty of experience in the field you are applying to, and the more you can demonstrate that on your resume, the more they will be interested in you. (Everyone can write they've done protein expression work. But the difference between someone who did it once, or only did a minor part of it can be easily shown by the amount of detail you discuss in your resume). This applies to everything though. A computational lab? Focus on what programs you used, what scripting you did, what program languages C++ or whatnot that you may have used. Analytical lab? Focus on what chromotography techniques you used. What columns? How often did you use it? What did you analyze and what was it used for? By doing this, I went from the occassional phone call, to getting a phone call or interview for every single job I applied to. 2) Using "search words" or "key words". Basically, look in your job posting, and see if certain words stand out that you can use in modifying your resume. I.E. From the previous example above. The job description for the Cell Specialist used key words like, cell culture experience required, or experience with cell culture products prefered. So instead of saying I expressed proteins, I add the term cell culture experience. Original Version: Expressing proteins using E. Coli Modified Version: Cell culture experience expressing proteins using E. Coli Same with the cell culture products. I used a product called Bioexpress and various additives that helped my proteins express better. Same thing with the wording. Original Version: Experience using media supplements such as Bioexpress Modified Version: Experience with cell culture products such as Bioexpress In the examples above, I changed the wording around to match the wording the job description used. Theoretically, I am saying the same thing in both examples, but to the reader those statements stand out much more as making me "more qualified". Interview: So now they like you, they want to see if you are a good fit to the company, and can support your resume. If you are a good honest hardworking person, then you know whats on your resume, and can basically back up everything they ask you about it and your previous experience, but how you state your skill set is almost as important as the skill set itself. 1) One of the first questions I was always asked was: "why do you want to work here?" Now for me, I was straight out of college, and wanted to explore the field of biochemistry. I didn't know much about the field and industry, so I thought this would a great opportunity to get experience. THIS IS A BIG NO NO! The company does not want to be the guinea pig to your job search field exploration experiment. They want someone who is looking for a career. When they ask you this question, you better have a really good answer. How can you have a good answer you ask? Well this is exactly why I'm making this post. Research the company before the interview (both before the phone interview, and the in person one). Find out what this company does, look at their site, their services, their videos, and what part of it sounds interesting/cool to you. Next, check out the job position, and what role you would have in the company. This will not be as obvious as what the company does, but use the job description and your knowledge of the company to try and get an idea of what you may be doing there, and see what part of that sounds interesting/cool. If you're gonna have to convince them, you're gonna have to convince yourself first. I.E. I'll just use the same example for simplicity. The cell therapy specialist. This company worked on modifying the bodies T-cells to help combat and cure cancer in patients. The method is relatively harmless (compared to chemo) and has a high success rate and low rate of remission. The position I was applying for was a manufacturing position. So my job would be to basically get human T-cells, modify them with the companies proprietary technology, and then simple scale up the modified T-cells and ship it out the patient for injection. This meant I would be directly making the medicine/treatment the cancer patient would be using to cure themselves. So when they asked me why did I want to work there, its because I looked at what the company does, looked at the technology and its success rate, and looked at the job description, and decided I want to be a part of this and save lives. I told them I believe in the companies vision and what they are doing, and I wanted to have an active role in creating the treatment for these poor cancer patients. (I had also seen on the companies site the treatment was not done with its clinical trials, so it was only used for the cancer patients who were basically at their last chance for a cure), so I used that by saying we are the last line of hope for these people, and I wanted to help cure them. This will make you look like you care about the company, its vision, and plan a career there. 2) The next most common question: "Why do you want position X (what you applied for) instead of position Y (another possible position)"? The company will want to know what your true interests are. Again, this is to determine whether you are looking for a career in this position (which is usually what they want), or just want a quick job and applied because you thought you were eligible or whatever. I.E. Again similar example. In Science, you have R&D, Manufacturing, and QA/QC. These are the most common examples, and each one is different. R&D is researching the medicine, coming up with new and improved drugs. Manufacturing as you might have imagined is making the drug, and QA/QC is quality assurance/control and is to make sure the drug is being manufactured properly basically. Now many scientists want R&D, because its challenging, mentally stimulating, and always changing. Manufacturing and QA/QC is usually just doing the same thing over and over and over again, and no one wants to feel like they went to school for multiple years to simply become a robot. So in my position: "Why do you want a Manufacturing position instead of an R&D position"? "If we had an R&D position available, would you like us to put your resume into that?". The solution for both of these are the same as above. Research the company, and your position in the company, and find out what about it is interesting and cool. So when they ask you this, you can give them an in depth and detailed answer why you are applying for that position. You don't want to come off like the job your applying for is your last choice and you just wanted to get whatever you could. Make it seem like you really want this job, and that this is a real dream career for you. 3) This is something more on the spot, improv if you will, that I found to be incredibly helpful and got really good feedback from the people I was being interviewed by when I did this. So the next most common question outside of the 2 above is: "Tell me one of your strengths (and sometimes weaknesses too)?" Now you could give some generic answer "I pay attention to detail, or am organized, great time management, etc. etc etc.", everyone says this and it will not make you stand out. This will almost never be the first question, so you will have some time after they ask the first question and your answer, to gauge the interview a bit. What i mean by this is try and get a feel for the person, for the company (now that you're in the building), for the position itself (after doing some research and discussing it with the person). Then, give an answer that is actually applicable to the position you are applying for. I.E. Again, same example as above. The building I went into was very chaotic, and everyone was sorta running all over the place. I thought it humorous, so as the guy was walking me to the interview room, I commented on it, and he said its a very intense and busy place, and everyone is always doing something. The guy himself seemed very straight forward, professional (non-conversational), and terse. This is for a Manufacturing position dealing with human cells, and cells are very time sensitive. So gathering all this info together, when he asked me what is one of my strengths, I didn't just give him a one word answer, but rather described my strength. I told him back when I was an undergrad, I had classes, and had to keep up with the lab. Bacteria are very time sensitive, so you had manage your time properly so that they didn't die, and your experiment wasn't ruined. At the same time, you had to make sure you managed your time with your classes, and the classes and research of other lab members in the lab too, so that you didn't impede on their work, nor fail your classes. All this taught me valuable time management skills allowing me to successfully juggle multiple things in a busy environment. He told me that is exactly what they are looking for, and then went into detail about how time sensitive their samples are, and how busy their work place is, etc. etc etc Describe your strength, and do so in a way that directly applies to what you are applying for. One other thing that I wanted to add that always ended positively for me is, your previous skill set is a strength too (don't be afraid to throw in a 2nd strength even if they asked only for one). I.E. Same example above. After my time management, I told him I also had experience with cell culture and expressing cells. I know how to work in a lab with other people, while working independently as well. Working with cells also means you need to have asceptic technique (another key word in the job description). Finally, I had to constantly maintain a lab notebook and write all the details of my experiments down as they were being conducted, so I have experience maintaining and writing notes on everything I do (this type of manufacturing is regulated very heavily, and it is crucial you document every tiny thing you do, otherwise it is a huge liability on the company). Therefore, I would focus less on basic training, and be able to get incorporated into the job faster and focus more on the in-depth detailed training, not only that, since I know the foundation of all of this due to my biochem background, I'd also understand what is going on at a molecular level, and wouldn't need to learn the foundational knowledge for what is going on, but rather take my knowledge and simply apply it to the job. All of that, makes me stand out even more now, because I just indicated i have the experience and knowledge that will help me succeed through the training faster, making me start the job faster (which is basically what they want). 4) One final thing that I think will really help you stand out, is a good question to ask them (because they will always ask you if you have any questions to ask them). Now there are many questions you can ask them "Can you take me through what I would be doing on a daily basis here" or "How do you like working here" etc. The one I've found to be the most useful goes something along the lines of this: "Since I'm looking at this position as a career, what potential opportunities for growth does this position have?". I think this is a really good question because it makes it look like you are looking at the position as a career and not just a quick job, but also because you are looking at the position, company, and your future within it seriously. I think its a great closer, and lets them know you are serious about starting a career with this company in the position you applied for (and that you aren't just going to leave as soon as you get something better). I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but these are I think the basics and I think the most important. A Tl'Dr version: Make your resume detailed so that it stands out and makes it look like you know exactly what you're applying for. Make sure you research the company and position in depth so you can discuss why you would be a good fit for the job, and why you even want it. Make sure you ask good compelling questions that show you are putting in some serious thought about your future in the company. All in all, make it seem like you REALLY want this job. This job is your career, your potential future, and your current desire. The company is investing in you for the long haul, and they want to know you are investing in them too. I apologize for how long this turned out. I had meant it be shorter, but I really wanted to go in detail so I could fully explain what I was trying to say. The advice I state above is very common advice, but I really wanted to show clear examples of how to actually use that common advice. I hope this helps anyone in their current job search! And if anyone has anything to add, feel free! NOTE: This is all from my personal experience searching for jobs in the biotech industry. Each industry and experience may be different, these are just things that helped me that I thought may also be applicable to jobs outside of the biotech industry.

So an update on my job search. One of the jobs "trolled" me, and decided to tell me they'd be giving me 50k/yr, but instead offered me 30k/yr and would not negotiate the price, so that's out. The other job, big pharma, is not worth the drive. Driving there and back today (leaving when I normally would be if I worked there), took me 3.5 hours! There is no way I am doing that everyday (plus I'd be leaving early in the morning during rush hour, so my drive would probably be a total of 4+ hours a day for a normal 8 hour work shift). So I've decided to accept the small start up instead (only an hour drive a day). Less pay, but at least I'll have my sanity.

I'd agree with what someone else said, there are actually plenty of sources about this. Fredrick Douglas definitely emphasizes the corruption of the "family" due to the rape of african american women by their white slave owners and then the babies they had (theres a specific word for it I forgot), and how that would cause problems between the husband and wife, or having brothers whipping their own brothers, etc. This is definitely something that has been explored in depth in regards to history, so I'd recommend simply more reading. Now if you are discussing current historians (say those at universities or something) and why they don't focus on it? I can't really comment on that since I'm not in the field. I just know I had to write an essay on this topic back in my undergrad, and there were definitely many sources discussing this topic.

Thankx for the advice everyone! 1) A salary difference of 5k isn't too big for me to pick one or the other. The stock options maybe, but I don't know if you lose those when you leave (which I plan to do), and I don't even know how valuable those are. Interest wise, again its hard to say, I stated why I like the small start up more than BP, but I could end up being wrong about them when I actually work there. 2) I've looked at the company on glassdoor, for my position their wage is actually a little above average that they are paying me. I could maybe push it for a bit more, but I don't want to come across as greedy or lost the job because of it. Also because its so small, if I do leave a bad taste in their mouth just for an extra 2 or 3 thousand, it's not like they're in an entire other state or part of the building, I'd literally see the person I haggled everyday and work in the same office as they do. 3) I am still planning to apply to PhD programs 100%. So, how exactly would I ask for time? Do I just say thank you for the offer, is it ok if I give you my response next week? Would they ask why? Would it look bad? Again, I'd rather take this job and lose the other 2, than lose this job and hope I get the other 2, since I already quite my current job.

Hello everyone, So if anyone has read my previous posts, this is an extension to that. So I had 3 potential job offers, and was awaiting a response from all of them. I was told 2 of them would take 2 weeks, and one of them would take 1 week. However, I don't know if they really liked me, or just said two weeks so they had a workable timeframe, I just got a job offer from one of the 2 week ones. As per my previous post, this is from the small start up company for 40k/yr with benefits. I am awaiting another job offer next week (I don't think this will be better than my current offer), and another one in 2 weeks. The one in 2 weeks is the big pharma 45k/yr with stock options. My question now is, how long can I postpone accepting the offer? I think I can tell them I'd like to give them my decision next week (at this point I'll have heard back from at least on of the interviews), but is postponing for 2 weeks too long? Secondly, I told them this was my ideal job and I'd love to be a part of the company (which is true, this was my first pick until I received info regarding the 45k/yr with benefits and took into account big pharma could be a great resume builder), so would they be insulted/offended if I didn't accept it right away? I don't know if this is a factor, but they told me they also would like me to start immediately (Monday of next week). I've already called my current job and told them I'm leaving, but I don't want to lose this job offer, only to wait 2 weeks and find out the other company said no. It also appears to be a general concensus however the big pharma offer is a better deal. Thank you ahead of time, and sorry for all these posts! This is my first "big" job in the pharma industry and my future career, and I really don't want to burn any bridges or lost my chance to get my foot in the door. Just a bit more info: The current job offer is an R&D job at a small company. The Big pharma job is manufacturing. I do plan on pursuing a career in R&D after my PhD, not manufacturing. Finally, I do plan on leaving summer of next year for my PhD, so I'd only work for a little over half a year. This may upset the company, and if it comes down to burning bridges, I'd much rather burn the small start ups bridges than the already established big pharma company.

Thank you for the reply guys! So to help answer some questions: 1) It would be financially a disaster to move. Almost all places require a 12 month lease (I'd only be there for maybe a little more than half that), and right now, I pay 1500 for a 1 bed, over there it would probably be somewhere around 18-23k for a one bed. So there would be no way for me to move closer to either job. 2) They both have important contributions to my future PhD and post-PhD program/career The SB more so than the BP. The SB overall will probably be more along the lines of what I would like to do after my PhD, the BP would be something more along the lines of what I could do for some quick cash. The main difference is though, the SB is R&D, which is what I want to do after PhD, the BP is manufacturing, which I have zero desire to do after PhD (my entire reason for a PhD is so I can go into R&D). So it very well could be the R&D of BP will be closely related to my PhD, but that will not be what I will be working in, and thus the skills I gain will not be R&D skills, but almost purely instrumental/technique. Whereas the SB, will provide all that plus R&D experience. In a way, you are correct, the SB will be very similar to my PhD experience. So just in regards to experience, both jobs I think will provide opportunities for work after my PhD. 3) Interest is purely because 1) I want a career in proteins and drug formulation and 2) I want R&D. SB is both of those. BP is a manufacturing position dealing with human samples and cells. BP is also usually just doing the same thing over and over again. I think the work the company does is really cool, but just being a cog in the machine instead of the engineer of the machine doesn't interest me all that much (again, this is why I'm pursuing a PhD, exactly to avoid falling into this manufacturing redundent worker position) 4) This is sorta a hard one to speculate. On one hand, I do think the R&D of BP is cool, but I don't exactly know what it entails because I won't be in it. In another hand, the SB position isn't "exactly" what I want to do either. I think it has interesting research, and is a good start, but I think its vision is a little too small for my tastes. The SB is more of a contract service, solubilizing and assisting in the drug development process for drugs already in the clinical trail stages to help it get passed along quicker. Cool and all, but I want to be the one actually desiegning the drug itself. In those regards, I'd imagine my eventual career would probably be in BP. From my understanding, SB usually focus on a one small thing, develop it, then goodbye everyone (unless its a service like this one). BP develops multiple different drugs repeatedly, which is sorta what I'd like. Other than that though, you are correct, in regards to the time I'll be working, the experience won't be as important as the big name behind it probably. 5) As much as grad school may suck, I don't think I'll ever have that ideal again. I've been looking at the job industry now for 3 months continuously. With my degree, there is absolutely no way I can get my dream job. All the jobs I could get now, are at best former shadows of what I truly want. My dream career is to be a head scientist developing some drug to cure something. However, it would be working with protein therapeutics, or small molecules targeting proteins. I have no desire to ever work in manufacturing or QC, only in R&D. I've had a job (my undergrad research), that I loved. I've seen the lows of research, and its highs. I've felt what its like to have a job you love, and I don't think I can go back. Yes, I may be a bit naive since I haven't fully gotten a job in the industry yet, and my perspective may change, but I don't think I could ever have a job that I wasn't fully invested in or didn't fully love. Hence, why I don't really want manufacturing or QC. I think if I were to make a top 3 list of the most important factors to a happy and successful life, having a job you love would be in it. I don't think I'd ever truly be satisfied or happy without getting my PhD (in regards to job opportunities for BS vs PhD). The grass is green on the other side with a BS in my field, but it's not green enough for me (from what I've seen). My biggest question still stands however, the prospect of happiness or the better offer? At this point it seems evident that BP is the better choice outside of interest. High salary and big name will help after my PhD. However, to me, it does sound kinda boring. Theoretically, the SB could be all hype with nothing to show for, and the BP could turn out to be super cool. So for now, its just the ideal prospect of happiness, but BP overall appears to be a better deal for me in the long run. At the end of the day, I'll only be miserable for less than a year, so its not too bad if the job ends up sucking. Thanks again!

Hello everyone, So I've come across a potential dilemma, that I was hoping to get some feedback on. I have a 3 potential offers that may be lining up soon, and just recently obtained the details regarding the jobs themselves (in regards to benefits, wage, etc.). Initially, I had already decided just on interest which job I wanted, but now with this information, it has caused me to question my decision a little bit (note: no official decisions have been made yet). So I have a potential job offer from a big pharma company, and a small biotech company. One is 50 employees, another is over 500. The small start up offered me around 40k/yr, with benefits in the future. From reading online, and just from discussions, there is not too much room to grow however within it. It appears most people become somewhat stagnant in the job, with some raises here and there, but nothing big for the most part. I like it because it is an R&D position, and I very much enjoy the research this company does, and it is very similar to what I was previously doing, what I want to do, and a bit of what I will be doing in my future PhD program (it is a protein formulation company, I'm looking to go into structural biology). I will also get the opportunity to work with a wide array of assays and instruments. This may or may not be great (being a jack of all trades means more work, but more experience too). It is also a company that does services, so every months project will be different. This means experience with different projects, and having to approach different problems with different techniques. The big pharma company is offering me 45k/hr with benefits, but also stocks of their company as well. This is manufacturing position, dealing with making specific T-Cell lines from human blood/tissue samples. It appears to be primarily just following protocol for the most part, not too much innovation. There does appear to be quite a bit of room for growth in the manufacturing sector itself however, with the potential to transfer over to the R&D sector of the company as well (which does sound very interesting). This is a little bit outside of my field, but will slightly relate to my future career/PhD program as well (I will gain great experience in expression with mammilian cells and Tcells from this, which will be important for structural biology). This is more of a focused job. I'll probably be doing the same thing over and over again for my remainder here (primarily just focusing on T-cell protein expression), using the same instrumentation over and over again. There is of course a huge cultural/financial difference as well, but that is a whole other topic. The most important part is however, I only plan to work here for less than a year before I start my PhD. I have the potential to delay my PhD by a year, if the job is really good and I see real potential for growth. Due to the time however, room for growth isn't my biggest factor (I could theoretically come back after my PhD to the same company). Initially, I was going to straight up pick the protein formulation job just because it sounded so cool, and was an R&D position (everything I was looking for basically). But the big pharma opportunity for room for growth, big name boosting my resume for after my PhD program, and the extra salary and stock bonuses make the big pharma position sound very interesting. I wanted to hopefully have your opinion on what you guys think is the best choice of action? Are stocks for big pharma companies overrated? Is the extra 5k salary and resume booster not worth getting a job you won't be super happy with? One final factor, that may or may not be important. My commute for these 2 jobs is immensly different. The small start up will be around a 30 minute drive (so 1 hour a day). The big pharma company will be a 1-2 hours drive a day (so 2-4 hours a day of driving). But again, for me, salary, opportunity, interest, and resume building is the main priority in the job I choose. Thank you ahead of time as always!

I used the 5lb GRE book for the quant section. Overall, I found it very helpful for simple tips and tricks and practice for helping speed up my test taking. However, this method does take quite a bit of time. It took me about 3 weeks to go though the problems and effectively address my problems. Haven't retaken the GRE yet, but I do expect to score better.

Sadly, at the end of the day, all the above comments are correct. The best you can do is simply state your opinion to your Boss, and hope they agree with you and work on a compromise. There is a huge political factor involved from the higher ups that trickles all the way down to the professors, TAs, and students. Bottom line, the higher ups want more students graduating faster with higher GPAs. The higher ups usually (from my experience) understand very little about the process of education itself, and in the best scenarios, leave it completely up to the dean of the school, but from my experience, often times get involved and make policies that outright don't work. This is not the professors fault however, for their hands are tied (especially those trying to get tenure). This also varies class to class. My quantum mechanics class had a 10% curve, but its quantum mechanics, maybe you can give the students a little break. However, the general chemistry class my colleague taught was forced a 15% curve as well, which... I find a little bit harder to justify. The worst example of this are those close to graduating that are repeats. I.E. The guy had failed the gen chem class 3 times, and was on his last possible retake. He didn't show up half the days, so naturally he failed again. However, the dean and school desperate to get him out of the class, decided to actually drop all the fails he had from days not showing up, and only grade him for days he did show up, then give him a 10% curve. Naturally, the guy passes now with a C-. Luckily, one of the professors got really ticked off at this, and decided to pursue it with the dean himself. After about 2 weeks, they finally failed the guy and told him to change his major. Now this guy was relatively a nobody (foreign exchange from africa, very poor, etc.), so he had no one here to fight for him. I can only imagine if this was say, some wealthy white kid at any ivy league. Don't know if that professor would be able to reverse the deans decision. The worst part is, this tarnishes the schools name. I had a friend who went to a school that was we could say.... leniant. Both from looking at their tests/grades, and talking to them, their knowledge of the material by the time they graduated was on par with a C average junior at a typical university. This school had such a bad reputation in the local area though for putting out unprepared graduates, biotech companies had essentially black listed the school. I fear my school is following the same trend. Already companies like Amgen have stopped hiring my school altogether (this information comes from the hiring commitee and higher ups I know in the company), making it harder for people to find a job. Note: These are all just from my personal experience. These are just things I saw at my local state university.

Well I'd prefer to start Job 1 asap. I find my current job a waste of time (both enjoyment, money, and career wise). I don't think there should be any breach of contract, since I made it very clear to my recruiter I plan to leave before my 2 months was even up (I planned to hopefully get a better job by then). I just know at a minimum the contracts I signed stated I did need to indicated 10 days before I left (2 week notice). Thank you! I should hear back from them all within 2 weeks, and hopefully Job 3 will wait the week required to hear back from job 2 and 3.

Thanks for the response! So to provide more detail, and why I don't feel particulary bad about leaving my current job high and dry (I think that's the saying). I am looking to pursue the biochem field, but was having some difficulty getting a position I really liked, but I did need to start having some money (running low on savings). So I pursued a data entry position (literally just typing), a 2 month contract job, with a recruiter. I told the recruiter I want to go into Biochem, and I'm taking this job literally only because I have not found anything better, and will leave as soon as I find a better job. The recruiter agreed to my terms, we set a interview with the company, and they gave me the job and I said yes. This job will only be for 2 months regardless (unless they want to take me on afterwards), so I will never have any sick/vacation days for getting another job. All this being said, my recruiter is fully aware that I am planning on leaving asap. The only potential bridge I'd burn would be with the recruiting company itself (the other company is in no way related to my field); however, it is something I'd be willing to do if I was able to get a job with a desired good company. Because the decision times are so close, my only issue was whether or not it would be appropriate to ask Job 3 to wait. I just need to hear the decisions of Job 1 and 2 (or Job 1 if its a yes), and that'll be enough for me to get everything rolling, but I didn't want to lose Job 3, then find out Job 1 and 2 are no's and now I'm stuck with my current job for the next 2 months.

Hello everyone, So I recently accepted a job (about a month ago, but started 2 weeks ago), just to have a job and get some money until I find another job. It's a typical 8am-5pm Mon-Fri work schedule. I have also been on the lookout for a better job (both more appealing and better pay) as well. I have been getting a lot of phone interviews, and before I had started this job, was able to do in person interviews as well. A few problems have arisen however, that I don't quite know how to deal with. I currently have 3 potential job offers (not offers, but have finished the interview process and am awaiting a decision), and I already have them ranked from most desired to least desired. Regardless, they are all better than my current job, and would gladly accept any of them if offered the position. The problem is, one of them told me they would tell me their decision by next week, and the other 2 jobs would tell me their decision the week after that. So to make it easier: Job 1: Most desired job, decision will be given 2 weeks from now Job 2: Less desired job, decision will be given 2 weeks from now Job 3: Least desired job, decision will be given 1 week from now The problem arises in regards to, what happens if Job 3 says yes? Ideally, I'd love to tell them I'll give them my decision in 2 weeks (once I've heard back from Job 1 and 2), but will that be looked upon negatively? Job 3 does have a deadline they are looking to hire, and the decision of Job 1 and 2 will be very close to that deadline. Will I lose Job 3s offer if I say I want to wait a week before giving them my decision? Otherwise, the only other option would be to say yes to them, and then quit (like my current job), when Job 1 and 2 say yes (if they did), which is something I'd rather avoid. I'd also have to tell them I can't start immediately because I have a job (which I didn't say in my interview because I didn't have a job then), and would be able to start 2 weeks after I gave my decision because of the 2 week notice. Will that also be looked upon negatively? Overall, I don't want to give my 2 week notice until I have a decision from all 3 jobs so I can pick and choose between the jobs (which means I'd say yes to job 1 but no to the rest), but due to timing that may not be possible. I could theoretically say yes to all of them and basically leap frog my way from one company to the next when they make their decisions, but that would be a waste of time for the company, and I just feel bad about doing it. On top of all this, it's been immensly difficult to plan anything with these companies because of my current job (all the companies I'm applying to are Mon-Fri 8-5), so I don't even think I'd even be able to apply to get anything after these 3 job offers. I'm just curious as to the best course of action in this scenario. Also, as a side note, what is the best way to even go out looking for a job when you currently have one? How do you schedule the interviews when everyones work schedule coincides with your work schedule? Sure I guess you could do sick days or something, but I just started so that doesn't apply to me. ANyways, thank you ahead of time as always!

One last thing. The way I define success is by happiness. If I am happy, then I am successful in life. There is no one path to it either. Success can be slowly working your way up a corporate ladder while raising a family alongside it. Success can be going for a PhD program and getting married and having a family afterwards. Success can be traveling the world broke doing odd jobs here and there. Success can be not getting married at all and just enjoying your life single forever. Success doesn't mean money, or titles, or even family. One of the most successful guys I knew was homeless. This guy loved to read, so much so, that he quit his job, sold his house and all his belongings, bought a tent, and moved to the woods. Every week he would come to the library by my house and check out a bunch of books and just read them all week. When he was done, he would come to the library, return the books, and check out some other books. He was one of the happiest guys I knew, pretty fit too (he loved to take long walks in the woods when he read). He was also pretty smart too i might add (he was the chief electrical engineer for a big company from my understanding).

It really depends on your age in this regards. I spent my entire high school just enjoying life (doing drugs and traveling). In college, I had a very limited budget, but still liked to make plans and travel on breaks (spring break go to a national park, winter break go skiing up north). I'm now in a gap year between my undergrad to PhD, and I plan on going on one final big bang trip (Fifa 2018 and backpacking Eastern Europe) from the money I gain working during this time (I'm planning to stupidly start my PhD program broke). Then, when my PhD starts, I probably won't do many travels just due to time and money reasons. I love traveling though, and I miss my high schools days of just free leisure traveling from jumping trains to literally just hitchhiking with strangers up North. However, having that PhD degree will help me to gain enough money to do the travels I truly want to do, without wasting years and years of my life (as I did in high school). It's also to each their own. Yes, adminstration/corporate jobs will always pay more. I have a friend climbing the corporate ladder, and they are already making more than what I will even with my PhD, but I don't enjoy the corporate world. I want to go into pharmaceutical sciences. There are people I know who have families right now, but I don't want a family, I want to enjoy my youth a little more. Honestly, the way I look at it, it comes down to you. When I was in my undergrad, my budget was slim (living monthly). However, I decided to get a big group of buddies together, and drove up to a place called Yosemite for spring break camping. It was an amazing experience and I loved it. The whole trip cost me less than $100 up there (and that included food, gas, and all the alcohol we bought). If you are unhappy with your life and want some change, than make that change. If you realized the field you're in isn't what you want to do, then leave. If you like your field but aren't happy with your personal life, then try to change your personal life. Now of course you can't go on extravagent trips to Europe or anything, but a simple 2 or 3 day trip or even a week road trip can be very cheap, especially if you split it amongst a group. Its not even about traveling either. During my undergrad, I had a really tough semester, and sometimes I would just drive to the beach late at night on the weekend or something for a swim. Really helped me unwind and clear my mind.

Then the statements I made above is what you should focus on. Focus on the research first, than the school.

Then how did you do so well on the Verbal section? If anything that is where the language barrier would hinder you. I also am slow when it comes to the quant section, I think its just a matter of learning what techniques to use for what problems ( I think it is for this exact reason the quant section is garbage). Secondly, again, its all about the research they do. I'd advise when you are looking at various programs, look at the research not the school. Look at all schools, large and small. Then pick them based of research interest not size. If you have a lot of options that interest you, then you can start to narrow based on the school size, but that should never be the priority. The priority is research interest. Also, sounds like you don't even need a PhD if you want to teach. There are a lot of faculty members in school who's majors were regarding teaching chemistry. Their research is also into teaching chemistry. They got Eds (or w.e. the educational phd version is), instead of PhDs. If you don't want to do research, and only want to focus on teaching, I'd say you probably don't even need the PhD for this. Keep in the mind, the majority of people in University who teach, are primarily focused on research, not teaching. For them, teaching is a side activity, not the main focus of their work. There are those however that only focus on teaching, and their research is focused on how to effectively teach the subject. It sounds more like this is the route you would want to go for. I'd focus on finding faculty members who focus on this, and see if you can get into their "labs".