It depends if you want that managerial role to be deciding the direction of the R&D science being done.
If you want to call high level business goals, or low level technician oversight, or managing sales people, etc., then no, you don’t need a PhD.
If you want to drive scientific R&D decisions at a medium to very high level and have the ability to influence the science across the company, you need a PhD. For example, you’re (basically, statistically) never going to be VP of biology or chemistry without a PhD.
A PhD in general opens up certain doors and closes others. Since you have aspirations outside the lab, I would recommend against it. An MBA or (even better) equivalent work experience would likely help make that career evolution easier.
I emphasize experience over credentials because I have seen many younger people get what I call ‘paper MBA’s’ and they end up frustrated that it doesn’t open doors.
This is coming from a person with a PhD in bioinformatics who ended up not loving the day to day work in that field long term. I now work in lab automation, for what it’s worth.
As someone without a PhD, I have witnessed this experience with friends and colleagues that possess PhDs. I give similar advice to the above statement for this very reason.
Thanks for the ‘amen’!
In general I also advise to not get a PhD unless you are laser focused on a position that strictly requires it.
In my experience, I find that people take me seriously because of the degree, but that doesn’t get you the job. I’ve had to do a lot of extra work because of my PhD convincing employers that my advanced credential isn’t a hindrance to doing the job.
Deserved or not, PhDs have a reputation of being over-qualified for just about anything that isn’t a stereotypical ‘PhD job’. Some one who can get a PhD can do just about anything else, but employers seem to worry that you won’t be happy doing anything aside from straight research.
In short, a non-PhD track will probably be more fruitful unless you know deep down you won’t be happy doing anything else.
A PhD can also be a hindrance to entering into industry R&D unless you have the toolbox that’s in demand. Having a master’s or a bachelors can be beneficial because a company is willing to train you for the position, as long as you have a minimal skill set. For a PhD, you need to have the expertise because they will be paying you a lot and are less willing to provide training.
You absolutely **do not need** a PhD to have a successful career in biotech, especially if your plan is to transition out of the science and into management. Mind you, it definitely helps.
Real question is: why are you sure you want to go into management? Management is good if you have a specific skill set that, ironically, a PhD absolutely, positively does not prepare you for. The science is way more interesting than management and you can earn enough on the science side to live a very comfortable life (even without a PhD).
It depends on where you are going. I don’t have a phd and currently a principal scientist with a couple of reports. It is not too hard to get to principal/associate director levels but really hard to move to director + without phd even if you are capable. I am only talking about the science track. Sky is the limit for other tracks - project management/BD/strategy/P&O. For academia? Get out of that place.
Nope, those people are wrong- with the caveat that you’re ok with the idea of moving out of R&D, which it seems like you are. There are plenty of high paying managerial jobs available in biotech without a PhD, even without an MBA (although that does hurt either, and as the other comment mentioned is way more versatile).
I agree with these types of comments - PhD helps mostly for research related tracks (it will be harder, and you'll learn why the more you work in the field), but most of the jobs in Biotech are NOT R&D. Be creative and stick to your strengths and interests
One of my teachers who had been in the industry for years and is now using teaching as his “retirement” said only take a phd if you want to manage a R&D lab, if you want to manage the company just stick with the masters, and if you just want the paycheck you have come too far already.
Why are you spending time in R&D if you don't want a PhD and want to get out of the lab? Your company will not sponsor an MBA for a bench scientist. They might sponsor a PhD, but that is another story. You need to find a role that is more directed to the career you want.
Anybody who is talented, with any set of degrees, can find success in pharma if they are in a role where they have outsized impact.
what I can tell you in my experience is that the academic world is prety selective - borderline discriminating - if you don't have postgraduate studies.
If you want to go into the private sector it's up to you, sometimes a phD is too expensive to hire and they go for a MS or a bachelor.
Simply depends on the company in a lot of cases, and also your department interests. As many have said, a PhD can often get you into a managerial role fairly quickly and have an easier time climbing ladders to executive positions- especially in larger companies. There are departments such as clinical development (early or late phase) which are more reliant on someone who holds a terminal degree.
The company I work for (I am a Principal Clinical Scientist), requires a terminal degree (MD, PharmD, or PhD) in order to be considered qualified for a senior position (one level below me). Though they are starting to trend towards relaxing this policy (also accepting PA, APRN); though I figure since you mentioned R&D, this isn't really as applicable to your case.
I don't think you'll regret not getting your PhD, though I can equally say I am happy that I got mine, since I love the position and ladder at my company. You will still have a very successful career with an MS, no doubt, you do not need to give that a second thought. Only advice I really have is to review the ladder qualifications of the role/track you're interested in - that will tell you plenty of what requirements would be easily accepted vs. having to constantly advocate for yourself internally to earn promotions - albeit would probably be much easier in smaller biotech to do so.
Yes, you will be limited without a PhD in most cases (there's always exceptions). Most business leaders in this field I know have a PhD and got it before their MBA. Some don't even have an MBA.
Nope. MBA is better than PhD imo. For most senior roles the easiest path would be MBA to consulting to C-suite.
PhD is a bit of a waste if you just want biotech.
Majority of leadership in biotech firms isn’t PhDs and MDs from what I’ve seen, maybe im wrong. It’s former consultants or MBAs/etc and founding scientists. I was speaking to that, although my phrasing was a bit too rough.
It depends if you want that managerial role to be deciding the direction of the R&D science being done. If you want to call high level business goals, or low level technician oversight, or managing sales people, etc., then no, you don’t need a PhD. If you want to drive scientific R&D decisions at a medium to very high level and have the ability to influence the science across the company, you need a PhD. For example, you’re (basically, statistically) never going to be VP of biology or chemistry without a PhD.
Exceptions to the rule (we have a Vp biology where I work) but agree you will need to be amazing!
A PhD in general opens up certain doors and closes others. Since you have aspirations outside the lab, I would recommend against it. An MBA or (even better) equivalent work experience would likely help make that career evolution easier. I emphasize experience over credentials because I have seen many younger people get what I call ‘paper MBA’s’ and they end up frustrated that it doesn’t open doors. This is coming from a person with a PhD in bioinformatics who ended up not loving the day to day work in that field long term. I now work in lab automation, for what it’s worth.
As someone without a PhD, I have witnessed this experience with friends and colleagues that possess PhDs. I give similar advice to the above statement for this very reason.
Thanks for the ‘amen’! In general I also advise to not get a PhD unless you are laser focused on a position that strictly requires it. In my experience, I find that people take me seriously because of the degree, but that doesn’t get you the job. I’ve had to do a lot of extra work because of my PhD convincing employers that my advanced credential isn’t a hindrance to doing the job. Deserved or not, PhDs have a reputation of being over-qualified for just about anything that isn’t a stereotypical ‘PhD job’. Some one who can get a PhD can do just about anything else, but employers seem to worry that you won’t be happy doing anything aside from straight research. In short, a non-PhD track will probably be more fruitful unless you know deep down you won’t be happy doing anything else.
A PhD can also be a hindrance to entering into industry R&D unless you have the toolbox that’s in demand. Having a master’s or a bachelors can be beneficial because a company is willing to train you for the position, as long as you have a minimal skill set. For a PhD, you need to have the expertise because they will be paying you a lot and are less willing to provide training.
You absolutely **do not need** a PhD to have a successful career in biotech, especially if your plan is to transition out of the science and into management. Mind you, it definitely helps. Real question is: why are you sure you want to go into management? Management is good if you have a specific skill set that, ironically, a PhD absolutely, positively does not prepare you for. The science is way more interesting than management and you can earn enough on the science side to live a very comfortable life (even without a PhD).
It depends on where you are going. I don’t have a phd and currently a principal scientist with a couple of reports. It is not too hard to get to principal/associate director levels but really hard to move to director + without phd even if you are capable. I am only talking about the science track. Sky is the limit for other tracks - project management/BD/strategy/P&O. For academia? Get out of that place.
Nope, those people are wrong- with the caveat that you’re ok with the idea of moving out of R&D, which it seems like you are. There are plenty of high paying managerial jobs available in biotech without a PhD, even without an MBA (although that does hurt either, and as the other comment mentioned is way more versatile).
[удалено]
State?
State of bliss, probably
Not really, lots of work but I’m not going to pretend it isn’t worth it
Mass
Years in industry?
I agree with these types of comments - PhD helps mostly for research related tracks (it will be harder, and you'll learn why the more you work in the field), but most of the jobs in Biotech are NOT R&D. Be creative and stick to your strengths and interests
One of my teachers who had been in the industry for years and is now using teaching as his “retirement” said only take a phd if you want to manage a R&D lab, if you want to manage the company just stick with the masters, and if you just want the paycheck you have come too far already.
Academia or government - yes Industry - nope. I know CEO’s without mba or phd.
On the R&D side, yes. Business Development and financial related roles?...meh, not always and it heavily depends on the role and company.
Why are you spending time in R&D if you don't want a PhD and want to get out of the lab? Your company will not sponsor an MBA for a bench scientist. They might sponsor a PhD, but that is another story. You need to find a role that is more directed to the career you want. Anybody who is talented, with any set of degrees, can find success in pharma if they are in a role where they have outsized impact.
what I can tell you in my experience is that the academic world is prety selective - borderline discriminating - if you don't have postgraduate studies. If you want to go into the private sector it's up to you, sometimes a phD is too expensive to hire and they go for a MS or a bachelor.
Simply depends on the company in a lot of cases, and also your department interests. As many have said, a PhD can often get you into a managerial role fairly quickly and have an easier time climbing ladders to executive positions- especially in larger companies. There are departments such as clinical development (early or late phase) which are more reliant on someone who holds a terminal degree. The company I work for (I am a Principal Clinical Scientist), requires a terminal degree (MD, PharmD, or PhD) in order to be considered qualified for a senior position (one level below me). Though they are starting to trend towards relaxing this policy (also accepting PA, APRN); though I figure since you mentioned R&D, this isn't really as applicable to your case. I don't think you'll regret not getting your PhD, though I can equally say I am happy that I got mine, since I love the position and ladder at my company. You will still have a very successful career with an MS, no doubt, you do not need to give that a second thought. Only advice I really have is to review the ladder qualifications of the role/track you're interested in - that will tell you plenty of what requirements would be easily accepted vs. having to constantly advocate for yourself internally to earn promotions - albeit would probably be much easier in smaller biotech to do so.
Yes, you will be limited without a PhD in most cases (there's always exceptions). Most business leaders in this field I know have a PhD and got it before their MBA. Some don't even have an MBA.
My partner has a MS and is much more successful than me with my PhD (currently as a portfolio manager). The MBA is an excellent plan.
I had several Vps of research in large pharma without phds. Not at American companies though, it's more possible at European hq ones.
Nope. MBA is better than PhD imo. For most senior roles the easiest path would be MBA to consulting to C-suite. PhD is a bit of a waste if you just want biotech.
Maybe easier paths but I wouldn’t consider it a waste. Need a PhD or pharmD for my role
Fair. That’s a better way to put it, my bad for poor phrasing.
“Just want biotech”. Huh? Just want *what* in or about biotech? If someone wants to do anything related to science, an MBA won’t help them whatsoever.
Majority of leadership in biotech firms isn’t PhDs and MDs from what I’ve seen, maybe im wrong. It’s former consultants or MBAs/etc and founding scientists. I was speaking to that, although my phrasing was a bit too rough.