Slashdot Mirror
Moving from Corporate IT to Science?
EdinBear asks: "I've been working as a SysAdmin in an increasingly corporate internet services company, which has been hit hard by the fallout from the .com bust. When I started some years ago, I felt I was helping small and interesting companies get benefit from the burgeoning Internet through useful and attractive web services. However, since the Internet became 'normal', the focus has been purely commercial - and instead of helping an enterprise get exposure in an interesting way, it's all about money and finance. I now feel I want to move into Science to use my skills in a productive, 'big picture' kind of way, rather than just helping a client get more rich through financial services. I'm interested to hear if other people have found themselves in a similar position; is the transfer to Science/Research/Academia difficult? Is the grass greener on the other side? The money is less, but is the job satisfaction more?"
I have BS degrees in computer science and physics, and have played both sides of the fence.
Slashdotters who find political situations in the work place difficult, will find much of the same in academia.
They are actually quite similar. Those 'greedy' clients chasing dollar bills will for the most part just be replaced with 'fame greedy' co-authors who want to make a name for themselves. In science it's all about your reputation, and it's managed in the much the same way porfolios are in the business world.
This isn't true of everyone of course, but in my opinion the grass is pretty brown on both sides of the fence.
As a molecular biologist (with a BS) who's worked in several academic and industrial labs, I say steer very clear of doing wetlab work - it is boring and repetitive, and most of the day you are not really using your mind.
Basically, I prep DNA, ligate DNA, do PCR reactions and transform bacteria. Run the gels, digest DNA, yadayadayada. It doesn't pay well, and is not galmorous. No scientist that I know really enjoys doing that crap. After decades of work, you might be lucky do direct your own group of minions to do this crap so you can analyze results and think of new experiments all day long (the fun parts).
Go into a field that mixes computers and science. Like say bioinformatics or molecular modeling. I'm fairly ignorant on these subjects, but they seem much more interesting to do on a day to day basis. So that's where I'm trying to head.
So sorry to inform you, we reviewed your qualifications, and you are not the right candidate. People who are in science are there because they love science. Nearly all knew at a young age that they were destined for science, and applied themselves accordingly throughout their lives and careers.
Those who want to jump into science because they lost their "job" in IT aren't the kind of people who belong in science.
That's what I saw when I was getting my Ph.D. from a prestigious technical university (it's name begins with Georiga Tech).
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
>>>"Furthermore, many scientists fancy themselves quite the computer expert by virtue of having written a model in FORTRAN or some such.">>>
And arguing in a similar way, many computer experts think themselves scientists because they once wrote a program that demonstrated some scientific principle, usually because they were made to in some required class for their CS degree.
Of course it is nonsense. IT folks are not scientists, and scientists aren't ready to be sys-admins.
As for your BullShit comment about fortran, I suspect you have seen only f77. Fortran is as every bit as interesting and useful as C( fortran95 anyway). C is best for systems programming, fortran9x is best for computation. Most scientists are well versed in using both( as well as perl ) in solving many thorny problems in scientific computation.
I used to work as an aquatic biologist. Since I only have an M.S. it's possible that my experience is substancially different than those with PhD's. But I've been much happier as a geek.
Funding for primary research has pretty well dried up, and directed research systems tend to be very intense, short-sighted, and goal oriented -- not a good environment for good science. The primary research positions are underfunded, and staffed by the "old dogs" with twenty years of publications under their belt -- you won't get a shot there easily.
The scarcity of funding has led to other undersirable characterists: disposable labor and fraudulent research. Basically, many programs are hiring staff as they need 'em, working them like dogs, then letting them go when they quit working 70 hour weeks. There have also been many disturbing rumors of falsified research, and of course almost nobody is wasting time reproducing other's work.
In addition, unlike the science of the last few decades, information is no longer freely distributed among researchers -- the push is to make money by patenting every little discovery. In short, the ivory tower has crumbled, and what's left is a dirty little sweatshop pursuing the almighty dollar with the same intensity as the most callous prostitute. I've been in IT for a number of years now, but work extensively with large numbers of scientists and engineers. They envy me, and I daresay rightly so, which is unfortunate -- science was my first love.
Are you sick of doing the bidding of idiot PHBs, slaving away for nothing? I'm convinced that the answer is not, "More school." You'll just wind up in a different hamster cage or a non-corporate PHB structure, i.e. a university. The answer: Let's all move to Oregon and build a Yurt village! If you think I'm kidding, think again:
* Yurts are incredible! I've actually visited Pacific Yurts in Oregon. Too many benefits to list. Check out http://www.yurts.com/
* We can build our own wireless freaknet with cheap 802.11 gear, and bring the Internet (WAN) connection down from the skies. Hell, we may be able to get a cable modem connection.
* Organic gardening.
* Totally off grid: Solar, wind, hydro.
* Chicken tractors. Again, if you think I'm kidding, type "chicken tractor" into google.
* No mortgage!
* No PHBs for miles and miles!
* Once your show is set up, what will the costs be? Once you cut out the mortgage/rent and other allegedly essential BS, it's not that expensive to live.
Getting off the hamster wheel is NOT easy. We need bold action. This isn't thinking outside the box, it's saying, "I'm not playing this game anymore."
Now, clearly, this isn't for everyone, but I suspect that there are a bunch of potential off-grid yurt freaks lingering in the slashdot crowd. Hey, let's fire it up. Let me know!
-Kevin
I'm a software engineer working in science again after 10 years working for commercial network companies. I did work a long time at single companies, the companies did succeed in various degrees (well, the last folded early when the board realized there was no more IPO market). Still, although I am proud of the code I wrote in the private sector and it's still in use and widely deployed, many of the incidental things I did in science still had more romantic appeal. In science I watched Voyager approach neptune by daily grabbing Voyager images from JPL via DecNET, I was listed as coauthor on scientific papers, etc. But I think the main thing I like is the "big picture" aspect. There is a long term set of goals toward which progress will be made. The problems are unique.
Pay wise I'm making half of what I made previously (I've been here about a year), but more than when I was unemployed (little joke/joke there). It's not a happy happy world, there are some politics and aggravations because it's still just life. BUT: the goal is cooler, the value of long term thinking is stronger, and the resources are fantastic. Internet2 anyone?
Go to science if you can!
-pyrrho
Go into a field that mixes computers and science. Like say bioinformatics or molecular modeling. I'm fairly ignorant on these subjects, but they seem much more interesting to do on a day to day basis. So that's where I'm trying to head.
A year ago I left the programming and management world to go back to get my Master's. The university I'm attending just started offering an option in computational biology. Once I started the computational biology option, it's been tremendously exciting. I've been approached by biologists who want me to roll my thesis work into their efforts--data mining biology-related data, etc. I've also been told by the department that biotechnology companies are just throwing grant money towards bioinformatics like crazy. If I decide to get my Ph.D., I'm assured it will be paid for.
And the best part of all? Check out BioPerl and bioinformatics.org. Open Source is quite popular in this field. It's incredibly refreshing to be hacking away at problems that don't involve the same old corporate data warehouse.
It is shocking how little the admins make at State Universities. I got to a State U, all the salaries are public knowledge. Someone posted it on a website, I looked up the network admins, lab techies, etc. and was shell shocked. It was anywhere from 20%-50% less than there corporate counterparts. Then again these people basically have a job for life and nice thick pipes to play their FPSs on.
By and large, people tend to optimise their behaviour to be appropriate to the environment that they are working in - in the commercial world this means making someone money (shareholders hoefully and maybe even yourself). In academia I got the impression that the underlying goals were pretty similar, people wanted their careers to advance, get promotion (and away from evil short term contracts that are very popular here in the UK) and this is almost purely done through publications. If you are an actual academic (rather than support staff) then maximising pulication output is usually the only goal. I observed that as publications were linked to people (the authors) there was was no 'team effort' - it really was everyone out for themselves. In this respect, the academic environment has actually made the various commerical environments I have worked in look relatively tame when it came to politics (and I have been on the board of a company that eventually IPO'ed [to no great effect]).
In reality, as various other posters have alluded to, it comes down to the academic environment being good at some things: it really is an easier life (modulo politics), working environments can be fun and you can get more space to do your own stuff. Pay is not a strong point, but is often not that bad if you stick around long enough.
I wouldn't go back myself, but I'm glad that I was there for a while and if you go into it with your eyes open and with some goals of your own then you can have some fun. Plan to get out and back to the RealWorld though (handy tip: if you want to drive academics insane with rage through references to the RealWorld into your conversation - its cruel to tease the poor things but amusing and as a taxpayer I feel I have to get value for money somehow).
I had a similar experience: I used to work as a programmer at a small company, but found the actual job I was doing quite different to what I signed up for (due to financial pressures I was shipped offsite and used as a tester, doing monkey work, or I spent a lot of time writing training courses). The level of pay and training I was getting were less than I was promised. I was going nowhere.
I've been studying for a PhD for two years now. Although I get a hell of a lot less money (about 1/3 of my old salary), I'm a lot happier. The academic environment is very supportive and enabling, I'm always learning, I have complete freedom to work as and when I want/need. The people I work with are enlightened, intelligent and socially-aware people, versus the moneygrabbing, selfish and stupid people one often encounters in industry. Assuming I'm lucky enough to be able to make a career in academia, there's no way I'd go back to industry.
That said, although I'm researching a topic that has direct impact on a significant public health issue, I don't feel like I am achieving something amazing. Science is about a whole bunch of people doing quality research in a methodical way, and then every once in a while a 'genius'-type coming along and drawing lots of research together and marking a milestone in the field. The important thing in science is to contribute, and not to worry too much if you are not that genius.
If you need to see the fruits of your labour, then maybe science isn't for you.
But working in an academic environment is far nicer than working in an industrial one (in my experience).
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race"---Hans Blix
There seems to be the assumption that working is pure sciences is equivalent to working for an academic institution. That is simply not the case. I have worked for two different companies for the last seven years that both specialize in research and pure science. My current employer specialized in artificial intelligence research. There are no politics involved in my job, just science. If you are interested in science, don't just look to academia, there are some truly interesting scientific organization out there that do not suffer from the same problems that academia does. (politics, pay, respect, etc.) p.s. My company has been in the black every year since I started.
Jens Wessling
My previous just was a lead software engineer for a small custom software company. After working for a whilte I decidced to return to grad school. About the time I needed to start looking for a job near or at the university, the company I worked for went under. As it turns out, I was hired on campus as a system analyst (big change after spening a year designing and developing softare).
I work for two departments. One is absoultly a pleasure (I just got buying a nice cluster and I'm working on web based classrooms), the other is pretty boring (mostly just user support BS). Basicly, my point is, it will be hit or miss. If you end up in a position where your superiors are willing to let you run and do some cool projects it can be great fun. The budget isn't always big, but you might get to play with technology or projects that wouldn't be deemed profit capable in the private sector.
Actually the smallish budgets make it more interesting in my opinion. They add a new deminsion. You have to be creative. You can't just go to "Joes Internet Learning" and buy a solution. You have to assemble and invent your own.
Spell check? Why bother. That is what grammer/spelling Nazi freaks who waiste band width posting "spell right" are for.
I ran into the same kind of thing during the dot-bomb, and luckily got recruited into a non-profit foundation. Things have never been better. Not only do I get to geek out on cool technology but my skills get used to support an organization which's bottom line is making a difference in the world, and not, say, making the phone company more money! The satisfaction level is worth the pay cut, and this sector is in dire need of technology experts of all kinds.
my $0.02
As others have said, you have to bow to the faculty demands. You definitely have to be more flexible. But the benefits (if the pay isn't) are good (heck I get 24 vacation days a year... renewing every fiscal start... no accrument). You also get the opportunity for side incomes. I teach one class a semester which kicks in about another $6K a year. Others get their names passed around when outside industries call for consultants.
It's not a bad gig, even if it isn't the greatest. It is stable and you can sleep at night; literally because "on call" is loosely defined and figuratively because helping academia is a zero-conscience crusher. Unless your Uni is helping design diseases and/or weapons and other "bad stuff" you are probably helping the greater good more often than the greater bad and that, as Martha Stewart would say, is "A Good Thing."