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?"
One major pitfal to be wary of if you aim to return to Academia is the politics. The life of a new professor is not an easy one, and the climb toward respect is a long one.
Common sense is what tells you the world is flat.
SO basically you've been pedaling bullshit for a few years and now you want to be an authority.
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.
You will find many of the same pressures, personalities, and conflicts in the non-profit sector. Do not kid yourself for a moment that job satisfaction is instantly had by working for the right cause.
That said, why am I working for a non-profit? Well actually all of the tech companies I have ever worked for were running at a loss, so perhaps I should say 501c3 organization..
But I digress. I work at the Museum for one simple reason: I am a shark in the guppy tank. The Alpha geek. When something needs to be done, they ask me how to do it.
In 4 years I have redesigned the network, switched the datacenter to Linux, and introduced new concepts like Workorders, and Inventory Control. I can't think of a place in the world that would let me change so much in so little time.
Alright who am I kidding. I really took the job sysadmining at the Science Museum because they have 2 T1 lines, 3 class C subnets worth of IP addresses, a toplevel domain I can spell over the phone, and a window overlooking my apartment from whence I use 802.11 wireless to suck down bandwidth like a dwarf on a firehose!!!
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I think you're going to get a lot of people giving you the Kissinger line: "Academic politics are so vicious precisely because so little is at stake". I have a different take.
Last week I had lunch with a friend in the academic fold, to which I'm poised to return myself, and she complained with some rancour about the abundance of talentless hacks that cop credit and brown-nose their way to the top.
After four years with a VC startup (now being lowered into the earth) it all sounded quaint to me. I'd rather have talentless hacks stealing my work for a few years than watch the PHB lie his ass off to the board quarter after quarter without even a concept of shame, while the entire ill-conceived edifice crumbles around us all.
That is to say, go for it. Your reasons are exactly the ones I'd give, extrapolated a bit: I'd rather contribute in some infinitesimal way to the progress of science, however political or tedious the realities of research (who said "most of science is about as glamorous as ditch-digging", was it Asimov?), than help one more heinous moron pay off his SUV.
As for the money, I bet I'm not the only one here prepared for noble poverty, if such a thing still exists under the sun. Go, don't look back!
And at other times it can be maddening. I went the other way, sort of. I was a University sysadmin, and I now work doing support for Sun. I have to say I like the corporate world MUCH better. I never had any money for training in adademia. I had to teach myself, buy my own books, got to go to one conference in 7 years, etc. I was appreciated, but only extremely rarely in any meaningful way. Had to do everything with nothing, in other words. And while these days things are so fat in the corporate world as they used to be, they're still way better in terms of the resources I have to draw on than they ever were on even the best days at the university.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Crap aspects of the Univerisity:
- I worked in the administrative area, so there was no academic politics but there was politics, often hostile and highly personal.
-
There was never enough money, we ran our systems until they broke, without software that would have made many jobs much easier. The lack of resources often made who got what resources *intensely* political.
- The paychecks were small and the standard bennies lame, especially the manditory state employee pension plan and the group death, er, health plan made all the bad things I've heard about Britain's National Health sound good.
Good aspects of the University:- Lots of campus discounts and freebies. Classes could be taken for next to nothing, if they weren't out-and-out free. Deep discounts at the bookstore on software and computer bits (this meant something 15 years ago).
- Awesome internet connectivity and network access. Our office's specific technology sucked goat nuts, but campuswide there was a shitpile of stuff that could be utilized and lots of smart people.
-
A really relaxed atmosphere -- from the bucolic surroundings, to pretty easy work and no slave hours.
- I got laid A LOT. Time, place, people, general zeitgeist? Who knows, but it was sure easy.
I moved to the corporate world because I kept getting told by lifers that if I didn't soon I wouldn't be hirable in the private sector, as gummint employees were seen as having too much lead in their asses. I also moved to the corporate world because I just wasn't making enough money to live on. I was sick of working a second job, sick of having to share a hovel with others. Poverty motivates.There I days I miss the easy aspects of the old job -- better hours, nicer people -- but then I remember that I drive a nice car, have a nice house, travel at will and don't worry about money like I used to and it seems worth it.
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.
Note: for most academic positions in the sciences, you will be expected to go through at least one postdoctoral appointment (i.e. like grad school, but more pressure to create your own results in a very short time, somewhat better pay) before you are considered for tenure-track positions in academia.
Especially in the biological sciences, postdocs have become cheap labor, and multiple postdoc appointments are not rare. In physics (my field), multiple postdocs are a kiss of death: they mean you weren't good enough in your first postdoc to get some permanent or tenure track appointment, but in biology, what I hear is that there is a need for skilled laboratory ability (read: glorified technicians) and supervisors for large groups.
Even after a postdoc appointment, you'll aim for a tenure-track position, meaning you will have to work even harder for five to seven years, creating a research group from scratch, having to generate funding, while teaching the classes the senior profs don't feel like teaching. Then, if you've demonstrated an ability to bring research funding into the department, you might get tenure. Or, if you are turned down for tenure at a major research university, you might get offered tenure at a lower-ranked or four-year institution.
The tenure track is extremely stressful. Marriages are often destroyed in the process.
If you really want to be an academic in the sciences, it requires a great deal of sacrifice. Sure, there are theoretically other rewards. But it isn't easy to really find scientific problems that are simultaneously tractable, truly useful, haven't been done already, and can get funding. In theory, you can research whatever you want. In practice, if you can't get someone (government) to fund you, you aren't going to get very far.
Perhaps I'm biased because my Ph.D. thesis advisor went into the private sector (and is much happier there).
I recommend you read the book "A Ph.D. is not Enough!" for some insight into what is really required for success in academia.
I came to the conclusion that for all but the true geniuses and egomaniacle sub-geniouses (the majority) happiness and job satisfaction were rare in the scientific community. Of course this is a gross generalization and I've gotten over it for the most part sence then but there is an element of truth to it.
Here's two references to give you a clue as to how I got so cynical about this.
Ziolkowski, T. (1990). The Ph.D. Squid. The American Scholar, 59(2), 177-195.
Imposters in the Temple, by Anderson, Martin
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
Wanting to improve the "big picture" for many people, rather than just earn bucks for your employer, is an admirable goal. But you might be dissatisfied with a job in science/academia because very often the objectives are arcane and specialized and do not have any obvious "big picture" payoff.
Think about what you could do to help a government agency, charity, church, organization achieve their goals via IT. There's a lot of unexploited opportunities for computers and the web in these realms. Many of these organizations are technologically backwards, which means two things:
- There are many opportunities to do obvious things. You may end up viewed as a technological savior just for coming in with
relatively basic skills and knowing how to
apply them.
- But there will be some (or much) organizational inertia
against taking advantage of these opportunities.
This can lead to frustration.
Good luck!