Moving from Corporate IT to Science? 356
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?"
Yes, I did it (Score:2, Interesting)
It depends (Score:2, Interesting)
Might be tougher than you think.
Politics, Finance, etc. (Score:3, Interesting)
Was it Slashdot that linked a story a couple of days ago on some Canadian University inking a deal with Microsoft and in return all CS/EE majors would need a class in C# to graduate?
And the link between corporate money and University research is something else you need to be wary of. Heaven forbid your project funding is cut because it won't be "marketable".
Still, it can certainly be more rewarding at times.
Science is like any other business (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand, most research scientists are not money-motivated people at their core - they are interested in ideas and in the development of knowledge. If you relate to those goals, which it sounds like you do, you will relate well to the academic community. The scientific operations I've worked in are also less hierarchical than most business, and you get a strong team spirit from those you work with - you're working together on the same quest, rather than battling each other for approval.
Academic organizations, despite being filled with free-thinking people, are incredibly staid - both in terms of being set in their ways, and in terms of not making the wrong kinds of waves. It makes straightforward negotiating about things rather difficult. This is a nuisance when it comes to doing things like introducing new software or migrating a server. A professor in my dept (I'm a grad student) still writes C and PostScript to make plots, and nobody can or will convince him otherwise. Furthermore, many scientists fancy themselves quite the computer expert by virtue of having written a model in FORTRAN or some such.
Overall it's not a bad place to work, but the pace of things is very different from the corporate world.
Re:It depends (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed -- your prior degree may make a lot of difference. Most academic science jobs are going to require a Ph.D in the relevant field, so you may have a lot of school ahead of you.
However, I wouldn't let that discourage you. I am hoping to make a similar transition (from microprocessor design to physics), for similar reasons. Be aware that it's a long road, though. Even with an undergrad degree in physics I have already spent the last 9 months or so preparing for GREs, lining up recommendations, etc. to apply to grad school.
The desire to make some contribution to science, however small, is what keeps me going.
Moving from Corporate to Not-So-Corporate (Score:5, Interesting)
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!!!
Volunteer work (Score:3, Interesting)
Conrasts (Score:4, Interesting)
There are some difficulties going back to academia though. First off, qualifications
Most academic jobs also come with teaching responsibilities. Now if you want to be a teacher, that's all well and good, but if you want to be a researcher spending half your time in teaching related activities may not be very rewarding. And there are plenty of researchers who are lousy teachers for that reason.
When I was in CS I noticed that a lot of good code was left to get moldy. The problem is that academic achievement is measured by published papers not usable code. A typical scenario is that the code gets written as part of a reseach project or PhD. The code demonstrates some new and interesting features, but isn't robust enough to be used in every day applications. Or if it is robust, then it isn't ported to the relevant platforms. Or it isn't packaged for distribution. Either way once the papers are published there's no further funding or recognition for developing the codebase, and any ideas that it encapsulated are typically lost. It seemed to me that it is the rule that academic software languishes and only the rare exception that a novel idea goes on to become an open source success or gets incorporated in a commercial product.
So all in all, it seems like a mixed bag. Perhaps I'll just keep my day job in the world of commerce, and write interesting software on the weekends.
I have a mix of the two... (Score:3, Interesting)
There aren't a million of startup companies that can offer this, but in your case, what I'd suggest is to get yourself into a position where you can take decisions. You don't have to be a big name manager or a VP in the IT sector to be in control of budgets or buying decisions for hardware or planning... that's the beauty of it, there are so many people in IT, yet so few that are actually knowledgable and not only BSing, that if you are actually good, you can find a niche position that will make your job enjoyable, make a difference, supporting R&D effort and at the same time if the sector of R&D you are supporting is not too far off your knowledge, you can actually learn and even get a promotion involving you more directly in the project. In my case my knowledge was broad enough that I couldn't even fit my job description on one page, so I don't get bored doing the same thing, I manage my time, as long as I can deliver, I don't have anyone in my back pushing me or stressing me. The downside is that I wanted to start my own projects but I often spend more than 10 hours a day for my work (but then again, that's common in the IT sector so I wouldn't call that a downside, exept that in R&D often you don't get paid for those extra hours since you get an "annual contract". Still, when you have a job that you don't see as a job, spending 10-12 hours there isn't even an issue
R&D people, scientists often need people to delegate the basic stuff that slows them down, while it's not as rewarding as being the scientist himself doing the main work, it's a very gratifying experience and besides, personnaly, making a total dumbass rich (especially if he's like most
Academic politics preferable to industry bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Anyone who thinks science=$$ is a fool (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically what was happening was Doctors were recieving kickbacks from the pharmacutical company for prescribing their pills. These kicksbacks ranged from vcr's and tv's all the way up to exotic trips to lavish resorts.
It didn't just stop at bribary either. The phamacutical company went as far as to show doctors how to overcharge medicare and keep the difference..
Unless you're digging ditches or pushing a lawn mower, most corporations are devoid of morals. Bottom line is to make investors happy, screw the employees and customers.
My best advice, do whatever the hell makes you happy and keeps your interest. Yeah times are hard now on all of us computer geeks. My friends that worked construction during the
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:boring and repititive (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, the lab work can be very boring, but by the same token programming on big projects can be pretty mind numbing too. It's when you can live on the edge of both that it gets interesting, but that's a rare combination to find in one person.
I've been around a lot of different people trying to get into bioinformatics. You have biologists who are trying to learn the programming and software skills. They have a hard time adapting to thinking in binary and not fearing computers in general. Then you have computer science and IT people trying to pick up some molecular biology. They have a hard time grasping the messy world of genetics and cell biology.
It boils down to this. If you have the wet lab skills, you have cred with the molecular biologists. If you can program, you have cred with the computation people. It pays to have both.
It's Just About Impossible (Score:2, Interesting)
I did it (Score:4, Interesting)
The past 2.5 years have been bliss as I've been able to develop really great working relationships with several research groups and have even participated in their research from a computing perspective. My boss let's me develop my own projects. A university's organization is a lot more flat, with greater flexibility in picking/choosing/developing the work you'll do. Industry just doesn't have the luxury of time that a university does. You can take months really doing a project right without having some PHB breathing down your neck wondering why your deadline is slipping. Besides, an academic setting is totally tailored to the development of new ideas and research...
I went the other way... (Score:1, Interesting)
I started out working in government R&D labs ('84 - '94.) After that I worked for a Fortune 500 Company. I far prefer working with the scientists at the lab.
Scientists are a totally different breed than commercial managers, in general. Scientists are usally interested in something particular -- either they want to understand something about nature, or they want to build something cool (like the robots we built.) Commercial managers seem to be interested in their personal success, in terms of power and money. They have no substantial core principles or beliefs, so there is really nothing to work with. Commercial managers tend to have a hidden agenda; they are inconsistent and very difficult to read. Once you understand the passion of a scientist or academic, you can address it directly -- to mutual advantage. The environment is much more authentically collaborative.
Scientists and Academics understand the value of general skill. Commercial managers assess suitability by listing exactly what items are to be used by a project, and requiring those, e.g. transaction management using Oracle backend, J2EE middleware under Solaris, J2SE client within IE 6.0. How many years experience do you have doing exactly that? The scientists ask what languages you have worked with, what big systems you have put together, and assess your overall skill as an architect.
Political views (Score:3, Interesting)
People don't get hired if they don't have the right political views. I'm not kidding.
Now, if you are politically very left, thats okay. You shouldn't have a problem. But if you are not, don't let your true feelings come out. Don't lie, but don't give them anything that they'll use against you.
A popular technique I've seen is the casual lunch. "Oh, lets have lunch while you're here for the interview." Say something verboten like "I think vouchers are a good idea" (real-example) and you are out of there.
Like I said, if you can agree with their political positions, or can shut-up about your own, then okay.
Just warning you.
We need people like that (Score:3, Interesting)
Successful profs will have pretty large amounts of money under their disposal, and a part of that goes on computers. But profs don't necessarily know anything about computers, and networks there have a tendency to grow by evolving rather than being organized.
Unfortunately, lots of them don't realize the value of a good sysadmin. They're afraid of spending the money there and don't realize how much of a difference it can make.
Of course, if you have an interest in biology and are not bad at programming/algorithms, a job with a bio-informatics component can be a blast (I'm biassed there, that's what I'm going into).
Even an ability to analyze the packages that exist out there and helping them decide what is relevant/useful for them. Then you can look at the algorithms used and see the pros/cons in each.
Of course, the pay is probably not that high there, and other people have posted a bit more about the work environment and such, but if you want to make a difference, that's one pretty good place.
And if you want to try science and stay in the corporate world, there are a bunch of scientific companies out there too, like pharmaceutical companies, that have big IT staffs there.
I did it, you can too (Score:3, Interesting)
I only had a year of college credits under my belt before, so I still have a ways to go before I finish my degree. I'm living off of loans and an 8.50/hr work study job in the chem lab. It's a far cry from the 70k salary I'm used to, but I don't live every day wondering if I'll have a job the next day and I don't have to carry a fucking pager/cell phone anymore. And I'm loving what I'm doing.
By the time I finish school now, I'll be able to get a job doing anything from pharmaceutical research to law enforcement. (minoring in Criminal Justice)
So, basically, if you can stand being poor again for a while, enjoy being free for a couple years while you get a degree in one of the sciences, and then enjoy your intellectual pursuits. It beats being on-call.
feathers (Score:1, Interesting)
'Stay in computing. I rue the day I left IT. Sure, chemistry is interesting, but money's what feathers the nest.'
He had got himself quite a decent salary by academic standards, but it was still two fifths of mine, a developer with less than three years full time experience. So me? My plan is, head towards academia, but only part time, feather that nest, because there are some real soft feathers around. After another degree then decide what is important.
Weigh your options (Score:2, Interesting)
I can only echo many of the comments made by others who have been in this position from either side (private sector first, then univ., or vice versa). The general consensus is as you'd expect, there are pros and cons, and it will depend on your specific situation.
I left college to go work for a small startup ISP in 1996. Three years later, after learning more than anyone ever could from years of classes, I left a thriving mid-sized ISP that I helped build, only to end up at a multi-billion dollar corporation whose idea of an ISP was to buy out four mid-sized ISPs and piece them together into a coherent, synergistic, profitable arm of the parent company. Of course, they tasked this overwhelming 500,000 user job to the sysadmins who weren't wise enough at the time to jump ship. Did I mention that they were a multi-billion dollar company? Did I mention that they paid worse than your typical privately funded University? "We'll give you stock options!" they said. Pfft.
Six months into the biggest thing since the titanic, I finally got fed up with the corporate america top-down decision making process, and started working at a well known, well respected University.. making over $20k more. Working as a career sysadmin in academia has many advantages (build beowulf clusters, work on self-motivated projects), but it takes a lot of effort to gain and keep respect from faculty and other scientists, especially those that know just enough about computing to be really dangerous. You will inevitably have to deal with the politics (you do no matter where you are), but if you learn the process, you can have it work to your advantage in many cases.
A little over two years later, and I'm working at another University doing more fun and interesting [indiana.edu] things. My job moves are primarily dictated by my wife's career, which is solidly rooted in computational biology and bioinformatics). I can say that I would prefer never to go back to the private sector (unless the culture changes), and I would be quite comfortable working in a University environment for many years to come. And the fact that I have time to do consulting on the side at my leisure makes up for any lack of salary associated with the University environment (I take job satisfaction over inflated salary any day).
My work is my life is my play. But that's just me.Re:The politics of Academia (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider a protestant church's group of deacons, eders and commitees, it's pretty similar to students, associates and professors. There is usually nothing important to argue about, so people tend to inflate their status by taking a stupid stance and sticking to it.
It's pretty annoying to have a thesis comittee argue about what the name of your new major should be. That doesn't stop them from doing it.
That having been said, I'm jealous. I wish I could go back to college. Just the normal, I-hate-my-job return to the womb that most of us want. Good luck!
Some references (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pros
Cons
Ade_
/
Re:Postdoc (Score:3, Interesting)
Alas, you never never never (never!) want to get passed over for tenure. If ever there were a genuine kiss of academic death, this would be it--no self-respecting university would opt to wear Princeton's or Stanford's hand-me-downs when they could just advertise in Physics Today and get 50+ highly qualified applicants who don't carry this baggage.
Personally, I just don't see what the allure is of academic life over, say, being a staff scientist at a national lab. I'd much rather just do research full-time and advise the occasional grad student and postdoc than put up with 300+ student intro courses, faculty committees from hell, petty university politics, and the pressure of bringing in enough research cash to satisfy a tenure committee. Your research ends up being very narrowly focussed while you try to carve a niche for yourself; this is the antithesis of creative scientific enterprise, IMO, and a great way of burning out during your most creative and productive years. All this while wearing the obligatory "I'm an assistant professor--kick me in the teeth" smile around the more senior faculty who control your fate.
I second the recommendation of "A Ph.D. is Not Enough!." It is an outstanding read and valuable information for those masochists who wish to try the academic route.
Science and other interesting opportunities (Score:1, Interesting)
This data is SO complex that after 11 years I'm still not bored. Plus, we're providing a real benefit to society by protecting the environment.
The political infighting gets a little old, and that, but the job itself is a lot of fun.
And, for a state agency, the money isn't that bad, because the powers that be are finally convinced that you can't have state-of-the-art IT systems without top-quality staff.
We're using XML, ORacle 8i and 9i, ColdFusion, GIS systems, chemistry, geology, GPS, field systems, Oracle on laptops, all kinds of stuff the average Gov't drone will never see.
So, yes, there are other choices than straight commercial work where you can still earn a living.
You could volunteer for a non-governmental organization to help them with their research (World Wildlife Foundation, Sierra Club, etc) on the side, if you still need the big commercial bucks but want to feel like you are contributing to something besides the bottom line.
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dealing with everyone from the head of dept to undergrads.
Definitely a plus. It has been said that working at a University keeps you young. The average age (when you factor in the thousands of 17-23 year olds) hovers around 26. Every professor that I meet mentions this as one of the reasons they loved working at a Uni. That fresh-faced optimism and idealism (when not clouded by stupid drunken tricks) tends to rub off on you.
Opportunity to lecture (e.g. training first years on college systems).
Which can include supplemental pay. our rate for one class a semester is $2-3K. With three semesters possible, you can help the bottom line considerably.
Wide, welcome use of open source software on cost grounds.
Not at our shop, unfortunately . There are a few evangelists around (like me), but mostly we are an Apple, IBM Mainframe, and Microsoft shop. Our former department head was sold on Microsoft and they are really entrenched right now. Hopefully our state budget crisis will open some eyes and ears for a proposal I am working on.... hmmmmm.
Can reboot servers in middle of day. :-)
Ouch!!! That one hurts! It happens, though. You live through it, but people in academia don't warm up to the concept any more than in industry and students (and the student paper) tend to laugh and point.
When server goes down, people go for a coffee instead of running around like headless chickens and holding up your repair efforts.
Some of our people are the chickens and others grab a donut. It all depends on whether it was your server... or network segment... or classroom full of 30 computers... or exam software application server that went down. I've run with the best of them and my frame (thankfully smaller due to new applications of something called exercise) has been mishappen by the donuts.
Intelligent, vaguely sentient colleagues not averse to reading manuals and learning new things.
I totally agree. My current team is just that. We share knowledge and sick (practical joke based) senses of humor. Most of all, we try to teach and learn stuff to and from one another.
Opportunity to pursue research or higher degree. (Playing with new toys also counts as "research"!)
Show me one support person who has one workstation and I will show you an IT office administrator. Lots of time, encouragement, and opportunity to learn new things.
Live like a student again, but with money.
Sort of... on the money part anyway.
No sales or marketing people spoiling it for everyone.
Just technology committees made up of people who don't know anything about technology. Promises are made that have to be delivered... even if technically impossible.
No open plan offices.
I have my own office which I share with two student helpers. Small, but private. Plus, I only HAVE to see my supervisor (across campus) once a week... though I usually do it more.
Cons
You're unlikely to get your hands on any big iron (but you might be able to justify a Beowulf cluster).
True. There is definitely a show me first, before I will spend the money on it... only you don't have anything to do the show-and-tell with. There is a certain amount of magic involved in this. Prove it with a small system made up of scrap first. Turn it into production and then it becomes a line item. Evangelism is also required in some of the oddest circumstances.
Fixed term job contracts.
Ours are renewable and after so many years you have to be given (after first period) 6 months notice, (second period) 1 year, and (third) 18 months before they can let you go.
Vulnerability to cutbacks.
Depends on where you are and how contracts work (see above). At our Uni, open positions that are not filled go first. IT people, being so integrated into everything, are a little more protected than you think. The university is also aware that any position they let go is going to be harder to fill with incoming talent (willing to work at university rates) in the future.
Lower pay (although in the right place and circumstances, without a family to support, it can be plenty).
No argument.
Every year, many of your friends leave.
This is one of the saddest aspects. Your professional colleagues strike out of more pay and the student help (some of which you get quite attached to... like they are your younger brothers and sisters or children) renews every 4-6 years. By the time they come to work for you, they may only have 1 year or 2 left.
Limited career prospects unless you go full steam on the research.
Also true. But you could work (for a lot less money) towards advanced degrees and join faculty (some of which, depending on academic area, get paid quite nicely). You could also pick up side work like technical consulting and so forth that would not only suppliment your income but your credentials.
Ivory towers.
There can be some big egoes to contend with as well.
Overall though, I think it is a worthy plunge especially if you want to escape from or wait out the dot-com/business crash for a while.
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not sure what you are getting at, but a whole lot of sleeping around is one reason an office in the largest major city close to me has a really high syphillus rate. Maybe people are just trying to avoid something like that (let's forget about morals and so forth).