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)
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:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, I'm not sure where you were at, but both Universities I have worked for offered great beneifits (paid medial, dental, drug Rx, life, tuition reimbursment, good vacation time, retirement plan), and these were public universities. The pay is about 20% lower than the corporate world, but the benifits made up for half of that. Job security was great....there is no chance for layoffs.
An the academic side, we were well funded. We had plenty of equipment to play with. However, dealing with faculty is a lot different than dealing with staff. Faculty want to do everything their way, and for the most part, you have to listen. This meant you had very little control over the desktop and had to accomodate a lot of different configurations on the server end (Win9x/NT/200/XP, Linux, Sun, Macs). Of course, our department did have a lot of research $$$ coming in....others did not, so I guess it's the luck of the draw.
On the administrative side, we didn't have as much money for equipment. We were mostly self-funded becuase we offered paid services to the university (stores, printing, etc), so occasionally we could get a chunk of coin to spend. Administrative deparments that are funded by the university's general fund probably have much less money for IT. Anyway, the administrative side of the university was much more corporate like, but still laid back and informal.
You're not going to get rich working for a university or the government, but it certainly has a lot to offer during these down times.
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:3, Funny)
Job security IS great. I've worked at a university for a number of years and the fact is, if someone should be fired, they won't be. I have never seen it happen.
The worst that can happen to you for anything is that you'll be suspended with pay.
You don't even have to do your work. It is so difficult to fire anyone that they'll just hire someone else to do the work you were supposed to do.
The hours are great too: its strictly 9:30 am to 3:30 pm. You also get plenty of time-off. Where I'm at its 8 hours leave every two weeks = over 5 weeks off per year. You might have to tell them you have a tummy ache to get 2.5 of those weeks off.
You can even say things like: "Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel! Revolution! Revolution until victory! Rolling to Jerusalem!"
without much consequence. Or maybe you'll
help found the governing council of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and then served on it.
Ooops, until you end up on O'Reilly factor shortly after the slaughter of 3000 people. Thats when the suspended-with-pay thing kicks in.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020701-7405733.h
You'll also get plenty of support from the faculty.
[usf.edu]
http://w3.usf.edu/~uff/AlArian/
Of course, this is only if you share your co-workers' political views. If you don't -- well, you wouldn't have been hired in the first place so it doesn't matter.
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pros
Cons
Ade_
/
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:2, Offtopic)
Typical player arent you? Getting laid alot is nothing to brag about unless its with the same woman.
What? This is not a common viewpoint, my friend! Votes to follow below, I vote 1 for shagging MORE women, not one woman MORE.
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:2)
Do you not have morals? I suppose most people dont.
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty Please?
Re:Of course, I did the opposite... (Score:3, Insightful)
You get paid for doing work, stop being lazy, and learn to be more political.
I *did* major in political science, and I tried to be as political as possible, but in an administrative department even the justifications we had for better equipment and software weren't popular enough, I guess.
What do you expect at a college campus?
Well, 15 years ago I guess I *could* have expected a previous epoch of computing; mainframes, punch cards, expensive metered access. Maybe we got a break as an administrative department, who knows. I do know that the campus networking people were pretty responsive to us, but that could have been because we just wanted stuff fixed, and didn't want to have a symposium about it.
Once again its a college campus!
I know, but lots of campuses are in bad environments -- too much concrete, too urban, etc. The building I worked in was in an old building on the old part of campus, which had lots of green spaces. It's a lot nicer than the concrete jungle I work in now.
Typical player arent you? Getting laid alot is nothing to brag about unless its with the same woman.
Except I'm not a typical player and its not bragging; I think it illustrates a different mentality/lifestyle/population at Universities. More liberal? More fun? Who knows. The people in the corporate world are, in my experience, far more image/status/suburban-style-success oriented and I work now in about the most liberal type of corporate environment. I'd attribute 25% of the difference to subtle age difference (skews slightly older now), but I do think the University attracted less conventional people.
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).
Thats what happens when you go to harvard. (Score:2)
It depends (Score:2, Interesting)
Might be tougher than you think.
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.
Re:It depends (Score:2)
It's not clear if the question is about actually working as an academic, or working as a sysadmin in a university. A compromise might be to work as a sysadmin in a biotech company. Experience of warehousing and mining financial data would be easily transferrable.
The politics of Academia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The politics of Academia (Score:5, Funny)
Really? (Score:2)
Learn to either avoid opening yourself up to attack, or to attack other people who become threats.
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!
Re:The politics of Academia (Score:3, Informative)
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."
rags to riches (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty much the same (Score:5, Informative)
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.
boring and repititive (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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.
Re:boring and repititive (Score:2)
Of course, since the field is hot shit right now, anyone who doesn't get a PhD as soon as possible will be fucked in a few years. That would be me, unfortunately.
Re:boring and repititive (Score:2)
Re:boring and repititive (Score:2)
Why can't that be automated more by machines?
Re:boring and repititive (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus some of these techniques are a bit of an art.
Computers, Perl, and Bioinformatics (Score:3, Informative)
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 [bioperl.org] and bioinformatics.org [slashdot.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.
Re:boring and repititive (Score:2, Insightful)
I just talked to a much older friend, a professor of biology, who cut though my euphamisms with a flat "bio benchwork is boring as hell". Where the heck were you guys when I talked myself into doing this? =)
Well, I'm off to give chemistry or engineering a stab. At least my projects won't mutate slowly or die because someone sneezed in their culture dish before putting it in the incubator beside mine.
Re:boring and repititive (Score:3, Informative)
I think that's your problem right there. To do anything really interesting in academia you need a PhD. The guys with a BS are going to be working in labs running PCR reactions, while the guys with PhDs (after a bit of experience) are going to have their own lab where they'll be coming up with the experiments you're carrying out and writing papers about the results (and attending conferences and such).
Now that might not sound interesting either (especially if you hate writing papers and attending conferences), but it's what's usually thought of as "academia" -- the non-PhD guys who just work in the labs are just "employees" or "staff" rather than "faculty", and as such end up with the more crappy jobs (usually).
[Note: I have no idea what industrial labs are like; I'm only referring to academic labs here.]
Postdoc (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Politics, Finance, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Politics, Finance, etc. (Score:2)
Alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Alternative (Score:2)
It all depends... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to become a professor. There are typically hundreds of applicants for every opening. Unless you're really hot stuff, it's not much of a career plan -- only a few notches above "win the lottery," actually. And it takes years to get the degree.
OTOH, There are plenty of places to sysadmin besides ISPs. You might find that supporting intelligent, educated researchers was more gratifying than supported clueless dialup lusers.
Re:It all depends... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It all depends... (Score:2)
It's hard to become a professor. There are typically hundreds of applicants for every opening. Unless you're really hot stuff, it's not much of a career plan -- only a few notches above "win the lottery," actually.
Well, yes and no. First of all, EdinBear refers to "Science/Research/Academia," and it's not clear what operator the / is: AND or OR. But assuming we are talking about a university job, yeah, they're generally extremely hard to get, but it depends on several things: (1) Is there a lot of funding for the kind of research you're doing? (2) Are you extremely talented? (3) Are you willing to put all other parts of your life on hold, and basically live in the lab? (4) Are you good at selling yourself, networking, schmoozing, etc.?
Number 3 is what I think a lot of people don't realize -- they think research is some kind of easy gig, with lots of faculty teas and naps in the back of the seminar room. It's not that way. It's brutal. Basically, if you have kids, you'd better have a spouse who will stay home with them, and you'd better not expect to be able to go to their ball games and ballet recitals. Your spouse had also better be willing to move across the country at the drop of a hat. You also need to expect to spend 5-8 years getting a PhD, 2-6 years in one or more postdocs, 5-10 years in non-tenure-track positions, and then hope you can land a tenure-track job. In between each of these stages, you're turning your life upside down and moving to wherever the job is. At each stage, especially the later ones, there's a significant risk of not making it to the next stage.
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:Science is like any other business (Score:2)
It is a good tool for the job at hand. Scientists who do large codes (pretty much anything CFD oriented) use c, like the rest of the world.
Simply being able to program doesn't mean you could do a better job (read more accurate, or quicker code writing), than someone with experience in the field. Especially, as is often the case, if the code to be written is about 90% scientific algorithm and 10% IO.
Re:Science is like any other business (Score:2)
they generally won't care about
"newer and better" if what they do now works OK
and the curse:
they won't care about better as long as what they do continuesthey generally won't care about "newer and better" if what they do now works OK to work OK.
People waste a LOT of time in science because they haven't bothered with "newer and better" things like putting their datasets into these dangerously modern SQL databases where others can look at them.
There's a to recommend the manage-everything-yourself culture of science, but there's serious down sides, too.
Re:Science is like any other business (Score:2)
This is precisely the blessing:
they generally won't care about
"newer and better" if what they do now works OK
and the curse:
they won't care about better as long as what they do continues to work OK.
People waste a LOT of time in science because they haven't bothered with "newer and better" things like putting their datasets into these dangerously modern SQL databases where others can look at them.
There's a to recommend the manage-everything-yourself culture of science, but there's serious down sides, too.
Academic Research Empires (Score:2, Informative)
That's what I saw when I was getting my Ph.D. from a prestigious technical university (it's name begins with Georiga Tech).
Been there, done that (Score:4, Insightful)
What I encountered were a lot of very egocentric political schemers who were far more interested in self promotion than in the advancement of science, or in what we might call 'saving the planet'.
None of the people to whom I was answerable had any knowledge of how to manage IT people and projects (I am not over-generalizing, really). Their demands were unrealistic. My hours were as insane as ever (with no over time). The pressure and deadlines were just as gruelling.
Also, as you mention, the pay sucks in the academy (although, the benefits can be very decent).
Now, I'm back in the private sector doing more interesting work with more interesting people for more money.
Hope this helps, and good luck!
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!!!
Re:Moving from Corporate to Not-So-Corporate (Score:2)
Re:Moving from Corporate to Not-So-Corporate (Score:2, Funny)
Once I was thinking of leaving, but my wife loves my fat pipe. Money doesn't matter to her. She loves the fat pipe. The fat pipe makes me happy too. We will sit up late at night, she and I, playing with the fat pipe.
Remember kids, as much fun as a fat pipe is to play with, use protection [linksys.com].
Volunteer work (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a similar situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that I've been laid off, I feel like I've been given a second chance, especially since the market is forcing me to look at alternatives anyway. But I wonder: is it really possible to suddenly live on 1/2 my former annual real salary? (I actually used to joke that I could pay someone else to do the job I wanted to do) Has anyone here really done this, without being married or having to get a roommate to help pay the rent? There's also the small complication of wanting to have my own house and kids someday.
Am I nuts? If not, what are the best programs out there for certifying? How flexible are the entry requirements? (I have a BS degree but never had a great GPA) Am I simply too old (at 30) to really think of a long career teaching second graders?
Re:I have a similar situation (Score:2)
Re:I have a similar situation (Score:2, Insightful)
We had a few grand in the bank as a cushion, that helped. I stopped eating out. That REALLY helped. You also discover talking walks, instead of going to the movies. You find making coffee at home for $.02 a cup tastes every bit as good as $3.00 coffe at Starbucks. (I recommend splurging on a French Press.) If you find work within walking distance, you find you spend a lot less on gas and transit.
You also discover that your "decrepid" machine that needed upgrading simply needed a reinstall. You find that a flaky battery is a fun "quirk" about your mobile, and not a reason to replace it.
And at some point, you realize that you never really needed that much money. Unless of course, like me, you rang up a huge debt with school loans. At which point, keep plugging for the man. Only 8 more years of loan checks to go...
Some advice... (Score:2)
But it does help a lot to have a SO in the same situation. Not just money-wise, but in terms of moral support. People with more money can be terribly insensitive about it sometimes. You just can't afford to go out drinking very often -- drinks at a bar are fucking expensive! -- and it can be weird if that's how you normally socialize with your friends. OTOH, you can get vodka in a plastic bottle and all hang out at someone's apartment, and it's pretty damn cheap. I suppose the more entertaining you are, the more likely your friends will follow you through your economic tribulations :) Otherwise you can just invite people over to your place for dinner, and stuff like that.
It's also a lot easier to live on less when you choose to do it. It's not a failure, it's a choice, and you should feel proud about it really -- giving up the luxuries of priviledge is one of the more noble things the priviledged can do. Being stuck in poverty is something quite different, and unfortunately there is little nobility to it (Mother Theresa be damned).
I haven't done certification, but I was seriously thinking about it at one time, and my mother's a teacher. From what I've seen and heard, most certification programs are pretty academically light -- almost painfully so. Better schools don't seem to have all that much better programs. It's kind of sad. I'd look for a quick and cheap program, and just plow through it as fast as I could. There's programs that have you teach in inner city areas while you get certification -- most of the ones I've seen are a bad deal. You get put in the worse, hardest classrooms with no training, you're payed less than certified teachers, and then you take classes on top of it, and you've entered into a commitment of several years to save a couple bucks on school (and you pay that money if you don't stick with it).
You don't need a certificate to do substitute teaching in most places, though. This is an easy way to try it out -- you miss a lot of the fun parts, but you learn if you have it in you to lead a class (which is a distinct skill from teaching). I understand it's not uncommon to get offered a job if a principal likes you -- and without certification. Then once you have a job there's lots of incentives and subsidies to get the certification. A masters in teaching is also really easy to get, and in public school will lead to an automatic increase in pay. (This is in a city environment, it might be harder in a suburb -- it's probably incredibly easy in a rural area)
You don't need certification to teach at a private school. Private schools are often much more satisfying an experience, but they pay quite poorly. Maybe about a third less than public school. Despite this, it's not necessarily any easier to get a job there. Grades and previous experience will mean more (not necessarily just teaching experience) -- in a public school, teaching experience seems the biggest part, but I don't know as much about the insides of them. A masters degree (that comes with certification) should get you a job fairly easily. You don't need a related bachelors degree to get a masters in teaching.
So I'd suggest doing substitute teaching to see how it really feels to you -- it will be intimidating and difficult and tedious, but that part gets better. But not all of it -- teaching is hard. If it works out and you want to feel prepared, maybe get a masters, perhaps with a part time (related) job. 30 certainly isn't too late, but you should be sure about what you are getting into, because it's too late to start into it for five years and then learn it's wrong for you. And a lot of people realize after a while that they only wanted to want to be a teacher.
Re:Some advice... (Score:2)
I'm still not ready, but I feel I'm getting closer. I feel more confident in my own identity, and in the skills and wisdom I'd want to pass on as a teacher. At 30 you'll probably be a much better teacher than you would have been out of college. And that could mean the difference between sticking with it and just dabbling in it. My mother got a certificate in college, but didn't get a job teaching until her early 30s. She's still teaching 20 years later, and I'm sure she'll teach until she retires. That sort of thing is not uncommon (including 2nd grade teachers -- sometimes upity high school teachers give them no respect, but don't you listen to them ;)
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!
Re:Academic politics preferable to industry bullsh (Score:2)
> 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 think Kissinger might have actually been right about, say, being an English professor and having to defend your Marxist interpretation of some obscure Middle English poem against a rival's Feminist interpretation, but in the natural sciences it seems to be possible to actually do some constructive work.
That's not to say there aren't disputes, office politics, turf battles, administrators on their own agendas, etc., but at least Kissinger's accusation of intrinsic pettiness in the subject matter seems to be off base.
EdinBear may want to visit a library and browse the journals of his chosen field to see what kind of stuff is being published. That should give some idea of how politicized/trivialized/etc the basic subject matter of the field is. The office politics is probably an invariant, whether in academia, industry, politics, or any other field where people are brought together into an organization.
Re:Academic politics preferable to industry bullsh (Score:2)
Natural sciences overcompensated inferiority complex, classic example of. In actual fact, academic politics is much much worse in the natural sciences departments (though real-world political differences are usually less). The reason for this is that you are completely wrong; two interpretations of a poem are usually complementary, but natural sciences require expensive equipment, putting the academics in direct competition with one another for funding.
SysAdmin or teacher? (Score:2)
Presently, you're a SysAdmin in a Web services company. And you want to change job, to get something less "commercial" and more "big picture", like Science/Research/Academia.
Are you aiming a SysAdmin job in that kind of environment (by opposition to where you are presently), or are you looking forward to do some science/research in a Academia environment? IE, is your target a teacher's or reasearcher's job, or a SysAdmin's job?
You're not asking about actual day to day job differences, just salary and job satisfaction, so I'm inclined to think that you want to remain a SysAdmin, but a confirmation from you could help us better answer your questions.
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:Anyone who thinks science=$$ is a fool (Score:2)
I went the other way (Score:2)
Academia, in many ways, it not a lot different than the corporate world.... if you work at a state univeristy you are always having to deal with funding issues and your raises and promotions are always at the whim of the legislature or the board of regents... when things get tight, higher education is almost always (unfortunately) one the things that gets cut. I doubt if things at private universities are much better. If you want to do research, you've got to get funding. Writing research proposals to get money from corporate sponsors and government agencies or private foundations can be extremely frustrating. I've seen it take years for people to get proposals funded and then years to get their results published in journals. The academic world is just as cut-throat as the corporate world.
That said...The work you do can be rewarding but in my experience it's no more or less rewarding than the work I do now. For me, a rewarding job/career is one that allows me to continue to learn new things and improve my skills. Though I had that opportunity at my univeristy job, I've found I've grown a lot more within my current environment.
Many people have very rewarding careers in academia, but you'll find that many of the people you will have to deal with will be just as unpleasant as the ones you deal with in the corporate world. You just have to find something that makes you happy and helps you to achieve your personal goals. For me, that's been a career in the corporate world- not academia.
(please forgive the typos... i am tired
IT may be greener (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Here's a solution! (Score:3, Informative)
* 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
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...
back again (Score:2, Informative)
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!
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.
Re:Political views (Score:2)
And you're so broad-minded that you think it's impossible.
Liberal-mindedness isn't the same a politically left. It is possible to be liberal-minded and be sympathetic to some of the positions of the right.
Anyone who would dismiss the positions of the right completely out-of-hand isn't broad-minded.
Re:Political views (Score:2)
Uh huh. Go ahead and list a few token Republicans. But look at the numbers here.
The vast majority are Democrats.
Anyone who says universities are balanced politically is an idiot.
Numbers here (Score:2)
Internet market (Score:2)
It's Computer Science (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like math. Getting a degree in math might help you to solve some problems, but you need knowledge of the problems you are trying to solve. If you learn only math, it won't be much use to anyone else (except as a math teacher). I think as time goes on we will find computer science is more of a tool to help solve problems rather than a solution in itself.
I have a degree in computer science. Right now I am working for a biochemistry research facility at WAZZU. Not knowing anything about biochemistry hinders my potential somewhat. Likewise, my supervisor not knowing anything about computer science hinders things as well.
Having said that I would like to point out that my experience working in non-profit is far more enjoyable than the corporate world. If you enjoy learning, as I do, I would recommend finding something in research. That's probably what your degree is for anyway.
A big plus is that I get to take classes for free. In two weeks I will be taking my first biochemistry class.
Of Similiar Note - Anyone Moved Towards Art? (Score:2)
Re:Of Similiar Note - Anyone Moved Towards Art? (Score:2)
Don't fool yourself. Being a good artist and coming to the stuff that's fun to do and rewardable requires skill and long pratice. A day can go by with you being totally worked out without a thing achieved. Yet there's a very big upside in the computer related art field, which I actually (plan to) ride on:
If you know how computers work or even can programm and have the artists skill to make good stuff that has awing potential you can go anywhere, achieve things the best artist couldn't achive and have a good chance of finding a 'license to print money'.
My advice: Take drawing lessons and achieve a master skill level. Once you've learned the 'thinking around the corner' way of creative art with one skill (you have to go all the way in order to do so!) you can switch to any other by only learning the craft which then leaves you to choose whatever you wanna do: 3D, 2D vector, 2D pixel, Layout(web), Movie CGI/FX or - the big future - video gaming. It'll take a few years and you'll run into some walls, but it shure is cool. Good luck.
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.
Familiar questions... (Score:2)
-72
Culinary Arts! (Score:2)
In all seriousiness, I've been thinking about the same thing.. I've been into System Administration and Toolsmithing (programming but not a whole lot of science involved).. I've wanted to get more into programming and the computer science part of it. But I hear the same issues, people work on projects for months, even years, only to have them trashed because of budget cuts. Only a handful actually finish something they can be proud of.. Thats another reason why open source programming is more fullfilling then being a corporate drone, no one can tell you that you can't work on it anymore.
However, after becoming a fan of Alton Brown, and yes this was way before Slashdot started talking about him, I've seen him take great pride and joy in something simple like pickling a carrot, or making a macaroni and cheese casserole. And more and more after watching him, I get interested in taking up culinary arts..
Then again, to each his own.
Long, hard slog ahead of you (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been somewhat lucky, as while I don't have PhD, I've got experience in both experimental biology and IT, so I'm not as restricted by the same prejudices that are often applied against biologists without PhDs. Really good bioinformatics staff are still hard to come by, especially in proteomics, where mass spectrometers, 2D-gel image analysis etc etc really haven't penetrated the general scientific community as deeply as things like DNA sequencing have yet. That might change soon with the influx of fresh bioinformatics undergrads, but nothing beats experience.
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.Work Differences (Score:2, Informative)
I've worked in a University environment
I've worked as a federal employee
I've worked as a self-employed entrepreneur
I've worked as in the private sector
The pay sucks in academia. No one will pay you less for your skills than a school. The politics are vicious. There isn't enough money to go around, and if you don't constantly fight for it you won't get new light bulbs for your broom closet of an office, let alone a new computer. The day starts at 9 and ends at 5. You can stay after 5 if you want (its unrewarded), but God help you if you're not there again at 8:55. And rules... Rules are a part of the politics. What you can do, what you can't. Mess up and you can expect the proverbial knife in your back. And P.S. they own your ass. Anything you invent or create or imagine is theirs. The one thing which recommends academia, the only thing, is that if you hook on to the right researchers then a couple of times a year you'll have the opportunity to do work which is truly profound.
Government is dead opposite. The pay is not great, but its livable. Your job is absolutely secure. You will get raises on a schedule. Outside of the top echelons, the office politics are largely muted. You'll get a new computer on schedule, and it'll be a reasonbly good one. The rules are endless, but that's just a surface veneer given lip service, used to stymie anyone who's overbearing. The work gets done behind the scenes based on your ever more extensive network on contacts. On the down side, good luck finding meaningful work. Ever. And you can pretty much forget about merit-based promotion. Its so slow, you can hardly tell the difference between it and the seniority based promotion. However, work ends at 5 after which you can do anything you please. Such as write open source for posterity.
As an entrepreneur, you can pick the work you're going to do, and you can pick whatever meaningful work you want. You make the rules and pick just about every aspect of your job. Here's the bad news: The hours are long. In fact, they don't end. You're on call 24/7, and no matter how much you do, there is always something more. And here's worse news: Someone with cash has to find your work valuable enough to pay you for it. Its a little like being a starving artist; everybody appreciates your work, but they're not willing to pay money for it until after you're dead.
Private sector is a mixed bag. Some places have good pay, some bad. Some places have rigid rules, some loose. Some places are rigidly seniority based, others promote only on merit. Some places provide an office with a view, others a tiny cube. The universal rules, you've already discovered: If your work doesn't directly impact the bottom line, you're nobody. And news flash: Work of worldly significance tends to help your competitor as much as it does you. If your company is already on top, it helps your competitor more. So guess how much worldly work they want you to do?
Don't generalize (Score:2, Insightful)
Science can be fun... (Score:2)
There's all the usual teething pains of any startup, but it's the most use I've gotten from my degree in Physics *ever*. And it's a lot of fun watching people when you tell them not to touch the circuitry because the high voltage could make the joints in their arms explode.
Simon
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
Don't fool yourself... (Score:2, Insightful)
But the reality of university academic life is nothing like that, unless you're either exceptionally lucky or brilliant, (and I mean the sort of brilliant that universities will bend over backwards just to have you join their ranks, that is, seriously world-class level).
No, the reality for most academics is one of
politics,
jealousy,
slim budgets,
disaffected students who don't really give a stuff about what you're trying to lecture to them; they just want to graduate with a degree so they can get the sort of job you hate; you'll be training the students to do something you don't agree with,
universities, who, just like most profit-driven organisations, don't give two hoots about "the big picture" and just want to make bucks by pushing as many students through the production line as they can,
loads of unpaid overtime, marking essays, exams, etc
and somewhere between all this, trying to find time to do your own research.
So it's really just like any other job, not cushy at all like many people think.
Ask yourself this: do you really care about "the big picture", or are you just trying to escape a workstyle you don't like? If it's the second reason, then you won't find much sanctuary in academic life. Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear, but it's pretty much the truth.
Lovin' Astronomy (Score:3, Insightful)
The Academic environment provides a lot more freedom...just look at what D. Toresky has been able to do...(any Verizon employees want to try that on company time?). But yes there are ruts... if you aren't really excited about the kind of science you are doing, might as well to back to the corporate world.
WHO you work with is just as important as what you are doing. In most fields of science (especially the not-even-remotely-profitable ones like mine) you are expected to work hard, but if the results do not turn out as expected, or hoped, well that's part of the discovery process. This contrasts with the business world, where if expectations are not met, it is mandadory to find someone to blame.
PhD was required for my job, as with many, but there are some "loopholes" out there: for example part IT/admin and part research jobs which can evolve more in the research direction. These aren't easy to find, but you skip the 5 years+ of grad school...
Manage your expectations (Score:2, Informative)
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).
The best academia job... (Score:3, Funny)
My Experience (Score:2, Informative)
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).
Stay away from academentia (Score:2)
I ended up at a research group in Austin, TX bored out of my skull, stuck in an iterative programming process with a bunch of people who "knew they were right".
Science != Academia (Score:4, Informative)
Mucho "public service" opportunities for techies (Score:5, Insightful)
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!Just made the move myself! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well.....here is is 4 years later and I am just getting back into academia! The past 4 years were HOT! Huge contracts with HUGE rates and frills meant easy student loan payoffs, houses, cars, etc. Then the other shoe dropped.......everyone was getting cut, contracts dried up, pay scales slid like so much California property into the ocean.......I was actually out of work for 3 months! LUCKILY....I grabbed and stashed all the dough I could when I was making it and managed never to buy any stock or take any options ["These days if you own anything but land, you own a popcorn fart!" Rodney Dangerfield, Caddyshack]......so I sold some stuff off and started looking. Here is what I found:
Infrastructure support seems to have gone the way of the dodo.....there is no need to double staff when you have competent programmers who can also provide support [if they want a job, they will!]. Contracting agencies are more like pimps then anything these days and we lowly contractors are their techno whores....they know we are stuck and they take advantage of us to the hilt.....
Once this realization hit...I started looking HARD at academia.....obviously the degree helped, but I was lucky enough to land a position at a VERY small libral arts college teaching stats software [SPSS] to undergraduate psychology students and support the psych dept M$ and MAC boxes........the position isn't faculty nor is it tenure-tract and the pay is A LOT lower then the contracting gigs but, it is PERMANENT and the benefits are HUGE. I work 9-4 [I am the work-a-holic of the department] and enjoy every July off.
I don't think we will ever see another BOOM in IT again: the golden age is over, a 12 year old can become a MCSE now and he market is flooded with "certified" people willing to work for 1/2 of what you are.....so I am staying here for the rest of my life.
If you can get into it.....I highly reccomend it. Try to stay out of administration, too many politics and too much stress......work with students, it is very rewarding and a lot more fun.
Re:Why move completely? (Score:2)
What exactly do you mean by "peer reviewed"? You can put any paper you want on the web for very little (the free days are drying up).
Of course, I can't vouch for the quality of reviews, but to get an idea out there is easy these days.
(* See, the money is in IT/coding... but the chance ot really make a difference is in science. So I make my money coding, and make a difference via science. *)
There is still a lot of gaps in software engineering that need more research and pondering. There are very few agreed-upon metrics and divergent opinions about the nature of change (change patterns). This is needed in order to make "change-friendly" software. Everybody agrees that software should be more change-friendly, but there is little agreement on how.
For example, I fuss about object orientation here:
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm
Re:Move from IT to Academia (Score:2)
It's interesting how many similar discussions have popped up on Slashdot very recently. "I was in I.T. but am thinking about switching to X."
All this does is confirms what I've believed for a while. I.T. is in pretty sorry shape right now. Not only did we collectively get "egg on our faces" after the overblown Y2K issue turned out to be such a non-event, but then we had the silly
Now, the pendulum has swung, rather violently, the opposite direction. Companies are sitting down and asking where the real value is in all the I.T. dollars they forked out since the late 90's - and the overall economic slowdown just amplifies all their concerns.
The venture capitalists are afraid to take many chances on anything technology/computer related, so the guys with no formal education, but perhaps great ideas/dreams, are getting left out in the cold.
People with good jobs and salaries for the last 5-10 years are now getting laid off in record numbers. Since the 9/11 incident, background checks have gotten much tougher too. Some of these people can't even get re-hired elsewhere in I.T. because they've got a legal incident from their past permanently coded into some "background check database".
On top of all this, we have all those foreign workers we let into the U.S. during the
It's no wonder some people are having second thoughts about their career of choice! I still say, if I.T. is what you live and breathe for - don't give up on it. There are too many PCs in service to believe that your skills aren't needed anymore. Eventually, corporate America will come calling for you. Maybe just work a "dead end" job to keep the bills paid until times get a little better....