There’s a great article in the online magazine Slate discussing choosing between private and nonprofit organizations. It provides two myths about making distinctions between the two types of organizations, which I will quote here:

Myth No. 1: Not–for-profit missions are inherently more “good for the world” than for profit; thus choosing to work in a values-based or mission-based job means choosing to work in a not-for-profit.

Myth No. 2: People who work in the for-profit sector are more talented than their peers in not-for-profit organizations.

These myths—and the deconstruction of them—are also applicable in the scientific job market. For instance, working in industry doesn’t necessarily mean “selling out”. Working in a prestigious academic lab doesn’t necessarily mean you will work with competent people who care about your career future.

So, how to decide? The article emphasizes four criteria for “making the match”. Naturejobs has reported on this subject in the past, but these criteria provide some additional value. They are (and I’m quoting again):

• “Values match: What do I care deeply about?

• Skill match: With my education, skills, experience, and financial resources, what can I offer to the organizations addressing those issues?
• Life match: What key conditions do I need to be successful (geography, pay, work environment)?
• Organization match: What organizations are making real progress in an area that aligns with my values, meet my basic criteria above, and have an unmet need that I can potentially serve?”

The lesson for scientists is: look at not just the organization, but the unit within it you will be working (whether it be an academic lab or an industrial project group) and see if the group will satisfy your needs.