Boston forum: topic
This is a public forum
Best places for post-docs
Anna Kushnir
Thursday, 26 February 2009 14:51 UTC
The Scientist just released the results of a survey of the best places for post-docs to work. Boston was very well represented on this list, with MIT/Harvard’s Whitehead Institute coming in first place! Novartis follows in 6th place and Woods Hole is in 17th. The high starting salary and boat load of benefits bumped the Whitehead to the top of the list. Novartis, in 6th place was praised for the available benefits and networking opportunities, however, the ‘value of the post-doc experience’ was listed as a weakness.
A look at the survey questions revealed the potential reason – the value of the post-doc experience was weighted heavily toward the quantity and quality of publications coming out of the lab. Is it still true that researchers don’t publish as well or as much in industry? Is an industry post-doc still worth less than an academic one for a researcher’s future career goals? I had really thought that the prejudice of academia toward industry was starting to wane, but this is making me doubt it.
Updated 26 February 2009 14:52 UTC
-
Replies
-
Just want to give my 2 cents on this statement “Is an industry post-doc still worth less than an academic one for a researcher’s future career goals?”:
Here really matters what your goals are, if you want to obtain a tenured position in academia it depends on what you hope to get out of the postdoc (more resources, more independence) in industry. Can be good, can be bad, would recommend not to over-generalize here.
In my case the industry postdoc definitely helped me to get into a position I wanted to obtain (I was a Postdoc at Novartis Cambridge from Dec 06 to Sept 08 and since then I’m working as a Labhead at Novartis in Basel/Switzerland). -
There is very much an interactive and highly networked environmentin Boston, so I think postdocs will appreciate having that kind of support. Congrats!
-
Is it correct to measure an R & D institution on the basis of the benefits offered only. Perhaps ranking them on the basis of the research work they do is a good idea. Maybe this is the crux behind the rankings w.r.t. the consideration of research papers. Harvard / MIT has more nobel laureates than any other institution (Please correct me if I am wrong). I am not surprised that Harvard ‘s Whitehead is at the top.
The research they do is really pathbreaking and I am one of it’s sincere admirers because of the same reasons. -
Is it correct to measure an R & D institution on the basis of the benefits offered only. Perhaps ranking them on the basis of the research work they do is a good idea. Maybe this is the crux behind the rankings w.r.t. the consideration of research papers. Harvard / MIT has more nobel laureates than any other institution (Please correct me if I am wrong). I am not surprised that Harvard ‘s Whitehead is at the top.
The research they do is really pathbreaking and I am one of it’s sincere admirers because of the same reasons.Morever, the career interests are dependent on individual choices. If Academic excellence is your goal, go for it. If monetary benefits are more important, then industry becomes better.
-
