Friday, January 20, 2017

Autosampler vials

A list of small, useful things (links):
Things I would have blogged about, if I were a better blogger: 
Again, an open invitation to all interested in writing a blog, a hobby that will bring you millions thousands hundreds tens of dollars joy and happiness. Send me a link to your post, and I'd be happy to put it up.

Have a good weekend! 

11 comments:

  1. In the article about the price of a postdoc, the assumption is that every student is able to get a job making $75k in industry right out of grad school. As is often discussed here, the number of entry-level PhD jobs out there doesn't necessarily match the number of fresh PhDs, especially for students from not-top-ten schools.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point - that's a HUGE assumption to make. I think most of the data (I think CJ can corroborate this) points to most chemistry PhDs (dunno about other sciences) going into postdocs, which would be around 35-45k, right?

      Delete
    2. NIH guidelines are a good metric for how much postdocs make, as most will receive their wage from an NIH grant. At the beginning of last year chemistry post-docs could expect $42,840, however the new laws proposed by Obama led to many universities raising post-doc salary to $47,500. Not all will receive that, given the injunction and likely reversal by President Trump.

      Delete
  2. I disagree that a PDF is a choice for 90% of PhD chemists, rendering the thesis of the price article moot. I think the financial argument in cost of PDF is also too high. The overall delta in dollars earned in a 2 yr pdf (I know article say 4.5 yrs, but no doubt readers of this blog are better qualified than that....) versus a $100K job is, what, $120K: spread over a 30 year career that's barely a nice racing bike every 4 yrs once taxes are taken out.

    Sure, compound interest....saving for retirement.... yadda yadda....Assuming the PDF puts nothing in an IRA for the first 2 of a 30 year career and the chemist who got the mythical "job without a postdoc" save 10% (waaaay more than I saved in my first few years having actual $ to spend) of her/his $100K salary that returns a mkt avg 7% annually (of which inflation takes 3% for a net of 4%) will be behind by ~$65K. Again, over 30 years not that relevant IMO. The amount will be even less after Uncle Sam takes his share (regardless if it's in a lower tax bracket).

    No need to fret about doing a pdf, just enjoy a bucolic academic setting free from the annoyances of memos, idiots who don't understand when to use 'reply all', and the sycophantic behavior of the workaday world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Initial article was not about chemists, it was about life scientists. Their PDF rates are higher than chemists/physical scientists.
      2. "a bucolic academic setting" is gilding the turd, no?

      Delete
  3. 1. Fair point.
    2. IDK. I'd rather work at most university campuses than most drab industrial parks (though the btech area of Cambridge does not suck)..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Industrial parks can be bland and generic, but at least you can park your car without worrying about getting ticketed or towed (I think I just revealed where I went to grad school), and you can walk around town on a weekend morning without stepping over puddles of puke.

      Delete
    2. 1) Life scientist here... My PDF took 2.5 years; that is less than or vastly less than literally everyone I've discussed this with. In addition, my primary professional society (Society for Neuroscience) has, for several years, documented that the most common career outcome for one of their postdocs is another postdoc.

      4.5 years sounds thoroughly credible to me, and I know there are people who spent a lot more than that as PDFs.

      2) I tend to agree with BTT here. Not so much about the setting, as some of those lovely, ivy-covered buildings were built with materials and practices that, thankfully, went out decades ago. But I agree with you about the other crap that goes along with post-PDF employment.

      Delete
  4. re: chemistry jargon...what I dislike the most is when scientist's use anthropomorphizing words, e.g. memory effects (for rxns or processes). I then have to deal with my non-scientist friends getting all philosophical with, what I term, the Deepak Chopra effect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unrelated to the above links, I was recently looking over a Jackass feed, and for some reason I read the full title of this article: "Metalloporphyrin-Encapsulated Biodegradable Nanosystems for Highly Efficient Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Sonodynamic Cancer Therapy". Does it win the prize for 'most of the necessary buzzwords to get you a Jackass communication'? I guess it doesn't have 'MOFs' in it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that the "buzzwords" get an award! But, MRI with novel agents are very rewarding financially for those PI who dare to dream! And, I have known one too many people from China who have been beneficiary in this great nation of ours to get funded while doing sabbatical in Beijing. I am very envious!

      Delete