A question, precipitated by a recent missive to the inbox:
What is Big Pharma looking for these days in process/med chem positions, in terms of pedigree/publications? I presume that there are some who are getting in without postdocs, and some who are being hired with postdocs - what is happening more where you are?
Readers, what say you?
What is Big Pharma looking for these days in process/med chem positions, in terms of pedigree/publications? I presume that there are some who are getting in without postdocs, and some who are being hired with postdocs - what is happening more where you are?
Readers, what say you?
Here at "Top 10 school in Cambridge", it's almost exclusively postdocs doing on-campus recruiting and subsequently getting on site interviews. Last year, a couple of grad students without postdocs did well and received multiple offers. I think pharma prefers postdocs, but exceptional grad students can definitely go straight to a job. Publications vary from people with none getting offers to people with 10+ publications; pedigree from PhD advisor not as important for postdocs.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who just went through the process from another "top 10 school in Cambridge" I'd say the majority of successful candidates had at least some natural product/complex synthesis experience (this was especially true for med chem, maybe less important for process). Some methods people still did well, but seemed to get a giant boost from pedigree. Smaller companies seemed to be less concerned with pedigree and more with synthesis experience/how well you interacted with the team.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest factor in our department seemed to be whether you had connections within the company, with the best connection being your post-doc adviser. People from big name groups fared the best, and this is probably a combination of name recognition, and those students being exceptional.
Speaking from the UK, a few of us started in one of the big pharma companies here last year. Two of us without postdoc (I had less than a year industrial experience), another 6-7 guys got hired after a few years of academic postdoc. I think what Unknown described about connections also applied in our case too.
ReplyDeleteMy observation for big pharma and some of the chemical companies like Dow:
ReplyDeleteComing out of a top 5-10 school in a well known group (although nearly all are well known at that level, even the assistant profs are rising stars) with a reasonable pub record, if you can speak well and are personable, you have a shot at getting a job without a postdoc.
Coming out of a school the next tier down, if you are in the 1-2 famous, well connected groups and have reasonable to exceptional pub record, and can speak well and are personable, you have a shot at getting a job without a postdoc.
Everyone else needs a postdoc, ideally at one of the top tier schools in a top tier group, if not in a top tier group at a school the next tier down.
Just because someone tells you you don't need a postdoc doesn't mean that applies to you.
Yeah, at [famous Ivy League School] most hires at Pfizer/Merck/BMS are 4th year PhD students who do a lame-duck year to write up after getting their offer. Postdocs are seemingly at a disadvantage, though maybe that's just because they haven't had as long to integrate with the old boy's club.
ReplyDeleteAt a big midwestern state school, it was mostly on-campus recruiting. Interestingly, those who ultimately got jobs from recruiting had universally been ignored when applying to online job postings.
ReplyDeletePapers didn't matter much, a first author JACS/ACIE was enough. The real stars with a dozen papers didn't fare noticeably better. Connections were the most important, either though the boss or ones made in the company from conferences or previous colleges. Postdoc mattered more in terms of making more connections than learning something new or publishing more, unless their PhD was in something that pharma was less interested in.
Either we were at the same big midwestern state school, or my experience was very similar.
DeleteMyself and a friend attended a mid-tier ranked grad school. We both received MS degrees and he got hired at a large pharma companies after 2 years of work at a CRO. I also had an interview there after ~2 years work at a different CRO. As he tells me, they won't look at you without exceptional credentials from top universities and professors if you have a Ph.D./postdoc... And in my opinion, that's a shame because they're basically trying to hire carbon copies of themselves to keep the stale culture consistent instead of perhaps hiring someone who brings a different set of skills from a mid-tier school who may think outside of the box.
ReplyDeleteWhen those making the hiring decisions are trying to avoid the chopping block at all times, this is what you get. Just hire a carbon copy, that way you're never sticking your neck out. The new hires barely know they're only getting hired because the expensive copies were culled not too long ago- there's nobody left that saw it happen, and those that did don't want to make a peep because they know they could easily be next.
DeleteI've been on both sides, and there's a lot more diversity of background and thinking outside the box at a smaller biotech. I don't think it's a shame. If new medicines are discovered at a small biotech and eventually marketed by a big pharma, the world gets their new medicines either way.
I am a little unclear on this - you are saying these people wont look at you without exceptional credentials from top universities and professors if you have a Ph.D./postdoc.
DeleteDo you mean if you do *not* have a PhD/postdoc?
In any discussion like this you hear both extremes - people who have convinced themselves that an ivy league PhD is required to get a job, people who know someone who just got a job from a nothing special school, people who think post docs are disadvantage, people who are convinced that postdocs are a requirement, and just about everything in between...