Tuesday, September 19, 2006
academia vs. industry (bench work)
Over here there is a good discussion of academia vs industry. I pop up in the comments section... My take home point is that industry and academia aren't that totally different at the end of the day (when it comes to bench work). You can be happy/unhappy in either place. Overall, I think you might be better paid in industry, but that doesn't neccesarily make people happy. Anyway - go read it over there.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Nature Peer Review
I will freely admit I had no idea this was going on until I read about it over here. Seems like a cool idea, but as Coranted notes, there is nothing there yet. Many articles, some I even care about, but no real comments. He sums up the feedback pretty well so I won't repeat.
I asked around my own company to see if people knew about this. Nope. Not one did. Stealth launch? -OR- do biologist just not seem to read journals on line. I still get paper versions of several journals. We get them free as we advertise so much that they throw in subscriptions on the side as a bonus. That triggers me to read them. I don't seem to ever go to the science or nature sites? Not like I am computer phobic (working, and programming, in the bioinformatics field covers that...). My entire life is on computers - why not journal reading. When I want to share articles for discussion, I go to the web site and get the pdf to share/discuss around that one. BUT - I don't start there to find/read it. Go there in a directed manner to get 1 article.
In asking around, this was the same behavior that many others had. This wasn't age biased, as there were several new post docs amongst the directors I asked. Wide range of people.
Why don't we find the articles on line? I am just programmed to read the paper version.
When do I start on line? When I find the article in PubMed. Then it is direct to the electronic version. That is directed searching. The reading of a journal is "browsing". I look at the table of contents of every issue of science and nature and generally browse the "news" sections.
Don't think I am weird, but it is weird given that I get the entire rest of my news online.
I asked around my own company to see if people knew about this. Nope. Not one did. Stealth launch? -OR- do biologist just not seem to read journals on line. I still get paper versions of several journals. We get them free as we advertise so much that they throw in subscriptions on the side as a bonus. That triggers me to read them. I don't seem to ever go to the science or nature sites? Not like I am computer phobic (working, and programming, in the bioinformatics field covers that...). My entire life is on computers - why not journal reading. When I want to share articles for discussion, I go to the web site and get the pdf to share/discuss around that one. BUT - I don't start there to find/read it. Go there in a directed manner to get 1 article.
In asking around, this was the same behavior that many others had. This wasn't age biased, as there were several new post docs amongst the directors I asked. Wide range of people.
Why don't we find the articles on line? I am just programmed to read the paper version.
When do I start on line? When I find the article in PubMed. Then it is direct to the electronic version. That is directed searching. The reading of a journal is "browsing". I look at the table of contents of every issue of science and nature and generally browse the "news" sections.
Don't think I am weird, but it is weird given that I get the entire rest of my news online.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Life Science Tools of the Trade
I read this site pretty regularly. They whine a fair bit, and in general are normal academic researchers. They hold, quite rightly, their sales reps to task for things. They are not huge fans of Quiagen and Stratagene (haven't totally figured out what Stratagene did wrong, but Quiagen seems have PO'd them with quality)(Stratagene's sales rep may have annoyed them, but I might have missed some posts there and am too lazy to totally sort it out).
This post talks about what is in the QuickChange kit.
This post here could be labeled inducement to infringe on Stratagene's mutagenesis patents. Would guess, based on the previous postings, that Hal doesn't care or doesn't know. Likely doesn't even think about that. It is in the gray zone, as he doesn't tell you what to do with the components, which would be clear inducement. BUT - he does tell you to go do the method. Stratagene has kept that market to itself because of it's patent protection, so I am curious as to what they will do about this. Everyone, well apparently except Hal, knew this to be true. No one ever put it out in quite so public a way before. (On a side note, a person in Australia welcomes Hal to the club...)
Would guess, although stupidity could break out, that we won't ever see anything happen. A post deletion fire war and lawyers would be excellent theatre. Probably not productive, but still good theatre!
This post talks about what is in the QuickChange kit.
This post here could be labeled inducement to infringe on Stratagene's mutagenesis patents. Would guess, based on the previous postings, that Hal doesn't care or doesn't know. Likely doesn't even think about that. It is in the gray zone, as he doesn't tell you what to do with the components, which would be clear inducement. BUT - he does tell you to go do the method. Stratagene has kept that market to itself because of it's patent protection, so I am curious as to what they will do about this. Everyone, well apparently except Hal, knew this to be true. No one ever put it out in quite so public a way before. (On a side note, a person in Australia welcomes Hal to the club...)
Would guess, although stupidity could break out, that we won't ever see anything happen. A post deletion fire war and lawyers would be excellent theatre. Probably not productive, but still good theatre!
Friday, August 18, 2006
T.W. andrews
MBA, and where you get it. I don't think it matters. I don't know where any of the people around me who have them got theirs. For networking, it matters - but for me looking at you I don't notice. I might be a fruitcake of some flavor though and others might care.
Bioinformatics as a label - I would break this as soon as possible. It is not a huge market and there are a lot of dead companies on this road. I used to work at one... you say you see the HTS side of things and know a lot about lead identification. I know minimal amounts over on that side of the world, but think a chemistry background is more suited. I know people on that side regarded me with a bit of suscpicion becuase I was a biologist and not a chemist.
Initial move in to marketing would be as a product manager or associate product manager. You have to start at the bottom and learn the marketing side of things that you aren't currently picking up. I would do that sooner and not later!
Marketing is all about "what do we do next" at the upper levels. At the lower levels, there is a lot of booth duty, making flyers, getting copy on the web site, and getting banner ad's designed. Tactical marketing. More of what are we doing this and next quarter as opposed to next year. The top level people are more "what are we doing next year".
If you want to control products, and launch products, then marketing is the place for you. Bus Dev and top level marketing work pretty/very closely together on things as the line between them can be a bit hazy.
Bioinformatics as a label - I would break this as soon as possible. It is not a huge market and there are a lot of dead companies on this road. I used to work at one... you say you see the HTS side of things and know a lot about lead identification. I know minimal amounts over on that side of the world, but think a chemistry background is more suited. I know people on that side regarded me with a bit of suscpicion becuase I was a biologist and not a chemist.
Initial move in to marketing would be as a product manager or associate product manager. You have to start at the bottom and learn the marketing side of things that you aren't currently picking up. I would do that sooner and not later!
Marketing is all about "what do we do next" at the upper levels. At the lower levels, there is a lot of booth duty, making flyers, getting copy on the web site, and getting banner ad's designed. Tactical marketing. More of what are we doing this and next quarter as opposed to next year. The top level people are more "what are we doing next year".
If you want to control products, and launch products, then marketing is the place for you. Bus Dev and top level marketing work pretty/very closely together on things as the line between them can be a bit hazy.
Travel
For all of my getting used to travel, this blog pretty much doesn't get updated when I am in heavy travel mode...which I have been for the last while here.
The only thing I would say about travel in this day and age is that it is fast becoming very environmentally unfriendly. I shifted towns every night for about the last two weeks. Every night since they outlawed liquid on planes, I have purchased/acquired new toothpaste. Shaving cream as well (not every night, as I am not quite that manly). Every morning, I have left them behind in the hotel as they can't travel onward with me. I rarly, in one night, come anywhere close to using the entire tube/canister etc... so off to the trash it goes.
Buying stock in toothpaste companies might not be a bad idea, as their volume is going to go up a bit.
The only thing I would say about travel in this day and age is that it is fast becoming very environmentally unfriendly. I shifted towns every night for about the last two weeks. Every night since they outlawed liquid on planes, I have purchased/acquired new toothpaste. Shaving cream as well (not every night, as I am not quite that manly). Every morning, I have left them behind in the hotel as they can't travel onward with me. I rarly, in one night, come anywhere close to using the entire tube/canister etc... so off to the trash it goes.
Buying stock in toothpaste companies might not be a bad idea, as their volume is going to go up a bit.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Paper Catalogs?
We are going through a process of getting the next catalog together. While I am not involved in actually doing anything (that would be marketing people tearing hair out) - I am fascinated that we still do this. So do all of our competitors....
I have to admit I don't use paper anything any more (to the extent possible) and really don't understand why we (or anyone else) still do.
Do people in labs still use paper or do you go direct to the web page? A link on Life Science tools of the trade seems to support the paper catalog thing, so I guess it still works. But wow... You got to know the thing is out of date before you get it. Its out of date before we even print it. Why use it?
I don't get it - but wouldn't be advocating that we be the first company not to print. Big risk - little upside - why be first?
I have to admit I don't use paper anything any more (to the extent possible) and really don't understand why we (or anyone else) still do.
Do people in labs still use paper or do you go direct to the web page? A link on Life Science tools of the trade seems to support the paper catalog thing, so I guess it still works. But wow... You got to know the thing is out of date before you get it. Its out of date before we even print it. Why use it?
I don't get it - but wouldn't be advocating that we be the first company not to print. Big risk - little upside - why be first?
Sunday, July 30, 2006
...More Job advice. (TW Andrews)
More questions about Career path to Bus Dev. Here another person sets the stage. Excerpted it basically summed up is :
If you have read my posts about travel, and are OK with that, then that is a start. You likely travel quite a bit in the role you are in, so that should be under control.
If you REALLY are driven by talking to people, then this is good. The programmer background is good, as is the fact that you got out of it and in to the field. If that was driven by you wanting it as opposed to the company needing it, then BusDev would be a good fit for you. If you really wished you were back being a programmer, then do not under any circumstances try to make the jump.
What I would worry about, and I had to make decisions where I wrestled with this myself, would be the bioinformatics lable. In the big picture of things, the bioinformatic marketplace isn't that big. I don't know the total market size, but it isn't as big as reagents or any of the other steps that are in research. You, by having the math background + the computer background = stuck in that area. I wouldn't be able to look at you, as you have described yourself, and see you in anything but a bioinformatics company. You don't present yourself as having the eductation or experience to leap out of that. Granted - I don't have a complete resume and have to work with what you wrote in a brief comment.
Against the previous paragraph I would put - So what. The bioinformatics marketplace is big enough and there are many companies within it to go work at. There are, however, a limited number of busdev positions at them and a pretty limited numer of companies.
You are more likely to be able to move in to marketing at one of those firms. That would be, based on little to no information, my suggestion to you. From there, you will be on the inside and able to make the jump. Once there, start talking to those folks. Stay close to them and, after knowing them for awhile, ask if there are openings etc...
Alternativly, get to know these folks at trade shows. They are there somewhere - so just work to meet them.
On the MBA or other degree front. For you - getting a further degree in the bioinformatics just further locks you in to that area. I think it would be a waste of your time. You have programmer chops - not degree chops. That counts. The MBA might help get you up the ladder, but you have to get in the door first. I would advocate for MBA later while working (you didn't need a social life anyway did you?).
Just my $0.02 - with limited knowledge. If you want to tell me more, I will refine my statements a bit more.
- Has BA in math
- Worked 5 years as at a bioinformatics company, although it's a start up so has expanded duties.
- Started as programmer but moved more to pre sales side over the last while.
- Can they do it?
- Should they get another degree?
- Should they do it?
If you have read my posts about travel, and are OK with that, then that is a start. You likely travel quite a bit in the role you are in, so that should be under control.
If you REALLY are driven by talking to people, then this is good. The programmer background is good, as is the fact that you got out of it and in to the field. If that was driven by you wanting it as opposed to the company needing it, then BusDev would be a good fit for you. If you really wished you were back being a programmer, then do not under any circumstances try to make the jump.
What I would worry about, and I had to make decisions where I wrestled with this myself, would be the bioinformatics lable. In the big picture of things, the bioinformatic marketplace isn't that big. I don't know the total market size, but it isn't as big as reagents or any of the other steps that are in research. You, by having the math background + the computer background = stuck in that area. I wouldn't be able to look at you, as you have described yourself, and see you in anything but a bioinformatics company. You don't present yourself as having the eductation or experience to leap out of that. Granted - I don't have a complete resume and have to work with what you wrote in a brief comment.
Against the previous paragraph I would put - So what. The bioinformatics marketplace is big enough and there are many companies within it to go work at. There are, however, a limited number of busdev positions at them and a pretty limited numer of companies.
You are more likely to be able to move in to marketing at one of those firms. That would be, based on little to no information, my suggestion to you. From there, you will be on the inside and able to make the jump. Once there, start talking to those folks. Stay close to them and, after knowing them for awhile, ask if there are openings etc...
Alternativly, get to know these folks at trade shows. They are there somewhere - so just work to meet them.
On the MBA or other degree front. For you - getting a further degree in the bioinformatics just further locks you in to that area. I think it would be a waste of your time. You have programmer chops - not degree chops. That counts. The MBA might help get you up the ladder, but you have to get in the door first. I would advocate for MBA later while working (you didn't need a social life anyway did you?).
Just my $0.02 - with limited knowledge. If you want to tell me more, I will refine my statements a bit more.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Carreer Path for Bus Dev person
Way back here, a question was asked... Here it is. I hadn't heard the term "necro post" before, so that in and of itself was good reading.
So - where do I want to go and what is possible? I am looking to move up the Bus Dev side of things and then go the CEO post. I look at Bus Dev as having to have your fingers in everything. I have to understand sales. I have to understand manufacturing. I have to understand the direction of the company. I, as you point out, am not a master of any of them. I am, however, familiiar with all of them. COO would be another position that would be possible, depending on you focussed yourself. CSO is unlikly as you have strayed too far from the research side of things. The basic thing that Bus Dev does is understand how the company works and then try and take it to the next level. If you bring in things that you can't manufacture, don't fit with your R+D team, or aren't aligned with what your sales reps can sell -> you haven't done your job. You won't be doing the basic thing of "take company to next level". You will have accomplished "burden people with stuff they can't deal with" which is not what you are supposed to be doing!
You then state
I think a good CEO is as I describe (and I am biased here as it is what I want to become) - well rounded. They HAVE to know the tech side of things cold. They can not be like John Scully at Apple - Pepsi guy trying to sell computers. Didn't work... Joel on Software has a lot more to say about that and says it a lot better than I do (you have to search his archives, as I am too lazy right now) but his basic point is "how can a CEO lead if he doesn't even understand what his company sells/makes/develops or the market they operate in. The cult of MBA has this illusiong that all companies are the same and that you just "have people for that" and they take care of things. I, and I think Joel, would pretty firmly disagree with that.
SO - they have to know tech, but that can't be it. There is also this sales and marketing thing. If you don't know about that you won't do it right and you will make errors. Operations (making sure the lights stay on, people have what they need, and the bills get paid) is a whole other thing that has to work. Basically - My view of the CEO has them knowing a bit about all of these things. In a pinch they can do them, but as the company gets bigger they just have to know enough to call BS when someone else lies to them.
SO = I have strayed off topic. BUT - I look at Bus Dev as having my finger in everything. This is, I think, good training for the step up. I look at Manager -> Director -> VP -> CEO as the progression. The names change along the way in that you may not be called business development and may get labled as "Corporate Development" or some such. Some Bus Dev jobs have a much bigger sales component than mine does, so your milage may vary.
Answer the question?
What is the traditional career track for someone in business development? (If indeed one exists.) Clearly, one can work up to a title of 'Director of Business Development', but what comes after that? Admittedly the answer depends on the org. structure of the company in question. Generally speaking though, what jobs are those that hold the title of "Director of Business Development" looking for? CEO? Chief Science Officer / Director of R&D? CFO? Vice President of Sales & Marketing? It seems like business development may not be considered true ‘science’ work, nor true ‘sales’ work, nor true ‘finance’ work, yet it certainly may be a combination of the three, depending on the company. As a business development careerist, if you’re not considered a specialist in any of these areas you may not be qualified to lead these groups.
So - where do I want to go and what is possible? I am looking to move up the Bus Dev side of things and then go the CEO post. I look at Bus Dev as having to have your fingers in everything. I have to understand sales. I have to understand manufacturing. I have to understand the direction of the company. I, as you point out, am not a master of any of them. I am, however, familiiar with all of them. COO would be another position that would be possible, depending on you focussed yourself. CSO is unlikly as you have strayed too far from the research side of things. The basic thing that Bus Dev does is understand how the company works and then try and take it to the next level. If you bring in things that you can't manufacture, don't fit with your R+D team, or aren't aligned with what your sales reps can sell -> you haven't done your job. You won't be doing the basic thing of "take company to next level". You will have accomplished "burden people with stuff they can't deal with" which is not what you are supposed to be doing!
You then state
I'm looking at Business Development as an alternative to the research track, but I'd like to have a better idea of what my career options will look like in twenty years. On the science side of the house there is a clear progression as one becomes group leader, then rising to lead ever larger numbers of researchers. Eventually one can head the entire company’s R&D, then theoretically on to CEO. Less clear to me is the progression in Biz.Dev. – unless of course it’s common to make the jump directly from Director of Business Development to CEO.I don't agree with the CEO part from climbing the research side. I do NOT agree that CEO's should (or do) come fromthe R+D side of the house. It is a mistake (in my opionion) if they have been over there the whole time. A pure R+D focus will NOT prepare you to run the company. You know, if you have been over there the whole time, nothing about sales, manufacturing, marketing, or any of the other bits of the companies. I don't see the heads of any of the big companies (or any of the quickly growing smaller companies) as coming from the pure R+D side.
I think a good CEO is as I describe (and I am biased here as it is what I want to become) - well rounded. They HAVE to know the tech side of things cold. They can not be like John Scully at Apple - Pepsi guy trying to sell computers. Didn't work... Joel on Software has a lot more to say about that and says it a lot better than I do (you have to search his archives, as I am too lazy right now) but his basic point is "how can a CEO lead if he doesn't even understand what his company sells/makes/develops or the market they operate in. The cult of MBA has this illusiong that all companies are the same and that you just "have people for that" and they take care of things. I, and I think Joel, would pretty firmly disagree with that.
SO - they have to know tech, but that can't be it. There is also this sales and marketing thing. If you don't know about that you won't do it right and you will make errors. Operations (making sure the lights stay on, people have what they need, and the bills get paid) is a whole other thing that has to work. Basically - My view of the CEO has them knowing a bit about all of these things. In a pinch they can do them, but as the company gets bigger they just have to know enough to call BS when someone else lies to them.
SO = I have strayed off topic. BUT - I look at Bus Dev as having my finger in everything. This is, I think, good training for the step up. I look at Manager -> Director -> VP -> CEO as the progression. The names change along the way in that you may not be called business development and may get labled as "Corporate Development" or some such. Some Bus Dev jobs have a much bigger sales component than mine does, so your milage may vary.
Answer the question?
Friday, July 21, 2006
Semantic Web, User Stupidity, and why I think we can beat the machines after all
Every now and then I see posts like this one where someone says they are going to "Tag" the post with a tag and that this will be useful in some way. I never understand it. I don't think it works, and here is why.
Users make up the Tags
and
Users are stupid.
I include myself in the above defined users. In the example at that page, Fred Wilson is saying that he will tag all posts about stocks with the tag "Stocks". This seems simple, but here is the problem. Somone else might be more granular than Fred and tag things as "biotech stocks" or "industrial stock" or they might use the singular and say "stock". And so - when I go to a site or go to run a search I have absolutly no idea what tag people used and so I fail and then I get negative reinforcement and I don't get back to it ever.
You can see this on Flickr - where you can't just look at one stream and get everything that is pictures of something. You have to look at a couple of tags. If your lucky you will see a post with some way of also tagging that always you to wander on (a rosetta stone if you will).
Why does this matter to me so much? Transgenic Mice and my thesis. AND the notion of this Semantic Web thing that keeps getting batted about. You can see Scoble talk about it to sometimes.
Mesh headings are a bit related to tags, in that you can search for things that fall in a Mesh heading on Medline. They seem to be more hidden these days than they used to be, but they are still there lurking uselessly in the background. They are assigned by editors to put papers in categories so that one could browse down a hierarchy and end up with only papers talking about, say, "Transgenic mice".
Now the problem. Papers are assigned to the hierarchy by people. They read and make judgements about where things should go, and the papers are assigned.
When Transgenics first came out, people used all kinds of words for them (and the free text search engines were slow anyway) AND then, to cap it off, the editors at the National Library of Medicine decided to put them in at least 5 different MESH headings. SO - if you were doing transgenic work close to the time that transgenics were a new thing (that would date me a bit...) then you had a problem of being able to find all of the literature on the subject. Eventually, after a couple of years, they got it together and solved this problem.....only to have it again when knockout mice came on the scene. By this time, I was only doing full text searches anyway, so didn't care as much. BUT - the point is - Tagging, when done by humans, is useless.
Humans have opinions about things (for the most part) and not all of them are enlightened enough to just full agree with me. This means that when you lable something, I may not agree with the label you put on it.
A further problem crept in to this when, a few years ago, I was working with some people at GSK who were putting in a system to manually categorize every bit of paper they had at the site they were at, put it in a computer, and then have this mass repository of stuff that would somehow magically produce drugs faster. They were just starting to run in to the problem that if you gave the same bit of paper to a couple of people, they wouldn't categorize it all the same way. There would be subtle differences that would cause them to read it just a bit differently, and thus they would file it differently.
Another similar problem creeps in when you try to file paper in files by company name (say, all of your legal files). How do you deal with University of Southern California vs. University of California at Los Angeles? + all the other University of.... 's --- You can use the full name of every university and spend a lot of time typing and have very long file names. Or you can always shorten to U.S.C. or USC or U SC (but then what do you do with South Carolina?). Given this problem, people will pick a different system that to them makes all the sense in the world. Others will look at the system and be like "what were they thinking" and then they will make statements like I did at the beginning of "users are stupid". Outsiders would look at my filing system and (I think) would understand it. BUT they would be unlikely to have duplicated it without peeking as the shortcuts I use are based on my background and my perception of the world. I have just had to teach this to the woman I hired, as we have to share the filing system back and forth and she admits it makes sense. I have clear conventions etc... but she also said it was totally different from what she had done at her previous job. They had different conventions. Neither of us is "right" but it just goes to show that from the computers point of view - users are stupid.
I think they are going to build massive engines and interpreters and other confabulators to deal with this, and they may even do it = but I will be real surprised if they pull it off becuase even if you do - if it is dependent on the user doing anything then it won't get done. I could tag these posts, but I don't. Why? because I am lazy. I think most people are lazy and they won't do this tagging stuff becuase they don't reall care that much about it and they have better things to do with their life.
So - In summary - Users are both stupid and lazy.
Users make up the Tags
and
Users are stupid.
I include myself in the above defined users. In the example at that page, Fred Wilson is saying that he will tag all posts about stocks with the tag "Stocks". This seems simple, but here is the problem. Somone else might be more granular than Fred and tag things as "biotech stocks" or "industrial stock" or they might use the singular and say "stock". And so - when I go to a site or go to run a search I have absolutly no idea what tag people used and so I fail and then I get negative reinforcement and I don't get back to it ever.
You can see this on Flickr - where you can't just look at one stream and get everything that is pictures of something. You have to look at a couple of tags. If your lucky you will see a post with some way of also tagging that always you to wander on (a rosetta stone if you will).
Why does this matter to me so much? Transgenic Mice and my thesis. AND the notion of this Semantic Web thing that keeps getting batted about. You can see Scoble talk about it to sometimes.
Mesh headings are a bit related to tags, in that you can search for things that fall in a Mesh heading on Medline. They seem to be more hidden these days than they used to be, but they are still there lurking uselessly in the background. They are assigned by editors to put papers in categories so that one could browse down a hierarchy and end up with only papers talking about, say, "Transgenic mice".
Now the problem. Papers are assigned to the hierarchy by people. They read and make judgements about where things should go, and the papers are assigned.
When Transgenics first came out, people used all kinds of words for them (and the free text search engines were slow anyway) AND then, to cap it off, the editors at the National Library of Medicine decided to put them in at least 5 different MESH headings. SO - if you were doing transgenic work close to the time that transgenics were a new thing (that would date me a bit...) then you had a problem of being able to find all of the literature on the subject. Eventually, after a couple of years, they got it together and solved this problem.....only to have it again when knockout mice came on the scene. By this time, I was only doing full text searches anyway, so didn't care as much. BUT - the point is - Tagging, when done by humans, is useless.
Humans have opinions about things (for the most part) and not all of them are enlightened enough to just full agree with me. This means that when you lable something, I may not agree with the label you put on it.
A further problem crept in to this when, a few years ago, I was working with some people at GSK who were putting in a system to manually categorize every bit of paper they had at the site they were at, put it in a computer, and then have this mass repository of stuff that would somehow magically produce drugs faster. They were just starting to run in to the problem that if you gave the same bit of paper to a couple of people, they wouldn't categorize it all the same way. There would be subtle differences that would cause them to read it just a bit differently, and thus they would file it differently.
Another similar problem creeps in when you try to file paper in files by company name (say, all of your legal files). How do you deal with University of Southern California vs. University of California at Los Angeles? + all the other University of.... 's --- You can use the full name of every university and spend a lot of time typing and have very long file names. Or you can always shorten to U.S.C. or USC or U SC (but then what do you do with South Carolina?). Given this problem, people will pick a different system that to them makes all the sense in the world. Others will look at the system and be like "what were they thinking" and then they will make statements like I did at the beginning of "users are stupid". Outsiders would look at my filing system and (I think) would understand it. BUT they would be unlikely to have duplicated it without peeking as the shortcuts I use are based on my background and my perception of the world. I have just had to teach this to the woman I hired, as we have to share the filing system back and forth and she admits it makes sense. I have clear conventions etc... but she also said it was totally different from what she had done at her previous job. They had different conventions. Neither of us is "right" but it just goes to show that from the computers point of view - users are stupid.
I think they are going to build massive engines and interpreters and other confabulators to deal with this, and they may even do it = but I will be real surprised if they pull it off becuase even if you do - if it is dependent on the user doing anything then it won't get done. I could tag these posts, but I don't. Why? because I am lazy. I think most people are lazy and they won't do this tagging stuff becuase they don't reall care that much about it and they have better things to do with their life.
So - In summary - Users are both stupid and lazy.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
To Ph.D. Drop out, answer of questions....
Back here, Ph.D. dropout asks some more questions. She is responding to both my and Dapi's comments on making sure she really wants to do this. She has some new questions.
Taking the second one first
Bonus's are awarded for so many reasons and with so many strings and on so many different schedules that I would be hard pressed to give a over reaching answer to this. I would get the bonus expressed as a % not a fixed number, as you will be hoping to get raises in future years and thus you would expect the bonus to go up not remain fixed. I would also make sure I got clarity on why bonus, when bonus, and under what conditions bonus would be given. No way I can answer here, as pretty much every company and job position are different.
Now, the harder question.
Why do you have to quit to take the 1 course? Why can't you work and do the course at the same time? Why do you want to get out so bad you can't just take the course and then look for a job?
Personally, I think getting the masters will help you in the future a whole lot. Is is, and this is stupid I will admit, letters after your name that some other people won't have. Yes, others have different letters, but your letters are more than a bachelors. I would be totally focussed on getting that degree since it is so close.
I have problems with the quitting after 1 1/2 years as well. I know you said you worked for 4 years previously, but honestly I wouldn't even see that when I looked to hire you after that 1 1/2. It is further back in the resume and I probably wouldn't get there. You can call me shallow if you want, but you have to keep in mind that even for my little entry level position I had to dig through a whole lot of resumes. Any red flag meant I could chuck and get to the next one. I wouldn't be trying to put red flags on my resume.
I fully realize you are in a jam, in that you have a job possibly lined up and you have a course you have to take, but I don't know what to say. I would just try and find a way to do both at the same time. If that isn't possible, then I would finish the course and then look for a job. If you found 1 then you can find another.
Taking the second one first
2- they mention 3k bonus. i read that bonuses are based on performance... so, what exactly does that mean? if they say i didnt do quite as good, i may get like $300.00 or something instead??
and how often are bonuses paid? quarterly? yearly?
Bonus's are awarded for so many reasons and with so many strings and on so many different schedules that I would be hard pressed to give a over reaching answer to this. I would get the bonus expressed as a % not a fixed number, as you will be hoping to get raises in future years and thus you would expect the bonus to go up not remain fixed. I would also make sure I got clarity on why bonus, when bonus, and under what conditions bonus would be given. No way I can answer here, as pretty much every company and job position are different.
Now, the harder question.
1 - would it be wise to let my prospective employer know that "look, i thought i'd be getting my MS just by completing the thesis and submitting my almost-ready manuscript, but now the department says about that 1 course requirement..." and ask them "WILL U LET ME TAKE THE 10 WEEKS OFF COMPLETELY?" to go to another city while subletting my place, and then come back and return to my job duties.You are, by asking to take 10 weeks off, really asking them to stall the hire by 3 1/2 months (or so). I, as a hiring person, would be pretty unlikely to accept that. I moved on from hireing a guy this summer becuase he asked to stall 2 months. I got, I now beleive, a better person because I moved on. I can't conceive of taking the risk of waiting 3 1/2 months and then you bailing on me. I am not saying that becuase you are you, I am saying that because anyone who has been through hiring people knows that some of them flake on you. Given the time that would transpire, I would be thinking that the "flake factor" would be really high and that I would be sitting there not looking for someone to come on board and then you wouldn't show up and I just would have wasted a whole lot of time. Not something a sane person would do I don't think.
if they say yes, i KNOW i can do it and get my MS within 1 school year!
or should i just tell them closer to 1.5 yrs before i have to take that course? and then if they say "NO, we will have to get someone new then," i'd quit, and find a new job while taking that 1 course????
i hate conceiling anything.. i am a very open and honest person, but i fear that telling them now may make them change their minds on hiring me (isnt it still possible despite the signed offer letter?). ALTHOUGH! DONT U THINK THE PROCESS OF HIRING AND TRAINING A NEW EMPLOYEE WOULD TAKE THE SAME 10 WEEKS AT LEAST ANYWAY?! so maybe telling it straight out is not so bad at all..?
Why do you have to quit to take the 1 course? Why can't you work and do the course at the same time? Why do you want to get out so bad you can't just take the course and then look for a job?
Personally, I think getting the masters will help you in the future a whole lot. Is is, and this is stupid I will admit, letters after your name that some other people won't have. Yes, others have different letters, but your letters are more than a bachelors. I would be totally focussed on getting that degree since it is so close.
I have problems with the quitting after 1 1/2 years as well. I know you said you worked for 4 years previously, but honestly I wouldn't even see that when I looked to hire you after that 1 1/2. It is further back in the resume and I probably wouldn't get there. You can call me shallow if you want, but you have to keep in mind that even for my little entry level position I had to dig through a whole lot of resumes. Any red flag meant I could chuck and get to the next one. I wouldn't be trying to put red flags on my resume.
I fully realize you are in a jam, in that you have a job possibly lined up and you have a course you have to take, but I don't know what to say. I would just try and find a way to do both at the same time. If that isn't possible, then I would finish the course and then look for a job. If you found 1 then you can find another.
a Change in Tech Transfer Offices?
I have to admit that over the last few months I have been pretty impressed by the folks I am dealing with in Tech transfer offices. Almost 100% of them (can't think of an exception right now, but I am sure there is one) have been really good. Today I was talking to a guy at a Boston area university and we talked for about 1 1/2 hours about the technology they have going on, our needs, some ideas he had based on talking to researchers, etc... It was a great conversation. Granted both of us are "lapsed" scientists, in that we both elected to bail out of the lab, but it was still a great conversation. I would like to think he learned something about what our business wants, and I can conclusivly say that I learned a lot about what they are doing and where they are headed with a bunch of stuff.
He was a bit odd, in that he works in a translation research setting and not a classic tech transfer office, so that may be the difference. BUT - it doesn't change that it was a great conversation. I am used to really only getting that level of science from the business people when I am dealing with industry folks.
On other fronts, I have become more impressed with the general tech transfer people. It seems, and who knows if this is conscios effort on their part or not, that they are focussed on some things they think will work and for those selected ones they are very focussed on moving things ahead.
There are still some, and the one that leaps to mind is at a top top tier school, who are a bit dense at valuing technology. I will still not pay $1M for a research reagent technology that I have to develop if you won't give me an exclusive. It just won't happen. I am uncertain as to why you even think you will be taken seriously when you propose that. Please don't get mad at you when my counter proposal sheds, essentially, all the zero's.
However, the web sites. They still are horrid messes. I continue not to understand why people don't put effort in to this. I imagine I will be wondering this to the end of my days. This is a low effort way to find people that you don't even know are interested. I guess, given the rest you do, that I don't understand why you WOULDNT do it. If all else fails, just start a free blog here on blogger and post them as they come in. Even that would be better than your regional sites, your hidden university sites, and you confusing mish-mash of sites linking together institutes that I have never heard of but aren't included in the university site in whose buildings you are located and to whom you link yourselves (in other ways) as closely as you can.
So - Summary - People Good, web sites - Bad.
Web sites are cheaper than people, so I don't understand!
He was a bit odd, in that he works in a translation research setting and not a classic tech transfer office, so that may be the difference. BUT - it doesn't change that it was a great conversation. I am used to really only getting that level of science from the business people when I am dealing with industry folks.
On other fronts, I have become more impressed with the general tech transfer people. It seems, and who knows if this is conscios effort on their part or not, that they are focussed on some things they think will work and for those selected ones they are very focussed on moving things ahead.
There are still some, and the one that leaps to mind is at a top top tier school, who are a bit dense at valuing technology. I will still not pay $1M for a research reagent technology that I have to develop if you won't give me an exclusive. It just won't happen. I am uncertain as to why you even think you will be taken seriously when you propose that. Please don't get mad at you when my counter proposal sheds, essentially, all the zero's.
However, the web sites. They still are horrid messes. I continue not to understand why people don't put effort in to this. I imagine I will be wondering this to the end of my days. This is a low effort way to find people that you don't even know are interested. I guess, given the rest you do, that I don't understand why you WOULDNT do it. If all else fails, just start a free blog here on blogger and post them as they come in. Even that would be better than your regional sites, your hidden university sites, and you confusing mish-mash of sites linking together institutes that I have never heard of but aren't included in the university site in whose buildings you are located and to whom you link yourselves (in other ways) as closely as you can.
So - Summary - People Good, web sites - Bad.
Web sites are cheaper than people, so I don't understand!
Friday, July 14, 2006
Interviewing lawyers - An experience in someone who prepared for the interview
So I am in the process (along with senior management) of hiring some sort of lawyer to work with me on deals. The person, obviously, has to know something about the biotech space. Needs to know M&A, in-licensing, out-licencing, and all the other little stuff I do. Oh yeah - they will have a bunch of other little jobs that I don't know anything about or have anything to do with.
It was the most interesting interview ever.
The guy had read ALL of our wall street filings, and knew the informatino in them cold. He asked specific questions about a lot of little stuff that we normally don't talk about but have to reveal to the street. A complete tour de force and made a very positive impression.
I don't know that most of us can do what he did. He has a lot of years of experience in this business so the background part was easy, but it is something henceforth that I will aspire too.
He is still a lawyer, so I am not entirely certain that he doesn't bite the heads of bats at midnight in a graveyard, but if you have to pick a lawyer to associate with you might as well pick an incredibly well prepared one that makes sure not to miss the details.
It was the most interesting interview ever.
The guy had read ALL of our wall street filings, and knew the informatino in them cold. He asked specific questions about a lot of little stuff that we normally don't talk about but have to reveal to the street. A complete tour de force and made a very positive impression.
I don't know that most of us can do what he did. He has a lot of years of experience in this business so the background part was easy, but it is something henceforth that I will aspire too.
He is still a lawyer, so I am not entirely certain that he doesn't bite the heads of bats at midnight in a graveyard, but if you have to pick a lawyer to associate with you might as well pick an incredibly well prepared one that makes sure not to miss the details.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
...and this is why I got out
I was digging around reading other science blogs today, so a bit of a link run...
This post is about why academic science is kind of beat...and really sums up why I left.
Actually you can probably boil my reason down to one thing....$$$$ The other reasons factored in, but this was probably the number one reason.
I like toys. Toys need to be purchased. Purchasing things requires $$. Therfore, need to get job with $$$.
Oh yeah -> happiness requires science, therefore must stay in science. Thus, here I am.
This post is about why academic science is kind of beat...and really sums up why I left.
Actually you can probably boil my reason down to one thing....$$$$ The other reasons factored in, but this was probably the number one reason.
I like toys. Toys need to be purchased. Purchasing things requires $$. Therfore, need to get job with $$$.
Oh yeah -> happiness requires science, therefore must stay in science. Thus, here I am.
A good description of Graduate school
This guy may be a chemist, a fact I won't hold against him, but I have to say this is probably the best description of graduate school I have read. Short and sweet.
I was pretty crabby during grad school. I have pretty much no idea how I convinced my now wife to date me, move in, and get engaged. I am not entirely sure she knows either...
I worked more than 1 christmas day. I thought it was a badge of honor at the time (everyone else was there...) but now I know better. At that time, it is what you have to do. If you don't think that is OK, then you likely aren't cut out to make it through. Having a "real life" is not part of the deal for most. Some pulled it off, but I don't know how. I think they were smarter than me.
I was pretty crabby during grad school. I have pretty much no idea how I convinced my now wife to date me, move in, and get engaged. I am not entirely sure she knows either...
I worked more than 1 christmas day. I thought it was a badge of honor at the time (everyone else was there...) but now I know better. At that time, it is what you have to do. If you don't think that is OK, then you likely aren't cut out to make it through. Having a "real life" is not part of the deal for most. Some pulled it off, but I don't know how. I think they were smarter than me.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
How long to be an Application Scientist
Last post, Ph.D. dropout asked, in essence, how long she has to stay in a job before she can move on. She phrased it as:
I would say 2 years. Any less than that, and I will be asking you what happened. At two years, in a travel job, you are fine. It won't raise eyebrows to move on. If you last less than a year, it will raise big red flags. I wouldn't take a risk on you after that, as at that point you have left a Ph.D. at less than 2 years. You have left a job at less than 1. What makes me, as a hiring person, think that you will stay with my job? You will, at that point, have shown no ability to stick with anything. I would be looking at you as someone who would come in and leave. Since hiring people is a real pain in the butt, I am very biased against doing it more frequently than I have to. Part of what I take in to account is how long I think you will last. Less than 2 years = bad. More than 2 = fine. I don't think I can tell if you will last 3 years or 10 years, but don't really care.
My personal rule is not to move more often than every 3 years. Others set the bar at 2 years. I don't know of anyone who sets it below 2 years, and whose career I would be trying to emulate.
Your statements:
what do you think is the minimum reasonable time I should spend at one job before looking for something new?
and if the time frame that I wil be able to handle is a year or a little less, what kind of jobs can I look at applying to move into the more business sector of biotech?
I would say 2 years. Any less than that, and I will be asking you what happened. At two years, in a travel job, you are fine. It won't raise eyebrows to move on. If you last less than a year, it will raise big red flags. I wouldn't take a risk on you after that, as at that point you have left a Ph.D. at less than 2 years. You have left a job at less than 1. What makes me, as a hiring person, think that you will stay with my job? You will, at that point, have shown no ability to stick with anything. I would be looking at you as someone who would come in and leave. Since hiring people is a real pain in the butt, I am very biased against doing it more frequently than I have to. Part of what I take in to account is how long I think you will last. Less than 2 years = bad. More than 2 = fine. I don't think I can tell if you will last 3 years or 10 years, but don't really care.
My personal rule is not to move more often than every 3 years. Others set the bar at 2 years. I don't know of anyone who sets it below 2 years, and whose career I would be trying to emulate.
Your statements:
I think you were absolutely right about suspecting that 30% travel sounds too good for AS. THe other person I interviewed with already stated 25-50%, which leaves me concerned that it will go up over 50 rather fast. :(play to something I have said before. You have no idea about how you will handle travel. I would expect, with an FAS job, to spending more than 50% of the time on the road during some periods. The end of a fiscal year / quarter would be a time when I would expect you out constantly. Early in the quarter, not AS much, but still.... I can't help with this part, but if you make this jump I think you have to be willing to stick it out for at least 2 years, or you should expect to have problems getting the next job.
I am excited as hell to travel, but I need the travel time to be shorter than the time spent at home, I think... to retain my sanity.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
More about salary - PhD dropout
PhD dropout, whom I answered a question for last post, asked what I thought her salary should be in the comments way back.... She says
I would have to have a better understanding of what the job was, and how it created value for the company, to give a guess about how the salary levels line up. At a guess, and based on the n=1 of me and another guy in a similar position, I would say a Ph.D. was worth between $15K-$30K / year. There is a lower limit of what they will pay someone who is in the sales process and travels a lot, so at the lower levels the split will be less. At the higher levels the split will increase until you get to the highest levels where I think it closes up again. the Ph.D. I think really only helps get you more money in the mid levels. You always get a bit more, but it is closer at the top and the bottom.
Someone can probably pull some statistical jujitsu on my head now and show that this is false in some way, but I am starting with a flawed n=1 anyway so I wouldn't hang my hat on this.
SO - long way of me saying I don't really know what you are worth but there is some long rambling.
SO.. I have been checking out career newsletter, job listings, advice boards, etc... and seems like App Scientis jobs go from 50-80k. 80k being = PhD + experience.The range with Ph.D. being about what I had guessed in my post on the matter. I haven't seen too much of the less travel version of an FAS. I guess I don't really understand the difference between and FAS that doesn't travel and a lab worker. I don't know how the 30% travel would work out, and would guess that pretty rapidly you get hauled well above that number. Just a guess though.
but, seems like the 50k range is not exactly for the postition I was interviewing for, because it seems like there is a difference between job responsibilities of App Sci and FIELD App Sci (FAS). FAS'es seem to travel over 50% of the time at least and not really engage in other data mining or paper-writing projects. Sounds like the job I am 'hoping for' is not like the FAS, more like AS, with, as they say, 30% travel not more.
I would have to have a better understanding of what the job was, and how it created value for the company, to give a guess about how the salary levels line up. At a guess, and based on the n=1 of me and another guy in a similar position, I would say a Ph.D. was worth between $15K-$30K / year. There is a lower limit of what they will pay someone who is in the sales process and travels a lot, so at the lower levels the split will be less. At the higher levels the split will increase until you get to the highest levels where I think it closes up again. the Ph.D. I think really only helps get you more money in the mid levels. You always get a bit more, but it is closer at the top and the bottom.
Someone can probably pull some statistical jujitsu on my head now and show that this is false in some way, but I am starting with a flawed n=1 anyway so I wouldn't hang my hat on this.
SO - long way of me saying I don't really know what you are worth but there is some long rambling.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
A new career advice asking person....
Back on the comments page for my Application Scientist posting (what is an app scientist and what do they do anyway?) there is a new person asking carreer type questions, and so I will address those here. I am going to sum up her background and questions and then got on with it.
Summary of her comment:
1. General buttering up of me. Greatly appreciated and inflates my head further. My wife does not appreciate this but she is not typing here....
2. Background: She is dropping out of the Ph.D. program Less than ?2? years in before she takes her Quals, and thus won't leave with either a masters or a Ph.D. Before starting program worked in industry for 4 years after getting a B.S. but hates bench work.
The other quesions:
So, I got only a BS so far, not happy in my program, trying to get feedback on what is AVAILABLE and WHAT IS AT STAKE if I re-enter the field AS IS!
You can do this. You do answer your own question though. You point out that there are some non-Ph.D.'s at the higher levels of some companies, and that this proves it is possible. You are correct - there are. I have written about this on the blog several times, and I can't be bothered to look at whether I am being consistent in my opionion or not, but would guess NO - so when I write this please keep in mind this is todays opionion. I think Non-Ph.D.'s at biotech companies have a much harder time getting to the higher levels than Ph.D.'s. When two people act the same, speak the same, etc...the same - the Ph.D. will get the job every time. How much better does the Non-Ph.D. have to be? I don't know that you can quantify "better" but I would say that it is "quite a bit" better that is needed. SO - not impossible by any means, but definatly not stacking the deck in your own favor.
The question you didn't ask is "Is that time that I would spend in the lab worth it once I get to the working world" and to this - looking at where you are - I would (subject to much I don't know) say that I would quit as well. You are looking at several more years worth of work, for low pay, and doing something that you don't sound that psyched about. In that time, you can have gone to industry and piled up a pretty nice resume and be well on your way. As an App Scientist, you are still building technical credibility, so you have that going for you. You are going to have to, after a year or two or three, start looking to move towards marketing/sales/bus dev or some other role in the company as you will burn out and will also really be tapped out on what they will let you do without the degree.
I have totally lost track of your questions!
ah - are you nuts for quitting and how to explain your quitting.
I think you are quite sane for quitting. I have never understood people doing jobs that they don't like as I think it makes them all around miserable people that no one likes. No fun is being had and it takes them much longer to complete the task anyway. With your attitude you would be looking at a longer haul than someone who is fired up and motivated (me for the first few years...). To explain your quitting, just do it. I quit becuase I didn't want to do it. Business excited me more, and the lab was unappealing. All of your other stories didn't sound that good to me and sounded like cop outs. I am of the opionion that meeting it head on is the right answer, and if you were interviewing with me and try any of the other answers, I would drop you. Other people, with other personalities, will have other opinions.
BUT - you should note that everyone you will talking to, likely, will have made the decision to leave the lab as well. There is a reason they are interviewing you, and its not becuase they are still in the lab. On some level they made the same decision as well and didn't (go to /stay in) the the lab.
I realize I am a couple of hours too late, but real life gets in the way some times. Saw that you had posted the comment ( a blackberry is evil...) but didn't have time to write. Hope it went well.
Did I miss any questions?
**edited** would point you to this post to see what I have done recently.....
Summary of her comment:
1. General buttering up of me. Greatly appreciated and inflates my head further. My wife does not appreciate this but she is not typing here....
2. Background: She is dropping out of the Ph.D. program Less than ?2? years in before she takes her Quals, and thus won't leave with either a masters or a Ph.D. Before starting program worked in industry for 4 years after getting a B.S. but hates bench work.
Them: "You have a Ph.D."This is a horrible conversation, and I keep having it. I want to shout at them "I DONT CARE". So - my take home message of this is to make sure you are making the decision you want to make and then get on with it. Don't regret it later, and don't tell me about it when you are interviewing or when I/you start working together. When you sound guilty and defensive about it you don't make yourself look good.
Me: "Yes"
Them: "I worked in the lab for a bunch of years, and was going to go do but decided to do this instead. I know as much as you and didn't miss anything by not doing it"
Me" "OK"
Them: "It just wasn't the right time of my life, and there was a lot going on"
Me: "OK"
Them: ....more rambling and getting more defensive....
The other quesions:
So, I got only a BS so far, not happy in my program, trying to get feedback on what is AVAILABLE and WHAT IS AT STAKE if I re-enter the field AS IS!
You can do this. You do answer your own question though. You point out that there are some non-Ph.D.'s at the higher levels of some companies, and that this proves it is possible. You are correct - there are. I have written about this on the blog several times, and I can't be bothered to look at whether I am being consistent in my opionion or not, but would guess NO - so when I write this please keep in mind this is todays opionion. I think Non-Ph.D.'s at biotech companies have a much harder time getting to the higher levels than Ph.D.'s. When two people act the same, speak the same, etc...the same - the Ph.D. will get the job every time. How much better does the Non-Ph.D. have to be? I don't know that you can quantify "better" but I would say that it is "quite a bit" better that is needed. SO - not impossible by any means, but definatly not stacking the deck in your own favor.
The question you didn't ask is "Is that time that I would spend in the lab worth it once I get to the working world" and to this - looking at where you are - I would (subject to much I don't know) say that I would quit as well. You are looking at several more years worth of work, for low pay, and doing something that you don't sound that psyched about. In that time, you can have gone to industry and piled up a pretty nice resume and be well on your way. As an App Scientist, you are still building technical credibility, so you have that going for you. You are going to have to, after a year or two or three, start looking to move towards marketing/sales/bus dev or some other role in the company as you will burn out and will also really be tapped out on what they will let you do without the degree.
I have totally lost track of your questions!
ah - are you nuts for quitting and how to explain your quitting.
I think you are quite sane for quitting. I have never understood people doing jobs that they don't like as I think it makes them all around miserable people that no one likes. No fun is being had and it takes them much longer to complete the task anyway. With your attitude you would be looking at a longer haul than someone who is fired up and motivated (me for the first few years...). To explain your quitting, just do it. I quit becuase I didn't want to do it. Business excited me more, and the lab was unappealing. All of your other stories didn't sound that good to me and sounded like cop outs. I am of the opionion that meeting it head on is the right answer, and if you were interviewing with me and try any of the other answers, I would drop you. Other people, with other personalities, will have other opinions.
BUT - you should note that everyone you will talking to, likely, will have made the decision to leave the lab as well. There is a reason they are interviewing you, and its not becuase they are still in the lab. On some level they made the same decision as well and didn't (go to /stay in) the the lab.
I realize I am a couple of hours too late, but real life gets in the way some times. Saw that you had posted the comment ( a blackberry is evil...) but didn't have time to write. Hope it went well.
Did I miss any questions?
**edited** would point you to this post to see what I have done recently.....
Monday, June 19, 2006
Dapi - more about expense reports.
Dapi, a couple of comments back said:
This is a big change from academia where you are sort of committed to the lab and would maybe not get reimbursed for everything at a conference. In industry - get reimbursed. Keep every receipt. "I don't know if I can ask for that" - the way I look at this, they have to pay for your hotel and food and car to keep you there for the weekend. It's not that the weekend is free.
Just a different way of thinking, but wanted to make sure you thought of it.
I would definitely be going home on the weekend but I wasnt sure if I could ask for them to pay for it but it totally makes sense to me!and I sort of answered, but want to really spell things out for those not at companies right now. Everything you do when travelling for a company is reimburseable. I, now, automatically keep receipts even when travelling for personal travel. Then my wife makes fun of me, but it shows how deeply ingrained it is. Companies have travel policies that tell you what you can charge, eat, stay at etc... and you follow them and then they reimburse you for everything. Other companies have credit cards that you charge against so you don't even see the bill. This is totally non-negotiable. When you are travellling on company business, they pay the bill. End of discussion. If you trash their rules, they may choose not to pay for the stuff you did that violates the rules, but that was your bad not theirs!
This is a big change from academia where you are sort of committed to the lab and would maybe not get reimbursed for everything at a conference. In industry - get reimbursed. Keep every receipt. "I don't know if I can ask for that" - the way I look at this, they have to pay for your hotel and food and car to keep you there for the weekend. It's not that the weekend is free.
Just a different way of thinking, but wanted to make sure you thought of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)