One year after leaving research and there are a few things I miss

Well, it's been a year since I left the lab. I survived. And, no, I don't miss research.

I miss the students
During my PhD and PostDoc, I personally supervised around 30 students and I really enjoyed working with such an enthusiastic group of people. The constant flow of new faces, new ideas and new stories was a great part of academia. Not to mention the multi-cultural nature of every lab that I worked in meant that we'd have long, hilarious discussions with new students about the weird etiquette of Britain and the UK, and how that was different in China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Mexico, India, Portugal, Estonia...

I miss being someone that knows things other people don't know
This makes me sound like a bit of a tool but when you're the long standing PostDoc, you're time is taken up with people who need you. You fast become the go-to person for all the labs needs, scientific and pastoral.

Can't get your culture to grow? Ask the PostDoc, they'll know what to do. Jim is crying in the lab because his culture won't grow - Ask the PostDoc, they'll know what to do. I'm thinking of quitting the lab and becoming a sheep farmer in New Zealand - Ask the PostDoc, they'll know what to do.

I'm starting from the bottom again and it's not easy, but I hope that I'm building up my skills and reputation so that I can be someone knowledgable enough that people will one day turn to me for advice.

I miss the confidence
I could just write 'see above', but I'll elaborate. The pressure that comes with being responsible for so many decisions in the lab means that you also have the confidence to make those decisions, defend them and know when you need to change your mind.

As a newcomer, I think I'm sometimes a bit cautious, but I need to be. I often have no idea if what I'm about to say is completely wrong. It usually pans out and it bolsters my confidence for the future, but it's not the same as the confidence that comes from being in the same job for a while.

I miss the money
I'd love to say that changing your career is easy and doesn't have any repercussions. Maybe for some people, it doesn't. I've lost a large portion of my income and after a year, I still feel like I've taken a 25% paycut, rather than feeling proud that I've worked my way up in a year from what amounted to a 60% paycut.

Money doesn't matter when you have it. The rest of the time, it matters. I'm very aware that my decision to leave research meant that my husband and I had to change our plans for our first flat and that I probably wouldn't have been able to get by if it wasn't for his help. I'm very grateful.

I don't miss the crying*
In my last 3 to 6 months in research, someone cried every day. Every day. It was pretty grim and it was often me. And I'm not a crier.

My first Comms job out of research, I think I made it until 3 months of rose-tinted glasses before I was sobbing in a park on my lunch break. I couldn't take the demands of the job coupled with the pay. At the time, it was costing me money to work. My wages simply didn't cover my bills even though I walked several miles to work and back to save £5 a day. There are a lot of highly-qualified people doing similar low-paid jobs and internships because the job market is fierce and, like me, they don't have enough non-research experience.

[For the record, I'm nearly 9 months in to my new job and I've only had to hide in the loos to compose myself once. When I found out Terry Pratchett died.]

I don't miss lab-etiquette
Perhaps because of the high pressure nature of the lab and the crushing defeat that is ever-looming, the lab can be a bit of an etiquette minefield.

There are things that you MUST put back in their place, because Jo the PostDoc from the lab next door NEEDS the solvents to be arranged by strength and not alphabetical order, even though they're not his. Don't ask Lisa from upstairs for a favour on a Tuesday. I can't believe someone has dared to use the incubator that we haven't used in over a year - the cheek! Someone just asked Stores for something and it's early (pre 10 am)/nearly lunchtime (after 10.30 am)/lunchtime (12-2pm) just after lunch(after 2.30pm)/late (after 4pm).

Of course there are politics and difficult characters everywhere but academia seemed to almost encourage this sort of behaviour, as long as the research gets done.

I don't miss the research
Perhaps this is the most surprising of all - I don't miss the research itself. I was a good scientist. I was thorough and careful, and kept a very up-to-date lab book. But I just didn't like doing it in the end. Not enough, anyway.

Now, I get to read about all the successful research. I speak to scientists when they are at their most chipper - when they've just had something published or they've presented at a conference. I twist their arms and beg for their time to help promote their research or host a lab visit. I really enjoy the interaction with research and researchers, and I hope that my time in that environment gives me a real insight into the demands they have on their time. But I never think 'I wish it was me'.

I get to explain successful research to the public, the press, members of staff and the real people that these breakthroughs could help. So I'm getting the bit of research and science that I always loved - the learning - without the heartache. I leave that to our dedicated researchers.

I'm not sure if I'm done with this blog, it's more difficult to write about your job when you want to keep it, but I might pop back with some posts from time to time.

Good luck to anyone who decides to leave the lab, it's not easy and plenty of people won't understand why you're 'wasting your education' [Thanks, Uncle, for that one].

I won't say you should do something that makes you happy because, the reality is, there are plenty of dull jobs that simply get done to pay the mortgage, and that's fine. But you shouldn't do a job that makes you miserable.

---------

*I wrote this before the #TimHunt fiasco. Lots of people cried in my lab - men and women. And I thought it worth adding these from 8 years of life in academia:

I don't miss:
-being in a departmental meeting with around 60 people and being told by the Head of Dep that a colleague only worked with me because they must want to sleep with me.
-being told by a colleague that women with PhDs were not 'proper' women because you couldn't have the attributes of a woman and succeed to PhD level.
-being asked to use my 'charm' to get someone to lend a piece of kit to my group as my boss was sure I'd be able to 'persuade' them.
-explaining to my colleague that my husband did not 'mind' that I had a PhD.

Consultancy: Principles and Profits

As a PhD student and Post-Doc there has often been someone mentioning going into consultancy. Usually in the guise of 'why should I take THAT job when I could get 30+K doing consultancy' or ' I know a friend of a friend who's earning double what I earn doing consultancy for <insert name of company here>. So it seems to be the generally held consensus that it’s a job you can go into with a PhD and earn a lot of money. Naturally, my interest was piqued. I recently attended a number of presentations on different forms of consultancy and I thought I'd share what I found out. 

Fundamentally, consultancy firms give advice to big companies or sometimes the government in order to fix a particular problem. My initial question was 'Why would a pharmaceutical company employ an outsider to help them rebrand after a merger?' or ' Why would HSBC seek the opinion of non-bankers on how to streamline their online banking?’

The perfect situation for these big companies would be if they had a group of people poised and waiting to answer important questions whenever they occurred. But, what would those people do when there are no big mergers to rebrand, no new products to launch? It’s simply not affordable to keep people on the payroll just in case someone in the organisation has a problem. That's when the consultants come in.

They ARE waiting for the next big question to arise. And, when one company is done with them they fill their time by answering the questions from another company, and so on and so forth. In this way consultancies gain expertise in particular areas such as green initiatives, mergers, stock handling etc. and they can use their experiences gained from one company when working for the next. Professional research firms are somewhat similar to traditional consultancies. They are paid to research a particular problem or sector.

So, that’s consultancy. Now, how does it work in practice?

The first thing you should be aware of is that there are broadly two types of consultancy. The first are those firms that advise on matters of principle and what you might call Worthy Causes. These consultants might advise on environmentally sound practices, sustainability or social initiatives. Sometimes these firms are inline with a political party and can be called 'Think Tanks'.  The second type of consultancy gives advice on matters of profit and efficiency. It probably won't shock you to learn that it's the latter guys that tend to make more money and it is this career that people are referring to when they lament their wages compared to what they could be earning in 'consultancy'.

There are hundreds of think tanks and NGOs, dozens of large corporate consultancy forms and a few guys in between and I'm not about to list them all here. What I will do is highlight some of the glaring differences that I noticed from the seminars I attended. I'm going to refer to the two sectors as the 'principles' and the 'profits' camp. I'm not saying this to suggest that the principles camp are never interested in the bottom line (although they are often not-for-profit), nor am I suggesting the latter have no principles. I just need a word to divide and describe these two type of practices.

First things first, all of the seminars I attended were after work, during the week and all who attended were very grateful to the presenters for giving up their time to speak to us. I've often lamented the lack of alternative career advice for those in academia and the current programme at KCL is very welcome. More information can be found on the KCL Graduate School blog, look for posts by the Careers Consultant, Kate Murray. 

Ethos and atmosphere.
The seminars followed one another, week after week, so it was very easy to compare them. The very first thing I noticed was the atmosphere and general feel of the room. The difference was quite striking:

-The ‘principles’ consultancy was always presented by women who were confident but laid-back and approachable. The presenters all spoke of their embedded interest in societal change, sustainability or politics (the areas their consultancies/research companies worked in). They had all worked or researched these areas before they got the job and they spoke with great passion about why they felt their work was important. 

The ‘profit’ guys, and they were guys, were completely different. Upon arrival, the presenters greeted most attendees in person, they seemed to be on first name terms with most of the room. They did their PhDs at KCL so they probably did know a lot of people there, but they were super-confident, giving away freebies and arriving with leaflets. They weren't imposing or scary but they were completely self-assured and supremely comfortable speaking in this room. You really got the impression that they could chat to strangers all day long. They were very passionate about their company and how well they were looked after.

From what I could gather, the way consultancies get business is largely the same. Sometimes companies approach them, other times they approach the company, but it is always to solve a problem that the company does not have the in-house resources for, be that people, research capabilities or sector knowledge. 

What kinds of questions do the companies answer?

This is very different depending on the type of firm and will often have nothing to do with you degree. 

‘Principles’

How can we ensure the growing tea industry remains sustainable?

Can we approach the shipping sector as a whole to bring it inline with international guidelines?

Can smaller institutions like the women's institute or the local church help in changing communities’ attitudes to energy consumption?

Can small countries be used as a model for ours?

What is science telling us now about what we need to be looking towards in the future? 

Would our society benefit from a shorter working week?

‘Profits’

What's the best way for a newly merged bank to carry out it's internet banking?

How can a big pharmaceutical company keep track of its international stock?

What's the best way to demonstrate to a GP that drug 'X' is better than drug 'Y'?

What does the current market for arthritis drugs look like - who's leading the field? 

Entry level

Whilst all companies were keen to point out that skills gained during a degree, such as research, communication and problem solving, were key to success in this field, there was a major difference in the backgrounds of the people that presented. All of the people that worked in ‘principles’ consultancy had prior experience in their field. They had worked in 3^rd world development, NGOs and government schemes whilst the ‘profits’ men had next to no business background. In fact, one of them stated that working for a big consultancy firm was like a cheap way to get an MA. You learn a lot about business and you’re paid to do so.

Transferable skills
There are a number of transferable skills that you can take from your degree and/or PhD but there are some differences in how you'll apply them.

What else do I need on my CV

For 'principles' companies it was apparent that it would be best if you could demonstrate an interest in their sector. I got the impression that of you haven't belonged to a society or relevant organisation before you apply, you are unlikely to be considered in this competitive market. A lot of people simply have done these extra things and you need to demonstrate your passion to get yourself to the top of the list. Think about doing some volunteering or getting involved in societies if you haven't already. The 'profit' companies want drive, ambition and intelligence. If you can get past the tough selection process you're doing well!

What is expected at interview.

Demonstrate motivation, passion and commitment to the specific sector that each company consults on.

For the big 'profits' companies, the interview process is arduous and usually comprised of several different sections and online tests. Check out the website of the bigger companies: they usually describe their interview processes in detail. Expect online tests (which you can practice on-line beforehand), 'stress-days' - where they check how well you can prioritise by bombarding you with emails, face-to-face interviews with partners and high competition. 

If I get the job, what will I actually do?

This depends on the company and it's budget but most of time is spent researching, with some time spent talking to clients. The wealthy companies will tend to send you overseas, the small companies will tend to video conference! You will work quite independantly on your part of a project but usually as part of a larger team.

Key points to think about when deciding if this is the career for you

- From the beginning you will probably be expected to be customer facing, as well as doing research, are you ready for this?

- Some companies come up with the ideas but don't hang around to implement them, think about what you want before you apply to a company. For example, are you interested in the research and advice or in seeing a project through to its outcomes?

- The ‘profits’ companies invest a lot of time and money in your training with intensive courses and defined progression and development over the first few years. The ‘principles’ consultancies tend to let you learn on the job and training is much more ad hoc - Think about which is best for you.

If you want to look into consultancy then there are online lists you can look at but there are literally hundreds of firms out there. Use LinkedIn to see if you know someone (who knows someone) who is at a consultancy firm and see if you can get some advice on the inner workings of the company.

The consultancies and research firms that were discussed at KCL and formed the basis of this post were Deloitte, McKinsey, The New Economics Foundation, Social Pharma, Forum for the Future, Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (CESI). I'm sure you can work out which camp each belongs to...

Updated 24-02-14:You can also get unpaid consultancy experience as a PhD student/graduate by working with Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable. They provide opportunities to get some work on your CV but the assignments are sometimes quite time-consuming and they aren't paid. I replied to a job advert for 10-15 hours a week that, in reality, was as much as 20-30 hours in weeks with big deadlines. Nonetheless, I think it's worth checking out if you can commit the time and want to get some experience. 

How to secure a job after your PhD

The lovely people at jobs.ac.uk recently staged a live Google hangout entitled 'How to secure a job after your PhD'.

For those who haven't taken part in a Google hangout, it's effectively like eavesdropping on someone else's Skype chat. 

In this hangout, five careers experts chatted about what they think are key recommendations and obstacles for jobseekers. If you were signed in you could ask them questions or use the Twitter hashtag #jobsq (worth a look) to interact and steer their conversation. I, for one, found it really useful and thought that a lot of their points were transferable to anyone who's looking for a new job, not just those who are doing, or have done, a PhD. 

The hangout was chaired by Aimee Bateman, who is a commercial recruiter running a careers organisation called Careercake, helping jobseekers through advice, training and interactive events like the Google hangout. 

-------

Sharing their thoughts were: 

Dr Chris Humphrey who runs jobs on toast - a site/blog dedicated to helping people get fulfilling careers after their degree, PhDs etc.. Chris has done the PhD, PostDoc route and has ended up in non-academic project management - he wants to show the full range of career options open to qualified people and help them to identify their 'transferable skills'. 

Claire Jones, a Careers Professional at Nottingham University who works with researchers. She opened with 'PhDs are talented people with a range of attributes' - She's generally surprised at their lack of confidence.

Dr Ioanna Iordanou, a teaching fellow at Warwick Business School. She left academia but went back and now loves it - she has seen both sides of the story. 

Dr Nadine Muller, a lecturer in English Literature at Liverpool John Moores who got her academic post straight after her PhD

-------

The hangout kicked straight off by answering questions submitted before the event. Here is a summary of what was discussed:

How do you show an industry that you're interested if you've spent the last x years in academia?

This question is relevant for anyone looking to make a career move in to a new sector.

Advice followed the lines of thinking of yourself as a broad professional rather than your specific area of expertise. For example, you are a professional scientist, rather than a virologist. You are an expert in communication with a broad range of individuals, rather than a teacher. The pace and deadlines in different sectors will be different and you need to make sure that the employer knows you are aware of this and can manage the difference. 

Ultimately, you need to show awareness of the sector you want to work in. You can gain this through following key performers in any given market on Twitter or via contacting people on LinkedIn. Get this awareness into your cover letter and that should make you stand out.

Another key recommendation was 'Don't be defined by your qualifications'. The discussion focussed on the fact that people are more than the letters after their name. Build on (professional) relationships on-line and in person and this will help make the job search easier. One suggestion was to surround yourself with people who are doing what you want to do and see how they work. By taking time to establish relationships with people in a given sector you show your enthusiasm and drive, whilst learning a lot and getting new contacts

What are employers looking for?

This came from a number of people trying to work out what to prioritise in their work. In most jobs, including the PhD, there are opportunities to do 'extra' things. The problem is deciding which are worth making time and sacrifices for.

Try to understand what are key activities in the discipline, institution or sector you want to work in. For example, in the humanities and subjects like politics, books and chapters of books can carry a lot of prestige, but in research science, journal articles are usually favoured. Ultimately, they are both publications that required project management and communication skills. If what you've done doesn't perfectly fit what they require, sell the skills you gained by doing the project, rather than the project itself.

If you can't fulfil some of the criteria that an employer wants yet, you can also show how you plan to meet those targets in the future. Again, this shows planning, ambition and drive. 

Specifically for academia, Claire Jones recommended publishing regularly and in increasingly 'better' journals, whilst Nadine Muller suggested that it's worth keeping some work 'in the bank', especially if you can increase it's impact with more research. This is also something you can include on your plan.

If you know in advance that you will be looking for a job soon, look at the requirements for roles beforehand and see of you can tick off any of them, with a little bit of extra work, between now and when you have to apply.

This brought the conversation onto the always popular topic of...

Transferable skills

Employers are 'buying' the person, not your CV, so make sure that you show them how valuable you are! This can be difficult after a rejection (or ten) but as Aimee Bateman said 'You're value doesn't decrease just because someone failed to see it. (If anyone manages to stay positive immediately following a rejection, let me know how you did it!)

To identify your value, Chris Humphrey recommended doing a 'Skills Audit' with a friend or colleauge. You will have varying levels of around 20 skills from practically every job and qualification you have. Work out what these are by asking others if you are not sure. This can be awkward, so try asking for specifics. Don't just ask 'What am I good at? but, instead 'What kind of problem would you come to me to help you fix', 'When have I helped you in the past?' You can then add these comments to LinkedIn or even directly to your CV.

Examples of transferrable skills you may have:

Project management - delivering your thesis, research project (or wedding) to strict deadlines, with good planning

Management of people - student supervision, getting people to work in a team etc., childcare

Computer skills - manipulation of text and images for reports, as well as the use of more niche programmes specific to your role

Organising events - conferences, presentations, meetings.  

Various types of communication - influence, negotiation and clear explanations 

Ultimately, employers will be interested in HOW you did the things on your CV and not just what you did. You should always value the breadth of your experience. In research, you have the opportunity to learn new things, so try not to focus on the end target, the degree, the research, or the articles, but on the skills you developed in the process. This can help you focus on the things you actually liked doing and sell your skills to the employer.

How do you balance the job search and the job?

Fundamentally don't get 'lost' in your job (the PhD) and understand your priorities. If your priority is an academic post then you need to plan your papers. If your priority is a job in industry then it's worth networking BEFORE you leave. 

Try not to think 'I have to find a job' as this is a bit daunting, think 'I need to build a relationship with someone who could help me understand the job better'. This will make you a much better candidate when it comes to applying and can actually be enjoyable!

One great bit of advice was, with all business relationships, give something to the other person three times before you ask for anything from them. This might seem a bit contrived, but if you send someone a paper, a recommendation or a job advert they might be interested in then, by the time you ask for advice on applying to their company, you're more likely to be thought on favourably. Nobody wants to be the guy who got in touch just to ask for a favour the first time.

Alternatively, if you're not ready to apply for a job yet, try practicing your application. Get a feel for how long it takes to just prepare your CV each time!

How do you convince an employer you are not over qualified?

If you have a degree or PhD and you want to move field, then you will often have to go for a junior role. However, how do you show an employer that you are not over-qualified and just using the post as a stepping-stone. Remember that the fear of being over-qualified can be in your own head and you need to show them that, in fact, you are perfectly qualified. Show that your other skills demonstrate you are an ideal fit for that role. 

In your cover letter, talk about why you are applying and why you want to work for them. Don't make it sound like you've filled in five applications and this just happens to be one of them. Fundamentally, they want to give the job to the person who wants it the most - make sure it sounds like that is you!

Don't make it sound like you don't care about the company, either - You will have to fit into the wider organisation as well as just the immediate team.

Don't start your cover letter with why they should pick you, start with why you picked them. Use something personal, not something you found on the website mission statement because anybody could use that. Find an article on-line or a blogpost that shows you've gone the extra mile.

How do you stay positive and motivated when filling out job applications?

If you apply for a lot of different jobs, your enthusiasm for each application can start to drain. Learn to value yourself during your PhD, degree or job and when you value yourself you can see that it's worth the time and effort to find a job you will enjoy! Take time to remind yourself what you're good at. Remind other people you work with that they are good at certain things (if they are) and this positivity should come back to you. 

Employers of all kinds rarely tell their people how valuable they are - try to remember your personal value, rejection doesn't mean you're rubbish - The right job will be the one you actually get! 

Should you take things off your CV?

Whether you take your PhD off your CV for a temp job, or take temping work off your CV for an executive job, the general response from the experts was a resounding 'No!'

Think of your time at university as a 3-4 year job. Talk about running a research project to deliver x number of papers or a patent. Employers may not realise that the time spent in your PhD is much like a (long hours and poorly paid) job. Repackage it and include it in your employment history.

When it comes to temporary jobs or low-skilled work, these positions show that you are willing to do something that is not perfect in order to reach goals and targets. This can simply be working in a bar in order to pay the rent while you look for your perfect job. It is a rare employer that would prefer to someone who sat on the sofa eating biscuits to someone who took a temporary job.

Ultimately, don't EVER devalue yourself. 

Final thoughts on embarking on a new career

Don't think of yourself as inferior because your early in any career path. Just because you haven't reached a certain target, you could sell that you plan to reach this target whilst working for them. 

You shouldn't feel you are begging for something your not entitled to! 

A PhD is a wonderful asset and you managed it on your own - Communicate and understand the value of your PhD, or any experience, to yourself and then you'll be able to communicate it to others.

Use any resources you can, such as libraries, careers advisers or any other colleagues that could give you advice and suggestions. 

Have a story that explains why your entering this new field - You're not 'chopping and changing', you've fulfilled one challenge and now you're now ready for the next opportunity. 

When looking for a new job, remember that all jobseekers are in the same boat - try not to behave as competitors or enemies, use each other as a network.  

Start building quality relationships as soon as possible and the whole process should be much easier!

You can go to #jobsq on Twitter, as well as jobs.ac.uk, for any further discussion of these topics but  (CHEESE ALERT) don't give up, keep at it and value yourself!

Robots made me do it...

I turned down a job last month. 

Those of you who've followed this blog or (God forbid) know me personally, will know that I've been actively looking for a new job for well over a year, with absolutely no luck, so this was a big deal for me and may come as a bit of a surprise for you.

It was great job that would pay well, working for someone I really respect, so I think I should probably explain myself. I'll get to the robots in a bit...

The job was a research post with great opportunities to develop my career in a dynamic group keen to make big steps quickly - potentially with the resources and enthusiasm to actually meet these goals. In academia, things can move very slowly, one reason why I've always wanted to work in 'industry' - a catch all term that researchers use to describe jobs that makes a commercial product, rather than academia, where the research is usually more driven by the desire to learn (this is changing, but that's for another time...). This post would put me in a great position to go into industry in 2 years, maybe a little longer.

The cherry on the employment-cake was that I'd also get to work for an ex-boss that I liked, knew our work styles were compatible and I was confident we could do good research together. All of these positives were why I applied, why I was pleased when I went for my interview and why I left the enjoyable interview with a spring in my step.

I was told that it might be a while before I heard back about the job and that they'd let me know when they'd be able to 'let me know'. However, in the end, they got back to me quickly with an offer of a role. Looking back,  I think I probably knew straight away that something wasn't right. I felt really weird about the offer. Sad that I'd 'have' to take this job, that it was too good an opportunity to turn down, that all my investigations and inroads, however meagre, into life away from research was for nothing and that the decision had more or less been made for me by the offer of this great job.

Then, I realised something. If I was sad about taking the job, if I was sad to stay in research, I probably shouldn't do it! This sounds really daft, I'm sure. Of course this sounds like an obvious conclusion but it wasn't an easy decision to come to and I thought it might be helpful to others to explain how I got there...

I asked for a week to think about the offer. I don't think they were thrilled to wait but they'd been happy to tell me that I should expect a long wait and I think, as an interviewee, you should never forget that you are also interviewing them!

Over that week, I spoke to friends, family, current and past colleagues about my dilemma. If reading this, you are one of those people, then 'Cheers' - by getting things off my chest I started to come to some sort of decision about what I wanted to do, but I was still of the splintery-bum-brigade, not quite getting off the fence. For a number of complex reasons that I can't Athena Swan my way out of, the role would also involve a change of my personal plans for the next few years and I wasn't willing to commit to the job, or to turn it down, unless I was sure the role was worth making certain sacrifices for.

That week, I also went to a Science Museum Lates event. The theme was Robots. Pretty jazzy, I'm sure you can imagine. There were tiny cheetah robots, creepy salamander robots, robot hands and robot fish that could be controlled via a video game. In a word, it was excellent.

I sat on the floor and made a robot wasp. The wasp, on the other hand, was pretty poor (and I ruined a mascara trying to put stripes on it, oh the sacrifice!). Anyway, my point was, as I trundled around the museum, agog at the technology that others had designed, truly fascinated by the work and throughly engrossed in the best way to get my robot to beat my husband's in a race, I didn't feel inspired to run back to the lab to produce my own imagination-capturing-inspiring research. What I thought was, 'Wouldn't it be great to work here' (and the occasional 'I could've explained that better'). To talk about science to people who just want to learn about it, or who didn't realise they liked it and only came for the speed-dating, but stayed for the circuitry. The idea of that really grabbed me. I know one night on a special event, at one of the most well-known museums in a city known for it's museums, is hardly representative of the normal life of your public engagement/scientific communication/museum curating employee, but I was far, far more excited by the idea, the challenge and the opportunity to at least try to do something like this than I was of a certain job, well-paid, with the aforementioned great boss.

Fundamentally, I don't deserve the job. Somebody else will do that job well, somebody who will throw themselves into a research career, somebody who is hungry for this position - and that 'someone' is not me.

So, I guess, what I'm trying to say is I've come to a realisation:

When you're 19 and you're sure you want to do a job, when you spend years studying, learning and occasionally crying en route to that job, sometimes, ten years later, it might be OK to change your mind.

When I finish my twice-extended contract in less than three months, with no job prospects, I may live to regret this possible act of folly. Until then, anyone want to buy my robot wasp (the wings fell off in the race that I didn't win. I hope it's not a sign)?

Forget alternative careers- a career in science can be fun, well paid and very rewarding.

Apparently. 

So yeah, I can see why you're reading this post- the title sound jazzy, kind of positive and well-informed. That's exactly why I got sucked into going to a presentation 30 minutes away from work at 5.30 pm on a cold Thursday night with this exact title recently. I'm now a bit (probably disproportionately) pissed off.

I should start by saying that the two professors that spoke at this seminar for postgraduates were really good speakers, they were engaging and positive and they were giving up their time after work to speak to mis-guided post docs who might (horror of horrors) be thinking about leaving research. Or as they called it 'science'. 

That was my first bug-bear really. The fact that for them 'science' is (exclusively) synonymous with 'academic research'. They didn't even mention industry, never mind all the people who work in science but around the periphery of research. When it was brought up by an audience member that perhaps not all scientists want to do research, the first speaker just assumed that the question was about technician jobs and said that there were less and less about as things are now mostly automated.

'Automated' - kind of how I felt during the presentations, actually - although it was no fault of the speakers who did their very best to paint a rosy picture of life in academic research. Maybe I'm being unfair and I'm definitely quite tired (read 'jaded') but, as a PostDoc who's being looking for a job for nearly two years, outside of academia, it's really frustrating to here 'there are jobs out there if you're willing to go after them'. I thought and hoped that the presentation was going to be about careers in science and not 'here's how I became an academic'. For most people in academia, there is not a scarcity of people to talk to about this - our bosses, colleagues and their bosses and colleagues, I was hoping for something different.

To be fair, this blog is supposed to be about careers for scientists outside of the lab and most academics are rarely seen in a lab, unless they are looking for someone they couldn't find in the office or they've forgotten to tell you about the immiment arrival of a new student (or six). So I suppose I have a duty to sum-up this career choice too. 

How do you start?

Once you've completed your PhD or Post-Doc, there may be an area of research that you'd like to investigate further - Something your boss isn't interested in researching or they don't have the funding to research. This is when you say to yourself 'Maybe I could research it?' 

From here you can go down the heady road of applying for (very competitive) academic positions at universities where you tell them what you'd like to research and they might give you a year or two of funding until you can prove to the funding bodies that you have the nous to pull this off and they give you some more money (usually for another couple of years) or, alternatively, you can apply for (even more competitive) fellowships where the situation is much the same but you get more autonomy and prestige. The pain in the arse here is that you will 'lather, rinse and repeat' this step for the rest of your career. One set of funding or another will always be running down, running out or running away from you. The upside is that you get to do the most important thing in the world to you, your ideal job - that of an academic researcher. All academics bemoan the funding system but I think they all (at least, the ones I know) really love what they do.

So, back to this presentation: Both talks had the common theme of the requirements of hard work and luck. T o ensure the science theme, one even quoted Pasteur with 'Chance favours the prepared mind'. In other words, you need to be bloody lucky in this game, but a bit of nose-to-the-grind-working-until-4am hard work won't do you any harm. What made all this hard work so worthwhile is that they don"t mind reading papers at the weekends and staying in the lab until 8 pm (or 10 pm) because they're so obsessed with the work, because they honestly love it so much. And they genuinely seemed to.

In the interest of completeness and giving this a 'fair test', I'll add their pros and cons of their career choices, I stress, these are 'lifted', with only a little rewording for clarity, from their presentations:

Downsides:

- You go into this job because of the science, but, increasingly, the job is administration.

- You end up getting worse at the technical stuff (see above)

 - You have increasingly little control over the experiments (see above the above)

- Frustrating negative results (regardless of the hours put in)

- Agonisingly slow progress (regardless of the hours put in)

- Endless rejections (regardless of the hours put in)

- Lack of grant funding (regardless of the hours put in)

- Career insecurity (regardless of the hours put in)

- The work never finishes (regardless of the hours put in)

- Are you really making a difference? (regardless of the hours put in)

- The constant, aforementioned, begging for money

- Due to the above, there are not always the resources to do what you want.

- The financial buck stops with you: YOU need to find the money!

For those for whom this is their correct career path, so many things can make it worthwhile...

Upsides:

- You get to do your hobby for a job

- You are fascinated by your work (genuinely - not just on your CV)

- You get to show off (what you've done and the fact that you did it)

- The field is rapidly evolving

- Getting things right and getting things to work is really satisfying

- A new discovery is thrilling

- You feel (however unlikely it might be) that there IS a chance you could make a difference

- A university is actually a pretty nice place to work - it's got a young, usually international atmosphere and people are pretty friendly (most of the time - not when grants have just been refused)]

- It's rewarding to teach and communicate your work to other people (not all researchers actually like this bit)

- There's a lot of opportunity to travel if you can fit it in to your schedule

- You get a lot of independence (eventually)

- You get paid well (eventually)

- SOMETHING is usually working, so the failures get 'diluted'

-You get pretty much all the glory and recognition for others' lab work (honestly not my words!)

- No career can compete with complete freedom for discovery

Perspective is important

One of the presenters was also a doctor, a 'real' one (the kind that is actually useful on a plane or as a relative to show a rash to. You can show a PhD a rash but generally all you're going to get is 'Urgh' or 'Oh, yeah, Mike in genetics had that once'). Anyway, I digress, she was a clinician, as we say, so she had a really good sense of perspective. She basically said that she could much more easily see the point of her reseach when she met patients struggling with a disease she was trying to understand, or, she didn't find herself too bogged down in depression when an experiment failed for the seventeenth time when she has to deal with someone terminally ill. I think this is something that is really hard to do. You need to care about your research enough to put in all your hard work, but not be completely depressed when your three weeks of work come to nothing.

The overall message from one of the professors was that you need to know what you want to do if you expect to get far. This was great advice for life in general, I suppose, but when someone from the floor asked 'What if we don't?' There was much shrugging of shoulders. Fundamentally I think if you want to be an academic researcher, you probably already know, you're probably already on your way to being one. In my opinion, which I've previuosly suggested may be completely wrong (but it's all I have) I don't think this is an area people need to be or should be convinced to do - if your not taking your research home (like I'm not) and you're not happy to be in the lab until 10 pm (which I'm not-more on that below) then becoming an academic is probably not for you. I'm certain, no more than ever, that it's not for me.

I feel like I should comment on the fact that I'm actually not happy to work on weekends and until 10 pm and the fact that I feel I need to justify that feeling tells you a lot about academia and a lot about me. I feel I work hard and I like to have that recognised (rightly or wrongly) and if not recognised, then at least not made to feel like a slacker if I want to leave after a meagre 9-10 hour day and this is how I feel academic research is. That's fine and admirable if you love it and it probably is those completely dedicated people who should go for (and get) these jobs, but I feel I paid my 'dues' during my PhD and now, whilst I'm happy to work hard, it should probably be on something I enjoy.

I'll try and wrap up with a positive and say that if you're passionate and if you're resilient, you'll probably make it in this field. There are support schemes and fellowships open to help early researchers but a mentor will help. Ask around, who in your department do you admire? They'll probably be really busy but everyone loves being told they're great and giving advice, so ask them for pointers. In academia, I think people can be afraid of asking for help because we're all supposed to be experts. I think we should be experts at asking questions. If that question is 'How do I get to be you?', then you're likely to at least get an answer! 

If you get a rejection, particularly for a grant or fellowship, follow up, call them or e-mail them, and tell them why they've made a terrible mistake. The worst they're going to do is think you're arrogant or a bit rude but they just refused to give you any money to further your career, so what do you care if they like you? You'll notice I haven't included links to the grants or funding bodies for academic reserach - this is because there are loads and they're often very field specific. If you don't know who best to speak to about this, ask your departmental secretary. Like most things, it's not really their job to help you with this, but they're so busy and over-worked that it's quicker to just tell you who you need to ask than to berate you for asking them in the first place.

Something you should probably be aware of in academias is the general trend towards men in this environment - particularly the higher up you go. One slide in particular that stood out depicted the number of female professors in the major London universities, as well as some places in the countryside - it was pretty obvious that professorships are mostly male-dominated but there is a drive to change this. I don't mean that you'll get a job if you're crap if you also happen to be a woman, but you might find that the consious or unconcious bias that has lead to such complete under-representation is starting to get better. Oh yeah, if you're a potential male academic, keep applying - the stats say you're much better at showing confidence on your CV so that you can shine in person at the intervew, so genuine kudos for that one.

The seminar started to get a bit lost towards the end with off-topic talk of open-access, peer-review and maternity leave for Post-Docs, which there simply wasn't time to get into. As we inevitably veered into the rights and wrongs of competition in science and the best way to combat this I'm honestly not paraphrasing (much) when I wrap up with a quote from one of the professors with:

                'There need to be sacrifices on the altar of science and to hell with everyone else'.

 

Where two worlds collide…

I’ve recently started using social media to investigate science, rather than just as an outlet for the more gossipy side of my nature and I have to say, I felt a bit like Alice through the looking-glass. There’s a whole world of research and opinions going on that the large majority of researchers simply aren’t aware of.

The way it’s worked for me is that I’ve started following just a few people via Twitter and quickly been linked to blogs, articles (the difference is something of a contested issue) and research sites on a variety of topics. You get a constant (sometimes too constant) stream of suggestions and, from there, you decide what you want to read, watch or hear. 

The first thing that strikes you about the research promoted via Twitter is how concise you need to be. We’ve all pored over an abstract just to try and understand what a paper is about, only to come away none the wiser – Twitter gives you 140 characters (including your link) in which to get over a title that captures the readers’ attention enough for them to click on the link. This can be done with scientific language

Epilepsy and neonatal diabetes due to a compound heterozygous mutation in #IER3IP1 http://t.co/eQagDHbboL
— Ingo Helbig (@IngoHelbig) October 26, 2013

or, more commonly, a quirky by-line that you can’t ignore

Sewing...in SPAAAAAAACE. http://t.co/GUXoqRptwD HT @helenfields
— Ed Yong (@edyong209) November 5, 2013

and, before you know it, you’re reading an article on an area of science that you never would have read had you merely used your list of usual suspects of reading matter. 

This leads me to my second ‘huh’ moment regarding Twitter - You get an insight into much more varied information than via other means, as well as more varied ways of writing about science. Recently, I’ve learnt about reindeer eyes and lion-fish amongst the occasional cute squirrel picture.

Today's installment of squirrellishness...RT @BBAnimals Squirrel carrying her newborn baby pic.twitter.com/S4izzS4WkT
— Lou Woodley (@LouWoodley) October 28, 2013

This has reassured me that I do indeed find science fascinating and awe-inspiring and that perhaps my recent slump is more to do with the repetitive nature of reading dry documents, mainly within your own field, rather than ‘falling-out-of-love’ with science in general. It’s really refreshing to read an article and then feel the need to explain it, share it and dissect it with someone else. I think as scientists we could learn from the way blogs are written. Generally, they aim to keep the readers’ interest and not just educate them – can we take this approach and apply it to the reporting of core science? I’m not suggesting that the mechanism of the Heck reaction should (or could) be rendered jargon-less, but we could try to make it, at least, interesting to a broader audience where possible. There will always be ‘niche’ research that can’t be made ‘friendly’ but I think it’s all too easy to get lost in the tiny field in which you work and forget that there are other things going on outside of your lab, your field and, dare I say it, your discipline. We’re supposed to be professional ‘learners’ – learn something.  

Finally, and fundamentally I think, a blog about particular research can be read before the original article is printed and distributed. A tweet about the same article can be written quicker than someone can read the blog and it can be re-tweeted faster than...you get the idea.

Communication is now fast and science needs to keep up. Research has always been a pain-staking process, and I think sometimes it needs to be, to ensure all the necessary controls are carried out and the research stands up (see retractionwatch), but we need to get better and quicker at communicating our goals, research and results and it looks like the internet is now providing a conduit for this. The unregulated nature of blogs and tweets could be both social media’s downfall and its saving grace for the communication of scientific research and ideas- You don’t need peer-review for Twitter, you don’t submit a grant for Google+, you put your idea down and you wait. If people like it, you find out immediately. Is using social media for research a bit self-satisfying and narcissistic? Probably. Is it a scary way to get often brutally honest critique? Definitely. Could it be the start of a new way of dynamic and responsive communication between scientists? I think so, watch this space.

I’d like to end with a ‘reader-beware’. Keeping an eye on Twitter and blogs is a time-consuming affair if, like me, you try to make sure that you read everything that looks enticing. As more people use this method of communication to give readers a ‘sneak-peak’ into their research and the research they find interesting, I’m afraid that the information might start to fade into the ‘noise’. If we become bombarded by this head-line and that research topic every 3-4 minutes then, a. how will we know what is worth reading and b. how will we ever find the time to carry out the research! As a lab-based scientist, I spend very little time in front of a computer screen, I've generally liked it that way. How in the world, then, can I possibly keep up?

I don’t know, to be honest, but I’m going to try!

What's the point of this 'Twitter' thing then...

As a self-professed 'people person', I can honestly say that, until very recently, I didn't really 'get' the power nor point of Twitter and the like. I'm on Facebook, of course. I joined nearly ten years ago when you needed a uni account and people didn't realise what it was or could be, so I know what the concept is, but I've never really appreciated the power of it as a tool to communicate new ideas rather than just a place to check out ex-classmates, ex-boyfriends and their ex-classmates and ex-boyfriends.

So what’s caused this change, then? Well, a number of things actually. Mainly, I’m coming to a haitus in a fairly typical research career and for the last (nearly) two years I’ve been trying to get a job back in industry.

Trying. It seems that our degrees/PhDs are not that special or unique after all. Something no-one tells you. There are so many degree'd and PhD’d people now, that you have to find the thing that you have that is different and extra to all the other people out there and capitalise on that ‘thing’ to get your desired role. But (and yes, I did just start a sentence with 'but') what if you don’t know what that ‘desired role’ is? And (now ‘and’, my GCSE English teacher would not be impressed - Hi, Mrs. Hughes!) I think that this accounts for a lot of people – particularly a lot of PhD graduates.

Why don't we have any idea what we can do? I think, primarily, that we simply don’t know what else we can do because during our PhDs we are surrounded by people who did the conventional degree-PhD-PostDocs-academia - i.e. our bosses. This is a perfectly valid and potentially fulfilling role, but we don’t ever seem to talk about any other choices because this would be a ‘cop out’. Those PhD students that leave the lab to become tax attorneys, patent lawyers and teachers are met with a (fairly sizable) level of derision. They've ‘given up on science’, they couldn't cut it. I’ll be honest, until fairly recently, I probably felt similarly.

The problem is that by not talking about the other options, and there are plenty of others, and, in particular, by devaluing the other options, those people who perhaps aren’t suited to the life of a research scientist are left floundering.

So there I was, wondering what else I could do with my qualifications, my talents and my ‘transferable skills’ and who do I ask? My boss - who wants me to stay (Of course he does, I’m the only PostDoc in a group with an increasingly absent boss)? My PhD supervisor - who planted the seed of research in my brain (and is probably somewhat invested in the idea that I will continue his scientific genealogy)? My PhD cohort - mostly we’re in the same boat (and trust me, nobody wants to be the first to say that they have no idea what they’re doing with their life)? My (new) husband - who  thinks my degree and PhD should be rewarded with riches and fame? Or even, God forbid, my parents - who have very little understanding of what I do (my Dad still doesn’t get that there’s no-one to tell me the answer)?

This is where Twitter comes into it’s own. Unless you’re guilty of some seriously questionable behaviour, most people will let you ‘follow’ them – allowing you a rolling, updated, 160 character facebook status of their lives, if you like. Unlike Facebook, where an unsolicited 'Add' is a thing of cringe-making comments of 'who the f$£k is so-and-so Edwards?', Twitter is designed for you to be able to see what complete strangers are broadcasting to the world. It's supposed to be less private and you immediately have access to an insight into the jobs, opinions and day-to-day lives of everyone you follow, particularly if they realise the power of this medium for shameless self-promotion and detailed descriptions of their work - which most SciComm people should and do. Over the last few weeks, since being on Twitter, I've learnt about the changing attitudes to the hallowed world of publication and open access research, found job ads, got a place helping to organise a session at a major scientific communication conference, been approached to enter a science communication competition and, oh yeah, shamelessly guided over 1000 views to my blog (although I'm sure Facebook helped, too!). I have also learnt a lot more about new and exciting science than I've got from reading my usual list of detailed, focussed and often-not-particularly-exciting journals for my own research.

Yes, Twitter can be a really fun and a great way to find out about things you like socially, but, by it's nature, it's fundamentally a place for promotion. Promotion of ideas, promotion of products and OK a LOT of self-promotion. But, if you know what you're doing if you follow the 'right' people you can learn SO much from the 140 character snippets. The fact that everything is limited to 160 characters means that you get a précis of what's being said, promoted and commented upon. You can then decide of you want to follow the link to an interesting paper, article or, occasionally, random picture of a funny badger.

If you are interested in Scientific Communication and journalism, I've started a running post - a sort of Who's Who in the area...

Pretty much any field can be found and 'followed' on Twitter, giving you crash course in anything you can think of. So my advice would be - If there's something you think you might be interested in, an area of science, retail or life in general, something you've always thought 'I wonder what that job is like' - get on Twitter, have a skulk around and oh yeah, follow me - I've only got a few followers and we all need to save face, don't we?

Pro-Blogue (like a Prologue, but for a blog, get it? Nevermind…)

With my life plan firmly mapped out, I finished my Chemistry degree at the University of Surrey (not particularly high on the league tables, but they’ve got a lovely lake on campus…) I did a PhD (which I loved) in synthetic organic chemistry (more cooking) at University College London (UCL), and then took up a PostDoc at King’s College London with a focus on medicinal chemistry (even more cooking, but with the idea that what you make has to actually do something).  I’ve been so convinced that I was going to be a Synthetic Organic Chemist in Industry I’ve not actually stopped in the last eight years to re-evaluate if a. I still want to do this job, b. I’m likely to get this job and c. I'm better suited to life away from the ‘bench’ (read-kitchen). So, what changed?

I’ll be honest, I’ve applied for 26 synthetic jobs in the last 18 months and achieved 2 (unsuccessful) interviews, 6 rejections and a staggering 18 ‘no replies’. Fundamentally, there are so many people applying for each post (around 100 per post, if not more) the companies can’t be bothered to e-mail those who haven’t been successful. This leaves those of us who are waiting for replies in a bit of a shaky ‘limbo’ – only finding out that we didn't get an interview if one of our colleagues managed to get one. We’ve all been there, ‘brave-facing’ it and congratulating your friend, all the while thinking ‘Why them – what’s bloody wrong with me?’ It’s not that you’re not pleased for them, it’s simply that it’s really tough out there at the moment, we’re all competing for the same scarce jobs. Not to mention that there is a huge reservoir of highly skilled scientists that have just been made redundant. So we’re also competing against people who’ve already been doing that job, are older, more experienced, wiser and dare I say it, better?

So this is where I start thinking about the skills I can offer that aren’t just chemistry-related. In the midst of my application ‘fun’, a friend and colleague recommended me to a school to present to a group of 15 year old girls for a day about ‘Careers in Science’. I thought it would be a nice diversion, a day out of the lab and then back to normal. The curve ball was that I absolutely loved it! I mean really loved it, I got home and bored the pants off my then-boyfriend-now-husband (did I mention I also got married recently). I loved talking about my work, loved engaging with some genuine enthusiasm, loved the immediate response you get from working with people and, perhaps most surprisingly, I found that I was good at it!

Since then I got married, went on honeymoon and generally forgot all about my career. Who needs a life plan when you’ve got a happy hour Mai Tai lined up? Now it’s time to take stock. Did I just enjoy my day out of the lab because it was different or am I destined to try something new?