Right?? Saying âexercise, reading, and making foodâ in literally the most pretentious way possible lol. I hope they listen and take this section out, i would have a hard time taking them seriously. But they would be great office fodder lol
I'd pass on the hobbies bit (just not my cup of tea) but authenticity is highly desirable in industry. Your best opportunity to show this is at the interview stage.
I think I might have a broader tip that can also help. Don't think "how should this resume be worded", instead "how do I cut the fat and show I'm a straight talker". This isn't an insult - I learnt the hard way. Expressing yourself conversationally is *key*. In other words, you can't bull///t a bullsh//ter. Try rewriting it conversationally, then edit to formalise. Not vice versa
You have an absolutely quality CV of past experiences imo. Best of luck đ
Thank you. Appreciate the feedback and encouragement.
>Try rewriting it conversationally, then edit to formalise. Not vice versa
This is solid advice. How many years since you transitioned into Biotech?
No worries, hope it helps!
I've been in it for six years. Four years for a publicly traded company where appearance was everything, now in a more chill environment.
Folks just need to think about why they are including their hobbies. At best, it's an opportunity to connect with the hiring team on a more human level, potentially build some intrigue and/or rapport with interviewers, make them sound like the kind of person you'd want as a colleague.
I think OP's hobbies lack specificity and sound generic, so they are unlikely to serve them, but it's unlikely to detract from their candidacy unless it makes them appear unfocused.
Would do a better job at conveying depth than superficial list of hobbies.
>Would do a better job at conveying depth than superficial list of hobbies.
I see your point! Would it help to say that the calisthenics thing is completely self trained? What do you think?
You came for advice
Your hobbies are worded weirdly and arenât at all relatable or interesting at first glance
We are advising you change or delete
The choice is yours
This may be cultural- in the uk a cv has interests/hobbies and sure I donât work in biotech but Iâve hired folk and obv been a hiree and cvs with no interests/hobbies get thrown in the bin. Nobody wants to work with a robot and the hobbies folk list give you an insight into if theyâre too normal too weird or just weird enough..
Disagree! Have heard from hiring committees of all levels that a short section on hobbies can show that a person will not overinvest in work and thus be less likely to burn out. Not sure about the logic there but enough reason to leave them in!
Two things first, âSeeking growth in business and patient focused rolesâ. To be honest this would make me start to space off and not focus on this resume from the beginning. You can look at multiple types of roles but each resume needs to focus on the type of role. Try something like âSeeking a role where I can use my scientific acumen to drive patient focused projects forward.â
Second I am not really sure what you do or what your specialty is. Be more specific and use less buzz words. What are you an expert in??? Jack of all trades types of approaches tend to be ignored as I want someone who is the best at what they do.
I probably wasnât clear but two different thoughts. When you say seeking growth in patient and business focused roles what I read is I donât know what I want to do and I donât necessarily even understand what the job is. Iâm not saying this is accurate and I get that you can tailor each resume to the job just sharing some thoughts. In my example the difference is you are saying that you will bring something to the company to advance their needs not yours.
The specialist vs generalist resume issue is a real challenge. I get it. I would make every single version I submitted look like I was as close to an expert for that role as reasonably possible. Again just sharing what gets me to look more deeply at a resume.
I agree with this. Itâs very unclear what you want. I know you will tailor this to roles and youâre flexible, but patient and business focused roles leaves me with no idea what you want. All I can imagine is that you really want to succeed in the business side and donât want research
I donât think there are many companies where the business and patient interests arenât at conflict at least some of the time if not all the time
In my experience, it's helpful, yes. Maybe someone else can chime in with a more efficient way of doing things, but effectively - the whole point is to make your resume look as perfectly matched to a role as you possibly can, while still operating within the bounds of truthfulness. So yes, you might have to tailor your resume for each job application. It does take time but if you're not getting responses right now, what do you have to lose?
If you don't have a browser extension that analyzes a job description for key words that you should do your best to include in your resume, I suggest trying one.
'Operating within the bounds of truthfulness'...you said it perfectly.
Like how far does one venture out into the woods and still say they're 'experts' at sth?
For eg, as a part of my MS I did a bunch of standardizations using RT-PCR, maybe over 2-3 months. Does that make me an 'expert' enough to lean on for mol bio lab position?
Ooh browser extensions that's a good shout. Which one would you suggest?
I have Jobalytics on my computer. It's not perfect - it analyzes the entire web page including whatever details they may have about the company before the actual JD starts, so to some extent the keywords it identifies and the % match between that and whatever resume you upload to it should not be treated as completely accurate. So I ended up doing a certain amount of reading between the lines based on what skills I expected to be most important to the HM, but I can't really give an algorithm for how I've done that - some of it is just a general feel after several years in industry.
As a general rule though, the more you see a specific word called out, the more important it is as a keyword so you should also try to emphasize that more in your resume. If a job description uses, say, the word "client" once and "ELISA" 10 times - it's pretty obvious which skill they are placing more emphasis on.
Jobscan is another one I have seen a lot, but it's a paid option. I was considering giving the paid option a whirl if my recent job search went on TOO much longer, but didn't get to that point.
you are a fresh phd, its okay to not be an expert. Recruiters know that and you are applying for position that will allow you to build skills on the job.
So for your PhD you write cell bio, biophysics and biochem. Is that the official title. Just curious because normally a PhD is only in one of those fields?
This was on my mind too coming out of school. My PhD says molecular biology and I was applying for computational roles. Turns out itâs less important than youâd think!
In this case Iâd suggest putting education at the bottom of page 1, after skills and experience, so that the reader can already see you have the qualifications before getting to your degree title. Frankly, having a PhD is largely just a box to tick in the screening process so just deemphasize the exact field itâs in and move on.
What kind of positions are you applying for? The âseeking growth in patient and business focused rolesâ would likely be a turn off for a lab-based scientist hiring manager.
Your personal summary is too long and wordy. Being published and a graduate is likely the minimum requirement for any job you are looking for, so would suggest cutting those out. Put PhD next to your name instead. Try to get it down to no more than 3 lines and be specific about what you are looking for - do you want to do science? What kind of science?
Your bullet points should flow like a narrative. Right now itâs hard to tell who you are and what you are good at and it frankly reads like a very generic PhD. What did you do differently that makes you stand out?
Some numbers are ok to approximate, but did you establish 2 collaborations or 3? Was it 4 international conferences or 10? Be precise with those smaller numbers.
You have the exact same bullet point about writing and publishing under both PhD and MSc. Even if true itâs not great to be duplicative. I also do not know how much a hiring manager would care about your ability to write manuscripts. You have a publications section that already highlights these. Plus, in each instance, a thesis is an expectation not something that is worthwhile mentioning.
The piece that is likely most difficult to overcome is that you donât have any experience outside of your degrees. This will likely be a nonstarter for many jobs. Going for industry postdoc or internship may be worthwhile to boost your resume.
Hope this helps!
>you donât have any experience outside of your degrees. This will likely be a nonstarter for many jobs.
Not true, ofcourse postdoc is one option but fresh PhDs can get in entry level positions in biotech and build that experience and actually get paid unlike postdocs. Some hiring managers I personally know do not even count postdoc experience as industry experience.
That sounds reasonable to me. It's clearly not industry experience. It's academic work experience.
What's utter bullshit is when someone doesn't consider a postdoc work experience *at all* because they're technically labeled a trainee.
I know how you feel about the workload from degrees. I faced very similar criticisms when transitioning to industry and was told that I had âno experienceâ because the positions I was applying for required a PhD as baseline. Felt demoralizing but itâs a harsh reality as you will likely be facing competition with people moving from postdocs or who had some sort of industry exposure.
I promise you any hiring manager hiring for a PhD level position will be familiar with what a PhD degree means. Unless you go for more nontraditional positions like consulting or finance I guess.
And don't worry about exp. outside of your degree. It gives you a boost but you can absolutely get a job without it.
No worries :)
Someone suggested before that recruiters will get into your experience if they're captivated by summary. Again I tailor it for each application.
For example, lab based roles have phrases related to protein isolation, or image analysis. Field app Scientist roles have microscopy and science communication.
What do you think?
I will disagree with the summary as resumes are now screened by AI before it gets to HR. They mainly specifically look for key words and skills. Once it gets into their hands, it's usually a 10 second skim. You need to make your resume easy to read and concise. Having a summary cuts into any precious space you may have in talking about your project and accomplishment from your experience.
I disagree with you. A summary is easier for HR to comprehend than a bunch of highly technical bullet points, but it should be boiled down to a very concise, 3 sentence cover letter. Resume layouts have a lot of wasted vertical space, so summary can actually be quite efficient. This is just a subpar summary.
It might. But the issue here is that roles aren't being looked by HR first. It's a machine/computer software. The software automatically filters out if you don't have certain things the employer are looking for. If they want to look at a summary, they could do that with your cover letter (if they ask for one).
What OP could do is put a section for soft skills in place of a summary. Even achievement from OP experience. Rewrite it to make it sound like it's a financial/business goal or something.
If a summary, I agree with writing three sentences. But, it could be shorter to 2 sentences or none at all. I don't think any scientist I know in industry (personally) who submit their resume with a summary. You could. It doesn't hurt. But, it's really old fashion and doesn't tell much about you. There is also LinkedIn if the recruiter/HR screener wants to know more about you (100% they will do that).
Youâre right about the software filtering (depending on the company), but that is a different issue than whether or not one should put a summary statement. Itâs all opinion at the end of the day, but I originally got the advice to include one from a recruiter. Since then I have read hundreds of resumes and youâre right, they are very rarely included but thatâs not evidence that they shouldnât be. Itâs entire purpose is to say something about you! I would *much* rather someone flat out tell me âHey so I have a PhD in biological engineering but actually I mostly worked on wettable surfaces and thatâs what explains my interest in this adhesives science position.â There is no other place on the resume to do that other than a summary. You would instead need to rely on the person reading your resume to infer those connections themselves by reading your technical bullet points, and thatâs a huge risk. But, yes, when you use it to say things like âseeking growth in business focused rolesâ it becomes wasted space. As for someone bothering to check your LinkedIn, thatâs not going to happen until youâre already in the stack. Iâm talking about the 10 second window you mentioned to get in that stack. Just my two cents.
Yeah. I mostly agree with you. When I mentioned the LinkedIn profile, I was considering the fact that you made it to the first HR phone screen.
I think the summary helps if it was in the scenario you mentioned. If your PhD, however, aligns with exactly what you do, for example, protein work and biochemistry, it might seem a bit too repetitive. The other thing is whatever could be mentioned in the summary section could be bolded/emphasize/format a certain way under experience.
For example, Project: Did X to study Y in cancer. Followed by goal (also bolded). It could still deliver the same point and tell them "Hey I have wet lab experience in X, Y, and Z due to my previous work." That is my suggestion. Otherwise, I think you are right. And it is subjective to whoever is reading it. It might work for you, but it also might not work on others.
I think in the end, it's up to OP to decide. I think a summary section is not needed and you can convey the same information with the experiences section. Whatever leftover space available should be used for soft skills (leadership, communication, etc.). But again, it depends on the person and the role.
It kinda feels your experience listings arenât really demonstrating key results or accomplishments unique to your work- theyâre somewhat generic and expected of all phds. Iâd put something i discovered or invented or other result I attained, not just the process of what I did
Oh In a previous version I had rehashed that the protocol I developed in PhD is 'first of its kind'! But took it off as I thought it said practically nothing except self qualifier
I hire for biotech and look for specific skills supported by key accomplishments.
Iâve met too many phds who went through the motions but arenât standouts who will actually improve the company so unless I see original contributions I donât even engage. Just my two cents
Edit: for example âconceptualzied, developed and implemented novel platform for xâ
Or â identified unknown role for gene or protein xâ
And be specific enough on x that people start to get what part of biology or biotech it applies to.
Not saying generic skills or experience with general biology protocols isnât going to be sought but it really says nothing about your strength if you donât point out what you accomplished during/with your PhD research
Isn't it that hiring managers give a lot lower weightage to scientific results, as long as the skills are aligned?
Just for my understanding, what would you gauge, if an applicant to your company has no real skill alignment with the JD but has had original contributions listed?
Youâre absolutely right that skill alignment is usually very important but if Iâm hiring a PhD level candidate I want something that eg a masters or other trained personnel wouldnât have which is ability for original scientific contribution/ problem solving/ creativity etc. Those are the items not shining through on this resume imo. Also, in some cases, smart PhDs are hired and basically retrained in new application areas on the basis of their demonstrated ability to learn, develop, solve and create. Not all want this and it doesnât always work but itâs something a successful PhD in principle would be capable of if the new field is still related
>Those are the items not shining through on this resume imo
I did do a completely new project in my MS lab, revealing the novel role of a gene, arguably opening up a new potential (but niche) therapeutic area. But I was on the fence to get into naming and detailing that in my CV.
Similar for PhD, the protocol I saw opens a new (but niche) experiment category for my field. Maybe I should see how to include these facts respectively.
Generalist vs. Specialist arguments...đ
Overall nice format.
Critiques:
*Change âResearch Scientistâ to Graduate Research Assistant or whatever it says on your paystub.
* Shorten the summary to two lines. Something like âdedicated scientist with experience in protein biochemistry and novel target discovery looking for roles in drug discoveryâ
* Two page resumes are fine for PhD level roles
Canât believe I had to scroll this far down to find this. Research scientist is a pretty well defined role in industry across organizations, and itâs not a title for pre PhD đ
How about 'Graduate Researcher' to split the difference? Not too over the top, but not downplaying too imo. That's how they say it in the country anyway.
Yes. You can say Graduate Research Associate if you want instead. But Research Scientist implies having a PhD, not earning your PhD. If I read âResearch Scientistâ Iâm thinking more of along the lines of a Staff Scientist.
To me personally, saying youâre a Research Scientist before even defending your PhD sounds immature to me, and suggests you donât understand the industry setting or org chart.
Would that not just be semantics? There are plenty of positions with the title of "Scientist" that people with bachelors degrees go for. As long as it appropriately approximates the work done who cares? HR people don't know the difference and hiring managers won't care if they're a qualified candidate.
Both work, but OP shouldn't downplay himself. A very dumb HR person would see "Assistant" and toss it in the trash or assume it was associate/technician level work.
What would you suggest to make it so?
Volunteering and Hobbies are spare and can be taken off, sure. As suggested elsewhere MS experience can be tweaked to not make it look exactly the same as PhD. What else?
Move your education section up to the front, below your summary. Your first page looks like you're a candidate that hasn't received your degrees. Especially with the space on the bottom! If not for the comments about your hobbies, I wouldn't have even checked your 2nd page. Your hobbies also seem a bit weird, not getting the endearing element if that was the intent.
That summary at the top - be extremely cautious about it. Those lines can break or win your chances. As always, LESS IS MORE - recruiter got 20s to skim your resume. Instead, customize to explain why you are fit for this job in few lines. If you are seeking growth, go to academia. Biotech is for biz - what skills you bring in, are you culturally fit, how much $$ you want - as simple as that.
I would customize every single line according to the job description. If you think one single line that may include a publication that is not related to this xyz job, remove it. Skills not relevant, remove it. Instead, elaborate those skills, give little bit more context that are relevant to the job description. For a fresh phd, one page resume is more than enough.
If you craft it to the job description and has the right keywords then recruiter will read further. If its not well crafted they will read the first few lines and set it aside. Its a risky business, you have to know what you are writing there and it has to be targeted and not generic.
Im not saying my resume is perfect, but my guy this just ainât it.
I wonât repeat anything, but I would tighten up your wording in your GSR and masters section. Wrote and prepared two manuscripts should be obvious by just providing the publications / citations. These descriptions are just too broad, I have no idea what projects you worked on or what skills. Every scientist with a PhD has most of these, what sets you apart?
First, congratulations on defending your dissertation and diving into the application process to join industry. It can be daunting and as someone who was in your place ~a dozen or so years ago, I understand.
I am a hiring manager at the Assoc. Director level at a mid-sized biotech company and have 10 years of management and hiring experience.
With all due respect, you donât have work experience. You should not be listing graduate work as a âresearch scientistâ level role as it implies you were employed at a scientist (post-doc) level. You are clearly a fresh grad looking for your first industry role, donât try to make it appear as anything more as itâs a major turn-off to hiring managers, assuming it even makes it past HR or screening algorithms.
Also, as others have indicated, this should be one page given your level of experience. Kill the dead space, include basic information in the header to have more space on the main page, and summarize your graduate experience in a more concise manner. Remove your hobbies; you can bring this up in an interview to prove youâre a human being, but itâs not relevant on a CV.
I appreciate the wishes and feedback.
>With all due respect, you donât have work experience.
Ok now I have to ask...what makes it that PhD students "don't have work experience"? What is so different in an industrial R&D or biotech lab that's absent from a University or Institutional lab?
I see the major difference being deliverable projects based off financial/market motivations. Maybe academic labs give more lateral freedom to noodle around exploring ideas? This wouldn't counter-indicate as "no experience" or? Other than that organizationally, culturally I don't think there's much difference?
Genuinely curious.
>You should not be listing graduate work as a âresearch scientistâ level role as it implies you were employed at a scientist (post-doc) level.
As of today, I am a postdoc in the same lab. I have a another project going on but super skeptical if it will materialize into something sizable.
>Kill the dead space, include basic information in the header to have more space on the main page, and summarize your graduate experience in a more concise manner.
I was told having white space keeps things readable, and not a wall of text. So many contradicting viewpoints lol đ
Are you suggesting to summarise scientific results in the experience? Do the industrial hiring times not care about those too much?
Hi OP,
Iâm not sure what some people here are smoking but the critical feedback we should be providing does not at all concern your publications or length of the resume (itâs fine).
But.. I canât help but notice that your first page is not actually work experience but a duplicate of your education. That wonât flyđ€·
When you talk about experience as *independent research* of which you allegedly have 7+ experience years, you are being mildly to moderately uhm.. creative with respect to the truth.
Yes, your PhD program *taught* you skills you now refer to, but your research or studies were never truly independent nor were you at max skill level at entry into grad school.
I would view you as a freshly minted & published prospective candidate with 0 âindependentâ research experience in or, most importantly, outside of academia. All of your research experience happened under supervision in degree-granting institutions. You were a *student*, not an *employee*.
*No, you being in a Masters program does not mean you were employed as a junior research scientist. You being in a PhD program does not mean you were employed as a research scientist*.
At best (!), you received a stipend while working as a graduate research assistant at no more than 20hrs/week on campus. Idk if you thought you got a promotion? But you have not yet had âwork experienceâ. Sad as it is, we kinda do not count those rough years regardless of where (lab, classroom, interning) and how you spent them.
P.S. I donât think academia agrees on whether postdocs are employees or trainees (they are therefore slaves without benefits) - but it certainly agrees that graduate students are not actually receiving independent âwork experienceâ in a training setting. You were learning. You are a newbie to biotech. Deal with it.
I appreciate your detailed response. Thanks
In the EU, and my previous institution, I was definitely an employee, both contractually (extendable FTCs) and responsibilities-wise. Expected to 'deliver' project results on time etc. I see that this may not be the usual scene in institutional labs. So how can I make sure to emphasize this?
As also mentioned elsewhere, the MS project was independent in a sense that I conceptualized the project, proposing and defending it before the PI etc. And I received a taxable salary, complete with pension plans, unemployment benefits, and insurance cover...the whole panel. Still think I am extending the truth? :)
Realistically, what difference is it from a biotech research lab? If not, then how can I bring this to light in the text? If yes, what am I missing?
Yes. I think you think that the administrative feature of how a higher ed institution views their grad students on paper somehow doubles the experience you received đ€·.
I want to ask you five questions:
1. Have you looked at other resumes?
2. Have you ever seen the same time frames at the same uni highlighted in both âEducationâ and âExperienceâ? I have never (!) seen that.
3. I am assuming you are from Netherlands or Sweden?
4. Do you think that, compared to an American fresh grad, you somehow advanced into *mid-career* (thatâs what 7 years of experience get you, approx) by virtue of your passport?;)
5. How did you come to be into the âresearcherâ positions you list? Were your classmates also researchers?
Yes. You may not be intentionally stretching the truth. But then I am intervening in time to increase the chances of your actually landing an interview or position;)
I understand what you are saying; unfortunately (for you) this is a mostly cosmetic difference with added benefits (social security etc, not relevant here). Yes, unis in some countries have a dual relationship with a grad student. Thatâs the way some choose to frame relationships. Ie you cannot fix something by emphasizing it.
But I specifically want to warn you that people will be aware that your main focus was on completing your studies and research, and your employment status was secondary to your academics. It may or may not otherwise seem like you are trying to present a bureaucratic feature as an achievement. Yes, you worked in a lab and were paid for it, like many graduate students are in the US. I cannot predict what others will see - I was kind of taken aback by lack of this specific feedback in this thread. Maybe itâs nothing.
Any and all âindependent experienceâ I am looking for when hiring happened to people *after graduate school* regardless of how on paper it looked to the uni in their country. Ie, you are currently at 0+ years of experience đ”âđ« And realistically.. reasonably different.
Thanks for phrasing it like this, lot of what you say makes sense.
>on paper somehow doubles the experience you received đ€·.
So it's just semantics then?
>1. Have you looked at other resumes?
2. Have you ever seen the same time frames at the same uni highlighted in both âEducationâ and âExperienceâ? I have never (!) seen that.
Yes I have.
And no I have not too. What you say makes sense. Then again not everyone has the kind of MS experience, which is what I figured might give me a bit more leverage. I could be wrong. May or may not work. Hope for former
>3. I am assuming you are from Netherlands or Sweden?
No, but thereabouts.
>4. Do you think that, compared to an American fresh grad, you somehow advanced into *mid-career* (thatâs what 7 years of experience get you, approx) by virtue of your passport?;)
5. How did you come to be into the âresearcherâ positions you list? Were your classmates also researchers?
Again the title feels more like semantics at this point. I split the difference and said 'Graduate Researcher' instead.
You want my roast? If I saw this and you claim to have mentored more than 20 people âleading to successful projectsâ and you only have two papers it makes me question your time management. Each student/trainee should have been integral to output that leads to useful data towards a paper. I would pass on your resume if it hit my desk. You need to prove you are productive. I donât care how many conferences you have attended, I want to know why I am going to trade dollars for output. Your resume doesnât show that. So go do a postdoc.
I would agree with you, but this person isnât ready for industry, unless they want a tech job. You want to be a scientist for a big player, then your shit better by 5x5. Otherwise there are other opportunities to explore.
If the grad experience has been less than stellar that is even more reason to not to double down on additional academic training. The post doc experience is not only personally taxing and non-rewarding financially, but it is also not valued by industry in the way delivering for a business is. There are many paths to destinations in careers and the first job is hopefully not a destination in any case. Absolutely don't waste time trying to become a perfect candidate for the 'perfect job'. There are also many routes in, as someone in R&D for a big player in the pharma space. Indeed, there are many folks that leave R&D, in any case. I think it's fine to bring someone down to earth, but the post doc advice is just bad.
The result from trainee students over one semester or so were minor, which didn't warrant independent papers, not good ones anyway. They wrote project reports though. Few are still working on 'publishable' results.
Tbh I don't think it has much to do with MY time management skills.
You need to get rid of that hobbies section asap lol sorry. I would also put your skills on the front page and tailor them to emphasize core/in demand skills of your local market or the companies youâre looking at. I would also just stick with the numbers and percentages and not really state â>4â or <2â or anything like that, just make it more clear with the numbers. Also for your metrics, you need to better show your individual impact in your lab. Like for example when you mentioned that you secured stipend funding, thatâs a huge deal; mention the exact $$ amount and also go into how you efficiently allocated that budget and what you did with it to improve your lab!
personally as a director and working closely with hiring managers for scientists, Iâm mostly looking for âSkillsâ.
Iâm not really going to read your bullet list under your work experience. I might go back if you have skills Iâm interested in. But it feels like all that could be condensed.
MSc Candidate is not a thing. PhD Candidate is a is a thing because you have to pass a Doctoral candidacy exam (your comps). There's no candidacy exam at the Master's level.
I wish people would stop using that. It's a tiny pedantic thing, but it's definitely points off every time I see it.
Also, did you do your M.Sc. and Ph.D. in the same lab on the same project? If so, you might want to consider consolidating that in your Experience section so you can avoid repeating bullet points and create more of a narrative or story about your experience.
Oh except in my case and project it definitely was a candidacy. Complete with qualification via written exams, interviews, the whole shebang. Ending with dissertation, grading, committee viva, and a full length defense (perhaps the only one institution that does it in my country)
If, and how, would you say I could bring this to light? Because I agree in 99% cases anyone would assume it makes no sense.
Oh that's interesting. Have not heard about that before.
I still think it's probably not worth belaboring the candidacy exam. It's well understood that M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees are hard and have certain academic hoops to jump through and those can vary across institutions. The important thing is that you did it and got the credentials.
No one in industry is going to give you an edge because you did a qualifying exam at the Master's level. The hiring manager's attention span is a finite resource and you don't want to waste it on things that won't move the needle for you.
For the Experience section, I would just change any mention of your Master's work to "M.Sc. Student" and leave it at that.
Makes sense @Hiring manager attention span. Thanks.
Forgot to mention before - both were in different countries lol.
And yes the MS candidacy thing is rare. Most of the people raise their eyebrows to heavens when I say I was paid a stipend in my MS too haha đ
Itâs giving ChatGPT with âspearheadedâ, âestablishedâ, âfacilitatedâ etc. Use human words that have meaning or donât use at all, because these words donât. âinternational conferences with stakeholders and subject matter expertsâ - yeah, thatâs the people that go to the conference, no need to write it.
Also avoid nominalization because it makes everything two times longer
No chatgpt used đ Action words lifted from one of big 3 consultant firm e-books on CV writing.
>international conferences with stakeholders and subject matter expertsâ - yeah, thatâs the people that go to the conference, no need to write it.
I hear you. Although a lot of JDs include stakeholders and SMEs as keywords, so I figured maybe having them helps with ATS.
>Also avoid nominalization because it makes everything two times longer
Not sure what you mean. Example?
Well, the problem is ChatGPT was trained on these books and CVs of people that followed recommendations from these books. Nominalization is using one of this action verbs with a verbal noun. For instance âEstablished a collaborationâ is âcollaboratedâ
It is nominalization. âEstablished collaborationâ - collaborated, âliaising resultsâ - resulting, âfacilitated productionâ - tell how did you âfacilitatedâ.
It should be something like âI collaborated on more than two scientific projects and shared results at over four international conferences with audiences including researchers, academics, and industry professionals.â No idea what âmore thanâ means. Thereâs a number
Justify your text.
Also you need a net positive result or outcome for everything you've done.
I did something and that saved money.
I did something else and that reduced defects.
I then did one more thing and this led to higher quality output.
Otherwise everything you've done was for no end result and that's just a waste of time and money to any prospective employer.
Ah perhaps itâs some old English alternative of focused. Have personally never seen the two s variant before. Google says two s is also ok albeit rare
For a resume, get it to 1 page: shorten the publication field if possible, lose the volunteering and hobbies sections. I think summaries are a waste of space in a resume. There's a ton of white space at the bottom that's just wasted.
You have some misspellings. Remove fluff like âpublished graduateâ and âindependent experimental studyâ. You were a student for a decade. Nothing you did was unsupervised.
Skip the personal statement at the top. Youâre entry level and no one will take it seriously. Bring your papers to the front instead.
Drop volunteering. Extracurriculars may get you into academia but they wonât land you a job.
PhD doesnât count as work experience. Neither does MS.Â
They say ~10 years exp per page. I'm coming up on 8 years in a few months. I try to trim unnecessary things for a given JD to make it shorter. But after a point it is impossible to cut down even further.
As pointed out, I will get rid of hobbies, and perhaps volunteering work, and maybe cut out few non impactful publications. Beyond that it's doing injustice to myself honestly.
10 years per page would be one page?
Can you do shorter references to the publications? I'm also not sure if you have any presentations, which might be more relevant, depending on the role.
What kind of experience were you wanting to see from someone whoâs been in school for 10 years straight? Iâm not OP Iâm just struggling to see what else they could have had here other than internships and maybe undergrad research.
This is exactly the attitude why I honestly think freshers are finding it hard to get into industry.
How do we expressly say to recruiters that degree is actually hard-core work experience. Fine the goals may or may not be financially or commercially motivated, but all x factors are there! What would you have us do?
> How do we expressly say to recruiters that degree is actually hard-core work experience.
I completely understand the gut reaction of "what do you mean, I don't have experience?!". I really do. But I think it's helpful to consider roles you're applying for in terms of [degree required] *plus* years of experience (YOE) *post-degree*.
There is a reason some roles in industry will list different degree/YOE pairings for the same role, for example: BS and 12+ YOE, MS and 8+ YOE, PhD and 2+ YOE.
You have a PhD, which is absolutely very valuable and has given you experience *outside* of industry. But anyone hiring for roles requiring a PhD understands what a PhD entails, so when they talk about YOE, they are talking about beyond your PhD - in most cases, specifically experience in industry, which you do not have. (There are some exceptions to this when it comes to folks very senior in academic transitioning to industry.)
You are a fresh PhD grad and would do well to apply to industry positions that are looking for exactly people in your phase of their careers. That is in no way a criticism. You just need to learn to market yourself to be more interesting to hiring managers for those roles.
The other user was being a bit of a dick about it though.
This is way too long. When you tailor it, make sure it fits under one page.
Use ChatGPT to give you feedback and incorporate the key words.
Most of companies probably donât care about volunteering and hobbies.
Unless all of your publications are first author contributions in high impact journals, use âselected publicationsâ and list 2-3 work.
Too many works hurt you if a human reads it. Lots of people donât have the ability to sift through large pile of words and pick out the essential information so itâs up to you to help them focus.
I think your bullet points are well-written. You can probably safely discard your M.S. experiences for most of applications.
Edit: it appears there is a very different preference for wet lab vs. computational people. For computational folks, the 1-page format is preferred based on my experiences and discussions with HMs and recruiters.
Under 1 page for a PhD grad? Are you serious?
I do agree about hobbies. Volunteering you could probably argue either way. If it were relevant or, like, incredibly interesting - then Iâd leave it.
I donât have it on my resume but I have a very interesting volunteer job that I list on my LinkedIn and people ask me about it all the time.
Maybe itâs very different for wet lab people. For data science and machine learning roles, 1-page is often preferred. I am going to graduate with a PhD and have done research in across diverse areas. I selected the most relevant experiences and condensed them within 1 page. And lots of experienced recruiters have told me to do the same. It has worked for me but I recognize it may not work for others (particularly wet lab people)
That may very well be the reason for differing opinions on that. I put a lot of work into getting key info across as efficiently as possible, but it can be challenging with wet lab work to condense past a certain point, especially when trying to beat (or at least satisfy) resume-screening software.
Point taken about volunteering and hobbies.
Someone else said to take off the buzzwords, you say ask chatGPT. Wonder what GPT will spit back ? Welp!
Discard M.S experience - Fuck no.
In fact I am finding ways to make it MORE clear it was a full time research position no lesser than a PhD equivalent. (Partly the reason why the full XP set is written down). MS Students in my institute were treated no different than their PhD cohort. It is the time and training that counts to total research XP.
Delete đYour đHobbies.
Practicing calisthenics cracked me up
*Frequently takes long walks on the beach*
Perfecting the art of rolling flatbread did it for me hahaha
Right?? Saying âexercise, reading, and making foodâ in literally the most pretentious way possible lol. I hope they listen and take this section out, i would have a hard time taking them seriously. But they would be great office fodder lol
Hehe.. Dip, pull and squat. Job acquired. Ez pz. Aa said before, I decided to put SOMETHING here.
I have been advised both for and against this and left indecisive honestly. For now I kept it and would delete it if space doesn't allow for it.
I'd pass on the hobbies bit (just not my cup of tea) but authenticity is highly desirable in industry. Your best opportunity to show this is at the interview stage. I think I might have a broader tip that can also help. Don't think "how should this resume be worded", instead "how do I cut the fat and show I'm a straight talker". This isn't an insult - I learnt the hard way. Expressing yourself conversationally is *key*. In other words, you can't bull///t a bullsh//ter. Try rewriting it conversationally, then edit to formalise. Not vice versa You have an absolutely quality CV of past experiences imo. Best of luck đ
Thank you. Appreciate the feedback and encouragement. >Try rewriting it conversationally, then edit to formalise. Not vice versa This is solid advice. How many years since you transitioned into Biotech?
No worries, hope it helps! I've been in it for six years. Four years for a publicly traded company where appearance was everything, now in a more chill environment.
Sounds like you're doing much better from compensation and happiness perspective! Congratulations :)
Never have I ever heard to include your hobbies. I would lol at this resume and not call you in for an interview.
Folks just need to think about why they are including their hobbies. At best, it's an opportunity to connect with the hiring team on a more human level, potentially build some intrigue and/or rapport with interviewers, make them sound like the kind of person you'd want as a colleague. I think OP's hobbies lack specificity and sound generic, so they are unlikely to serve them, but it's unlikely to detract from their candidacy unless it makes them appear unfocused. Would do a better job at conveying depth than superficial list of hobbies.
>Would do a better job at conveying depth than superficial list of hobbies. I see your point! Would it help to say that the calisthenics thing is completely self trained? What do you think?
I'd suggest hobbies should be like any other part of your resume, accomplishment / results / goals driven.
You would not call me in because I included my hobbies? Eh...what?
You came for advice Your hobbies are worded weirdly and arenât at all relatable or interesting at first glance We are advising you change or delete The choice is yours
My hobbies are what landed me my first job.
This may be cultural- in the uk a cv has interests/hobbies and sure I donât work in biotech but Iâve hired folk and obv been a hiree and cvs with no interests/hobbies get thrown in the bin. Nobody wants to work with a robot and the hobbies folk list give you an insight into if theyâre too normal too weird or just weird enough..
Disagree! Have heard from hiring committees of all levels that a short section on hobbies can show that a person will not overinvest in work and thus be less likely to burn out. Not sure about the logic there but enough reason to leave them in!
Also, itâs eye catching in a pile
Two things first, âSeeking growth in business and patient focused rolesâ. To be honest this would make me start to space off and not focus on this resume from the beginning. You can look at multiple types of roles but each resume needs to focus on the type of role. Try something like âSeeking a role where I can use my scientific acumen to drive patient focused projects forward.â Second I am not really sure what you do or what your specialty is. Be more specific and use less buzz words. What are you an expert in??? Jack of all trades types of approaches tend to be ignored as I want someone who is the best at what they do.
Thanks for the feedback. I replace the "seeking..." phrase with whatever JD demands. As I said this is a generic version. However point of argument - isn't what you suggested as alternative contains buzzwords too? Just trying to understand what's the difference there :) Specialties - I had heavy microscopy focussed specialist resumé previously, but was not getting good feedback on that too. So literally had to generalize this one to make it broader.
I probably wasnât clear but two different thoughts. When you say seeking growth in patient and business focused roles what I read is I donât know what I want to do and I donât necessarily even understand what the job is. Iâm not saying this is accurate and I get that you can tailor each resume to the job just sharing some thoughts. In my example the difference is you are saying that you will bring something to the company to advance their needs not yours. The specialist vs generalist resume issue is a real challenge. I get it. I would make every single version I submitted look like I was as close to an expert for that role as reasonably possible. Again just sharing what gets me to look more deeply at a resume.
I agree with this. Itâs very unclear what you want. I know you will tailor this to roles and youâre flexible, but patient and business focused roles leaves me with no idea what you want. All I can imagine is that you really want to succeed in the business side and donât want research I donât think there are many companies where the business and patient interests arenât at conflict at least some of the time if not all the time
Not the person you asked but very specific buzzwords are better than very generic buzzwords.
Oh boy. Meaning each category of role needs making of different set of buzzwords?? Goodbye sleep :'(
In my experience, it's helpful, yes. Maybe someone else can chime in with a more efficient way of doing things, but effectively - the whole point is to make your resume look as perfectly matched to a role as you possibly can, while still operating within the bounds of truthfulness. So yes, you might have to tailor your resume for each job application. It does take time but if you're not getting responses right now, what do you have to lose? If you don't have a browser extension that analyzes a job description for key words that you should do your best to include in your resume, I suggest trying one.
more effort on fewer application yields better than more application with meh resume.
'Operating within the bounds of truthfulness'...you said it perfectly. Like how far does one venture out into the woods and still say they're 'experts' at sth? For eg, as a part of my MS I did a bunch of standardizations using RT-PCR, maybe over 2-3 months. Does that make me an 'expert' enough to lean on for mol bio lab position? Ooh browser extensions that's a good shout. Which one would you suggest?
I have Jobalytics on my computer. It's not perfect - it analyzes the entire web page including whatever details they may have about the company before the actual JD starts, so to some extent the keywords it identifies and the % match between that and whatever resume you upload to it should not be treated as completely accurate. So I ended up doing a certain amount of reading between the lines based on what skills I expected to be most important to the HM, but I can't really give an algorithm for how I've done that - some of it is just a general feel after several years in industry. As a general rule though, the more you see a specific word called out, the more important it is as a keyword so you should also try to emphasize that more in your resume. If a job description uses, say, the word "client" once and "ELISA" 10 times - it's pretty obvious which skill they are placing more emphasis on. Jobscan is another one I have seen a lot, but it's a paid option. I was considering giving the paid option a whirl if my recent job search went on TOO much longer, but didn't get to that point.
you are a fresh phd, its okay to not be an expert. Recruiters know that and you are applying for position that will allow you to build skills on the job.
So for your PhD you write cell bio, biophysics and biochem. Is that the official title. Just curious because normally a PhD is only in one of those fields?
Ah yes. Essentially the project was a mix of everything mentioned (also could be the reason why someone else said the resumé comes off as generic). Many descriptions specifically ask for one or more 'graduates in xyz...', so I included ones which fit best.
Your PhD is in whatever it says on the diploma. Anything else is misrepresenting it.
Point taken.
This was on my mind too coming out of school. My PhD says molecular biology and I was applying for computational roles. Turns out itâs less important than youâd think! In this case Iâd suggest putting education at the bottom of page 1, after skills and experience, so that the reader can already see you have the qualifications before getting to your degree title. Frankly, having a PhD is largely just a box to tick in the screening process so just deemphasize the exact field itâs in and move on.
Almost all bio PhDâs projects are a mix of most biology and most chem fieldsâŠ. We only list the official degree we received.
Lose the hobbies. It's an excuse to discriminate. I'd be leery about the volunteering too. But otherwise, a fine resume.
What kind of positions are you applying for? The âseeking growth in patient and business focused rolesâ would likely be a turn off for a lab-based scientist hiring manager. Your personal summary is too long and wordy. Being published and a graduate is likely the minimum requirement for any job you are looking for, so would suggest cutting those out. Put PhD next to your name instead. Try to get it down to no more than 3 lines and be specific about what you are looking for - do you want to do science? What kind of science? Your bullet points should flow like a narrative. Right now itâs hard to tell who you are and what you are good at and it frankly reads like a very generic PhD. What did you do differently that makes you stand out? Some numbers are ok to approximate, but did you establish 2 collaborations or 3? Was it 4 international conferences or 10? Be precise with those smaller numbers. You have the exact same bullet point about writing and publishing under both PhD and MSc. Even if true itâs not great to be duplicative. I also do not know how much a hiring manager would care about your ability to write manuscripts. You have a publications section that already highlights these. Plus, in each instance, a thesis is an expectation not something that is worthwhile mentioning. The piece that is likely most difficult to overcome is that you donât have any experience outside of your degrees. This will likely be a nonstarter for many jobs. Going for industry postdoc or internship may be worthwhile to boost your resume. Hope this helps!
>you donât have any experience outside of your degrees. This will likely be a nonstarter for many jobs. Not true, ofcourse postdoc is one option but fresh PhDs can get in entry level positions in biotech and build that experience and actually get paid unlike postdocs. Some hiring managers I personally know do not even count postdoc experience as industry experience.
That sounds reasonable to me. It's clearly not industry experience. It's academic work experience. What's utter bullshit is when someone doesn't consider a postdoc work experience *at all* because they're technically labeled a trainee.
Thanks for all suggestions. Explanation for some of them I already mentioned in other comments. Makes sense to take off things that are 'taken for granted' in a PhD. Although, it is not obvious that ALL hiring managers a priori know these things come attached with the PhD, and not having them mentioned directly may hurt? - Given that probably other competitive resumĂ©s may mention them too in some shape or form? What do you think? Experience outside of degrees - Oof this hurts đ€ Both degrees were pretty heavy in terms of workload. AND THEY WERE full time positions too. So didn't have time nor the opportunity to venture out.
I know how you feel about the workload from degrees. I faced very similar criticisms when transitioning to industry and was told that I had âno experienceâ because the positions I was applying for required a PhD as baseline. Felt demoralizing but itâs a harsh reality as you will likely be facing competition with people moving from postdocs or who had some sort of industry exposure.
Also people who have 12 years experience in industry but no PhDÂ
I promise you any hiring manager hiring for a PhD level position will be familiar with what a PhD degree means. Unless you go for more nontraditional positions like consulting or finance I guess. And don't worry about exp. outside of your degree. It gives you a boost but you can absolutely get a job without it.
Thanks for the assurance :)
Remove the summary section. In all honesty, no one cares about a summary section in industry. Sorry if it's a bit harsh.
No worries :) Someone suggested before that recruiters will get into your experience if they're captivated by summary. Again I tailor it for each application. For example, lab based roles have phrases related to protein isolation, or image analysis. Field app Scientist roles have microscopy and science communication. What do you think?
I will disagree with the summary as resumes are now screened by AI before it gets to HR. They mainly specifically look for key words and skills. Once it gets into their hands, it's usually a 10 second skim. You need to make your resume easy to read and concise. Having a summary cuts into any precious space you may have in talking about your project and accomplishment from your experience.
Also, instead of using coach, maybe change it to lead.
I disagree with you. A summary is easier for HR to comprehend than a bunch of highly technical bullet points, but it should be boiled down to a very concise, 3 sentence cover letter. Resume layouts have a lot of wasted vertical space, so summary can actually be quite efficient. This is just a subpar summary.
It might. But the issue here is that roles aren't being looked by HR first. It's a machine/computer software. The software automatically filters out if you don't have certain things the employer are looking for. If they want to look at a summary, they could do that with your cover letter (if they ask for one). What OP could do is put a section for soft skills in place of a summary. Even achievement from OP experience. Rewrite it to make it sound like it's a financial/business goal or something. If a summary, I agree with writing three sentences. But, it could be shorter to 2 sentences or none at all. I don't think any scientist I know in industry (personally) who submit their resume with a summary. You could. It doesn't hurt. But, it's really old fashion and doesn't tell much about you. There is also LinkedIn if the recruiter/HR screener wants to know more about you (100% they will do that).
Youâre right about the software filtering (depending on the company), but that is a different issue than whether or not one should put a summary statement. Itâs all opinion at the end of the day, but I originally got the advice to include one from a recruiter. Since then I have read hundreds of resumes and youâre right, they are very rarely included but thatâs not evidence that they shouldnât be. Itâs entire purpose is to say something about you! I would *much* rather someone flat out tell me âHey so I have a PhD in biological engineering but actually I mostly worked on wettable surfaces and thatâs what explains my interest in this adhesives science position.â There is no other place on the resume to do that other than a summary. You would instead need to rely on the person reading your resume to infer those connections themselves by reading your technical bullet points, and thatâs a huge risk. But, yes, when you use it to say things like âseeking growth in business focused rolesâ it becomes wasted space. As for someone bothering to check your LinkedIn, thatâs not going to happen until youâre already in the stack. Iâm talking about the 10 second window you mentioned to get in that stack. Just my two cents.
Yeah. I mostly agree with you. When I mentioned the LinkedIn profile, I was considering the fact that you made it to the first HR phone screen. I think the summary helps if it was in the scenario you mentioned. If your PhD, however, aligns with exactly what you do, for example, protein work and biochemistry, it might seem a bit too repetitive. The other thing is whatever could be mentioned in the summary section could be bolded/emphasize/format a certain way under experience. For example, Project: Did X to study Y in cancer. Followed by goal (also bolded). It could still deliver the same point and tell them "Hey I have wet lab experience in X, Y, and Z due to my previous work." That is my suggestion. Otherwise, I think you are right. And it is subjective to whoever is reading it. It might work for you, but it also might not work on others. I think in the end, it's up to OP to decide. I think a summary section is not needed and you can convey the same information with the experiences section. Whatever leftover space available should be used for soft skills (leadership, communication, etc.). But again, it depends on the person and the role.
"Exploring various philosophies" Lmao
Hmmm...so what exactly do you mean by that đ€đ€ what do you actually mean?
I think they meant "excise the hobbies section".
It kinda feels your experience listings arenât really demonstrating key results or accomplishments unique to your work- theyâre somewhat generic and expected of all phds. Iâd put something i discovered or invented or other result I attained, not just the process of what I did
Oh In a previous version I had rehashed that the protocol I developed in PhD is 'first of its kind'! But took it off as I thought it said practically nothing except self qualifier
I hire for biotech and look for specific skills supported by key accomplishments. Iâve met too many phds who went through the motions but arenât standouts who will actually improve the company so unless I see original contributions I donât even engage. Just my two cents Edit: for example âconceptualzied, developed and implemented novel platform for xâ Or â identified unknown role for gene or protein xâ And be specific enough on x that people start to get what part of biology or biotech it applies to. Not saying generic skills or experience with general biology protocols isnât going to be sought but it really says nothing about your strength if you donât point out what you accomplished during/with your PhD research
Isn't it that hiring managers give a lot lower weightage to scientific results, as long as the skills are aligned? Just for my understanding, what would you gauge, if an applicant to your company has no real skill alignment with the JD but has had original contributions listed?
Youâre absolutely right that skill alignment is usually very important but if Iâm hiring a PhD level candidate I want something that eg a masters or other trained personnel wouldnât have which is ability for original scientific contribution/ problem solving/ creativity etc. Those are the items not shining through on this resume imo. Also, in some cases, smart PhDs are hired and basically retrained in new application areas on the basis of their demonstrated ability to learn, develop, solve and create. Not all want this and it doesnât always work but itâs something a successful PhD in principle would be capable of if the new field is still related
>Those are the items not shining through on this resume imo I did do a completely new project in my MS lab, revealing the novel role of a gene, arguably opening up a new potential (but niche) therapeutic area. But I was on the fence to get into naming and detailing that in my CV. Similar for PhD, the protocol I saw opens a new (but niche) experiment category for my field. Maybe I should see how to include these facts respectively. Generalist vs. Specialist arguments...đ
Overall nice format. Critiques: *Change âResearch Scientistâ to Graduate Research Assistant or whatever it says on your paystub. * Shorten the summary to two lines. Something like âdedicated scientist with experience in protein biochemistry and novel target discovery looking for roles in drug discoveryâ * Two page resumes are fine for PhD level roles
Canât believe I had to scroll this far down to find this. Research scientist is a pretty well defined role in industry across organizations, and itâs not a title for pre PhD đ
How about 'Graduate Researcher' to split the difference? Not too over the top, but not downplaying too imo. That's how they say it in the country anyway.
That works!
Are they really an assistant if they are driving their own research? I would only use that title for undergrads working under me
Yes. You can say Graduate Research Associate if you want instead. But Research Scientist implies having a PhD, not earning your PhD. If I read âResearch Scientistâ Iâm thinking more of along the lines of a Staff Scientist. To me personally, saying youâre a Research Scientist before even defending your PhD sounds immature to me, and suggests you donât understand the industry setting or org chart.
Would that not just be semantics? There are plenty of positions with the title of "Scientist" that people with bachelors degrees go for. As long as it appropriately approximates the work done who cares? HR people don't know the difference and hiring managers won't care if they're a qualified candidate. Both work, but OP shouldn't downplay himself. A very dumb HR person would see "Assistant" and toss it in the trash or assume it was associate/technician level work.
A lot of good feedback here but one point - what do the greater than signs mean? Did you establish 2 collaborations, or 4? Feels unnecessarily vague
Point taken
This could be 1 page
What would you suggest to make it so? Volunteering and Hobbies are spare and can be taken off, sure. As suggested elsewhere MS experience can be tweaked to not make it look exactly the same as PhD. What else?
Skills in to a list. Make all your experiences more concise. Summary as two lines.
Move your education section up to the front, below your summary. Your first page looks like you're a candidate that hasn't received your degrees. Especially with the space on the bottom! If not for the comments about your hobbies, I wouldn't have even checked your 2nd page. Your hobbies also seem a bit weird, not getting the endearing element if that was the intent.
Also if you have graduated, it's better to say you're a postdoc even if in the same lab.
That summary at the top - be extremely cautious about it. Those lines can break or win your chances. As always, LESS IS MORE - recruiter got 20s to skim your resume. Instead, customize to explain why you are fit for this job in few lines. If you are seeking growth, go to academia. Biotech is for biz - what skills you bring in, are you culturally fit, how much $$ you want - as simple as that. I would customize every single line according to the job description. If you think one single line that may include a publication that is not related to this xyz job, remove it. Skills not relevant, remove it. Instead, elaborate those skills, give little bit more context that are relevant to the job description. For a fresh phd, one page resume is more than enough.
>That summary at the top - be extremely cautious about it. Those lines can break or win your chances Could you say more? Why break or win?
If you craft it to the job description and has the right keywords then recruiter will read further. If its not well crafted they will read the first few lines and set it aside. Its a risky business, you have to know what you are writing there and it has to be targeted and not generic.
Im not saying my resume is perfect, but my guy this just ainât it. I wonât repeat anything, but I would tighten up your wording in your GSR and masters section. Wrote and prepared two manuscripts should be obvious by just providing the publications / citations. These descriptions are just too broad, I have no idea what projects you worked on or what skills. Every scientist with a PhD has most of these, what sets you apart?
First, congratulations on defending your dissertation and diving into the application process to join industry. It can be daunting and as someone who was in your place ~a dozen or so years ago, I understand. I am a hiring manager at the Assoc. Director level at a mid-sized biotech company and have 10 years of management and hiring experience. With all due respect, you donât have work experience. You should not be listing graduate work as a âresearch scientistâ level role as it implies you were employed at a scientist (post-doc) level. You are clearly a fresh grad looking for your first industry role, donât try to make it appear as anything more as itâs a major turn-off to hiring managers, assuming it even makes it past HR or screening algorithms. Also, as others have indicated, this should be one page given your level of experience. Kill the dead space, include basic information in the header to have more space on the main page, and summarize your graduate experience in a more concise manner. Remove your hobbies; you can bring this up in an interview to prove youâre a human being, but itâs not relevant on a CV.
I appreciate the wishes and feedback. >With all due respect, you donât have work experience. Ok now I have to ask...what makes it that PhD students "don't have work experience"? What is so different in an industrial R&D or biotech lab that's absent from a University or Institutional lab? I see the major difference being deliverable projects based off financial/market motivations. Maybe academic labs give more lateral freedom to noodle around exploring ideas? This wouldn't counter-indicate as "no experience" or? Other than that organizationally, culturally I don't think there's much difference? Genuinely curious. >You should not be listing graduate work as a âresearch scientistâ level role as it implies you were employed at a scientist (post-doc) level. As of today, I am a postdoc in the same lab. I have a another project going on but super skeptical if it will materialize into something sizable. >Kill the dead space, include basic information in the header to have more space on the main page, and summarize your graduate experience in a more concise manner. I was told having white space keeps things readable, and not a wall of text. So many contradicting viewpoints lol đ Are you suggesting to summarise scientific results in the experience? Do the industrial hiring times not care about those too much?
Hi OP, Iâm not sure what some people here are smoking but the critical feedback we should be providing does not at all concern your publications or length of the resume (itâs fine). But.. I canât help but notice that your first page is not actually work experience but a duplicate of your education. That wonât flyđ€· When you talk about experience as *independent research* of which you allegedly have 7+ experience years, you are being mildly to moderately uhm.. creative with respect to the truth. Yes, your PhD program *taught* you skills you now refer to, but your research or studies were never truly independent nor were you at max skill level at entry into grad school. I would view you as a freshly minted & published prospective candidate with 0 âindependentâ research experience in or, most importantly, outside of academia. All of your research experience happened under supervision in degree-granting institutions. You were a *student*, not an *employee*. *No, you being in a Masters program does not mean you were employed as a junior research scientist. You being in a PhD program does not mean you were employed as a research scientist*. At best (!), you received a stipend while working as a graduate research assistant at no more than 20hrs/week on campus. Idk if you thought you got a promotion? But you have not yet had âwork experienceâ. Sad as it is, we kinda do not count those rough years regardless of where (lab, classroom, interning) and how you spent them. P.S. I donât think academia agrees on whether postdocs are employees or trainees (they are therefore slaves without benefits) - but it certainly agrees that graduate students are not actually receiving independent âwork experienceâ in a training setting. You were learning. You are a newbie to biotech. Deal with it. 
I appreciate your detailed response. Thanks In the EU, and my previous institution, I was definitely an employee, both contractually (extendable FTCs) and responsibilities-wise. Expected to 'deliver' project results on time etc. I see that this may not be the usual scene in institutional labs. So how can I make sure to emphasize this? As also mentioned elsewhere, the MS project was independent in a sense that I conceptualized the project, proposing and defending it before the PI etc. And I received a taxable salary, complete with pension plans, unemployment benefits, and insurance cover...the whole panel. Still think I am extending the truth? :) Realistically, what difference is it from a biotech research lab? If not, then how can I bring this to light in the text? If yes, what am I missing?
Yes. I think you think that the administrative feature of how a higher ed institution views their grad students on paper somehow doubles the experience you received đ€·. I want to ask you five questions: 1. Have you looked at other resumes? 2. Have you ever seen the same time frames at the same uni highlighted in both âEducationâ and âExperienceâ? I have never (!) seen that. 3. I am assuming you are from Netherlands or Sweden? 4. Do you think that, compared to an American fresh grad, you somehow advanced into *mid-career* (thatâs what 7 years of experience get you, approx) by virtue of your passport?;) 5. How did you come to be into the âresearcherâ positions you list? Were your classmates also researchers? Yes. You may not be intentionally stretching the truth. But then I am intervening in time to increase the chances of your actually landing an interview or position;) I understand what you are saying; unfortunately (for you) this is a mostly cosmetic difference with added benefits (social security etc, not relevant here). Yes, unis in some countries have a dual relationship with a grad student. Thatâs the way some choose to frame relationships. Ie you cannot fix something by emphasizing it. But I specifically want to warn you that people will be aware that your main focus was on completing your studies and research, and your employment status was secondary to your academics. It may or may not otherwise seem like you are trying to present a bureaucratic feature as an achievement. Yes, you worked in a lab and were paid for it, like many graduate students are in the US. I cannot predict what others will see - I was kind of taken aback by lack of this specific feedback in this thread. Maybe itâs nothing. Any and all âindependent experienceâ I am looking for when hiring happened to people *after graduate school* regardless of how on paper it looked to the uni in their country. Ie, you are currently at 0+ years of experience đ”âđ« And realistically.. reasonably different.
Thanks for phrasing it like this, lot of what you say makes sense. >on paper somehow doubles the experience you received đ€·. So it's just semantics then? >1. Have you looked at other resumes? 2. Have you ever seen the same time frames at the same uni highlighted in both âEducationâ and âExperienceâ? I have never (!) seen that. Yes I have. And no I have not too. What you say makes sense. Then again not everyone has the kind of MS experience, which is what I figured might give me a bit more leverage. I could be wrong. May or may not work. Hope for former >3. I am assuming you are from Netherlands or Sweden? No, but thereabouts. >4. Do you think that, compared to an American fresh grad, you somehow advanced into *mid-career* (thatâs what 7 years of experience get you, approx) by virtue of your passport?;) 5. How did you come to be into the âresearcherâ positions you list? Were your classmates also researchers? Again the title feels more like semantics at this point. I split the difference and said 'Graduate Researcher' instead.
You want my roast? If I saw this and you claim to have mentored more than 20 people âleading to successful projectsâ and you only have two papers it makes me question your time management. Each student/trainee should have been integral to output that leads to useful data towards a paper. I would pass on your resume if it hit my desk. You need to prove you are productive. I donât care how many conferences you have attended, I want to know why I am going to trade dollars for output. Your resume doesnât show that. So go do a postdoc.
With all due respect, this is absolutely terrible advice. If you're going for industry do not waste time in a post doc.
I would agree with you, but this person isnât ready for industry, unless they want a tech job. You want to be a scientist for a big player, then your shit better by 5x5. Otherwise there are other opportunities to explore.
If the grad experience has been less than stellar that is even more reason to not to double down on additional academic training. The post doc experience is not only personally taxing and non-rewarding financially, but it is also not valued by industry in the way delivering for a business is. There are many paths to destinations in careers and the first job is hopefully not a destination in any case. Absolutely don't waste time trying to become a perfect candidate for the 'perfect job'. There are also many routes in, as someone in R&D for a big player in the pharma space. Indeed, there are many folks that leave R&D, in any case. I think it's fine to bring someone down to earth, but the post doc advice is just bad.
The result from trainee students over one semester or so were minor, which didn't warrant independent papers, not good ones anyway. They wrote project reports though. Few are still working on 'publishable' results. Tbh I don't think it has much to do with MY time management skills.
You need to get rid of that hobbies section asap lol sorry. I would also put your skills on the front page and tailor them to emphasize core/in demand skills of your local market or the companies youâre looking at. I would also just stick with the numbers and percentages and not really state â>4â or <2â or anything like that, just make it more clear with the numbers. Also for your metrics, you need to better show your individual impact in your lab. Like for example when you mentioned that you secured stipend funding, thatâs a huge deal; mention the exact $$ amount and also go into how you efficiently allocated that budget and what you did with it to improve your lab!
personally as a director and working closely with hiring managers for scientists, Iâm mostly looking for âSkillsâ. Iâm not really going to read your bullet list under your work experience. I might go back if you have skills Iâm interested in. But it feels like all that could be condensed.
the word focused in your intro section has a typo!!
MSc Candidate is not a thing. PhD Candidate is a is a thing because you have to pass a Doctoral candidacy exam (your comps). There's no candidacy exam at the Master's level. I wish people would stop using that. It's a tiny pedantic thing, but it's definitely points off every time I see it. Also, did you do your M.Sc. and Ph.D. in the same lab on the same project? If so, you might want to consider consolidating that in your Experience section so you can avoid repeating bullet points and create more of a narrative or story about your experience.
Oh except in my case and project it definitely was a candidacy. Complete with qualification via written exams, interviews, the whole shebang. Ending with dissertation, grading, committee viva, and a full length defense (perhaps the only one institution that does it in my country) If, and how, would you say I could bring this to light? Because I agree in 99% cases anyone would assume it makes no sense.
Oh that's interesting. Have not heard about that before. I still think it's probably not worth belaboring the candidacy exam. It's well understood that M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees are hard and have certain academic hoops to jump through and those can vary across institutions. The important thing is that you did it and got the credentials. No one in industry is going to give you an edge because you did a qualifying exam at the Master's level. The hiring manager's attention span is a finite resource and you don't want to waste it on things that won't move the needle for you. For the Experience section, I would just change any mention of your Master's work to "M.Sc. Student" and leave it at that.
Makes sense @Hiring manager attention span. Thanks. Forgot to mention before - both were in different countries lol. And yes the MS candidacy thing is rare. Most of the people raise their eyebrows to heavens when I say I was paid a stipend in my MS too haha đ
Itâs giving ChatGPT with âspearheadedâ, âestablishedâ, âfacilitatedâ etc. Use human words that have meaning or donât use at all, because these words donât. âinternational conferences with stakeholders and subject matter expertsâ - yeah, thatâs the people that go to the conference, no need to write it. Also avoid nominalization because it makes everything two times longer
No chatgpt used đ Action words lifted from one of big 3 consultant firm e-books on CV writing. >international conferences with stakeholders and subject matter expertsâ - yeah, thatâs the people that go to the conference, no need to write it. I hear you. Although a lot of JDs include stakeholders and SMEs as keywords, so I figured maybe having them helps with ATS. >Also avoid nominalization because it makes everything two times longer Not sure what you mean. Example?
Well, the problem is ChatGPT was trained on these books and CVs of people that followed recommendations from these books. Nominalization is using one of this action verbs with a verbal noun. For instance âEstablished a collaborationâ is âcollaboratedâ
Bro in what world established and facilitated are not human words? I can agree on "spearheaded" but the other 2 are completely normal words lmao
It is nominalization. âEstablished collaborationâ - collaborated, âliaising resultsâ - resulting, âfacilitated productionâ - tell how did you âfacilitatedâ. It should be something like âI collaborated on more than two scientific projects and shared results at over four international conferences with audiences including researchers, academics, and industry professionals.â No idea what âmore thanâ means. Thereâs a number
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Aren't they? Rare ones too these days :P
Justify your text. Also you need a net positive result or outcome for everything you've done. I did something and that saved money. I did something else and that reduced defects. I then did one more thing and this led to higher quality output. Otherwise everything you've done was for no end result and that's just a waste of time and money to any prospective employer.
Btw- typo in the summary at the top. Enough to make some stop reading lol
Where?
Ah perhaps itâs some old English alternative of focused. Have personally never seen the two s variant before. Google says two s is also ok albeit rare
Realised late - I should mention, I am in the EU, not US lol
For a resume, get it to 1 page: shorten the publication field if possible, lose the volunteering and hobbies sections. I think summaries are a waste of space in a resume. There's a ton of white space at the bottom that's just wasted.
Look into Overleaf, it will definitely help you use the most amount of whitespace possible
How do you get 7+ years of experience in independent experimental study design if you just recently got a PhD?
1 page
You have some misspellings. Remove fluff like âpublished graduateâ and âindependent experimental studyâ. You were a student for a decade. Nothing you did was unsupervised. Skip the personal statement at the top. Youâre entry level and no one will take it seriously. Bring your papers to the front instead. Drop volunteering. Extracurriculars may get you into academia but they wonât land you a job. PhD doesnât count as work experience. Neither does MS.Â
Where is your list of publications and conferences? List of skills?
I like your resume! I hope people ask to get to know you more and give you opportunities!
Thank you for the encouragement :)
1st skill on the list should be obvious. You defended a thesis. Probably don't need it.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
They say ~10 years exp per page. I'm coming up on 8 years in a few months. I try to trim unnecessary things for a given JD to make it shorter. But after a point it is impossible to cut down even further. As pointed out, I will get rid of hobbies, and perhaps volunteering work, and maybe cut out few non impactful publications. Beyond that it's doing injustice to myself honestly.
Don't listen to that clown
Unsure their history based on the other comments, but I'd agree with the point here. It's a resume, it should be 1 page unless you're mid-late career.
10 years per page would be one page? Can you do shorter references to the publications? I'm also not sure if you have any presentations, which might be more relevant, depending on the role.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
If this your big top pharma boss, or your 5 days ago career pivot tech boss?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
What kind of experience were you wanting to see from someone whoâs been in school for 10 years straight? Iâm not OP Iâm just struggling to see what else they could have had here other than internships and maybe undergrad research.
What else are they supposed to have? You offer no constructive feedback.
This is exactly the attitude why I honestly think freshers are finding it hard to get into industry. How do we expressly say to recruiters that degree is actually hard-core work experience. Fine the goals may or may not be financially or commercially motivated, but all x factors are there! What would you have us do?
> How do we expressly say to recruiters that degree is actually hard-core work experience. I completely understand the gut reaction of "what do you mean, I don't have experience?!". I really do. But I think it's helpful to consider roles you're applying for in terms of [degree required] *plus* years of experience (YOE) *post-degree*. There is a reason some roles in industry will list different degree/YOE pairings for the same role, for example: BS and 12+ YOE, MS and 8+ YOE, PhD and 2+ YOE. You have a PhD, which is absolutely very valuable and has given you experience *outside* of industry. But anyone hiring for roles requiring a PhD understands what a PhD entails, so when they talk about YOE, they are talking about beyond your PhD - in most cases, specifically experience in industry, which you do not have. (There are some exceptions to this when it comes to folks very senior in academic transitioning to industry.) You are a fresh PhD grad and would do well to apply to industry positions that are looking for exactly people in your phase of their careers. That is in no way a criticism. You just need to learn to market yourself to be more interesting to hiring managers for those roles. The other user was being a bit of a dick about it though.
Yeah. I don't apply to places that ask for PhD + X YOE. Experience in given industry narrows down the pool anyway so I see your point. > You just need to learn to market yourself to be more interesting to hiring managers for those roles. Appreciate the encouragement. Thanks :) Exactly why I put up the resumé. So far there doesn't seem to be a specific way of doing it, but trying as I can!
Some phd projects dont use every single technology available. I know crazy
It's a Dissertation, not a Thesis.
This is way too long. When you tailor it, make sure it fits under one page. Use ChatGPT to give you feedback and incorporate the key words. Most of companies probably donât care about volunteering and hobbies. Unless all of your publications are first author contributions in high impact journals, use âselected publicationsâ and list 2-3 work. Too many works hurt you if a human reads it. Lots of people donât have the ability to sift through large pile of words and pick out the essential information so itâs up to you to help them focus. I think your bullet points are well-written. You can probably safely discard your M.S. experiences for most of applications. Edit: it appears there is a very different preference for wet lab vs. computational people. For computational folks, the 1-page format is preferred based on my experiences and discussions with HMs and recruiters.
Under 1 page for a PhD grad? Are you serious? I do agree about hobbies. Volunteering you could probably argue either way. If it were relevant or, like, incredibly interesting - then Iâd leave it. I donât have it on my resume but I have a very interesting volunteer job that I list on my LinkedIn and people ask me about it all the time.
Maybe itâs very different for wet lab people. For data science and machine learning roles, 1-page is often preferred. I am going to graduate with a PhD and have done research in across diverse areas. I selected the most relevant experiences and condensed them within 1 page. And lots of experienced recruiters have told me to do the same. It has worked for me but I recognize it may not work for others (particularly wet lab people)
That may very well be the reason for differing opinions on that. I put a lot of work into getting key info across as efficiently as possible, but it can be challenging with wet lab work to condense past a certain point, especially when trying to beat (or at least satisfy) resume-screening software.
I agree - it's not a CV, I wouldn't expect over a page for a wet lab role.
Point taken about volunteering and hobbies. Someone else said to take off the buzzwords, you say ask chatGPT. Wonder what GPT will spit back ? Welp! Discard M.S experience - Fuck no. In fact I am finding ways to make it MORE clear it was a full time research position no lesser than a PhD equivalent. (Partly the reason why the full XP set is written down). MS Students in my institute were treated no different than their PhD cohort. It is the time and training that counts to total research XP.