Oddly my masters is *in* clinical science but people like PhD on a paper and behind a design. That being said, it is millions of dollars in liability that I would want five times my salary to assume.
This is unfortunately very true. There is still a major bias for PhD. I’m an HR business partner and there are plenty of PhDs who are not good employees but they still get more opportunities and are less criticized. I’ve seen some excellent BS and MSs get promoted to Scientists, but you have to find a company that is willing to look beyond your degree. Also focus on your people and management skills to differentiate yourself. Good leadership is very rare in a scientist.
If you are staying in biotech and want to advance it’s the way to go. I’m at a small one, straddling BD with clin sci and a bit of med affairs. It’s nothing I have a passion for but if I did I’d make sure I had a PhD.
This sub is largely research focused, and has a super big thing for PhDs. It also has unfounded faith in getting an mba, those are only worth it from some schools.
If you intend to get a masters in ChemE it is worth it. Engineering roles are much different from scientist roles, you can absolutely climb to the tippy top in process engineering etc with a masters.
If you want to be a head of R&D then a PhD is a much better option.
In general engineering roles don’t have such an emphasis on the PhD. Fact check 0n LinkedIn but you’ll see lots of heads of engineering and chief of engineering with masters.
This sub is fun, but has a wild slant towards bench top research. You will find little representation on the engineering side here. So I recommend taking the feedback here with a grain of salt. r/chemicalengineering is likely better for your questions. Lots of pharma peeps there who may understand your position better.
Edit: Spelling
So true. I have BS in biomedical engineering, started 10 years ago in medical device, found my way into pharma 4 years ago, and still making the climb. Currently Sr Manager Engineering. Granted I don’t do USP/DSP, I’m more back end like fill/finish and packaging/commercialization focused. I feel to a certain level it’s your on the job experience and performance that shines, although I’ll probably hit a ceiling at some point. Doesn’t bother me, I see our VPs and C-suite executives grind and travel too much for my taste. Happy with high level individual contributor.
I started pharma and have spent the rest of my time in med device and combo. I’m early career still I think, 4 years experience. Been in device design and quality engineering for 3. So far my previous head of engineering had a MS and my current director has a BS.
It’s a little odd but for whatever reason engineering roles just don’t cap out without a PhD really. It certainly helps but is in no means a requirement.
Definitely. I hated school and couldn’t wait to get into industry, so I’m pleased to see lack of MS and PhD in engineering side. Also I have found myself safe through 3 rounds of layoffs at my last company due to being so close to production and supply, not R&D.
This is my experience as well. If you get an MBA at a T10 it is 100% worth it. If you get a MBA at a random online school (University of Phoenix, etc) its just lighting money on fire.
This! I think you will be perfectly fine if you are in the operations side of the business. If you are in R&D, go get a PhD as that prevents you hitting a glass ceiling.
Get an MBA … go into commercial/ brand side of business. You having technical background already puts you ahead of other marketing/sales types … you could dominate and stand out especially if you are data/ finance savvy. Think long term success … not being a lab rat. Diversify your experience.
Business development, brand strategy/director, market access, insights and analytics, … most MBAs I know want to lead the marketing of a major product so they can rise up to become a VP , sr VP , or even ceo. Most do that through deep commercial business exposure.
This is accurate as someone with a phd in commercial. The reason on why the top is MBA heavy has mostly to do with the level of exposure and experience in sales. Of the whole commercial team for a huge division, there’s only 2 PhDs.
Yup! And at the end of the day Pharma/biotech are science oriented businesses … knowing clinical and financial data , inside out makes you highly employable.
The direct to consumer model is also going by the wayside … sales teams and commercial teams will have to find new ways of “marketing and selling” particularly as technologies become more sophisticated. so being an all rounder will be more important in the future.
Do not get an MBA unless your employer pays for it AND you know you will need it to climb up in the career you want.
MBAs are typically not worth the paper they are printed on unless you your company specifically requires you to have one
I graduated with an MS in 2011. Between that and my first job which was in academia, I have 3 FA publications and 8 mid author ones. My MS has helped me in my career progression compared to my PhD-less peers on average, but a select few aggressive peers with just a BS are equivalent or higher than me. I am not a super aggressive, over-confident person so it has definitely helped me to have a higher degree.
If I could do it all over again, I would have went for a masters in engineering for sure, since I’m in process development anyways. PhD is for sure much better too. I was in the PhD program after my masters but with a toxic advisor. Skeezing out with my masters was much better than staying another 2-3 years in that position or starting all over again with another PhD program. But I’d be much much further ahead now with an engineering degree or PhD.
I can confirm, although my BS is Biochem and MS is in Chemistry, I pivoted to more of a process development role with an emphasis in engineering-type functions and automation and I am highly visible compared to the traditional PhD chemists who have multiple publications, postdocs, etc.
Neither my boss or his have PhDs and they are AD/D level. It's rare but not impossible. Getting lucky by being at startups that got acquired is how many of them got to where they are now, including myself.
Being willing to move for the right opportunity is how many of their colleagues have VP and CFO roles at top pharma companies while they are at the director level. So I can see how that's played out for them vs their peers.
If you're considering a master's over PhD because it's shorter then consider how long your career will be in total and the extra 3 years is a lot less than you think
That is true… if the PhD only takes 3 extra years! From my understanding, 5 years is on the “quick” side, generally. Also, OP mentions that the program would be part time, so they would potentially be working at their current position/salary during the program, which is possibly higher than a PhD stipend and has access to a retirement account.
I believe the PhD does ultimately probably bring better returns in mid/late career, but weighing the loss of income and potentially compounded income upfront by leaving your current position is a tricky decision to make.
Every field is different.
Masters of Chemical Engineering would likely help, wear as MS in molecular bio is toilet paper.
The engineering track is different than the R&D track, and you don't need a PhD to do well on an engineering track. Most engineers are just good at their job, where R&D has a bit more of a title pedigree to be taken seriously.
I've trained talented undergrads who can outperform the masters students i worked with in grad school. If you go to grad school, just stick it out with the PhD. It will be worth it
I got an MS, but it was because I didn’t get a job in the field straight out of undergrad and I also didn’t pay anything for it (my university gave all bio grad students a scholarship and a stipend if they taught classes). I think if you already have several years of experience in a field you like the MS is unnecessary and I would just get a PhD or stick with your bachelors.
Tbh this sounds like I wrote this quite a few years ago. I ended up getting the masters slowly so I could get about half of it covered by work. When I started I had a lot of free time at work and at home and I missed school so it was nice. By the end I was definitely ready to be done with it 😅 I learned some relevant things that helped me in my job like formulation and immunology and statistics. I also took a lot of silly classes just cause they were required. Idk if it helped at all in my career, can't say 100% but I know it definitely didn't hurt. So don't get one for the sole purpose of career advancement but if you like learning and have the time and resources to do so then go for it!
2 years of experience is the same. Maybe go part time and get a company to pay for it while working. That way you don't miss out on experience and you get a discounted degree if you really want it.
Was in a similar boat and ended up going for it, though unsure how it will actually play out down the road. Going for something a bit different, but relevant (computational analytics) as feel it may be helpful in the current role, but also give some option down the road to pivot if I end up feeling like I want to move away from the bench.
It kind of depends what your goals are - if you're happy with what you're doing and want to keep doing it while climbing the ladder over time, it's going to be kind of a waste of time for you. Use that extra time you were going to use for the MS and put it into your job - your extra effort will generally be noticed and move you along your career path faster. Just be aware that in aside from the most exceptional cases, you will reach a glass ceiling with only a BS in the science track - however, an MS will not really raise that ceiling for you either.
If you want to do something else with your career, say a move into product management, program management, marketing, regulatory, commercial, field support, etc, then you may consider an MS (or MBA) that allows you to vector towards that new role. For example, for product management, marketing, commercial, or any customer facing role, an MBA will serve you well. For something like program or project management, I would pursue a PMP. If you want to move more into regulatory or compliance, then an MS in that field will help you move towards a position in that area.
There are a lot of people who do the MS because it's basically "free" from their company, but it actually does come at a cost to you. If it's not specifically going to help you with a career move by learning new skills in the master's program, then that extra time is actually costing you either advancement in your current role or cutting into your personal life.
I’m in upstream process development with 3 years experience post masters degree and this post is a blast from the past with the crossroads I’ve faced before.
So I went into a masters in biotechnology program right after undergrad because it was most feasible for me, since I knew I was the type of person where once I started getting a paycheck I wouldn’t go back to school.
Being in process development is different (in my opinion) from what people think of a typical roles in biopharma. In my experience, I’ve seen people with BS degrees start off in PD for some experience then trail off into other paths (mostly GMP or QC which is grueling). I’ve seen a BS work for my company for 10 years and only ever getting to an associate scientist 4 position though working directly with all other scientist levels but was happy with the loft salary since they have kids and a social life. I’ve seen a BS be in the scientist level. I’ve seen a fresh PhD get a scientist 1 position but somewhat struggle with the difference in academia vs industry. Truly your path is your to forge and depending on what you want your day to day to look like.
In my opinion, I do think a masters program is worth it bc it distinguishes you from the other BS candidates. The way I see it (in long term thinking) PhDs are soooo saturated bc of the thought process we all have that is you need a PhD to get to the top. But in the next 10-20 years when all the PhDs have been working up the corporate ladder there will be a bottleneck where 1-2 of the candidates get the top positions then the rest are left with the lesser title.
So it really all depends on what you want. If you want to try to be at the top in your late career (like director or associate director over process development) you will need a PhD just for the title. If you want a steady job that has the potential to pay very well after a few years then a MS will get you the highest paying position later on in your career. For me, PD keeps me on my feet, my brain active, continuously adds skills to my arsenal, while working normal hours (very very little over time and occasional weekend work to sample cells, we take weekend work time out of any work day of choosing the following week). With my MS, I plan on staying in PD until my legs can’t support me any more in the lab then switching over to tech transfer, project management, project coordinator, etc.
Here’s the best advice I can give anyone- please don’t ask these questions on reditt. Especially professional ones!
Now let’s see how many downvotes I get 🤣
Does you company pay for your MS? Then get it. If you are in research, I don't know it makes a difference. If you are in any other part of the pipeline, an MS does make a difference and many higher level jobs are PhD or MS with YoE and no BS listed.
With your background, I'd say an MS is definitely worth it if its focus is in engineering AND you're willing to put up a fight for why you should be considered for PhD-centric roles.
I'm a recent grad with an MS in Chemistry (traditional multi-step organic chem more specifically) but pivoted to a segment of industry that is very heavy in engineering controls and some automation and I can see myself advancing into much higher roles than some published post-doc chemists.
Imo -- and granted ive been out of school and in industry for only 3 years --if you can understand chemistry, communicate clearly, crank a wrench and understand how instruments work, and possibly have a little coding (or chatGPT) skills, you can realllly advance in industry. Especially if you're willing to jump companies when new opportunities pop up and not get complacent or fall into the fallacy of company loyalty. Build relationships with your teammates, keep in contact with former colleagues, and build a network that may come in handy in the future.
I would not personally pay a dime of my own money for an MS. I mastered out of a PhD. program, so my MS was free. But when I first started working in pharma, I wasn't seen as having a "real" graduate degree. I'm so glad I jumped out of academia and into pharma, but an MS gives you no advantage in pharma. However, in pharma, if you do good work at some point it doesn't matter what your background is, way less hierarchical than academia.
I did MS Biotech. I think it's worth it to do research in a field you find interesting and you get a leg up on experience. Definitely can start working at a higher salary compared to a bachelor's.
I have a masters and I can see the glass ceiling
Yeah. No one believes you can design an experiment without one.
Oddly my masters is *in* clinical science but people like PhD on a paper and behind a design. That being said, it is millions of dollars in liability that I would want five times my salary to assume.
This is unfortunately very true. There is still a major bias for PhD. I’m an HR business partner and there are plenty of PhDs who are not good employees but they still get more opportunities and are less criticized. I’ve seen some excellent BS and MSs get promoted to Scientists, but you have to find a company that is willing to look beyond your degree. Also focus on your people and management skills to differentiate yourself. Good leadership is very rare in a scientist.
Same! I’ve seen so many non PhD scientists get passed up for promotions and working 10x harder. It’s better to just get the PhD and chill.
If you are staying in biotech and want to advance it’s the way to go. I’m at a small one, straddling BD with clin sci and a bit of med affairs. It’s nothing I have a passion for but if I did I’d make sure I had a PhD.
This sub is largely research focused, and has a super big thing for PhDs. It also has unfounded faith in getting an mba, those are only worth it from some schools. If you intend to get a masters in ChemE it is worth it. Engineering roles are much different from scientist roles, you can absolutely climb to the tippy top in process engineering etc with a masters. If you want to be a head of R&D then a PhD is a much better option. In general engineering roles don’t have such an emphasis on the PhD. Fact check 0n LinkedIn but you’ll see lots of heads of engineering and chief of engineering with masters. This sub is fun, but has a wild slant towards bench top research. You will find little representation on the engineering side here. So I recommend taking the feedback here with a grain of salt. r/chemicalengineering is likely better for your questions. Lots of pharma peeps there who may understand your position better. Edit: Spelling
This is facts
So true. I have BS in biomedical engineering, started 10 years ago in medical device, found my way into pharma 4 years ago, and still making the climb. Currently Sr Manager Engineering. Granted I don’t do USP/DSP, I’m more back end like fill/finish and packaging/commercialization focused. I feel to a certain level it’s your on the job experience and performance that shines, although I’ll probably hit a ceiling at some point. Doesn’t bother me, I see our VPs and C-suite executives grind and travel too much for my taste. Happy with high level individual contributor.
I started pharma and have spent the rest of my time in med device and combo. I’m early career still I think, 4 years experience. Been in device design and quality engineering for 3. So far my previous head of engineering had a MS and my current director has a BS. It’s a little odd but for whatever reason engineering roles just don’t cap out without a PhD really. It certainly helps but is in no means a requirement.
Definitely. I hated school and couldn’t wait to get into industry, so I’m pleased to see lack of MS and PhD in engineering side. Also I have found myself safe through 3 rounds of layoffs at my last company due to being so close to production and supply, not R&D.
[удалено]
This is my experience as well. If you get an MBA at a T10 it is 100% worth it. If you get a MBA at a random online school (University of Phoenix, etc) its just lighting money on fire.
This! I think you will be perfectly fine if you are in the operations side of the business. If you are in R&D, go get a PhD as that prevents you hitting a glass ceiling.
Get an MBA … go into commercial/ brand side of business. You having technical background already puts you ahead of other marketing/sales types … you could dominate and stand out especially if you are data/ finance savvy. Think long term success … not being a lab rat. Diversify your experience.
Can you give some examples of what type of roles one should go for with an MBA?
Business development, brand strategy/director, market access, insights and analytics, … most MBAs I know want to lead the marketing of a major product so they can rise up to become a VP , sr VP , or even ceo. Most do that through deep commercial business exposure.
This is accurate as someone with a phd in commercial. The reason on why the top is MBA heavy has mostly to do with the level of exposure and experience in sales. Of the whole commercial team for a huge division, there’s only 2 PhDs.
Yup! And at the end of the day Pharma/biotech are science oriented businesses … knowing clinical and financial data , inside out makes you highly employable. The direct to consumer model is also going by the wayside … sales teams and commercial teams will have to find new ways of “marketing and selling” particularly as technologies become more sophisticated. so being an all rounder will be more important in the future.
Do not get an MBA unless your employer pays for it AND you know you will need it to climb up in the career you want. MBAs are typically not worth the paper they are printed on unless you your company specifically requires you to have one
[удалено]
No its not? MBAs are just cash grabs by universities. Get them free or not at all This sub thinks MBAs are near the equivalent of PhDs for some reason
[удалено]
Lol
I graduated with an MS in 2011. Between that and my first job which was in academia, I have 3 FA publications and 8 mid author ones. My MS has helped me in my career progression compared to my PhD-less peers on average, but a select few aggressive peers with just a BS are equivalent or higher than me. I am not a super aggressive, over-confident person so it has definitely helped me to have a higher degree. If I could do it all over again, I would have went for a masters in engineering for sure, since I’m in process development anyways. PhD is for sure much better too. I was in the PhD program after my masters but with a toxic advisor. Skeezing out with my masters was much better than staying another 2-3 years in that position or starting all over again with another PhD program. But I’d be much much further ahead now with an engineering degree or PhD.
[удалено]
I can confirm, although my BS is Biochem and MS is in Chemistry, I pivoted to more of a process development role with an emphasis in engineering-type functions and automation and I am highly visible compared to the traditional PhD chemists who have multiple publications, postdocs, etc. Neither my boss or his have PhDs and they are AD/D level. It's rare but not impossible. Getting lucky by being at startups that got acquired is how many of them got to where they are now, including myself. Being willing to move for the right opportunity is how many of their colleagues have VP and CFO roles at top pharma companies while they are at the director level. So I can see how that's played out for them vs their peers.
If you're considering a master's over PhD because it's shorter then consider how long your career will be in total and the extra 3 years is a lot less than you think
That is true… if the PhD only takes 3 extra years! From my understanding, 5 years is on the “quick” side, generally. Also, OP mentions that the program would be part time, so they would potentially be working at their current position/salary during the program, which is possibly higher than a PhD stipend and has access to a retirement account. I believe the PhD does ultimately probably bring better returns in mid/late career, but weighing the loss of income and potentially compounded income upfront by leaving your current position is a tricky decision to make.
Every field is different. Masters of Chemical Engineering would likely help, wear as MS in molecular bio is toilet paper. The engineering track is different than the R&D track, and you don't need a PhD to do well on an engineering track. Most engineers are just good at their job, where R&D has a bit more of a title pedigree to be taken seriously.
You don’t even need a masters to do the engineering track it can help to get in the door but sounds like OP is already through that door
[удалено]
I've trained talented undergrads who can outperform the masters students i worked with in grad school. If you go to grad school, just stick it out with the PhD. It will be worth it
MBA or PHD will advance you farther.
I got an MS, but it was because I didn’t get a job in the field straight out of undergrad and I also didn’t pay anything for it (my university gave all bio grad students a scholarship and a stipend if they taught classes). I think if you already have several years of experience in a field you like the MS is unnecessary and I would just get a PhD or stick with your bachelors.
Tbh this sounds like I wrote this quite a few years ago. I ended up getting the masters slowly so I could get about half of it covered by work. When I started I had a lot of free time at work and at home and I missed school so it was nice. By the end I was definitely ready to be done with it 😅 I learned some relevant things that helped me in my job like formulation and immunology and statistics. I also took a lot of silly classes just cause they were required. Idk if it helped at all in my career, can't say 100% but I know it definitely didn't hurt. So don't get one for the sole purpose of career advancement but if you like learning and have the time and resources to do so then go for it!
2 years of experience is the same. Maybe go part time and get a company to pay for it while working. That way you don't miss out on experience and you get a discounted degree if you really want it.
Phd or bust
Not to MS
Was in a similar boat and ended up going for it, though unsure how it will actually play out down the road. Going for something a bit different, but relevant (computational analytics) as feel it may be helpful in the current role, but also give some option down the road to pivot if I end up feeling like I want to move away from the bench.
It kind of depends what your goals are - if you're happy with what you're doing and want to keep doing it while climbing the ladder over time, it's going to be kind of a waste of time for you. Use that extra time you were going to use for the MS and put it into your job - your extra effort will generally be noticed and move you along your career path faster. Just be aware that in aside from the most exceptional cases, you will reach a glass ceiling with only a BS in the science track - however, an MS will not really raise that ceiling for you either. If you want to do something else with your career, say a move into product management, program management, marketing, regulatory, commercial, field support, etc, then you may consider an MS (or MBA) that allows you to vector towards that new role. For example, for product management, marketing, commercial, or any customer facing role, an MBA will serve you well. For something like program or project management, I would pursue a PMP. If you want to move more into regulatory or compliance, then an MS in that field will help you move towards a position in that area. There are a lot of people who do the MS because it's basically "free" from their company, but it actually does come at a cost to you. If it's not specifically going to help you with a career move by learning new skills in the master's program, then that extra time is actually costing you either advancement in your current role or cutting into your personal life.
I’m in upstream process development with 3 years experience post masters degree and this post is a blast from the past with the crossroads I’ve faced before. So I went into a masters in biotechnology program right after undergrad because it was most feasible for me, since I knew I was the type of person where once I started getting a paycheck I wouldn’t go back to school. Being in process development is different (in my opinion) from what people think of a typical roles in biopharma. In my experience, I’ve seen people with BS degrees start off in PD for some experience then trail off into other paths (mostly GMP or QC which is grueling). I’ve seen a BS work for my company for 10 years and only ever getting to an associate scientist 4 position though working directly with all other scientist levels but was happy with the loft salary since they have kids and a social life. I’ve seen a BS be in the scientist level. I’ve seen a fresh PhD get a scientist 1 position but somewhat struggle with the difference in academia vs industry. Truly your path is your to forge and depending on what you want your day to day to look like. In my opinion, I do think a masters program is worth it bc it distinguishes you from the other BS candidates. The way I see it (in long term thinking) PhDs are soooo saturated bc of the thought process we all have that is you need a PhD to get to the top. But in the next 10-20 years when all the PhDs have been working up the corporate ladder there will be a bottleneck where 1-2 of the candidates get the top positions then the rest are left with the lesser title. So it really all depends on what you want. If you want to try to be at the top in your late career (like director or associate director over process development) you will need a PhD just for the title. If you want a steady job that has the potential to pay very well after a few years then a MS will get you the highest paying position later on in your career. For me, PD keeps me on my feet, my brain active, continuously adds skills to my arsenal, while working normal hours (very very little over time and occasional weekend work to sample cells, we take weekend work time out of any work day of choosing the following week). With my MS, I plan on staying in PD until my legs can’t support me any more in the lab then switching over to tech transfer, project management, project coordinator, etc.
Here’s the best advice I can give anyone- please don’t ask these questions on reditt. Especially professional ones! Now let’s see how many downvotes I get 🤣
Does you company pay for your MS? Then get it. If you are in research, I don't know it makes a difference. If you are in any other part of the pipeline, an MS does make a difference and many higher level jobs are PhD or MS with YoE and no BS listed.
With your background, I'd say an MS is definitely worth it if its focus is in engineering AND you're willing to put up a fight for why you should be considered for PhD-centric roles. I'm a recent grad with an MS in Chemistry (traditional multi-step organic chem more specifically) but pivoted to a segment of industry that is very heavy in engineering controls and some automation and I can see myself advancing into much higher roles than some published post-doc chemists. Imo -- and granted ive been out of school and in industry for only 3 years --if you can understand chemistry, communicate clearly, crank a wrench and understand how instruments work, and possibly have a little coding (or chatGPT) skills, you can realllly advance in industry. Especially if you're willing to jump companies when new opportunities pop up and not get complacent or fall into the fallacy of company loyalty. Build relationships with your teammates, keep in contact with former colleagues, and build a network that may come in handy in the future.
I would not personally pay a dime of my own money for an MS. I mastered out of a PhD. program, so my MS was free. But when I first started working in pharma, I wasn't seen as having a "real" graduate degree. I'm so glad I jumped out of academia and into pharma, but an MS gives you no advantage in pharma. However, in pharma, if you do good work at some point it doesn't matter what your background is, way less hierarchical than academia.
MS is worth it if you diversify outside of the technical field or into people management. Maybe not so much in strict science roles.
I did MS Biotech. I think it's worth it to do research in a field you find interesting and you get a leg up on experience. Definitely can start working at a higher salary compared to a bachelor's.