Hi Dr. B,
I don't really know what the academic hiring committees are looking for- outside of what I recall back in the day when I was in graduate school and we were interviewing faculty.
I can recall that one time the university already had in mind the person to hire- it was a faculty who was brought on as non-TT with their understanding that if they did well they would become TT. Well, I guess the university was forced to open the position and go through the interview process even though this person was basically guaranteed the job. All the grad students knew it so it felt kinda odd to be sitting through their seminars knowing they have no shot at the job and have no idea. People didn't like this particular person much- very abrasive abusive personality so we were all hoping that one of the other candidates would blow away the hiring committee and get it. It came close, but it didn't happen.
I don't know if that happens frequently where the outcome is already decided?
My understanding is that academic hiring committees are looking for people with grant money, with unique cutting edge research, and probably some teaching experience.
In biotech, I think the most important thing is that the person can get along with others. One antagonistic person can kill progress in a group.
It is good to show on your CV and when you interview to mention how you worked in a team to accomplish something or if you led a team. A person has to be able to work independently AND in teams.
As a postdoc, you may have supervised people. Being able to manage other people is a skill and is a big bonus. I have a couple friends who can't get jobs (in marketing) right now because they don't have enough experience managing others or managing teams. I would highly recommend to people that if you have the opportunity to supervise someone else or lead a team, you take it. And of course treat your supervisee well so you can use them for a reference later.
Hiring managers in life science biotech will look for people with a record of accomplishing goals- so it doesn't always need to be papers, but could be inventions, patents, products developed. For scientists fresh out of academics, on a CV, instead of listing where you worked and the title of the research project, it is better to list what you achieved. So instead of writing: "Induced neuropathogenesis of drosophila of the Hedgehog and Forkhead gene" (names from Angry Scientist's comic), better is:
- Discovered and cloned two genes involved in glioblastoma
- Purified two seven-transmembrane domain G proteins and generated antibodies successful for detection of the internal and external domains
- Successfully ablated glioblastoma in a mouse model using antibodies as a therapeutic tool etc. Also- mentioning or listing difficult technologies that you've used is a good idea.
The hiring manager does not always care about exactly what you worked on. Unless you are being hired specifically to study that same thing- such as in pharma to develop a therapeutic for glioblastoma. Otherwise, it is more important that you are a person who gets things done no matter what it is that you do. And that you can think through any problem and figure out a way to the answer, even if it means techniques you haven't used.
Well, that's my opinion. If any other biotech R&D people or pharma R&D people have other opinions, I would love it hear it.
0