Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Fewer and fewer American college students are choosing to major in Science Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). This has been an ongoing trend in the US for the past two decades. However, within the STEM majors, the life sciences are faring the best. While I believe that the US needs more life sciences majors to remain competitive with the rest of the world, there are a few things you ought to know before you take the life sciences plunge.

1. More than 86,000 American biology majors graduate each year
2. About 58% of all bachelors’, masters and doctorates in the life sciences are awarded to women (who continue to earn substantially less than their male counterparts)
3. Entry level salaries for biology majors range from $40,000 to $50,000 per year (computer and engineering students start at salaries of $55,000 to $65,000 per year)
4. PhD degrees in the life sciences take on average six years to complete
5. Postdoc starting salaries range from $37,000 to $40,000 per year
6. More than a third of biologists are still working as postdocs or in other non-tenure track jobs six years after receiving their PhD degrees
7. Only 14% of PhD-trained biologists win tenure track positions within six years of receiving their degrees
8. Because of tighter funding for government jobs and the loss of 300,000 pharmaceutical jobs in the past decade, many newly-minted PhDs are forced to become serial postdocs (supported by soft money) or help senior scientists set up and run their laboratories waiting to see if they can win permanent academic employment
9. Fewer tenured life sciences professors are retiring because of the financial downturn

If you still want to be biology major after reading this post, then I think that you know what career path you ought to pursue! Just sayin’......

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent report issued by the US Department of Commerce reported that job opportunities in science technology, engineering and math fields (STEM) are increasing in America. The report contends that over the past decade the number of people employed in STEM jobs has increased three times as much as the growth rate for non-STEM jobs growing by approximately 7.6 million workers. Further, the report predicts that between 2008 and 2018 that STEM jobs will grow by about 17 percent as compared with roughly 10 percent for non-STEM jobs. On average, in 2010 STEM employees earned about $25 per hour almost $9 more per hour than non-STEM workers.

While this may appear to be good news, a report published last year by the President’s Council on Science and Technology indicated that less than one-third of US eighth graders are considered proficient in math and science. Further, the report also found that there is a lack of qualified STEM teachers at most schools even those that are otherwise successful. Consequently, this has resulted in a student population that is not only unprepared to fill those predicted 1.3 million STEM jobs but also uninterested in STEM subjects. In other words, unless something changes, there won’t be enough trained American workers to meet future US STEM needs; thereby reducing US global competitiveness in STEM fields like biotechnology, computing and engineering.

However, it is important to note that previous reports predicting future shortages of science and technology employees have been flat-out wrong! Nevertheless, there is no doubt that America is lagging in STEM competitiveness. However, this is likely because of the way in which STEM subjects are taught in primary and secondary schools. There is more emphasis placed on memorizing STEM concepts rather than teaching and honing problem solving skills which is the most important factor when participating in real-life STEM endeavors.

The same conclusion was reached by an 18-member National Research Council committee that recently issued a report outlining a new framework to improve science curriculums in the US. The head of the committee that issued the report, a retired physicist said “kids are expected to learn a lot of things but not expected to be able to use them.” The last time the National Research Council—the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering—weighed in on STEM preparedness was 1996.

One way to improve STEM education in the US is to hire more PhDs as middle and high school science, math and engineering teachers. After all, problem solving skills are what the PhD degree is all about and most PhDs ought to be content area experts in the subjects that they teach. Unfortunately, in most PhD and postdoctoral programs the mere mention of possibly becoming a high school teacher is invariably “the kiss of death” and may result in a student or postdoc being thrown out of a laboratory. The irony of the US STEM conundrum is stark; there is a need for more problem solvers in the class room but the people who train the problem solvers refuse to empower them to become teachers! Go figure!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try teaching)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A study financed by the US Department of Education which compared the effectiveness of online vs. classroom-based teaching for the past 12 years found that online learning on average beat face-to-face instruction by a modest but statistically significant margin. Not surprisingly, Bill Gates (a Harvard drop out) believes that online learning will ultimately replace much college classroom teaching because he thinks “college needs to be place-based.” In other words, teaching needs to be directly delivered to the students who may be a difference places at different times. 

But, recent research published by David Figlio an economist at Northwestern University (in association with the National Bureau of Economics) found that live, classroom instruction was superior to Internet-based lecture videos for an introductory economics students.

The results were obtained in a head-to-head experiment that compared the grades achieved by 312 online students and those taught in a traditional classroom setting in an introductory economics course taught at a major unnamed state university. Interestingly, Hispanic online students’ grades fell nearly a full grade lower than Hispanic taught in a traditional classroom. Moreover, male students performed almost a half a grade worse than their classroom-based counterparts and low achievers, who had college grade point averages below the university mean also performed more poorly. Finally, online female students outperformed online male students.

The researchers assert that the differences that they observed could not be attributed to computer replacing the traditional tutorial-style human teaching environment because the lecture hall used in the experiment was a very large one that seated hundreds of students at one time. Initially, Figlio thought that the flexibility of online courses—the ability to go back and revisit course materials when time permitted—would give online learning an edge over traditional learning environments. However, based on the results of the study he contends that “the time-shifting convenience of the Web made it easier for students to put off viewing lectures and cram just before the test; a tactic that likely may not produce the best results! 

That may partly explain some of the discrepancies uncovered in the study, but why do online male students perform worse than their online female counterparts? The answer likely lies in the commonly-held belief (fact?) that female students are superior to male students in time management, organizational skills and commitment. Whether or not this is true, there is emerging evidence which suggests that online learning may not be an appropriate learning style for some students despite it obvious advantage of convenience. That said, it is important to note that the traditional didactic methods of instruction commonly employed by most secondary and postsecondary educators is also lacking and needs to be modified to create better learning environments.

While online training is gaining in popularity—and in my opinion, a great adjunctive tool—it will never replace those “magical teaching moments” that often spontaneously arise in a face-to-face classroom setting from student-instructor interactions and student-student repartee.

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Those of you who may be old enough to recognize the slogan “We’ve come a long way baby” ought to consider reading the list below about the things that the majority of today’s 18 year olds (college freshman) have never done. The reason why I think that the list is important is because we educators (most of whom are baby boomers and increasingly Gen Xers) grew up in a different world than the Millennials aka Gen Y. 

Like it or not, these differences must be taken into consideration when devising strategies on how to teach these students! What may have worked for you or me, may no longer be the best way to teach this and future generations of students.

The article was sent to me by a representative at matchacollege.com.

10 Things the Class of 2014 Hasn’t Experienced

Below is a list of the 10 things the class of 2014 hasn’t experienced, or more accurately, the 10 things a majority of 18-year-olds haven’t experienced firsthand.

1. A world without the internet
   Not only do new college students not know a world without the internet, but many also haven’t endured the screaming modem connecting through a telephone landline. A dropped connection or the fear of it limited your enjoyment and inhibited you from accomplishing much. But as the internet has evolved, connections have become faster and almost everything has become available with the click of a mouse. Teenagers are able to sign up for SATs, apply for college, apply for financial aid, select their classes, find a dorm, find a roommate and join a club all before they set foot on campus. The legwork that came with making such a life transition two decades ago has been eliminated.
2. Consistent email correspondences
   It’s tragically unhip to use an email for anything other than formal correspondence. It has become an archaic form of internet communication and it has been supplanted by social networking sites. Email is rarely used to facilitate conversations by young people because it’s too slow and too impersonal. Instead, it’s used for formal messages with bosses and professors, and as a tool for signing up for websites.
3. Life without cell phones
   College freshmen now are connected to their friends every minute of every day thanks to their smartphones. They can maintain constant contact with each other by texting and Facebooking – the latter of which has made high school reunions less anticipated because graduates from the last several years already know what their classmates are doing with their lives. Many college students have never used a payphone, which was the main communication device to use when you were out and about in years past, though you couldn’t make the call if you didn’t remember the number.
4. Cameras with film
   The class of 2014 will be taking plenty of pictures in the coming years, capturing the memorable and not-so-memorable moments that occur during college. But before the advent of Facebook, when picture-taking was less of a priority to young people, a camera was only as good as the film that accompanied it. There was no immediate gratification after taking a round of photos because you couldn’t upload them onto your computer. Instead, you dropped the roll off at the drugstore and waited until the photos were developed – it was the only way you would see the photos.
5. Using a paper map
   Now, commuters are less likely to get lost with the presence of a GPS. The only time a paper map is unfolded, trial and error is used or verbal directions are requested during a trip is when the GPS hasn’t been updated in a while, and it steers you to an empty field. So when students from the class of 2014 embark on their first college roadtrips, the absence of wrong turns and unexpected detours will result in more time to have fun.
6. Driving manual transmission cars
   Although cars with manual transmissions are still manufactured, few young people bother to learn how to drive them. The phase-out began a couple of decades ago, but for a while, many parents took it upon themselves to teach their kids how to drive a stick shift because it was still considered a useful skill. Cars with manual transmissions are usually cheaper, and car enthusiasts will tell you they’re more fun to drive. But driving has become a chore, and young and old people alike prefer to keep it as easy as possible.
7. Thumbing through an encyclopedia, dictionary or thesaurus
   The time-consuming activity of thumbing through an encyclopedia, dictionary or thesaurus made research papers a dreaded part of the college experience during the pre-internet era. It was a given that you would spend hours upon hours in the library, and if you didn’t, your GPA would suffer. For home use, Encyclopedia Britannica and Webster’s Dictionary were reliable options. Now, definitions can be easily found by googling the term, and Wikipedia has become an informal source of information despite its inaccuracy. Library time is spent surfing the internet, unless a professor gives an assignment that requires for certain books to be cited.
8. Returning videotapes
   Through the ’80s and ’90s, college students would spend late nights perusing the aisles of video stores, looking for the latest and greatest hits to view during their downtime. It was imperative they returned the videotapes in a timely manner; otherwise they would face late fees, which would put a dent their nearly empty bank accounts. And, of course, the tapes had to be rewound. Students today use torrents and sites like Netflix, and they never have to leave their dorm suites.
9. Cash only
   No longer are trips to the ATM a necessary weekly occurrence. There are very few situations in which cash is needed, so few people carry bills in their wallets. Everyone with a bank account owns a debit card, so wads of cash aren’t needed by college students for activities like barhopping. Instead, they use their debit cards for everything, including bar tabs, which grow as more beer and shots are downed, causing future meals to be sacrificed due to the limited funds that remain.
10. Reliance on a wristwatch
    Cell phones have ensured that people no longer uses wristwatches for time-telling purposes. Watches are no different than any piece of jewelry – they’re aesthetically-pleasing items that are worn fashionably. But it doesn’t seem to be a trend for 18-year-olds to own one, and with their cell phones always in their palms, they always know the time.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was an illuminating review today in the New York Times of a new book entitled “Higher Education? How Colleges are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids-and What We Can Do About it.” Its authors are two longtime faculty members Andrew Hacker (tenured professor) and Claudia Dreifus (a freelance writer and adjunct instructor).

While I haven’t read the book, some of the problems with higher education asserted by the authors (and mentioned in the review) are consistent with my observations and experience. For example the review mentions that:

“Mr. Hacker and Ms. Dreifus list a host of crimes, or at least flaws in the system, some in the control of universities and others built into the external political, cultural or economic environment, or indeed into human nature. These include the narrow self-interestedness of academic departments; the greed of faculty members and administrators alike; the near-universal hypertrophy of “the athletics incubus”; unfunded government mandates; lifetime employment for pampered professors (thanks to the combination of tenure and Congressional abolition of mandatory retirement); and the demands of students and their parents for frivolous extras (driving what the authors call “the amenities arms race”).

The authors raise interesting questions about tenure and its alternatives. Like many critics of tenure, though, they have a keen eye for abuses of power but are remarkably sanguine about the capacity of the First Amendment to shield scholars from pressure exerted by those with the power to fire them.

The authors’ deepest scorn is reserved for the claim that good teaching depends on research, and their most extreme proposal is that universities drastically reduce the amount of research they support, by “spinning off” medical schools and research centers, discontinuing paid sabbaticals and abolishing the current system of promotion and tenure, a system that tends to reward research productivity more than effective teaching.”

While I tend agree that the emphasis on research, the pressure to publish and obtain extramural funding has had a negative impact on teaching, I disagree that teaching isn’t positively impacted by faculty members who are actively involved in scholarly research-what a conundrum!

Nevertheless, this book written by two long-time academicians provides compelling arguments for abolition of tenure and the need to improve teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try teaching)!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Let me say at the outset of this post that I have a PhD in Bacteriology and admittedly less than objective when it comes to the topic of microbiology education and improving the public understanding of science. However, in today’s New York Times Science Times section there were no fewer than five articles that required some knowledge of microbiology to understand the implications about what was written.

1. Vaccination is Steady, but Pertussis is Surging
2. Really? The Claim: More Sugar Leads to More Cavities
3. Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in the U.S.
4. Patterns: Medicare Coverage Drives Antibiotic Use
5. Vital Signs: Nipple Piercings Add to Risk of Abscesses

While it doesn’t require a PhD to decipher the information in this article a basic understanding of microbiology would allow readers to understand the significance and future implications of the material that was presented. For example, in the article about nipple piercings; anybody who has taken an introductory microbiology class knows that bacteria like Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes can cause pus-laden infections and if left untreated can result in potentially life-threatening abscess formation. Sugar and cavities? Microbiology 101 students all know that bacteria like S. mutans (that live in everyone’s mouths) ferment sugars and produce lactic acid that degrades tooth enamel and can cause cavities. And, most entry level microbiology students understand that the overuse of conventional antibiotics is largely responsible for the emergence of multiple drug resistant bacteria like multiple drug resistant S. aureus MRSA) and vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE).

The point that I am trying to make is that bacteria are all around us; some do good things like fix nitrogen to improve crop yields and produce oxygen during photosynthesis while others cause devastating acute and chronic infections. Nevertheless, the lay public is largely ignorant about the microbes on and around them. Most of my friends, many of whom have advanced degrees in their fields, don’t know the difference between a virus and a bacterium and believe that it is okay to treat a cold with antibiotics! How can people modify their behaviors to effectuate change to improve their lives if they lack a rudimentary understanding of the factors responsible for conditions that afflict them?

Don’t get me wrong—we don’t need more PhD microbiologists. However, requiring all high school biology students and maybe biology degree students to have a firm understanding of the fundamental principles of microbiology would be a great start toward improving the lives of many Americans!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My father was an elementary school teacher who eventually became an elementary school principal, a position that he retired from about 15 years ago. As you might imagine, education was an important part of the lives of my three siblings and me. Like my father, three of four of us eventually pursued careers in education: my sister teaches art to high school students in California; my brother is a professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University of Vermont and I have been a science educator for most of my adult life.

When I first entered graduate school in the Department of Bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I intended to pursue a teaching career at a small liberal arts institution. My career goals changed during my graduate school experiences, and ultimately I chose to pursue a career in academic research rather than teaching. Despite that decision, my first and perhaps only love has always been teaching. Ironically, it was my love of teaching that prevented me from winning tenure at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine. While I have reinvented myself no fewer than 10 times during my admittedly circuitous career path, the one common and constant element that links together some of my seemingly disparate career choices has been my love of teaching.

No matter what the experts may say, there is no middle ground in teaching—you either love it or hate. Put simply, there are those who were born to teach and others who were not!

When I give my Alternate Careers for PhDs talk to graduate and postdoctoral fellows who are looking for career options, I always mention teaching. Not surprisingly, I wax romantically about how noble a profession teaching is and the acute need for qualified science teachers. However, I always temper my remarks by emphasizing that “unless you are passionate about teaching, then becoming a teacher may not be an appropriate career choice. In other words, unless you are “all in” you never be an effective teacher. To that end, I came across an article in this Sunday’s New York Times by Peter Wilson; a former executive who decided to eschew a successful public relations career in his mid-30s to become a middle school English teacher. 

If after reading Peter's story, you find yourself energized or “moved” by his story, then I believe that you possess the “right stuff” to pursue a career in education. As the old Nike ads urge: “Just Do It!”

Hat tip to Peter Wilson!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has been a growing reliance on the use of online tools to teach science to primary, secondary and college students. This makes sense because anybody who has pursued a science career will tell you that using web-based programs, applications and searches is absolutely essential when conducting scientific research. To that end, Amber Johnson at onlinecourses.org sent me an article that details some really cool educational add-on tools that are available for the Firefox browser.

I highly recommend that science educators at all levels check out the post and evaluate some of these interesting tools!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The compensation packages for CEOs of many publicly held companies have recently, (for obvious reasons), come under intense scrutiny. This has spilled over to the chief executive offices of many not-for-profit organizations including private colleges and universities. While the compensation packages for most university presidents and administrators are substantial in many instances, there are a few university employees who sometimes earn substantially more. 

According to an article in today’s New York Times, there were 88 private-college employees who made $1 million or more in 2007 (only 11 were college Presidents or chief executive officers). These were the results from an analysis conducted by The Chronicles of Higher Education of the compensation packages of more than 4,000 employees at 600 private colleges. The two top earners were Pete Carroll, the head football coach at USC and Dr. David N. Silvers, a Columbia University dermatologist both of whom made almost $4.5 million last years. Coach Carroll’s compensation packages was almost four times that of the university’s president whereas Dr. Silver’s salary of $4,332,759 compared with $1 411,894 earned by Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president. Another Columbia professor, Dr. Jeffrey W. Moses, earned a paltry $2,532,713 last year. Check out the salaries of the top ten earners!

While the pay for college and university presidents has risen sharply in the last decade the same hasn’t been true for many faculty members. Not surprisingly, over the same period, the gap between administrator and professor salaries has substantially widened. This parallels what has been taking place in the private sector where CEOs typically earn hundreds of times more than their employees. The disparity in administrator and faculty salaries led Patrick M. Callan, the president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education to muse: “It may be reasonable for these people to be well paid but if faculty’s getting 2 per cent raises, I don’t see why senior administrators, who are already high-paid, should get much larger increases. It reflects a set of values that is not the way most Americans think about higher education.” The Chronicle survey found that on average, university and college presidents make about $500,000 annually.

This poses an interesting question: Unlike administrators, are most university and college professors overpaid? Based on my own experience as a medical school faculty member—absolutely not! Nevertheless, over the 10 years or more, there has been a growing disparity in the salaries of research faculty members as compared with teaching faculty. Typically, the researchers, who bring in large sums of money from grants and other extramural funding, command much higher salaries than faculty members whose primary function is teaching. While this may seem reasonable from a financial/business perspective, it raises a fundamental question about higher education: What is more important—making money or teaching? 

Set standards for your education at the Albertus Magnus College

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Training!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Convincing students and adults that science can be fun and even cool at times can be a very challenging proposition. This is mostly because science is perceived as “being hard” and in many cases, the people who teach science are not appropriately trained. Consequently sciences classes are frequently boring and unimaginative. Nevertheless, creative scientists can sometimes figure out ways to overcome these negative perceptions of science. One of the best examples of this is the use of the Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) in some so-called consumer products.  While this application of GFP may pose ethical dilemmas for some, I haven’t met many children or adults who don’t think that transgenic mice, fish or flowers that glow green, red, blue or yellow (or a combination of these colors) in dark aren’t cool! While this wasn’t GFP’s intended use—the scientists who first demonstrated GFP’s utility as a genetic engineering application won a Noble prize last year—it certainly exposed the lay public to wonders and powers of modern day scientists.

With this in mind, researchers at the University of Tokyo’s Institute of Industrial Science (IIS) announced that they had created a 5-millimeter tall doll composed of living cells to demonstrate a new method for fabricating three-dimensional living biological structures. The researchers created the tiny figurine by cultivating 100,000 cell capsules — 0.1-millimeter balls of collagen, each coated with dozens of skin cells — together inside a doll-shaped mold for one day. After the cells had fused to form the doll-shaped structure, it was placed in a culture solution and survived for more than 24 hours. The researchers hope to use the method to create tissues and organs with complex cellular structures, which may prove useful in the fields of regenerative medicine and drug development.

While this new technology may never rival GFP and its multitude of applications, it shows that scientists like to have fun from time-to-time and can introduce complex scientific ideas to the lay public.  In my opinion, many kids get turned off to science at an early age because we scientists take ourselves too seriously and rarely explore ways to inject fun into sometimes tedious and boring material. After all, nobody made it fun for us and we became scientists anyway! We live in a different world now and I can see from watching my own children grow, that today’s  kids today are inquisitive, creative, comfortable with sophisticated technologies and open to new ideas—requisite traits for all scientists!

Unlike the past eight years, a new window of opportunity exists to challenge and convince young people that science is fun and can be very cool at times. To accomplish this, we science educators must step outside of our comfort zones and begin to inject some fun and wonderment into science. The kids will love it and I suspect so will we!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I had little to do last night, so I decided to download Stumble Upon for Firefox.  While I was stumbling, I came across an outstanding video that teaches and reinforces the underlying principles of chemical reactions. If I had this type of tutorial when I was an undergraduate, I might very well have become a chemist rather than a biologist!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Reactions!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was originally written by Vincent Racaniello, a long time friend and colleague, who runs the Virology Blog. 

Here is what Vincent had to say:

My colleagues (generally the older ones) often ask me why I blog or podcast. They believe that I am wasting my time. After all, I am a scientist, and it is my job to carry out research. In order to do this I must publish papers and obtain grants. The grant funds are used to pay salaries (mine and those in my laboratory) and purchase the supplies needed for research. In my institution, nothing matters except raising money for research. Teaching, mentoring, and other community services mean very little. Blogging and podcasting do nothing to help fund my laboratory.

Here are my answers. Why did I go into science? Because my parents (physician and teacher) and my teachers inspired me. But for many other children, the only inspiration they have is their teachers. They need input from other sources. I believe I can help provide that input over the internet.

Most people - kids, teens, adults - don’t understand science. Their teachers can provide only a very rudimentary, often flawed view of some of the fundamental concepts. While I cannot cover all of science, I can do a good job of teaching what I know. I have been studying and thinking about viruses for over 30 years, so I understand them quite well. I am also able to talk and write about them clearly and concisely, a gift I probably received in part from my teacher parent. These qualities put me in a unique position to educate the public about viruses. 

Early in my career, I didn’t think much about teaching. I focused on research. Later I realized I had a reasonable ability to communicate what I knew, which turned into a love of teaching. My blogging and podcasting about viruses represent part of the effort to impart some of my knowledge to the public. 

As I have read and heard many times on the web, if you want to blog or podcast, do it about something you are passionate about. And that is what I am doing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link