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

In case you haven’t heard by now, biotechnology is no longer one of the best kept secrets of the pharmaceutical industry. Because small molecule blockbuster drugs are few and far between, every major pharmaceutical company in the world has announced plans to increase the percentage of protein-based drugs in their development pipeline. 

As strange as this may sound, most people working at pharmaceutical companies have little or no understanding of the science behind the biotechnology industry, its products and the skill sets required to compete in the industry. I learned this while working as a contract writer at a pharmaceutical company that was trying to transition from an emphasis on small molecules to biotechnology drugs. Shortly after management publicly announced its intention, signs began appearing in the building where I worked with messages like “Are you biotech to the core” or “Got biotech.” Not surprisingly, I found myself explaining the different between small molecules and biotechnology products to large numbers of colleagues during group lunches. Their lack of understanding about biotechnology was both surprising and troubling. I mean where have these people been for the past 35 years? 

While I thought that this phenomenon was unique to the company where I was working, it turns out —based on many conversations with employees at other companies—that it is pervasive in the pharmaceutical industry! Put simply, there are large numbers of pharmaceutical employees (and aspiring students for that matter) who know little about biotechnology and must quickly learn about an industry that they are being forced to work in so that they can keep their jobs! This presents time and logistical issues for many full time pharmaceutical employees—they simply don’t have the time or where-with-all to learn about biotechnology via traditional bricks and mortar training opportunities, e.g. undergraduate, graduate or certificate programs.

Recognizing a growing need, several academic institutions now offer online biotechnology courses and degree programs for undergraduate and graduate students. While these programs may not enable participants to work as bench scientists at life sciences companies (this requires hands-on wet laboratory training), they certainly provide students with the fundamental scientific and business underpinnings of the biotechnology industry.

Below you will find descriptions of a couple of online degree biotechnology programs and links to online undergraduate and graduate level biotechnology courses.

Online Biotechnology Degree Programs

The Johns Hopkins University – a prestigious brick-and-mortar research university – offers three online degree programs in advanced biotechnology: the M.S. in Bioinformatics, the M.S. in Bioscience Regulatory Affairs, and the M.S. in Biotechnology. (The M.S. in Biotech may involve a limited amount of on-campus instruction in Baltimore.) Students have up to five years to complete their degrees, but those who enroll for full-time study typically finish in two years.

The University of Maryland University College (UMUC) is among America’s largest providers of distance education. UMUC's Biotechnology Studies Program has been designated a “Professional Science Master’s Degree Program” by the Council of Graduate Schools. The program’s three specialization areas include: bioinformatics, biotechnology management, and biosecurity/biodefense. A dual online degree option is also available: students can earn an MBA in addition to the Master’s in Biotechnology by completing just a few additional courses.

Online Biotechnology Courses

Purdue University’s Department of Continuing Education frequently features online courses in horticulture and related fields that can help students prepare for careers in biotechnology. New choices are offered every semester.

MiraCosta College, a community college in Southern California, offers a number of online courses in biotechnology. The school’s website includes a five-year projection of course offerings.

While the current list of online biotechnology offerings is short, expect the number of online courses and degree programs to continue to grow in the future. If you are aware of or participate in other online biotechnology courses and degree programs, please feel free contact me about them.

Hat tip and thanks to Chesca and her colleagues at OnlineDegreeReviews.org for research and writing of this post!

Until next time,

Good luck and Good learning!

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

While I don’t advocate postdoctoral positions for individuals unless they plan on doing bench science for the rest of their lives, postdoctoral training is a fact of life for those interested in pursuing academic careers. To that end, The Scientist.com conducts an annual survey that ranks the best 40 places for postdoctoral associates to work. The survey ranks the strengths and weaknesses of individual training institutions based on funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits, training and mentoring and family and personal life. Surprisingly, institutions are also ranked on networking, career development and mentoring and training and mentor and training that they offer to their postdoctoral trainees.

The institution that snagged the top spot on the 2010 list was the Trudeau Institute in Saranac Lake, NY. Nestled in the Adirondack Mountains in Upstate NY, the not-for-profit Trudeau Institute has a deserved international reputation in immunology, infectious diseases and vaccinology. When I was a graduate students (back in the dark ages), some of the greatest minds in infectious diseases held positions at Trudeau. These days; not so much—but I bet the skiing is great! Interestingly, one of Trudeau’s strengths is networking opportunities (how much networking can take place at a secluded institute on a lake in the Adirondacks). Curiously, however, one of its major weaknesses is the lack of career development opportunities. Based on my life experiences, I always thought that networking was a crucial part of career development. But then again, what do I know?

The top 10 of the list featured a couple of Massachusetts-based institutions including the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (3) and the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research Institute in Cambridge (4) and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Woods Hole, MA (9). Two national laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA (8) and Rocky Mountain Laboratory, NIH Hamilton, MT (6) cracked the top ten. By all accounts, the fly fishing is outstanding in Hamilton.

As usual, there were some surprises. These included Samuel Robert Noble Foundation (2) in Ardmore, OK, the University of Colorado, Denver (7) and the Mayo Clinic (10) in Rochester, MN (not exactly cities on my top ten list). Not surprisingly, there were only two life sciences companies that made the Top 40 list; Genentech (5) in South San Francisco and as mentioned above at number 3, the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research. Once a mainstay, industrial postdocs are becoming increasingly scare and difficult to land. In many cases, these positions are not advertised and generally filled by word-of-mouth recommendations to principal investigators who are looking for postdoctoral fellows.

A quick perusal of the list revealed, as expected, that most of the 40 institutions excelled in categories that included funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits and family and personal life. In marked contrast, many of the institutions on the list were disappointingly weak in the areas of networking, career development and training and mentoring. Of the top 40, six got kudos for networking (15%), 11 for career development (28%) and only 6 for training and mentoring (15%). These abysmal statistics are somewhat shocking given that postdoctoral fellowships are mainly intended to train and prepare aspiring individuals for lifelong careers as scientists. The fact that only 25% of the nation’s best places to perform postdoctoral research offer career development training and support for postdoctoral trainees suggests that the future of the American life sciences industry may be in serious jeopardy!

Hat tip Ed at Pharmalot.

Until next time....

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

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

American competitiveness in engineering, technology and science. Unfortunately, while American competitiveness and innovation in these areas continues to wane, little has been done (except talking) about it! Yesterday, Intel and 24 venture capital funds announced that they plan to invest $3.5 billion in American startups and early stage ventures over the next two years. Further, in addition, several of America’s leading technology companies including Google, Cisco Systems, Intel Microsoft and 13 others pledged to add as many as 10,500 jobs into 2010—mainly by hiring Americans graduating from colleges with degrees in computer science and engineering.

The initiative, named the Invest in America Alliance was formed in response to “steadily declining long-term investments in education, technology and human capital” that has been taking place in the US for past 20 years or more. Put simply, the American education system is not training enough qualified individuals to allow the US to compete with other emerging technology and engineering powerhouses that include China, India Finland, Korea and the Netherlands. 

According to Robert Compton, a venture capitalist, entrepreneur and education enthusiast “Fewer than 10 percent of college graduates in the US have engineering degrees, compared with more than one-third in India and China and more foreign-born graduates of US universities are returning to their home countries.” For those of you with degrees in math and science (and you base your calculations on population size), the magnitude of the problem (for Americans anyway) is glaringly obvious. Compton went on to say what many others have been thinking for a while, “Early indicators are that we are not the center of innovation anymore. It is shifting to the East.” And he may be right! Based on surveys conducted by the World Intellectual Property Organization in the last year, patent filings increased 30 percent in China while declining 11 percent in the US.

While the Invest in America Alliance appears to be a great public relations opportunity for the companies and venture firms that are participating in it, its critics doubt whether investing more money in technology startups is going to fix the ongoing problem. Education analysts contend that a better and cheaper solution may be changing US immigration laws so that foreign students who train in the US are allowed to remain in the country after they complete their training. Other naysayers contend that most of the venture money committed by the alliance would have likely gone to American startups anyway (US based venture firms already invest 70 percent of their money in American start ups) and that 10,500 new jobs isn’t enough to make a dent in the US unemployment rolls.

Like the technology industry, a decade of wrong-head immigration policies coupled with a waning American interest in science has begun to jeopardize the US dominance in the life sciences. Further these trends are largely responsible for the massive layoffs and unrelenting outsourcing of pharmaceutical R&D jobs to foreign countries.

Toothless or not, the Invest in America Alliance shows that engineering and technology industry leaders are willing to cooperate with one another and get behind an initiative that raises public awareness about America’s waning competitiveness in these fields. Perhaps,   pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostic companies ought to take a page out of the Alliance’s play book to similarly insure the future innovation and competitiveness of the American life sciences industry.

Until next time...

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

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

As many of you already know, I talk to a lot of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are disillusioned with the prospect of remaining in the laboratory for the rest of their lives. Frequently, students mention regulatory affairs as an alternate career option and ask me what type of training and skills are required to transit into a regulatory career. Unfortunately, regulatory affairs is an industry specific career and regulatory affairs training programs with the possible exceptions of the courses offered by the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS) and the Drug Information Association (DIA) (which can be costly) are not readily accessible to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Consequently, I recommend that PhD-trained scientists who are interested in regulatory affairs check out employment opportunities at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This is because there is no better place than FDA to learn the “ins and outs” of regulatory affairs!

Until recently, jobs, fellowships and training programs at the agency were scarce. However, while reading an industry trade magazine I came across an ad (posted below) announcing fellowship opportunities for PhD level life scientists, healthcare professionals, pharmacists and even engineers(although they only need a bachelors degree to be eligible.

This is an opportunity for those interested in a regulatory affairs career to give it a shot! For more info visiting the agency’s website

Until next time...

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

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

While ‘women in the workplace’ is no longer a new or novel concept, there are still differences in the way women and men are viewed and treated at work. Lauri Buckley at Job Profiles alerted me to an interesting article that they prepared entitled “The Gender Gap: 10 Surprising Stats on Women in the Workplace."

Listed below are some startling stats about women in the workplace. 

1.  Women comprise 46% of the total U.S. labor force. With almost half of the workforce being women, female employees aren't exactly a rarity. For most women today, getting a job is an expected part of life. This is a big change from past decades. In 1900, fewer than 20% of women participated in the labor market while today the number is around 75% and growing.
2. Women make only 77.5 cents for every dollar that men earn. This figure comes from data on the 2003 census. Despite this gap, many economists feel that the gap between pay for men and women is due to different personal choices men and women make about personal fulfillment, child rearing and hours at work. Whichever you choose to believe, the reality is that the gap is slowly but surely closing as women become increasingly educated and dual income families become the norm, but this isn't much consolation to those who feel discriminated against today.
3. The more education a woman has, the greater the disparity in her wages. This certainly doesn't mean women should shy away from professional positions, but they should be aware that they may have to battle harder for equal pay. Women in professional specialty occupations were found to earn just 72.7% of what men in the same position earned, and women in upper level executive, administrative and managerial occupations earned even less at 72.3%. If you compare this against the average of 77.5%, the numbers speak for themselves, and this graphic from the New York Times makes it even easier to see.
4. Women may work longer to receive the promotions that provide access to higher pay. One example provided by the National Center for Education Statistics shows that women often have to work three years longer in a teaching position to be promoted to a principal than their male counterparts. Some studies suggest that this is because women and men adapt different strategies when it comes to management and pursuing promotions, yet other studies connect it less to work and more to gender-based biases.
5. Women business owners employ 35% more people than all the Fortune 500 companies combined. If you're like most people, you don't picture a woman when you think about a business owner. Yet there are about 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the U.S., a number that comprises nearly 40% of all businesses. The idea that women don't make good managers just doesn't hold up when you look at these kinds of numbers, with women managing a large number of employees and making healthy profits while doing so.
6. Women account for 46% of the labor force, but 59% of workers making less than $8 an hour. What does it mean? It means that many women are taking on jobs that pay well under a living wage. With nearly 16% of U.S. households having women who are divorced, widowed or never married as the sole providers, this leaves many women at a distinct disadvantage and struggling to make ends meet as they dominate jobs in low paying fields.
7. Only 53% of employers provide at least some replacement pay during periods of maternity leave. Despite the fact that the arrival of a child means extra bills and expenses, many employers don't provide women with any benefits if they to leave work temporarily to have a child. While there is no law requiring companies to offer paid maternity leave, considering it is an issue that primarily affects women, it's certainly a blow to their income potential and ability to care for their families and themselves.
8. Four in ten businesses worldwide have no women in senior management. This shouldn't be a surprise given the way many countries feel about women in the workplace. Here in the United States, however, women still feel the stress of trying to break into upper management, with 93% of the 439 senior women executives surveyed by Korn/Ferry International in 1992 feeling that a glass ceiling for women still existed. Yet new studies report that women outnumber men as managers in fields like human resources, health administration and education--perhaps stemming from reports that many businesses have seen a direct financial impact from hiring women.
9. Women earned less than men in 99% of all occupations. In virtually every field that women choose to enter, they can expect to earn less over their lifetime than their male counterparts. This means that over 47 years of full-time work, this gap amounts to an estimated loss in wages for women of $700,000 for high school graduates, $1.2 million for college grads, and $2 million for professional school grads--a staggering amount.
10. Minority women fare the worst when it comes to equal pay. African-American women earn 64 cents to every dollar earned by white men and Hispanic women just 52 cents per dollar. Whether it's attitudes about race or gender that are at play, it's clear that something needs to be done to level the playing field.

While these interesting statistics may be new to a lot of men, women have long known about the biases and inequities that they face in the workplace. The facts presented in the article suggest that while women have come a long way in the past 40 years, there is still a lot of work that must be done to achieve parity between women and men in the workplace.

Hat tip to Job Profiles!

Until next time...

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

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

Healthcare informatics (HCI) is one of the fastest growing professions in the US. This is because the Obama administration has allocated billions of stimulus dollars to create electronic healthcare records (EHR) in an attempt to reduce healthcare costs. 

To qualify for EHR stimulus monies organizations must develop a plan and then take steps to implement it! Not surprisingly, because of the short ramp up phase for EHR, the number of available jobs far outstrips the numbers of qualified and skilled employees to fill them. The acute shortage of qualified HCI employees resulted in a cover story in the December 2009 issue of Health Informatics entitled “Got People?” It is a great read and provides insights into the types of employees that HCI companies are looking to hire.  The EHR Initiative will likely create over 500,000 new jobs in the next few years. For those of you, who may be interested in pursuing a career in HCI, check out this list of the top 100 HCI companies to work for.

Finally, a group of bioinformatics and genomics PhD students and postdoctoral fellows approached me to help them find sponsors for a Health Informatics Career Development symposium that they are trying to develop for the 2010 Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) conference that will be held in Boston, MA from July 9-13, 2010.  

If you are interested in sponsoring the HCI symposium please contact me.

Until next time...

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

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

Alan Alda, a well known actor and science enthusiast, is doing his share to improve the science literacy of Americans. His was the host of the Science Frontiers (which ran for 15 seasons on PBS until it was cancelled in 2005) and more recently the host of Wired Science which failed to catch on and was also canceled. Alda’s approach to science education is asking questions that nonscientists could understand while throwing in a bit of humor as well. In a recent interview he stressed that he always tries to “keep it a conversation.” Sometimes, he added, scientists and researchers would “lapse into lecture mode, and I’d have to bring them back into a conversation. This isn’t surprising because many scientists are unfamiliar or lack the necessary training to engage in conversational science. For the most part, scientists are trained didactically and exchange information via formal traditional channels which include: seminars, oral and written presentations at scientific meetings and congresses and publication of research findings in peer reviewed journals. In other words, science education has historically resembled a one way conversation rather than a dialog. Unfortunately, web 2.0 and social media is all about conversations and one way conversations are becoming less acceptable, even in science circles! To that end, Alda just finished teaching a six-week course of workshops at Stony Brook University on Long Island instructing scientists how to use improvisational acting techniques to express themselves more clearly. “The idea is you can’t really communicate ideas unless you know what’s going on in the other person’s mind,” he said. 

Despite many incredible scientific advances in the past decade, the science gap in America continues to widen. Science is becoming increasingly complex and fewer Americans are capable of understanding it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon scientists to begin to understand that they have a critical role to play in improving the public understanding of science. This responsibility can no longer be relegated to primary and secondary school teachers nor should nonscientists like Alda,Ira Flato of NPR’s Science Friday, Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad of RadioLab (a great show), be expected to carry the banner and lead the charge! 

Interestingly, while listening to this week’s Science Friday, I learned of educational initiatives being sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundations that are aimed at bringing more science into the entertainment fields. While this is an important first step, it may be too little; too late. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve it: scientists need to step out of their comfort zones and learn how to better communicate and interact with the lay public. To that end, by way of a sport’s analogy “we scientists control our own destiny” We can choose to collectively learn how to better inform the American public about what we do and how we do it or allow the science literacy gap to ultimately become a chasm in the 21^st century.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Learning and Listening!!!!!!

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

There was an interesting post today at the Seattle, WA-based  Xconomy.com website about the salaries of people who work in the biotechnology industry. The post mainly focused on the salaries of biotech workers in the Pacific Northwest and based on results of a local survey the median salary is roughly around $60,000 per year. While this pales in comparison to the $81,499 reported earlier this spring from a group sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), it is important to note that “real salary” data are difficult to obtain and much of what is released is based on salary figures that don’t include bonuses and other benefits. Further differences survey methodologies may also account for the seemingly disparate results. Nevertheless, salaries in biotech are generally better than those offered in other science-related industries and, not surprisingly, are highly dependent on degree requirements and job duties and responsibilities.

The bottom line: in my opinion, a job in biotech is a good career choice because of the projected upward growth for the industry. More importantly, pharma is continuing to abandon its reliance on small molecules and increasingly embracing biotechnology and its products as the future of the life sciences and healthcare industries. If I was undergraduate life sciences major today, I would be looking to the biotech and medical devices/devices industry, not pharma, for future long term employment!!! And, contrary to popular belief, a PhD degree is no longer a requirement for many biotechnology jobs.

Until next time...

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

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

Pharmaceutical sales representatives, along with R&D scientists have been the largest casualties of recent downsizing that has been sweeping the life sciences industry. Increasing regulatory scrutiny, decreasing numbers of new drug approvals and an increasing reliance on e-based technologies to sell drugs have almost rendered the traditional pharma rep obsolete. Flavia Villela, a blogger and former pharma rep has written an interesting article about her impressions about the next generation of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

A New Era of Pharmaceutical Sales Professionals

By Flavia Villela

I have been participating and sharing my thoughts in discussions about pharmaceutical sales professionals related to performance and customer satisfaction. I am also actively participating in discussions about creation of “pharmaceutical sales certification” program. My goals are to share ideas, experiences and provide insights into improving the quality and performance of qualified pharmaceutical sales professionals who will be able to effectively establish rapport with health care providers consistent with pharmaceutical industry expectations and requirement.

While often vilified, pharmaceutical sales reps play important and often pivotal roles in the healthcare industry.  For example, pharma reps often act as drug information consultants, facilitators of customer development, sources of reliable customer information, vehicles of promotion and liaisons between drug companies and their customers. Because of this, it is vitally important that sales reps be highly qualified professionals with broad skills and extensive knowledge of the healthcare industry. Also, increasing healthcare costs coupled with downward pricing pressures suggest that today’s sale reps must be highly efficient and cost effective.

Pharmaceutical Sales Professional: “The Old versus “New Model”

It is well established, that in the past, it was not uncommon for different sales reps from the same company to repeatedly call on a doctor for the same product. This primarily resulted from an over ambitious hiring trend that increased the number of sales reps but failed to increase the number and quality of drug sales. Consequently, over the past few years, pharmaceutical companies began laying off large numbers of sales employees despite the fact that generic drug sales were rapidly increasing and beginning to steal market share from branded products.

The poor performance of many of these reps could be directly attributed to a lack of qualifications.  Nevertheless, despite the massive layoffs, there are still thousands of unqualified sales reps who continue to work in the drug industry. For some reason, many pharmaceutical companies decided to retain employees who I call “old model reps” who simply drop off samples/reprints to healthcare providers and deliver a “canned” product message that they learned during sales force training. Many of these reps don’t engage their customers in detailed product discussions, mostly because they don’t really understand the products themselves. Further, many of these reps got into the business because they were attracted to the flexible hours, high salaries and bonuses, a company car and other benefits associated with pharmaceutical sales reps. More importantly, while many of these old model reps had strong sales backgrounds, they generally were lacking in an understanding of science and medicine. In other words, they really didn’t understand the products that they were trying to sell to customers. While this might have been acceptable for small molecule drugs, it certainly won’t suffice when it comes to biotechnology products which are inherently more complex in their mode of actions and use. To that end, I believe the so-called “new model” or next generation of sales representatives should be required to have a strong medical or scientific background e.g., such as a bachelor/masters in sciences, nursing or medically-related field to  provide a firm understanding of the inner workings of the healthcare industry. However, it is important to note, that “old model employees” who are willing to learn (and have the ability to grasp new medical concepts) should be retrained and encouraged to remain in the “new model” sales force. 

Despite the massive layoffs, many companies continue to hire “old model” employees. One candidate recently contacted me and shared with me his experiences with a medium-sized Japanese pharmaceutical company. The candidate is a medical professional, has a nursing degree and previous experience in the therapeutic area advertised with the sales position. His background and training enabled him to garner a face-to-face interview with a district manager of the company. Although the interview was seemingly going well, at one point during the meeting, the district manager told the candidate that he was overqualified for the position. In other words, he was either “too smart”, “too old” or too set in his ways to be hired.  Not surprisingly he didn’t get the job.

Shortly after being rejected, the candidate read about a new initiative being undertaken by the company to improve the quality of its sales force by focusing on scientific/medical backgrounds rather than prior sales experience or credential. While it isn’t clear why the candidate described above didn’t get a job with this particular company, his recent pharmaceutical sales job hunting experience isn’t unique—it is being repeated over and over again throughout the industry. This begs the question: why are so many drug manufacturers electing to retain “old model” sales reps—despite their apparent lack of scientific/medical qualifications—and willing to pass on seemingly well qualified candidates who apparently represent the “new model” sales rep that pharma says it wants?

What do you think?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Despite its humble beginnings in the late 1970s, the biotechnology industry has transformed itself into one of the most vibrant sectors of the American economy. Pharmaceutical companies, once the bell weather of the life sciences industry, have finally conceded that biotechnology and not small molecules are the industry’s future!

While growth of the biotechnology industry has slowed somewhat in the past couple of years—mainly because of the recession—it still represents a viable career option for students interested in the biological sciences. Contrary to popular belief, a PhD degree is no longer required to gain employment in the biotechnology industry. The PhD degree option is slowly being replaced by biotechnology masters and undergraduate degrees and certificate programs readily available at many two year colleges. Put simply, there is a decreasing demand for PhDs at many life sciences companies—mostly because of technological advances and a growing reliance on outsourcing to carry out drug discovery and development. However, the demand for non-PhD employees with solid biotechnology backgrounds particularly in the areas of regulatory affairs, licensing, business development, medical communications, health informatics and biomanufacturing is rising.

For many students (especially high school and undergraduates), the plethora of biotechnology degree and certificate programs can be overwhelming. With this in mind, I came across a cool website called Biotechnology Degree Guide which helps students decide which program is right for them. The site is run by Webster Jorgensen who sent me the following information about the site.

“Biotechnology Degree Guide was developed to be a complete and comprehensive guide for finding colleges, universities and technical schools offering biotech and related programs. The site also features a rating system that allows registered users to rate various biotechnology programs. This feature was added to help separate the great programs from the not-sop-great ones. In the future, we plan to start highlighting "Hidden Gem" programs section that helps schools with lower profiles and great programs receive more exposure. The sites members section is open to prospective students, students, professionals, teachers and biotech hobbyists.  A social media component is planned for the future.”

While the Biotechnology Degree Guide may not answer all of your questions, it certainly is a good place to start when considering a career in biotechnology!

Until next time...

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

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

For those of you interested in the Canadian biotechnology scene I want to mention a good resource that I came across recently. The Canadian BioTechnologist 2.0 Blog (http://cbt20.org) has its sights set on helping to advance the development of the Canadian Biotechnology sector and the people who study biotechnology and life sciences at the college and university level and bench scientists and technicians who work in the field across the country.   

Readers are invited to contribute content: posters, tools, research and presentations, articles white papers, multimedia, music downloads and entertainment, conference announcements, videos.

The site is sponsored by the Canadian operation of Bio-Rad so it has a good selection of non-commercial content from the company including papers, tools, workshops and for fun some of their recent music videos. The blog manager, Howard Oliver of What If What Next  a Toronto based  Web 2.0-PR firm has done a great job of collecting content that covers Canadian biotechnology news and useful tools and career information for bench scientists and technicians and students.

Do drop by The Canadian BioTechnologist2.0 Blog (http://cbt20.org) to learn about the Canadian scene and get your voice heard.

 Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Jo

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

The medical  science  liaison  (MSL) professional focuses on providing scientific and educational  support  and collaboration between healthcare stakeholders like physicians, patients and and  bipharmaceutical companies.

PhDs have faced tremendous entry barriers to the MSL career for two major reasons. First, most PhDs lack clinical (or patient care) experience that are inherent in PharmD and MD training programs. Most PhD research projects deal with cells and mice — considered preclinical by industry standards. Second, and perhaps more insidious, is the perception that "PhDs lack people skills". People conjure stereotypes of scientists in white lab coats as eccentric, antisocial or lacking in social graces. Unfortunately, this perception also exists within biopharma, and PhDs aiming for alternative careers beyond the bench have to be prepared to "explain themselves".

PhDs who want to become a MSL can maximize their chances of breaking into this highly competitive career by doing the following:

Understand the mindset of MSL hiring managers

The biggest complaint I've heard over the years of coaching and mentoring aspiring MSLs is "they want MSL experience, but I can't get that unless I become a MSL". I've heard this so many times that I titled my MSL career book, "All MSLs Started with No MSL Experience!"  This catch-22 situation has evolved because many entry level MSL candidates don’t possess many of the basic skill sets that hiring managers are looking for. Consequently, hiring managers prefer experienced MSL candidates because they can be reasonably assured that person understands the “ins” and “outs” of what it takes to be an MSL.

Invest in tools, resources, and coaching
Perform due diligence and read everything you can about the MSL role. This six -figure career niche is extremely small, which makes the job market fiercely competitive. There is a dearth of "free" MSL resources because service providers in this niche make their living by focusing on the biopharma clients with big budgets.

Become a master networker

Networking is your only option to get into the minds of hiring managers or learn what you need to know if you can't or aren't willing to invest in tools, resources, or coaching related to the MSL career. You can start with your school's career center or the local postdoc association and see what resources may be available related to an MSL career.

Scientific complexity is increasing in treatment options as biologics are entering markets long dominated by small molecules. This is matched with cross-sector collaboration complexity, as biopharmaceutical companies navigate regulatory and public scrutiny. The MSL profession is only 40 years old, but the MSL role is becoming one of the "rising stars" of biopharma's career offerings. Look for the life sciences industry to hire increasing numbers of MSLs as more biotechnology products enter the market.

To learn more about the MSL career pathway please check out Jane’s new book, "All MSLs Started with No MSL Experience! The Guide to Becoming a Medical Science Liaison" or visit the MSL Jobs website to look for employment opportunities.

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

After yesterday's post about career planning for life scientists, one of my soon to be former students in the Fundamentals of Bioscience Program aptly pointed out that my readers might have benefitted more if I had, in fact, offered information about alternate career possibilities for bioscientists.  I don't want the student to get too overconfident but I had the same thought immediately after I uploaded the post.  

Rather than modify the previous post, I decided to upload the presentation that I gave to the U Penn Graduate Student Biomedical Association yesterday.  However, as many of my former (or soon to be former) students will tell you, my PowerPoint presentations, while informative, are not as complete as you might think.  To get the real skinny on alternate careers, you will have to attend one of my seminars on the topic where I provide attendees with additional pearls of wisdom and some funny stories about my own journey along an oft times circuitous career path!

Until next time.....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Yesterday, I gave a lecture entitled “Alternate Careers: Taking the Road Less Traveled” to over 100 members of the University of Pennsylvania’s Biomedical Graduate Student Association. As always, there were many good questions and comments during and after the presentation. Some of the career anecdotes offered by several of the students reminded me of a conversation that I had several weeks ago with one of my Fundamentals of Bioscience students—I teach a Product Development and Regulatory Affairs course in the program—who refreshed my memory about a typical graduate student approach to career development and job searching. “We don’t think about jobs or our careers until we begin writing our PhD theses” she said. “Until then, our advisers don’t talk about careers or jobs and only bring it up because our funding will run out” she added. Admittedly, I had forgotten this because so many years have passed since my graduate student days. That said, it forced me to consider how much the life sciences job market has changed since I was graduate student and how vitally important it is for today’s graduate students to think about and possibly explore different career options throughout the course of their graduate training.

Historically, there were very few career options for life scientists—it was either a tenure track faculty appointment or, as a poor second choice, a job at a pharmaceutical or biotechnology. Unfortunately, academics jobs are hard to come by and since 2007 over 60,000 pharmaceutical R&D scientists have lost their jobs and more cuts are expected. Also, many of these jobs are likely come back after the economy improves because many of the R&D activities performed by these scientists are being outsourced to India, China and elsewhere. This suggests that a majority of life sciences graduate students who receive their PhDs within the next few years won’t be able to secure traditional life sciences jobs. While a majority of US life sciences graduate training programs recognize and understand the implications of the changing job market, many are reluctant to discuss alternate career options with graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Even fewer, encourage or support students or postdoctoral fellows who want to engage in “extracurricular activities” to explore alternate career options. In fact, several U Penn students told me that they have to obtain written permission from their adviser before they can take courses or participate in extra-departmental activities. As one student quipped “What I do on my own time should be my business not my boss's.”

I always conclude my alternate career talk by saying “Nobody ever guaranteed you a job after completion of your PhD or postdoctoral training.” And, “if you wanted a job after completing your education, you ought to have gone to medical school, dental school, law school or any other profession that requires licensure to practice your craft.” While this may sound harsh, I believe that the decision to get a PhD is a personal one and based on discussion with many of my colleagues, most didn’t enter graduate school expecting a job to be waiting them when they completed their training. Nevertheless, I contend that graduate departments that continue to train and prepare students for traditional academic careers —knowing that over 90% won’t find jobs (other than postdocs) after their training is finished —are being disingenuous and even deceitful. Why haven’t academician realized that there is a plethora of job opportunities for life scientists outside of academia?

Like it or not, the life sciences job market has undergone radical changes in the past decade. Unfortunately, academics continue to adhere to dogmatic and anachronistic ideas and practices that don’t prepare their students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in “the real world.” I contend that informing and enlightening graduate students about alternate career paths and, allowing them to explore some of these opportunities will not impede or hinder laboratory research. Instead, I believe it would help to improve and expedite its progress. As one U Penn graduate student shared with me over a couple of beers “If they would just tell us the truth and give us some idea about our options, it would certainly improve morale, reduce our anxiety and allow us to focus on our research because we would know what is out there!” As the old adage goes”ignorance is bliss.” But, in my experience, knowledge is power!

Until next time....

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

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

Over the past three years, more than 90,000 pharmaceutical employees have been layed off. While many of these former employees were drug reps, a majority who lost their jobs were R&D scientists. If drug makers have already jettisioned tens of thousands of R&D jobs, how is the next generation of medicines going to be discovered and developed? Like it or not, pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D is beginning to be outsourced—much like information technology (IT) was in the late 1990s. And, like the IT industry much of R&D is being outsourced to countries like India and China. This should not be surprising because for the past 20 years or so, most of the people receiving PhDs in the life sciences were foreign nationals—many of whom were unable to stay in the US because of post-9/11 immigration policies and visa quotas. Without many options, many had no choice but to return to their home countries to seek employment and in some at contract research organizations (CROs) that specialize in pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D.

According to a recent article written by J B Gupta Senior Vice President Collaborative Research GVK Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. India, for the last five years or so, Indian CROs like GVK Biosciences, Aurigene, Syngene, Advinus, Jubilant, Suven Life Sciences, Sai Lab, Accunova, iGate etc. have been positioning themselves as purveyors of R&D services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. These efforts have apparently paid off! Companies like Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Forrest Laboratories, Eli Lilly & Co, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Serono, Wyeth, Bristol Myers Squibb and others have entered into strategic R&D partnerships with many of India’s leading CROs. 

A recent study by the Kauffman Foundation suggests that India better positioned and ahead of China in R&D outsourcing. Further, the pace at which discovery collaborations are being established in India suggests that the western pharmaceutical industry is looking to Indian CROs not only to cut costs but to innovate as well.

Unfortunately, while this doesn’t bode well for American scientists, the US has nobody to blame but itself. Wrong-headed immigration policies coupled with inadequate training for life scientists who want to pursue industrial careers are largely responsible for the current R&D outsourcing activities. Like IT, I suspect that outsourcing will work for some companies but not others. Nevertheless, I think that outsourcing is here to stay and like it or not American life scientists will have no choice but to adapt to the “new normal.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try India or China)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) kicked off its annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia today and shortly thereafter, issued a press release detailing an education study (that it commissioned) which suggests that American high school students are continuing to fall behind in life sciences education and competitiveness. The timing of the BIO education report is curious, given that over 100,000 life sciences employees have lost their jobs over the past several years and more job cuts at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are expected in the next six months or so.

The report concluded that “middle and high school students across the country are generally falling behind in life sciences, and the nation is at risk of producing a dearth of qualified workers for the life sciences industry. Students are showing less interest in taking life sciences and science courses, and high schools are doing a poor job of preparing students for college-level science, The deficiencies will hurt the country's competitiveness with the rest of the world in the knowledge-based economy.”

Some of the report's finding include:

• 52 percent of 12th graders are at or above a basic level of achievement in the sciences as measured by the NAEP science test
• Average scores on the NAEP for 12th graders in the sciences and life sciences declined from 1996 to 2005
• Only 28 percent of high school students taking the ACT reached a score indicating college readiness for biology.

The report also found a deficiency in the number of well-qualified biology teachers available in high school, with one-in-eight biology teachers not certified to teach biology. To improve U.S. competitiveness in the biosciences industry, the report recommends that states incorporate biotechnology into their science standards, make sure students are ready to take college biosciences courses and focus more on professional development for teachers.

While BIO ought to be commended for the study, the results and the conclusions of the report are nothing new and have been known for over a decade by industry thought leaders and life sciences industry executives. The crux of the problem is that neither academia nor industry is willing to provide funds or invests in ways to find a solution to this vexing, ongoing issue. Also,while high school science curriculum experts and teachers are typically cited as the cause of the problem, most of the blame more aptly lies with life science educators at the undergraduate and graduate school levels.

Today, many US high schools and community colleges already offer life sciences and biotechnology training to their students. In fact, biotechnology curriculum development and outreach has been ongoing in US for well over a decade. For example, Bio-Link, an NSF-funded consortium of community colleges that began in the late 1990s, has diligently worked to create a network of community colleges and high schools that offer biotechnology education and training ranging from biomanufacturing to bioinformatics to forensic DNA sciences. Further, a quick perusal of many high schools and science academies in biotechnology-rich locales like the Northeast, California, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina and others reveals that life sciences education and training are readily available to many students interested in biology and bioscience.

In my opinion, the system doesn't break down at the high school level but at the undergraduate and graduate school levels. This is because for the past 15 years, many undergraduate life sciences courses have jettisoned their hands on laboratory components in favor of more lecture driven and e-based learning experiences. This is because these laboratories are costly to run and extremely labor intensive. Further, many undergraduate students may choose not pursue science careers because of the mistaken perception that life sciences jobs require a PhD. Ironically, there are many more jobs in the life sciences industry for students with undergraduate or masters' degrees than for those with PhD. This is because there is a glut of PhDs in today's market and the number of jobs in academia and the life sciences industry are growing smaller. I believe that academia and industry are responsible for the rapidly declining job market for PhD-life sciences.

First, let's look at academia. Most academicians who are charged with training PhDs and postdoctoral fellows have little appreciation or understanding of the technical and regulatory skill sets required in the life sciences industry. Second, many academics don't feel that it is their responsibility to prepare students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in industry because that is tantamount to job training—a big no-no in academic circles. Finally,and perhaps most important, graduate programs are reluctant to provide career counseling or job-specific training for their students because it might interfere with their productivity, which in turn may reduce the amount of data principal investigators have to write papers and win grants to fund their laboratories. In other words, there is little or no incentive for education and training to change at the graduate level because there is no benefit or upside to principal investigators and tenured faculty members.

While the American life sciences industry has loudly and repeatedly complained about a lack of qualified job candidates to work at its companies, they have done little to support and fund efforts to reform US life science education and training. This is likely because many life sciences executives contend that they are in business not education and the responsibility to prepare students for careers in science should not fall on them. Rather, it rightfully belongs in the purview of secondary and post secondary educational institutions. And, rather than train new employees without previous industrial experience (to inject new talent and ideas into their organizations), companies typically only hire job candidates with previous industrial experience. As many newly minted PhD and postdoctoral students frequently ask: “How are we suppose to get industrial experience if nobody will hire us without previous industrial experience?” Good question! 

The BIO report warns that the US is falling behind in bioscience education and American life science companies may experience workforce shortages in the future. The fact that about 100,000    (many of whom were scientists) pharmaceutical employees have lost their jobs over the past several years, suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, American science education and training needs to be improved and reformed if the US wants to maintain its dominance in the life sciences. The piecemeal approach that has been pursued for past decade or so hasn't worked. And why should it? Neither academia nor industry, the two main players in the story, don't really have any “skin in the game.” In other words, they have nothing to lose right now!

I believe that its time for academia, industry and government to come together to craft a cohesive, national life science curriculum that meets the needs of all stakeholders. We have a President in the White House who believes in science, the ingenuity of the American people and change. The time is now!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!! 

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

My oldest son is a high school sophomore and is currently taking “honors” biology. While he is generally an “A” student, it is obvious that he is neither interested in biology nor motivated to perform to his ability in the class. Many of his “A-student friends” are also not doing well in biology class. This gave me pause for concern as a life-long science educator (and certified high school biology teacher). With this as a backdrop, I decided to meet with his teacher to determine why so many good students are underperforming in her class. After meeting with his teacher on two separate occasions, it was readily apparent why so many talented students were performing poorly in her class—she lacks the requisite educational and scientific skills to be an effective biology teacher.  This was confirmed by the head of curriculum development in my school district who told me that the last time that the district had an opening for a high school biology teacher he had two applicants (neither of which had strong biology credentials)—this in the state of New Jersey which is touted to have one of the best public school systems in America.

It is no secret that there is a nationwide dearth of qualified science and math teachers. US officials have been angsting over this problem for about 20 years and have been unable or unwilling to come up with solutions. To that end, I propose the following: induce some of the many currently unemployed life sciences PhDs to consider teaching at the middle and high school levels. While this may sound unorthodox and unappealing to most card-carrying PhDs, there are many benefits to becoming a middle or high school teacher.

1. Starting salaries for public school teachers with PhDs are very competitive
2. The school year is only 10 months long and your summers are free
3. The healthcare and 401 K/pension benefits are better than those in academia and industry (and contributions are usually paid by the school district)
4. There are guaranteed, negotiated yearly raises and longevity pay
5. Tenure is awarded after only three years
6. Curricula requirements and guidelines exists but teachers can run their classes any way that they like
7. Motivated and innovative teachers are encouraged to create new courses, apply   for grants for curriculum development and sometimes—depending upon facilities—offer students an opportunity to conduct independent research projects
8. School districts like to hire PhDs because it implies scientific excellence

While there are many benefits to being a teacher, it is not for everybody who holds a PhD degree.  I don’t recommend taking a teaching job (out of desperation) if you don’t like to teach—you, your supervisor and your students will be miserable And, you likely will have frustrated and unhappy parents— like me—visiting your regularly.

We PhDs are enormously invested in the ways that we are perceived by our peers. And, I suspect that the mere mention of teaching high school to your friends, colleagues and supervisors will likely result in surprised looks and lot’s of head shaking. Unfortunately, it is this parochial thinking that has caused America to lose it competitive edge and scientists who chose to teach rather than do research are generally perceived as being less intelligent or competent than their peers. Ironically, it is this close-mindedness and pejorative thinking that has contributed to America’s two-decade long slide in science and technology. Perhaps it is time for PhDs to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

P.S. Please contact me if you are interested in teaching biology in the East Windsor Regional School District in New Jersey.

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

The relationship between science, education and industry has always been a tenuous one. To learn more about the complexity of this relationship check out this article that was recently published in a local New Jersey business publication.

Until next time…

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

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

I am frequently asked by life sciences PhDs whether an MBA would improve their chances of finding a job in industry. And, my response is always “maybe— because it depends. I don’t think that getting a traditional MBA really gives you that much of an edge especially if you are an established PhD looking for career advancement or change.  However, if you are a graduate student or postdoc who has already decided that academia is not for you, then getting a certificate or M.S. through an established graduate program in biotechnology (Georgetown University’s M.S. in biotechnology or The New York Center for Biotechnology's  Fundamentals of Bioscience Program) may increase the likelihood of winning a job in industry. This is because hiring managers recognize that in addition to a job candidate’s technical competency, they possess an understanding of the business aspects of the industry—something that is vital for scientists to be successful in the biotech biz.

Recognizing this, Rutgers University recently created a program that they call ‘a mini-MBA for the biopharmaceutical industry’. In contrast with traditional MBA or M.S. programs, the mini-MBA is a 12 week long, degree-granting program that was designed to familiarize students with the nuances and intricacies of the business aspects of the biopharmaceutical program. The good news is that they are actively recruiting students to fill the slots available in their inaugural class. The bad news is that it costs $4,995 to enroll. That said, it may be worth the time to check it out because—in the end—the investment may be worth it!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

 I previously wrote a piece which suggested that being perceived as smart is typically what separates the great scientists from the mediocre ones. To that end, whenever a former postdoctoral mentor (who I think is really smart) wanted to “motivate me” he would invariably say “C’mon Cliff, you’re a smart guy…..” Of course, the implication was that I wasn’t being smart enough or —as I heard it — “if you want to be as smart as me you better think harder and better”. According to a post by Karen Ventii at the Science to Life Blog, I wasn’t the only fledging scientist who was treated this way.

Does making a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow feel stupid motivate or hurt them? To learn more, read this provocative article by Martin Schwartz, PhD a professor at the University of Virginia that appeared in the April 28, 2008 issue of the Journal of Cell Science.

Until next time...

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

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

The US has fallen further behind in science education. According to a report in my local paper, “A recent test of 15-year-old students from around the world showed that U.S. students ranked 29th out of 57 countries when it comes to science literacy. Worse yet, the U.S. ranked below the international average score, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The international study, conducted every three years by the Programme for International Student Assessment, tested 400,000 15-year-olds on literacy in science, math and reading last year. This most recent study placed a special emphasis on science because, as the report stated, solving scientific problems in today's society is "more important than ever."

The students from Finland scored the highest in the study, followed by students from Hong Kong/China, Canada and Estonia. The poor performance by the United States should not be taken simply as more bad news. Instead, it should be used as a rallying point for educators and politicians to begin to develop and implement strategies to improve science and math education.

If the current trends are not reversed, American students may have difficulty competing in science with international students, the result of which will mean fewer jobs for Americans in science-related fields in the coming years and a long- term negative impact on the American economy.”

This is nothing new. Others and I have been talking about the lack of science preparedness in the US for the past decade. Unfortunately, when it comes to education nobody really pays attention except to pass numbskull educational initiatives like “No Child Left Behind.” Sure, why not spend hundreds of million on standardized testing so that we can assess the effectiveness of primary and secondary education in the US. And then, let’s pat ourselves on the back when test results indicate that students are passing the tests at higher rates each year. I am sure that the rest of the world is quite impressed!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (if we can compete)!!!!!!

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