Accepting a job that requires only a bachelors degree when you have a PhD

[Anonymous]

Taking the job requiring lower credentials might create a signal on your resume that you couldn't get anything better. Take the job that is commensurate with your credentials and build your career from there. Enjoy CA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking a bachelor's level job after a PhD can be bad for your career (even if the salary difference is smaller--like a bachelor's level job vs. a postdoc) because it signals to an employer that you don't value the autonomy and potential for growth that comes with a PhD and that you are desperate. If you take the job in Redwood City, yes the COL is high, but you would be more able to move to another PhD-level job later on in another location than if you took a bachelor's level job. Also 150K, even in California, is good money and you will be fine, provided you have appropriate expectations for housing in a high COL area.

But what if it's temporary? For maybe 1-2 years to get job experience. We really like the city in Florida. It's a good place to raise a family.

Right after your PhD is the time when you make your first steps into the professional world, and how you choose to navigate that choice has a lot of impact on your prospects in the long run. If you take a bachelor's level job, then you are basically gambling to never get PhD level job again (with more growth potential, more autonomy, and probably better financial prospects in the long run) I suppose, if you consider your PhD a sunk cost and want to live in that city in Florida, go for it, but you are gambling really cutting off opportunities your PhD has opened for you.

The bay area isn't such a bad place to raise kids.

[Anonymous]

Wait, so you have two offers? CA for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking a bachelor's level job after a PhD can be bad for your career (even if the salary difference is smaller--like a bachelor's level job vs. a postdoc) because it signals to an employer that you don't value the autonomy and potential for growth that comes with a PhD and that you are desperate. If you take the job in Redwood City, yes the COL is high, but you would be more able to move to another PhD-level job later on in another location than if you took a bachelor's level job. Also 150K, even in California, is good money and you will be fine, provided you have appropriate expectations for housing in a high COL area.

But what if it's temporary? For maybe 1-2 years to get job experience. We really like the city in Florida. It's a good place to raise a family.

I posted (somewhat harshly) above, and this clarifies things a lot. If you are good at what you do, you will get a lot of latitude. Ultimately, a job is one element of your life. If you think you will be much happier in FL than CA, that matters. The two locations are quite different.

In general, I think if you take a job that doesn't require your degree, the impact on your longterm career prospects really depends on the job. If it's a job that's otherwise competitive and develops other skills, it might make sense. Or if it's a job that technically only requires a bachelors, but advanced degrees are strongly preferred (to the point where you pretty much can't get the job without one). But if you want a job that requires a PhD in your subject after this one, it will be extremely problematic that you don't have any actual work experience that utilizes your PhD-level technical skills. If you were in a different STEM field, I would advise a post-doc as a way of establishing your credentials separate from your PhD work, but I know that those are pretty uncommon for statisticians.

If you're starting a Fed job at $86K, that suggests to me you're coming in as a GS-12, which is usually for new PhDs. That might be an indication that PhDs are preferred for this job, since they are willing to bring you in at that level (they would not if they really only need a BS level of skills). Without more details about the positions and your long-term interests, it's really hard to say what's right for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking a bachelor's level job after a PhD can be bad for your career (even if the salary difference is smaller--like a bachelor's level job vs. a postdoc) because it signals to an employer that you don't value the autonomy and potential for growth that comes with a PhD and that you are desperate. If you take the job in Redwood City, yes the COL is high, but you would be more able to move to another PhD-level job later on in another location than if you took a bachelor's level job. Also 150K, even in California, is good money and you will be fine, provided you have appropriate expectations for housing in a high COL area.

But what if it's temporary? For maybe 1-2 years to get job experience. We really like the city in Florida. It's a good place to raise a family.

I posted (somewhat harshly) above, and this clarifies things a lot. If you are good at what you do, you will get a lot of latitude. Ultimately, a job is one element of your life. If you think you will be much happier in FL than CA, that matters. The two locations are quite different.

In general, I think if you take a job that doesn't require your degree, the impact on your longterm career prospects really depends on the job. If it's a job that's otherwise competitive and develops other skills, it might make sense. Or if it's a job that technically only requires a bachelors, but advanced degrees are strongly preferred (to the point where you pretty much can't get the job without one). But if you want a job that requires a PhD in your subject after this one, it will be extremely problematic that you don't have any actual work experience that utilizes your PhD-level technical skills. If you were in a different STEM field, I would advise a post-doc as a way of establishing your credentials separate from your PhD work, but I know that those are pretty uncommon for statisticians.

If you're starting a Fed job at $86K, that suggests to me you're coming in as a GS-12, which is usually for new PhDs. That might be an indication that PhDs are preferred for this job, since they are willing to bring you in at that level (they would not if they really only need a BS level of skills). Without more details about the positions and your long-term interests, it's really hard to say what's right for you.

This job is not a fed job. The company ( Heath insurance) works for the government on contracts. I'd rather work for a pharmaceutical company as this is related to my degree in bio statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a phd in statistics hold out. Do you have data visualization skills? You can make more than that.

With 0 work experience?

Take the job. In a few years you'll be way more marketable.

Uh, no pp. I hire statistics (and other STEM) phds fresh out of grad school for more than $100k. Plus the job description does not demand a phd. There are better jobs op. 5-6 years of a rigorous phd program is not "no work experience".

It is absolutely zero work experience. OP has proven that he is very good at doing statistics in an academic setting. This doesn't necessarily mean he will be a capable employee, as he has no track record. Tons of people have big degrees but never perform well in their chosen field. If a PhD in statistics is that in demand, then you have nothing to worry about if you hold out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the offer in California?

150k. It's in Redwood city.

What's the job title? What were the educational qualifications?

PhD in statistics was required. Job title is Biostatistician. The job in Florida is for a Medicaid program.

Brace yourself if you take this job to be surrounded by absolute bozos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking a bachelor's level job after a PhD can be bad for your career (even if the salary difference is smaller--like a bachelor's level job vs. a postdoc) because it signals to an employer that you don't value the autonomy and potential for growth that comes with a PhD and that you are desperate. If you take the job in Redwood City, yes the COL is high, but you would be more able to move to another PhD-level job later on in another location than if you took a bachelor's level job. Also 150K, even in California, is good money and you will be fine, provided you have appropriate expectations for housing in a high COL area.

But what if it's temporary? For maybe 1-2 years to get job experience. We really like the city in Florida. It's a good place to raise a family.

I posted (somewhat harshly) above, and this clarifies things a lot. If you are good at what you do, you will get a lot of latitude. Ultimately, a job is one element of your life. If you think you will be much happier in FL than CA, that matters. The two locations are quite different.

In general, I think if you take a job that doesn't require your degree, the impact on your longterm career prospects really depends on the job. If it's a job that's otherwise competitive and develops other skills, it might make sense. Or if it's a job that technically only requires a bachelors, but advanced degrees are strongly preferred (to the point where you pretty much can't get the job without one). But if you want a job that requires a PhD in your subject after this one, it will be extremely problematic that you don't have any actual work experience that utilizes your PhD-level technical skills. If you were in a different STEM field, I would advise a post-doc as a way of establishing your credentials separate from your PhD work, but I know that those are pretty uncommon for statisticians.

If you're starting a Fed job at $86K, that suggests to me you're coming in as a GS-12, which is usually for new PhDs. That might be an indication that PhDs are preferred for this job, since they are willing to bring you in at that level (they would not if they really only need a BS level of skills). Without more details about the positions and your long-term interests, it's really hard to say what's right for you.

This job is not a fed job. The company ( Heath insurance) works for the government on contracts. I'd rather work for a pharmaceutical company as this is related to my degree in bio statistics.

Oh, that's really different, then. $86K from a contractor is not good pay...or at least wouldn't be in the DC area. Then I'd lean much more strongly to the CA job, but are you in a position where you can keep looking? If you are specifically interested in pharmaceuticals, there are options in several geographic locations including NE and San Diego, which is notably cheaper than Bay Area. You'll do much better lifestyle-wise long run in BioTech outside the Bay Area, though you'll have plenty of opportunities here. Have you looked at Seattle?

[Anonymous]

STAY AWAY FROM CA!

I work for an IT company based in Palo Alto. They opened a Reston, VA office. The second I got a chance, I got a transfer and I moved my ass as fast as possible out of the bay area. Despite making 240K/yr is was impossible to raise a family comfortably. Everything is expensive, housing, childcare., TAXES, everything! It is so hard to get ahead. Many people were clamoring to head East. Yea, much of CA looks like paradise, but there is an undercurrent of hell, like running on a financial hamster wheel and getting nowhere.

I LOVE living in Reston. I'm 10min from my job (and sometimes even bike there!), my kids go to a great public school, we are saving, we have a nice home, we are not suffocated by congestion, and our lifestyle is so much healthier.

I'd move back to the bay area for no less than 500k/yr. That kind of COL was a terrible way to try to raise kids.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one thinking OP is the girlfriend posting???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one thinking OP is the girlfriend posting???

Wouldn’t surprise me..."OP" is ~30 and couldn’t even apply to his own jobs.

Just FYI: you will have a very hard time making ends meet on 150k in the bay area especially with a child, unless your GF is going to be making about the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking a bachelor's level job after a PhD can be bad for your career (even if the salary difference is smaller--like a bachelor's level job vs. a postdoc) because it signals to an employer that you don't value the autonomy and potential for growth that comes with a PhD and that you are desperate. If you take the job in Redwood City, yes the COL is high, but you would be more able to move to another PhD-level job later on in another location than if you took a bachelor's level job. Also 150K, even in California, is good money and you will be fine, provided you have appropriate expectations for housing in a high COL area.

But what if it's temporary? For maybe 1-2 years to get job experience. We really like the city in Florida. It's a good place to raise a family.

I posted (somewhat harshly) above, and this clarifies things a lot. If you are good at what you do, you will get a lot of latitude. Ultimately, a job is one element of your life. If you think you will be much happier in FL than CA, that matters. The two locations are quite different.

In general, I think if you take a job that doesn't require your degree, the impact on your longterm career prospects really depends on the job. If it's a job that's otherwise competitive and develops other skills, it might make sense. Or if it's a job that technically only requires a bachelors, but advanced degrees are strongly preferred (to the point where you pretty much can't get the job without one). But if you want a job that requires a PhD in your subject after this one, it will be extremely problematic that you don't have any actual work experience that utilizes your PhD-level technical skills. If you were in a different STEM field, I would advise a post-doc as a way of establishing your credentials separate from your PhD work, but I know that those are pretty uncommon for statisticians.

If you're starting a Fed job at $86K, that suggests to me you're coming in as a GS-12, which is usually for new PhDs. That might be an indication that PhDs are preferred for this job, since they are willing to bring you in at that level (they would not if they really only need a BS level of skills). Without more details about the positions and your long-term interests, it's really hard to say what's right for you.

This job is not a fed job. The company ( Heath insurance) works for the government on contracts. I'd rather work for a pharmaceutical company as this is related to my degree in bio statistics.

Oh, that's really different, then. $86K from a contractor is not good pay...or at least wouldn't be in the DC area. Then I'd lean much more strongly to the CA job, but are you in a position where you can keep looking? If you are specifically interested in pharmaceuticals, there are options in several geographic locations including NE and San Diego, which is notably cheaper than Bay Area. You'll do much better lifestyle-wise long run in BioTech outside the Bay Area, though you'll have plenty of opportunities here. Have you looked at Seattle?

Both are permanent jobs. I will look into your suggestions. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one thinking OP is the girlfriend posting???

Wouldn’t surprise me..."OP" is ~30 and couldn’t even apply to his own jobs.

Just FYI: you will have a very hard time making ends meet on 150k in the bay area especially with a child, unless your GF is going to be making about the same.

I have been applying for my own jobs. My girlfriend applied for a few jobs without my knowledge in FL. She has an offer in FL and she's pressuring me to take this one.

[Anonymous]

You and your girlfriend sound like a total train wreck honestly.

She's applying for jobs on your behalf????

You have perhaps the most marketable phd degree yet you have to ask dcum of all places for career advice????

You thought it was a good life choice to reproduce with someone you don't love enough to marry???

I hope you all get your shit together and grow the f up soon cause damn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:STAY AWAY FROM CA!

I work for an IT company based in Palo Alto. They opened a Reston, VA office. The second I got a chance, I got a transfer and I moved my ass as fast as possible out of the bay area. Despite making 240K/yr is was impossible to raise a family comfortably. Everything is expensive, housing, childcare., TAXES, everything! It is so hard to get ahead. Many people were clamoring to head East. Yea, much of CA looks like paradise, but there is an undercurrent of hell, like running on a financial hamster wheel and getting nowhere.

I LOVE living in Reston. I'm 10min from my job (and sometimes even bike there!), my kids go to a great public school, we are saving, we have a nice home, we are not suffocated by congestion, and our lifestyle is so much healthier.

I'd move back to the bay area for no less than 500k/yr. That kind of COL was a terrible way to try to raise kids.

OP here: I have heard this from a few of my IT friends who took jobs in CA after grad school. Many of them didn't have a choice because they are not citizens. It's funny you love Reston because my family lives there. It feels congested compared to where we live now.