Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

PP you replied to. OK, let's back up.

You're confusing "scientific research" and "drug development", two very different branches of activity.

Scientific research is the term usually reserved for fundamental research, the kind that's done first in an open-ended way, and usually funded by governments, since it has a high likelihood of not leading to rapid medical progress, but a very good chance of increasing human knowledge. I am in that sphere, and I can guarantee that when people say "scientific research", it means mostly the kind that NIH and universities do. This is where scientists and physicians study cancers, degenerative diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc!

The pharmaceutical level of work is way, way, downstream, PP. It's a completely different, closed-end approach - they want to develop a specific product, and pour billions into finding molecules that can operate on the desired target. Again, something I know well.

Please don't weigh in on something you only vaguely understand.

100% this.

Anonymous wrote:The students we know graduating from college have jobs in business, consulting, IB, and a few in engineering. Any more interesting new grad jobs that you know of?

We know several this cycle and last who are headed to T5 MD, phD, or MDPhD. Those are the ones most likely to cure cancer or save the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

PP you replied to. OK, let's back up.

You're confusing "scientific research" and "drug development", two very different branches of activity.

Scientific research is the term usually reserved for fundamental research, the kind that's done first in an open-ended way, and usually funded by governments, since it has a high likelihood of not leading to rapid medical progress, but a very good chance of increasing human knowledge. I am in that sphere, and I can guarantee that when people say "scientific research", it means mostly the kind that NIH and universities do. This is where scientists and physicians study cancers, degenerative diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc!

The pharmaceutical level of work is way, way, downstream, PP. It's a completely different, closed-end approach - they want to develop a specific product, and pour billions into finding molecules that can operate on the desired target. Again, something I know well.

Please don't weigh in on something you only vaguely understand.

Lol. Read the thread. I absolutely understand what I'm talking about.

Lots of early mechanistic and discovery work is done at pharma and biotech companies. It just doesn't get as much recognition because companies are far less likely to publish and present this work.

I don't dispute that lots of important basic research is done in academia and in govt labs, but I do dispute that it's the only place such research is done.

Anonymous wrote:it is difficult to talk about saving the world when the owners of the world are busy exploiting and squeezing you to the very last drop.

True for some, but not true for all.

This board includes MANY people with massive financial security - the kind of inherited or recently-built generational wealth that insulates them and their children from the type of exploitation and financial vulnerability you describe.

These are the people I'd love to hear from.

How are their children thinking about their careers? Are they making choices through a profit-driven lens (highest starting salaries, quickest path to wealth-building etc.) or are they at least in part mission-driven?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't we just talking about the differenc between choosing a career that is (a) profit-driven; or (b) mission-driven?

Meaning, what is the motivation driving our kids (and ourselves) when choosing careers and jobs?

I think it's normal for people to begin their career with a more profit-driven motivation in order to establish themselves and create financial security.

This includes paying off school loans, to the extent they/we have them, saving money to improve housing (living without roommates or putting together a downpayment to buy), establishing an emergency fund, and having a strong financial base from which to start a family.

For many, the drive for more "mission-driven" work comes mid-career, once there's a stronger sense of financial security, either due to savings/investment or to the security that comes from being part of a dual-earning couple.

And . . .

This genuinely doesn't need to be an either/or situation - either profit-driven or mission-driven from the start. There are jobs and careers that combine both. And though they are likely to create a slower path to financial security, that's 100% fine for some people because the mission-driven piece is worth the tradeoff.

Finally, yes, there are some jobs and careers that genuinely do satisfy both the profit-driven AND mission-driven goals in equal measure. I'm thinking of some successful pro-social startups, as well as microfinance, high level non-profit consulting (does Deloitte do this?), and of course, public service/government work.

I'd love to hear MORE examples of entry-level positions and career paths that genuinely combine both pieces - a reasonable path to financial security AND satisfyingly mission-driven work. Anyone?

MD

Absolutely.

We know quite a few MDs (and an MBA) who have pivoted to roles that focus on systematic change to bring better health care to underserved populations. Some are with non-profits and some are doing this work from within well-established for-profit medical institutions.

Same is true regarding research-backed efforts to improve preventative care, again on a systems and policy level. This in turn vastly improves individual outcomes (population health) AND reduces societal health care costs overall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

PP you replied to. OK, let's back up.

You're confusing "scientific research" and "drug development", two very different branches of activity.

Scientific research is the term usually reserved for fundamental research, the kind that's done first in an open-ended way, and usually funded by governments, since it has a high likelihood of not leading to rapid medical progress, but a very good chance of increasing human knowledge. I am in that sphere, and I can guarantee that when people say "scientific research", it means mostly the kind that NIH and universities do. This is where scientists and physicians study cancers, degenerative diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc!

The pharmaceutical level of work is way, way, downstream, PP. It's a completely different, closed-end approach - they want to develop a specific product, and pour billions into finding molecules that can operate on the desired target. Again, something I know well.

Please don't weigh in on something you only vaguely understand.

My son had two job offers (data analytics work). He said one job at a company felt like it was just about making money for people. The other job was at a defense contractor where he'd previously interned. It's not curing cancer, but he did feel like that work had more of a mission -- to defend our country and build relationships with allies. So he picked the job where he felt he'd be doing something more worthwhile than simply making more money for rich people. (given the current administration, that hasn't panned out as well as he had seen during his internship but he still enjoys the work and sees a future with the company)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been a teacher for 30 years. My kids are in finance, or heading there. They saw me work my ass off and struggle and they want a different path. I am thrilled.

Teacher’s exaggerate. The salary is not low. Talk to the moms who work retail or waitress at lunch shifts so they can get home when schools close or data entry clerks who works there for the flexible hours.

I was a service worker for 30 years averaging ca $30k a year. I know how much I made based on my notebooks, memory, SS Statements, and taxes/ tax refunds. It was never the low income for us as I'm a master in budgeting.
I had $1000 left over on very first month in US and I only made $2000. Imagine if I had been able to invest it, but my visa didn't allow it quite yet.
I went on to get a finance degree in my mid 30s and retire years before age 50 never working in finance.
What has affected my kids is the fact that I was abused at work - years of wage theft, long hours without breaks, trips to ER from work, bounced checks, unpaid training, minimum wage not met, tips going missing, sharing with owner's cousin, paying for walk-outs, returned food and fake $ bills...I can go on and on. The list is longer.
Both kids want to get out of workforce like I did years before retirement or at minimum, make work optional or work part time. They know money makes money, and then there's work.
Both are already investing toward financial freedom. They are also cheap (genetic I suspect) and very low maintenance. Both will go CC, then in-state, and work while in school.
They would never agree that it was my low income that made life harder. It was the mistreatment at work. The extra hours it took me to make up for the wage theft, was finally going to take my health.
Neither DC will save the world or go for high-income career. We will simply continue to invest until the need to work for money is gone.
I should remind them that what happened to me, will not happen to them, but they kind of know it.
I'm well aware that low income makes life harder, but I made up for it budgeting the heck out of my budget. I had the human capital to do so. Most poor don't or they wouldn't be poor. I was poor for different reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, it’s some nepo babies who still want to change the world for good. Strivers’ kids just want to be rich.

I almost vomited. You’re such an ugly person.

You vomit because it’s true.

Kids who don’t have to worry about money are free to worry and be creative about solving problems. They are the ones that can afford to be wrong and to fail.

Those that don’t have a safety net are going take the safe route to money and security.

The ugliness is the system, not the OP for pointing it out.

Curious take. Do you know many scientists, PhD researchers, MD/PhD types, engineers focused on medical instrument design? Anyone with patents? Genuinely interested, not snark.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but I don't understand your question. Of course there are tons of scientists, researchers, MD/PhD types, and engineers focused on exactly these things.

Just because you/we don't know them personally doesn't mean they don't exist. Who do you think is doing that work?

If you want a DC-centric way of exploring your question, try looking at the Medical Devices practices at large law firms. They're full of brilliant lawyers - many with deep scientific backgrounds - who help those scientists, researchers, MD/PhD types, and engineers bring their products to market. Working backward from there, you can learn more about the armies of talented people at the various client organizations who are named on the patents and are otherwise doing the developmental work to innovate for the benefit of the rest of us.

For example:
https://www.hklaw.com/en/services/practices/life-sciences/medical-devices
https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/service/medical-device-law
https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/solutions/intellectual-property-counseling-and-prosecution/medical-devices

There are also tons of brilliant and highly-educated people doing the scientific R&D work in government roles - at many different agencies, both here in DC and in other locations across the country.

Again, I want to re-state the obvious: You, personally, may not know people doing this work. But that does not in any way mean that such work does not exist. Including younger people coming out of undergrad, MD, and PhD programs.

Anonymous wrote:Aren't we just talking about the differenc between choosing a career that is (a) profit-driven; or (b) mission-driven?

Meaning, what is the motivation driving our kids (and ourselves) when choosing careers and jobs?

I think it's normal for people to begin their career with a more profit-driven motivation in order to establish themselves and create financial security.

This includes paying off school loans, to the extent they/we have them, saving money to improve housing (living without roommates or putting together a downpayment to buy), establishing an emergency fund, and having a strong financial base from which to start a family.

For many, the drive for more "mission-driven" work comes mid-career, once there's a stronger sense of financial security, either due to savings/investment or to the security that comes from being part of a dual-earning couple.

And . . .

This genuinely doesn't need to be an either/or situation - either profit-driven or mission-driven from the start. There are jobs and careers that combine both. And though they are likely to create a slower path to financial security, that's 100% fine for some people because the mission-driven piece is worth the tradeoff.

Finally, yes, there are some jobs and careers that genuinely do satisfy both the profit-driven AND mission-driven goals in equal measure. I'm thinking of some successful pro-social startups, as well as microfinance, high level non-profit consulting (does Deloitte do this?), and of course, public service/government work.

I'd love to hear MORE examples of entry-level positions and career paths that genuinely combine both pieces - a reasonable path to financial security AND satisfyingly mission-driven work. Anyone?

MD

it is difficult to talk about saving the world when the owners of the world are busy exploiting and squeezing you to the very last drop.

Aren't we just talking about the differenc between choosing a career that is (a) profit-driven; or (b) mission-driven?

Meaning, what is the motivation driving our kids (and ourselves) when choosing careers and jobs?

I think it's normal for people to begin their career with a more profit-driven motivation in order to establish themselves and create financial security.

This includes paying off school loans, to the extent they/we have them, saving money to improve housing (living without roommates or putting together a downpayment to buy), establishing an emergency fund, and having a strong financial base from which to start a family.

For many, the drive for more "mission-driven" work comes mid-career, once there's a stronger sense of financial security, either due to savings/investment or to the security that comes from being part of a dual-earning couple.

And . . .

This genuinely doesn't need to be an either/or situation - either profit-driven or mission-driven from the start. There are jobs and careers that combine both. And though they are likely to create a slower path to financial security, that's 100% fine for some people because the mission-driven piece is worth the tradeoff.

Finally, yes, there are some jobs and careers that genuinely do satisfy both the profit-driven AND mission-driven goals in equal measure. I'm thinking of some successful pro-social startups, as well as microfinance, high level non-profit consulting (does Deloitte do this?), and of course, public service/government work.

I'd love to hear MORE examples of entry-level positions and career paths that genuinely combine both pieces - a reasonable path to financial security AND satisfyingly mission-driven work. Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, it’s some nepo babies who still want to change the world for good. Strivers’ kids just want to be rich.

I almost vomited. You’re such an ugly person.

You vomit because it’s true.

Kids who don’t have to worry about money are free to worry and be creative about solving problems. They are the ones that can afford to be wrong and to fail.

Those that don’t have a safety net are going take the safe route to money and security.

The ugliness is the system, not the OP for pointing it out.

Curious take. Do you know many scientists, PhD researchers, MD/PhD types, engineers focused on medical instrument design? Anyone with patents? Genuinely interested, not snark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are less than two years into the Trump poop show. You all asked for this. Because for some reason Kamala was the most horrible person on earth. Not president of her fan club, but she would have maintained some sense of normalcy and decency. Rather than blowing up this great American experiment. Which didn't need blowing up. Definitely needed some tweaking. But not this huge destruction of everything that was good in this country.

But keep watching Fox News for your daily dose of propaganda and thinking everything is hunky dory and Trump is a wonderful man whose sole purpose is to help you and not to line his pockets.

And the first person who replies with "TDS" or whatever else is proving my point and has an IQ of 12.

I voted for kamala but I would have voted for anyone other trump tbh.
But trump didn't win because half the country is suicidal.
He won because those voters didn't think the country needed tweaking, they thought it needed an overhaul.

They were sick of DEI and racial preferences.
White people were afraid that their children would experience downward social mobility under a government that seems super concerned about everyone but them.
The debate surrounding trans ideology had just enough kernels of outrageous incidents to snowball into a moral panic.
The democratic lack of focus on economic issues like inflation reinforced the stereotype that democrats suck at economics, despite all evidence to the contrary.
The coronation of Kamala as the Democratic candidate felt like the coronation of Hillary as the Democratic candidate.

Where do people get this stuff? Hillary won the primary. She had strong results across all demographics. Genuinely who do you think would’ve eclipsed Hillary Clinton? I can’t stand the woman and think she genuinely hates despises most people in this country, but to think she didn’t rightfully win the 2016 primary is borderline conspiratorial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are less than two years into the Trump poop show. You all asked for this. Because for some reason Kamala was the most horrible person on earth. Not president of her fan club, but she would have maintained some sense of normalcy and decency. Rather than blowing up this great American experiment. Which didn't need blowing up. Definitely needed some tweaking. But not this huge destruction of everything that was good in this country.

But keep watching Fox News for your daily dose of propaganda and thinking everything is hunky dory and Trump is a wonderful man whose sole purpose is to help you and not to line his pockets.

And the first person who replies with "TDS" or whatever else is proving my point and has an IQ of 12.

I voted for kamala but I would have voted for anyone other trump tbh.
But trump didn't win because half the country is suicidal.
He won because those voters didn't think the country needed tweaking, they thought it needed an overhaul.

They were sick of DEI and racial preferences.
White people were afraid that their children would experience downward social mobility under a government that seems super concerned about everyone but them.
The debate surrounding trans ideology had just enough kernels of outrageous incidents to snowball into a moral panic.
The democratic lack of focus on economic issues like inflation reinforced the stereotype that democrats suck at economics, despite all evidence to the contrary.
The coronation of Kamala as the Democratic candidate felt like the coronation of Hillary as the Democratic candidate.

I think the real issue is Americans lack of focus and expectation that the president will defy all odds. Look, the entire world was experiencing record inflation and the US was doing well compared to nearly every peer nation. Because no one put our inflation issues in context, we got an idiot who crashed our economy. Joseph Biden, while incredibly senile and there being legitimate questioning as to who ran the second half of his term, was an incredibly pro labor candidate and the infrastructure bill has had positive visible outcomes that are still going on.

I find it deeply upsetting when people frame the issue of modern choice of Trump as a choice of desiring “change.” That’s incorrect. Change would look like innovative ideas on how we govern, constructive accountability towards politicians of all stripes, encouraging us all to vote and modernizing our system to our peers, finding a concrete objective solution to our healthcare and insurance industry crisis, discussing ways to reduce the cost of housing (one of which would’ve been a ban on international and corporate holding of residential property- which should make the trump camp happy and SHOULD be discussed to some capacity), etc. What is happening currently is retaliation. The republicans want to belittle and destroy those in the healthcare industry, research, academia, law, global health, and most other white collar professions, while making zero progress on improving the conditions for their working class coalition. I’ve lost so much respect for many people in this country, because they want me to believe that trans people (<1% of the population) cost democrats the election.