That's beside the point. I reached out to a former teammate (we'll call this person FT). FT has a FT TT AP position at an R1 (sorry, I couldn't resist). FT gave me advice that I should quit my job and get a post-doc. What?!?! FT's reasoning is that academics look at industrial folks as sell-outs. We get paid more, have practically unlimited budgets, and no longer work on understanding the world better. Most of that is true, but I know I chose this position explicitly to get real-world experience I could bring to academia since I noticed a lack of real applicability to most engineering research. Most researchers do crazy things then reach pretty far to demonstrate relevance. That's fine (and arguably more fun and useful), but I like making stuff. Especially considering I want to join engineering departments, and engineers build. So I argued that I would bring something different to the lucky department that takes a chance on me.
FT argued that I have to show that I can be independent, and that industry work is more team-based with unlimited budget. The post-doc would supposedly prove that I can do effective independent research on a smaller budget. Isn't this what my PhD was? I was self-funded and guided. And my former advisor would back me up.
My current position melds people of different disciplines into a team. And taking one person away from the team results in a sharp decrease in the team's effectiveness. Academia is more like golf: you're on your own. Plus, it can be a little slow (which I really enjoy). Maybe it's the former-athlete in me, but I don't feel like I have to go solo to prove that I can work well away from my team. As a solo-player, I was good enough to make this team, why not look at my past experience combined with my team experience to prove I can get things done, instead of treating my team experience like a negative?
