Finding a new intern

Working with undergrads was some of my favorite experiences from grad school, so every time I get approval to hire an intern, I get pumped.

The problem with interviewing undergrads is that they're desperate for things to slap on their resumes, so they'll say anything: "I designed complicated circuits", "I can use machine shop equipment", "I know advanced biology/chemistry/physics", etc.  They often overestimate their abilities because they don't know any better and they think the skills they've learned are advanced.  Unfortunately, they're taught at a very basic level and aren't really taught the knowledge in detail before the application. 

So I ask a few basic questions in each interview. The questions vary based on what's going through my mind, but they usually encompass these questions depending on the type of position I'm trying to fill:

Why is the sky blue?

If I have a bath with saline residue, how would I clean it?

How do I make 0.1M of NaOH?

How does the heart beat?

How can I sterilize this equipment?

*Solve dy/dx=x for x
Heat conduction is a function of what?

What's Snell's law?

What do the kidneys do and what's the functional unit?

Name 5 components of a eukaryotic cell
What's mechanical stress?

**What's the unit of electrical current?

Really simple questions depending on the position. Today I interviewed a student who has a 4.0 from a top 20 university. She's finishing her MS I'm biomedical engineering after a BS in biomedical engineering and mechanical engineering. Her answer to * was "x"; her answer to ** was "watt".  What the heck?  Is this seriously what schools are pumping out?!?

I wanted to scream. Of course, I corrected her and explained it. It seemed like it was the first time she was seeing these answers. At first I thought she was nervous, but if she was, she masked it very well. She seemed quite confident in herself. I really hope she was just not in the proper state of mind today, because I'm probably not going to be interviewing too many people from her background or university. I hate to stereotype, but I don't have time for this crap.  I hire interns to have someone to mentor, but ultimately I have to get things done.  When someone is this far behind, by the time they are ready to actually contribute, their seven month internship is over.  I've been pretty lucky with interns where they can usually contribute within a couple months.  Interns of all races and sexes.  Unfortunately, this young woman is not going to cut it.  Schools, please do better.  I haven't started my academic post yet, but I'm really hoping I don't let kids pass by with this remedial knowledge.

Your research is too applicable?

I got my first official rejection letter.  From my top school.

In my company, when I hire one candidate over another, I can only tell the rejected candidate that we had to go with someone else.  A very generic statement since legal says we can't give reasons (I'll never understand this legal shit).  My rejection letter today was interesting.  It said a bunch of generic crap then, "The search committee determined your research was is too clinically applicable."  The job posting was for a bioengineering faculty member that could work directly with the local medical school to develop new therapies.  This is perfect for me since I've already launched medical products that are saving, on average, 200 lives per hour (according to statistics I got last week).

I have very strong opinions about the difference between science and engineering.  My views might be misguided but I consider scientists as those that search for a better understanding of the universe.  Engineers apply this understand with existing technologies, and scigineers perform some combination of understanding the universe and building things outside of just research devices.  PhDs in bioengineering usually fall into either science or scigineering.  The ones that fell into bioscience may have well just majored in biology.  These bioengineers piss me off because I feel like it should be a requirement that if you have a PhD in ANY type of engineering, that you should be able to solve a first-order differential equation.  Those that do only core biology research for their PhD in bioengineering don't deserve it.  Sorry, you should switch majors.  I've met far too many that can't solve dy/dx=x.  And that really pisses me off if you have a PhD in engineering.  It's a personal opinion that a lot of people hate, but good math skills and engineering are supposed to go hand-in-hand.

My application packet had a lot of scigineering: using new experimental techniques and the data from the novel techniques to drive new types of medical device design.  A strong marriage (non-Hollywood) of science and engineering.  Shit, my official job title is Senior Principal Bioengineering Scientist.  I work in hospitals, develop new therapies, pitch them to the board, do science to understand the problem, and create therapies and save lives.  This is what I'm great at.  So why does the search committee think my research is too applied for a position that works with hospitals to create new therapies?  I understand the search for knowledge, and I have a shitload of fun doing those types of projects, but as engineers, aren't we supposed to have applied research?  Isn't the current biomedical funding landscape better built for applied research?  I was certain this school would be interested given the clinical collaboration they're looking for!  Oh well...

Saying 'hello' to my soul again

Sooooo, I finished my PhD a couple of years ago in a bioengineering-type field. I had always been industry-focused because I wanted the real-world relevance. I even took a break between my undergrad and grad educations to get a few years of industry experience.

About a year from graduation I started to apply for industry positions in the medical field. I lined up an offer very quickly for one of the most publically reputable companies in the world in a fast-paced laboratory. It was my dream job. Was. About 6 months before graduation a lot of my results came together and I learned more about academia and I realized I made a huge mistake. I wanted to enter academia. I wanted the freedom, the mentorship and teaching of students, the core search for good, expanding my knowledge-base beyond what is needed for profits, and working with people who are genuinely brilliant. I don't mind the politicking and endless committees and egos because I'm going to have that stuff anywhere. I had all these good things in graduate school (self-funded through my own research grants) and I didn't realize how much I liked it until too late. I ultimately decided to continue on the industry track because I knew it would give me experience beyond what a typical post-doc would have. And the pay. I am easily making 2x my old advisor. 

I've already developed a couple products in my industrial R&D lab and feel like I've gotten all the real-world experience I want. To be honest, I feel like I'm getting dumber in industry. I'm learning a lot about one little field and how to think like an evil business man, but I don't have exposure to anything else. I've been reading all I can, but there's only so much time. The academics out there are thinking "duh. Of course we're smarter". And I would say "you're not all smarter, but you're definitely less evil than industry scientists." I'm looking at you, Monsanto. 

With that, I'm going to make the shift to academia. So far, I have applied for 20 R1 universities and will talk about the hardship of the transition and my application process if it happens this year. If it doesn't I'll just continue on the journey to next year's application season. So I've been kissing a lot of butt, and trying my hardest to switch mindsets to creating an academic application package those already in the ivory tower will like. Here's to a year of depression in an overpaid job if I don't get any offers!