Subject: Ph.D. study - Guru vs. Hands-on Groups

From: "Jón Valgeirsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:09:20 -0000

After my message (accidently) was posted on this list I´ve had quite good
response and some encouraged me to summarize these for the list.

It seems that the overall view is that I should follow my own heart in this
matter, for this, one or more of the following reasons were given:

1.  The Ph.D. study is a lenghty process itself and should be enjoyed (if
possible) by the student.
2.  It is difficult to estimate the preference in industry/academia already,
let alone in 3-5 years.
3.  You will probably have to do some post-doc work anyway - At this point
you can simply switch to the algorithm development or medicinal chemistry
angle whichever you have the less experience in at that point.
4.  If you are doing what you like you are more likely to be successful in
your work.
5.  It does not matter - your publications and "track-record" matter most.

Some on the other hand were either for or against either group.

Reasons to join the "hands-on" lesser known group:

1.  The industry needs a professional all-rounder who has worked closely
with organic/medicinal chemists on real-world drug design problems rather
than a specialist.  Especially smaller groups who can´t devote much time to
method development or software coding.
2.  In industry, there is remondous pressure to apply your skills to
"practical" problems, not problems that will push back the frontiers of
science.
3.  You are more likely to use your creativity more in the hands-on lab, and
will accquire more problem solving skills - which are essential.
4.  If you work in a big specialized lab you can lose sight of the big
picture involved in drug design.
5.  To much theory detracts from the industry needs.
6.  The biggest handicap that most computational chemists have is an
inability to "connect" with experimental scientists. It really doesn't
matter what calculations you (the computational chemist) can and can't do,
or what algorithms you can and can't develop (and program), unless you have
a good idea what the people around you need. You have to be able to
understand their problems and find ways of helping them solve them. Since
these people are chemists, biologists, etc., you need to get whatever
exposure you can to these fields.

Reasons to join the "guru" group:

1.  Larger modelling groups and academia need specialised people who can
develope in-house methods and software.
2.  Shear vanity would favour hiring a person from a "guru" lab.
3.  A Ph.D. from a guru lab offers a sense of Quality to the candidate.
3.  It´s easier to pick up medicinal chemistry than a firm basis in physical
chemistry and Computational methods.
4.  One should become an expert rather than consult with experts.
5.  In a hands-on lab you are more likely to spend time on mundane tasks
rather than creating novel approaches.

	Having shown you all this I apologize to anyone who recognises some part of
his/her statements here above.  I tried to rephrase most of the statements,
and thought it more contraversial if I were to name the contributers.

	For those interested I will follow the first advice - that is joining the
group I favour my self and that this happends to be the "hands-on" group and
this has undoubtetly biased my summary presented here.

	I have to mention that there are some additional personal factors that I
took into account in this regard, such as social, economic and geographical
reasons that favoured the "hands-on" group.

	Thank you for your excellent responses, and please do not hesitate to
bring forth additional comments on the matter.

				Jon Valgeirsson

				[email-masked]