Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alkaseltzer]

Hey guys,

How valuable is a phd in engineering (whether it is cheme, meche, ee whatever)? I've seen firms that have tech specs with phd ee's matsci's from top schools and almost seems like a necessity for that firm. I heard that it was overkill... what do u guys think?

[NJ Patent1]

It is not required, but is not overkill.  Many clients like to see those letters after your name,  Firms know this and starting compensation may be adjusted (mine was) for this (if you have a red number 2 go w/ it). 

[alkaseltzer]

Thanks for the advice. What's a red number? Also, could you tell me a little bit of your background/expertise if you don't mind? Thanks!

[patentatt]

Ph.ds are important in chemical and especially biotech.  Many (top) firms won't hire attorneys in biotech without Ph.ds.

A Ph.d in a different field (electrical/mechanical, etc.) won't hurt your job search.  But the boost is marginal, and not worth the roughly five years of hard work, expense, and opportunity cost of obtaining a Ph.d

My general advice is to get a Ph.d if you are in love with a field, not as resume booster.  And if you love a field enough to get a Ph.d in it, you should probably be doing research, or especially teaching, in that field instead of working as a lawyer.

[lawyer2be]

Hey patentatt,

Thanks for the advice. But if one was to get phd in ee, wouldn't it automatically be a plus for the firm? Clients would like it, like NJ Patent said. I guess what I'm trying to say is except for the modification in salary (like NJ Patent mentioned), is there no other advantage to getting an engineering phd at all? Like increased job security, track to partner etc.?

[khazzah]

is there no other advantage to getting an engineering phd at all? Like increased job security, track to partner etc.?

Job security is based on a good fit between the work the firm has and your [perceived] skills/background. So *if* you end up at a firm that has client(s) which find your EE PhD attractive (say, universities) then your PhD might be an advantage. OTOH, other clients may find work experience attractive, and not care about a PhD, and thus prefer other associates with work experience.

Since you can't know which firm you'll end up with, much less what clients that firm will have at the time, I say this shouldn't factor into your PhD decision.

track to partner etc.?

Partnership is based mostly on your ability to attract clients, ie, bring in work, ie, make rain. Even if your PhD gets you work with certain kinds of clients already at the firm, that doesn't mean the PhD will get you new clients. Rather, the skills/aptitude of successful rainmakers tend to be other things like personality, networking, etc.

So once again, I say this shouldn't factor into your PhD decision.

[NJ Patent1]

Alkaseltzer:  Apologies.  I'm occasionally "keyboard challenged".  I meant to type [USPTO] reg[istration] number.  Like many contributors to this site, I'm a second career patent atty.  After obtining a PhD in chemistry, I worked for several years in R&D, went to law school nights, and here I am. 

Many firms do like to see those letters after your name and, as I typed, some firms "bump you up a year" wrt your starting salary if you have an advanced degree and have passed the patent bar - for marketing and because you start pulling your weight sooner.  But the initial "advantage" quickly levels-off if the firm is a "lock step" firm. I agree w/ Khazzah, long term sucess depends on your overall contribution to the firm.