Nature editorial: Young researchers thrive in life after academia# Biology - 生物学
j*b
1 楼
发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
O*e
2 楼
Alternative career paths should be celebrated, not seen as a compromise.
From Nature website, 27 September 2016
Emily wanted to see other people. Stuart had enjoyed a string of short-term
relationships but realized that he needed more commitment. After years of
uncertainty and making do, Fiona decided to follow her heart. Most found the
decision emotional and stressful and felt guilty. Some worried that they
were being super-ficial — but freely admitted they were leaving for the
money.
The stress of ending their relationship with an academic research career was
difficult for these young scientists and others. Most of them, after a
while, realized that they had made the right decision. Still, a few later
regretted what they decided had been a too-hasty exit, and wanted to patch
things up. Such is life.
Most importantly, all these people believe that they have learned from the
experience and want to help others — people like you — who might be
experiencing or considering a break-up. Their advice is the same as that
offered by friends, family and advice columnists for centuries: if you’re
not happy, then it’s not right.
Significant numbers of Nature’s readers are not happy. They complain, in
surveys and directly to us, of their dissatisfaction with their new (and not
so new) careers in research. The hours, the workload, the instability of
postdoc positions, the expectations, the low pay, the pressure and
competition, the lack of opportunities and the fear of failure: all can
combine to make the early-career years difficult indeed. The same is true in
many other jobs, but young scientists have more reason than most to be
disillusioned when things do not go to plan. Almost all have completed a PhD
. And almost all would have been told that the qualification — and the
effort and dedication involved — was the first step on the ladder to a
permanent academic position.
Nature and others have long pointed out that this is a lie. There are simply
too many PhD students and too few senior posts. Hence the purgatory of the
postdocs: trapped in transition and trying to accrue the necessary credit to
move on.
It can be a severe blow to people in this position to realize that their
fate lies elsewhere, that they will never pass through the gates of academia
to find research contentment (or at least a reliable and decent salary). So
, although the situation can be difficult, a report that surveys scientists
who have made the jump elsewhere, and landed happily, should offer some
comfort.
Produced by the Careers Research and Advisory Centre in Cambridge, UK, with
help from others including Naturejobs, the report What Do Research Staff Do
Next? analyses the survey responses of Emily, Stuart, Fiona and hundreds of
former full-time academic researchers from across Europe who left to pursue
other careers. Forget the redundant clichés. These were no ‘failures’ or
people who ‘couldn’t cope with the pace’. More than three-quarters of
them had published as a principal author and one-fifth had published a paper
in a high-impact journal such as Nature. One-quarter had managed to secure
a competitive grant.
“These were no ‘failures’ or people who ‘couldn’t cope with the pace’.”
Nor were they wide-eyed youngsters, rudely put in their place by the reality
of the workplace. Most were in their thirties and almost one-third had a
decade’s experience. Perhaps most telling of all, eight in ten of them had
aspired to an academic career. They changed their minds for three main
reasons: they wanted better long-term prospects, they wanted more job
security and they were no longer prepared to be employed on short-term and
fixed contracts.
In most cases, they got what they wanted. More than four in five were
satisfied in their new jobs. Many had managed to stay in touch with science,
and worked in a related function such as administration, outreach or
publishing.
Science should wish them well. As Nature has pointed out before, a regular
flow of bright, highly trained and scientifically literate workers heading
into the wider world can only benefit society and science. It is time to
normalize these sideways steps, and for universities, senior scientists and
research funders to accept and embrace the different paths that young
researchers choose to follow. More honest and realistic career advice would
be a good start. In most cases, the survey shows that these scientists were
not forced out: they made an active choice to head elsewhere. And the
outside world was delighted to have them.
http://www.nature.com/news/young-researchers-thrive-in-life-after-academia-1.20686?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20160929&spMailingID=52413449&spUserID=MjA1NTI2ODIzMAS2&spJobID=1004844507&spReportId=MTAwNDg0NDUwNwS2
From Nature website, 27 September 2016
Emily wanted to see other people. Stuart had enjoyed a string of short-term
relationships but realized that he needed more commitment. After years of
uncertainty and making do, Fiona decided to follow her heart. Most found the
decision emotional and stressful and felt guilty. Some worried that they
were being super-ficial — but freely admitted they were leaving for the
money.
The stress of ending their relationship with an academic research career was
difficult for these young scientists and others. Most of them, after a
while, realized that they had made the right decision. Still, a few later
regretted what they decided had been a too-hasty exit, and wanted to patch
things up. Such is life.
Most importantly, all these people believe that they have learned from the
experience and want to help others — people like you — who might be
experiencing or considering a break-up. Their advice is the same as that
offered by friends, family and advice columnists for centuries: if you’re
not happy, then it’s not right.
Significant numbers of Nature’s readers are not happy. They complain, in
surveys and directly to us, of their dissatisfaction with their new (and not
so new) careers in research. The hours, the workload, the instability of
postdoc positions, the expectations, the low pay, the pressure and
competition, the lack of opportunities and the fear of failure: all can
combine to make the early-career years difficult indeed. The same is true in
many other jobs, but young scientists have more reason than most to be
disillusioned when things do not go to plan. Almost all have completed a PhD
. And almost all would have been told that the qualification — and the
effort and dedication involved — was the first step on the ladder to a
permanent academic position.
Nature and others have long pointed out that this is a lie. There are simply
too many PhD students and too few senior posts. Hence the purgatory of the
postdocs: trapped in transition and trying to accrue the necessary credit to
move on.
It can be a severe blow to people in this position to realize that their
fate lies elsewhere, that they will never pass through the gates of academia
to find research contentment (or at least a reliable and decent salary). So
, although the situation can be difficult, a report that surveys scientists
who have made the jump elsewhere, and landed happily, should offer some
comfort.
Produced by the Careers Research and Advisory Centre in Cambridge, UK, with
help from others including Naturejobs, the report What Do Research Staff Do
Next? analyses the survey responses of Emily, Stuart, Fiona and hundreds of
former full-time academic researchers from across Europe who left to pursue
other careers. Forget the redundant clichés. These were no ‘failures’ or
people who ‘couldn’t cope with the pace’. More than three-quarters of
them had published as a principal author and one-fifth had published a paper
in a high-impact journal such as Nature. One-quarter had managed to secure
a competitive grant.
“These were no ‘failures’ or people who ‘couldn’t cope with the pace’.”
Nor were they wide-eyed youngsters, rudely put in their place by the reality
of the workplace. Most were in their thirties and almost one-third had a
decade’s experience. Perhaps most telling of all, eight in ten of them had
aspired to an academic career. They changed their minds for three main
reasons: they wanted better long-term prospects, they wanted more job
security and they were no longer prepared to be employed on short-term and
fixed contracts.
In most cases, they got what they wanted. More than four in five were
satisfied in their new jobs. Many had managed to stay in touch with science,
and worked in a related function such as administration, outreach or
publishing.
Science should wish them well. As Nature has pointed out before, a regular
flow of bright, highly trained and scientifically literate workers heading
into the wider world can only benefit society and science. It is time to
normalize these sideways steps, and for universities, senior scientists and
research funders to accept and embrace the different paths that young
researchers choose to follow. More honest and realistic career advice would
be a good start. In most cases, the survey shows that these scientists were
not forced out: they made an active choice to head elsewhere. And the
outside world was delighted to have them.
http://www.nature.com/news/young-researchers-thrive-in-life-after-academia-1.20686?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20160929&spMailingID=52413449&spUserID=MjA1NTI2ODIzMAS2&spJobID=1004844507&spReportId=MTAwNDg0NDUwNwS2
l*a
3 楼
什么职位？
【在 j****b 的大作中提到】
: 发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
: 天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
【在 j****b 的大作中提到】
: 发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
: 天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
P*c
4 楼
Highly dependent on group.
【在 j****b 的大作中提到】
: 发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
: 天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
【在 j****b 的大作中提到】
: 发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
: 天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
j*b
5 楼
iOS power and performance group.
第一轮是组里的manager，第二轮据说是一个team member
第一轮是组里的manager，第二轮据说是一个team member
c*p
6 楼
我面过，不过不是软工的方向。
苹果的面试题有很多都需要有你有过实际经验，对问题有所思考时的时候才能回答。
【在 j****b 的大作中提到】
: 发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
: 天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
苹果的面试题有很多都需要有你有过实际经验，对问题有所思考时的时候才能回答。
【在 j****b 的大作中提到】
: 发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
: 天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
n*m
7 楼
看组。不过我觉得果农不稀罕问那些脑筋急转弯。另外感觉就是他们喜欢把自己碰到过
的一些问题改头换面拿出来问你，看你有没有经验
【在 j****b 的大作中提到】
: 发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
: 天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
的一些问题改头换面拿出来问你，看你有没有经验
【在 j****b 的大作中提到】
: 发现apple的面经好少啊。第一轮就怪怪的一个算法题都没问。下周面第二轮，还有几
: 天时间，我该如何准备，多做算法题还是复习点别的，希望有经验的请指教，谢谢！
相关阅读
这个fellowship好像没有身份要求推荐信问题问个luxABCDE和gfp应用时异同gene knockout service公司paper help! Thanks~Faculty面试的时候有那些问题是必问的呀？为什么好久不运动剧烈运动会酸疼？衍射光学产生的花卉虹彩吸引动物传粉有谁用过pSingle-tTS-shRNA吗？有哪些grant，不需要绿卡也可以申请的啊？请教成绩更改的问题最烦lunchroom吃饭吧唧嘴的Biotech master 快毕业了怎么办 真心求助有谁推荐一下plant pathology这个方向做的比较好的lab请教GOx在葡萄糖催化中的具体作用画细胞信号传导的图的网站或软件，是什么来着？常压蛋白纯化系统， 除去BIORAD 的ECONO pump，还有那些其他公司的。为什么HSC不能同源重组？很好奇，前一段时间那片造假的Nature paper最后结果怎么样了？请人肉这个SB是谁？ (转载)