Did my BSc. in economics and biotech. Then, did an MS in biotech. I wanted to start a PhD right after, but was not 100% sure about it, and needed money.

So, I got a job with the largest healthcare company in the world. Now, my day-to-day job is not very challenging, stimulating, or rewarding. I am not doing anything econ related, and I really enjoyed econ in school.

I now have the opportunity to start my PhD - if I was asked now, my eventual goal would be to become a health economist in the biotech/pharma industry, or go into consulting.



From working in the industry for the last year, I see that many of the senior managers and directors, who are close to retiring, have barely any education...whereas everyone coming in (20-30 yr olds) have at least an MS, and some PhD's.

majority of health economist jobs want PhD's, and if I want to climb the corporate ladder, it seems like a great investment.

So, if I am almost positive I don't wanna teach, is a PhD a mistake?

Hi there,

Wow! I would love to have completed all the courses you have. I really would like to get into pharmacoeconomics, but with no background in economics(I’m pursuing a phd in biochemical engineering) it is unlikely!

Anyway, back to your question. I would definitely recommend doing a PhD. For people who are the directors of big pharma/biotech companies now- they didn’t need a PhD to get where they are. Things have changed, and we have a great deal more competition, so anything that gives you an “edge” is desirable. Also, I have heard many people in the industry say that without a PhD you just hit a glass ceiling and don’t really ever make it to the top. In addition, in the US a PhD does carry a lot of weight, and so is an advantage in terms of salary, promotions etc.

Also, I would say from my experience, 80% of PhD students in our dept. do not go into academia…so its extremely normal!

Anyway, hope that helps!

Nessie