Full disclosure. I work for one of the big 4 microscopy companies.
My goal, especially after my PhD, was to become a microscopy core facility director/manager. I love the art in microscopy, I love helping people, I love science. I got a position in industry to gain alignment/hardware/system configuration experience and not just end-user/application experience, in order to make me more competitive in core facility manager/director applications/positions.
Over the past few years I haven’t seen as many new job postings. And I also have seen a reduction in salary. I used to expect 200K for a core director, 125-150k for a core manager, but now I’m seeing 80k-125k.
Is this career no longer valued? Has the job market adjusted? Do I just have to wait for a senior core director to retire?
I make in the mid to upper 100s in industry, but I’m not inspired to go into work. The only thing that matters are sales targets. But I no longer have to worry about bills, which greatly reduces stress and improves quality of life.
sounds like a pretty classic internal debate honestly: high pay check with uninspiring work, or inspiring work for less pay.
I’d say your expectation of 200K for core director was probably unrealistic – more than a reflection of a shifting job market.
That’s not to say that there aren’t core directors out there who make that, but I’d say they’re on the tail end of the distribution, definitely not the median salary. And furthermore, every director making that much would have certainly worked their way up to it over decades of dedicated work. I have never heard of that as an introductory offer. 80-125k is indeed in the range that I would expect for a new hire.
I also don’t think one can make blanket statements about whether the career path is “valued”. You will find tremendous institutional variation in that regard. There are many, many places that value this career path as a key part of their collaborative scientific efforts. And others who may not have the luxury to see the role as more than an equipment maintenance position. As with all jobs, you will find people in this line of work who are thrilled with their situation, and others who are dissatisfied.
Ultimately (and i suspect you knew this already), there is no objective answer about the “viability” of this career path. It is an internal, subjective decision for you to make. Extremely intellectually satisfying jobs are there to be had – with sufficient salary to live a comfortable life. But whether they match your expectations and salary needs depends on your expectations, financial constraints, and life situation.
I think my salary ranges were influenced by seeing core positions at Altos Labs, institutes in NYC, and the Bay Area. Since they now have pay transparency laws. But I agree maybe 200k was unrealistic haha.
oh lol. yeah Altos is the perhaps most famous case of an outlier when it comes to the salaries they offered to pull people from their academic positions.
There is no doubt that the core director/manager career path is a valued one at most institutions that have core resources. I think you find fewer job opportunities because most of us stay in these roles a long time, so turnover is low. Personally speaking, I landed my current role by reaching out to my contacts in cores, so my job here wasn’t ever advertised.
The unfortunate thing for you (and others currently in commercial positions looking to go back into academia) is that you are competing in a system that often promotes from academic ranks and primarily considers those pathways when setting salary ranges. It is rare that commercial folks go back into academics after earning their way into a $200K salary – which in this industry is actually quite high outside of more volatile, commission-based sales roles.
In your instance (and mine too!*) what you are finding is that institutions often target recently minted PhDs who would alternatively go into postdoctoral or staff scientist positions – so salary ranges slightly higher than this are the target to attract them to these roles without overpaying. I agree with Tally that $80-125K is a common range for these roles here in the US. It is strikingly lower in the EU. Cambridge and the Bay Area (or NYC) pay more yes but when considering cost of living they are even less attractive IMHO and they are certainly not representative of the US as a whole.
I was in the exact same position 8 years ago and took a dramatic pay cut to move into a core director role – but I expected this and planned for it – so anyone looking to do the same will likely find this reality. You have to be honest with yourself about your relationship with money. Sales can be soul-sucking, but you are financially more stable and accustomed to a lifestyle that requires more resources. Don’t overlook the fact that core facility management can also be monotonous and boring at times too, so the grass isn’t always greener.
*Full disclosure – I spent 13 years with a major microscopy vendor and the past 8 years as an academic core director at a tier 1 research institution.
Although I’m based in the UK I’d echo what Tally says. First up, most universities / research institutes will only want 1 director. Especially at the moment. Many of us in these positions have been in post for quite a while. It would take quite a lot for many of us to move on. Also there is the consideration that since the post involves oversight of millions of dollars worth of investment in equipment, said institutions will want a safe pair of hands. So positions are not advertised globally often. There is a career path which enables people to work their way up within facilities, in some places people can also move around.
However it goes without saying that those of us in the public / academic / charity sector wouldn’t expect a corporate salary.
BINA, EuroBioimaging and other entities do offer job shadowing, mentoring and career coaching. Have you engaged with these at all?
Thanks for the fruitful discussion!
So my career path was…
Year 0: PhD in a lab with a lot of high-end microscopy equipment. Many confocals! But I burnt out, but loved the technology and helping people.
Y 1-3: Worked in a core facility as a specialist in a 2nd tier city. Was not competitive enough to get into QI, QFM, OMIBS, or AQLM for professional development, and my core manager did not think me shadowing a well-renowned core was a good idea. But I realized now maybe I didn’t have the right network to get into the courses.
Could not move up to core staff scientist because middle management denied it. My core manager fought for me. They supported me and were my reference to a first tier city institute.
Year 4: Worked in a core facility as a core scientist in a tier 1 city. Saw that many core directors came from Roche, Merck, Amgen, etc. Got a job at a big 4 microscopy company to be competitive to hopefully come back to academia.
Currently in said company, but not fulfilling. I speak to core directors at the microscopy courses for advice. I was a top 2 candidate for a Director of Cores role, but communication stopped with the institute, so after several months (3-4 months) I withdrew my application.
Advice from core managers/directors is that academic institutes want longevity and think I may leave.
So I have engaged in career coaching “unofficially”, because I don’t want to lose my job haha.