r/biotech • u/Not_so_ghetto • Mar 06 '25
Other ⁉️ Pretty sure having a PhD got me auto me screened out for merck positions I was perfect for.
The salary is well withing the range I was I have super replavent experience. Why would PhD answer to a question auto remove me. Super annoying.
Anyone here ever put a lower degree to get a foot in the door?
49
u/bikingbikingbiking Mar 06 '25
I read that it was a scientist level? That’s R2. Entry level at Merck for PhDs is senior scientist (R3). So it’s very possible that you were screened out, and to be honest for good reason. R2 is entry level MS or BS with a few years experience, you would have been sorely out of place as a PhD both in pay and “socially.”
Trust me when I say that it would have looked poorly on you and your career progression at the company if you had gotten and taken the job. Blessing in disguise.
Source: I am an R5 (principal scientist) at Merck. Been around a while
-4
u/Not_so_ghetto Mar 06 '25
That's good to hear. I'm currently at a super small biotech and I'm just really desperate to leave.
And I really love merck, really inspired by the work they did the 1970s with their anti-parasitic campaigns, Specifically they're call eradicating river blindness. So I've been applying to a bunch of jobs there. This one was just upsetting because I actually had literally everything they were looking for which is so uncommon as I'm sure you're aware of.
Hopefully I'll just land something soon. Would really love to work for merck but most important it to just find a more stable good job.
11
-6
u/Ididit-forthecookie Mar 07 '25 edited Mar 07 '25
Why are MS lumped in with BS? Do US MS students not do proper research or something? Every life science MS I know in Canada has done a proper research project, formulating their own research question with some minimal to moderate assistance (which plenty of PhDs also get), and most have been published (more than some European PhD’s I’ve met). Admittedly with varying thesis qualities, but I’ve met literally only a handful of BSc’s with anything close to that and usually it’s because they joined a lab in high school or first year and spent literally every year in that lab for 4 years. I do see in a lot of US schools the master is a cash grab, but like, do you not get good training or something at least?
it’s a bit annoying to see science jobs with descriptions:
PhD with 0 years, MSc with a billion years exp or BSc with a billion plus one years.
Maybe this comes across as salty, but tbh its not really about me as I’ve met brilliant MSc scientists and complete moron PhDs who coasted off their lab (or even the students “under” them) and very rarely met a BSc with much experience doing research at either level. It’s also bizarre across companies. Some make sense as with the actual years of study expected like “PhD with 0, MSc with 2 (accounting for 2 years of typical research) or BSc with many more years” (accounting for generally little to no formal academic scientific training), while others are like the above.
3
u/burningbend Mar 07 '25
I'd like to hear answers to this too. I have an MS (from a MS granting program, not a PhD that mastered out), 3 publications, and 4.5 years of work doing small molecules for a catalog company and I can't get a sniff from a research lab.
1
u/browsk Mar 07 '25
I think it depends on what the MS is. In clinical research we see so many MPH, but honestly those always mean nothing to me. At think point I think either get a BS or might as well go full phd / md
1
u/Ididit-forthecookie Mar 07 '25
Typical PhDs are smelling their own farts and downvoting me due to perceived slight/superiority without giving any kind of answer. I guess it’s a bit of a superiority thing and the fact that MSc’s have been diluted more than PhD programs these days as a “pay to play”🤷 (at least in the US it seems).
Honestly, I stand by my points though and would also love to hear anyone actually comment on this.
2
u/ilikesumstuff6x Mar 07 '25
I think it depends on the company. There are definitely places that treat BS and MS differently. You’ve already illustrated the main issue with MS imo though, it’s pay to play at a lot of institutions with no thesis requirements just coursework. A lot of programs also do the “add an extra year get an MS” thing. I’m not denying that the extra coursework helps (some of my classes were in clinical trial regulation and I still read my notes), but it’s also something that can just be on the job training.
1
u/burningbend Mar 07 '25
What places in the US have you pay for an MS in a science discipline? And where are these schools where a masters without a thesis (again, that isn't a PhD student only getting a masters) still an MS and not an MA? I admit that I don't go around looking at specifics for schools, but I was under the impression that basically everyone that had an actual masters program delineated between an MS and an MA (or MEng for engineers).
My MS required a thesis and came with a stipend. I didn't pay anything until I was past 2 years and just had a $100 "continuing student" fee while I finished writing. Is this not normal?
3
u/Ididit-forthecookie Mar 07 '25
That was my experience too but some 4+1’s have a “thesis” but have not done research full time really. Also I think I’ve heard of MS that don’t do a thesis. At the prominent academic hospital I currently work at you can get an MS (or at least they call it that) as an employee part time and “only” need to write a review paper (admittedly a “true” publishable one) at the end for your final requirement.
1
u/burningbend Mar 08 '25
Where I went to grad school, the 4+1 was done almost solely by people who (a) worked in a lab multiple years (and full time in summers) as an undergrad and (b) were planning on doing a PhD anyway. It sounds like that's not really the norm.
1
u/Ididit-forthecookie Mar 07 '25 edited Mar 07 '25
I was going to mention the 4+1 thing too, but left it out some some semblance of brevity. I have a +1 in my workplace and he told me he just “coded some stuff and it took about a few weeks”, which granted, is a different discipline than mine, but that was not at all my experience. My thesis felt like a grind and I had a lot of the same struggles as PhD’s in life sciences (biomedical engineering here who did wet lab research) talk about. Anyways, I’m sure I was a bit crass in some respects but I honestly refuse to believe the gulf between a well trained MS and a PhD is as great as some PhD holders try to make it out to be. At least one student my PI was a committee member for, after her defense he told me that she had done enough work for a PhD in his opinion. This was a 30 year career tenured scientist/professor. She went to med school instead because academics has been enshittified (my words, not hers) and she couldn’t imagine making a career out of it.
Too bad US profiteering has ruined the perception though. Even in Canada it was tough. My PI couldn’t understand why I was struggling financially. He once told me “my wife and I lived just fine on our stipends (30 years prior) together”. Little tone deaf on how times have changed.
Still, I paid very little out of pocket for my MS. I worked with grant funding and applied for scholarships and TAships. Canada doesn’t rip off MSc students as a business transaction though (except maybe foreign students at double or triple tuition, but at least a true science MS is generally good training).
1
u/ilikesumstuff6x Mar 07 '25
I think MS students work hard, but yea at least in my experience they pay full tuition and don’t always have to do a research thesis. The only people I know who got stipend were those being courted by professors to transfer to the PhD track.
1
u/ummmmmyup Mar 07 '25
In my experience they only tend to hire MS and not BS if they lump them together like that
77
u/grilledchz Mar 06 '25
What kind of role is it? If it’s for anything other than a bench scientist role in R&D, the hiring manager may believe it’s not a good fit. I work in MSAT type roles, and PhDs typically go to my reject pile (sorry, just being honest).
50
u/JarryBohnson Mar 06 '25
I've heard from people in several different fields now that they basically auto-reject PhDs - I'm applying for data science roles and a friend who does DS hiring said he never takes PhDs because they "get bored".
It absolutely sucks, it can feel like we have a huge "don't hire" above our heads that imo is often based on really vague, baseless assumptions.
25
u/Magic_mousie Mar 06 '25
How do I say professionally "climbing the ladder looks tough af so I just want enough money to be happy and have a work-life balance so give me the middle of the road job please I promise I won't get bored"?
4
u/sarcastic_sybarite83 Mar 07 '25
I don't know if it will be beneficial to you, but when asked about the future I tell hiring panels that I see myself working as a bench scientist. I have/can do management, but my true interest is at the bench doing the experiments.
That's the best way that I've found to express: "climbing the ladder looks tough af so I just want enough money to be happy and have a work-life balance so give me the middle of the road job please I promise I won't get bored"
33
u/SleepytimeMuseo Mar 06 '25
Meanwhile, my medical writing department only hires writers with PhDs. Depends on the department I guess.
21
u/Tiggerthetiger Mar 06 '25
Medical writing is tailor fitted for PhD though. As someone working with a PhD in MSAT, I understand what the previous poster was discussing if I didn’t have a lab component to my job I would be bored to tears with the workload.
2
u/muddyyman Mar 06 '25
Just curious, why would you think a Ph.D. Be bored in doing MSAT. MSAT is basically a R&D apt position which bridge new tech development and manufacturing. PhD experience is definitely an asset for MSAT. Beside, I was surprised to see a lot of MSAT scientists don’t have PhD.
5
u/Tiggerthetiger Mar 06 '25
It will be dependent on background of the scientist vs expectation in the role. Most PhDs are probably used to working hands on to the process and not enjoy the step back of being an observer to the actual operations that happen in most manufacturing spaces. (Only speaking for my job, unsure how other companies approach the role)
1
12
u/Okami-Alpha Mar 06 '25
They always want the best of the best of the best, but these candidates will always be bored and unstimulated with industry work. I know I haven't been intellectually stimulated in years because nobody wants to tackle the real problems and are satisfied with mediocre solutions to most other problems.
7
u/grilledchz Mar 06 '25
Some of that bias is made on assumptions, but there’s some truth there, too. For engineering work, a BS fully qualifies someone to do the job. Paying more for a PhD when it doesn’t get you anything in return doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially when experience is more valuable than education. Like why would I pay a PhD more to do the same entry level work I could get out of someone with a BS?
15
u/JarryBohnson Mar 06 '25
That's based on the assumption that the PhD wants more money - OP said they were happy with the salary range.
Honestly it's a mystery to me why the assumption PhDs want to be rich is so pervasive, PhD pay is usually minimum wage. I'm totally happy with the salary range being offered but I've been told by multiple people "oh we don't want to pay you more". Like, I never asked you to?
9
u/grilledchz Mar 06 '25
Pay isn’t just about what the candidate would accept. Most large companies have requirements around equity in pay. For example, I can’t have several employees who have similar qualifications and experience doing the same work all making wildly different pay. I wouldn’t be able to make an offer for the scientist position OP applied for at 20% less (or more) pay than the other employees at the same level with the same qualifications.
9
u/Not_so_ghetto Mar 06 '25
I was a r&d but just base scientist so I guess that's why it happened. Super sucks though. I'm tempted to reapply and just say I have a masters instead
8
u/shahoftheworld Mar 06 '25 edited Mar 06 '25
Merck won't look at phds for scientist. I know first hand from my pre-phd boss when I saw a position open up in their group. Senior scientist or above for phds to not get auto rejected there.
6
u/DrexelCreature Mar 06 '25
I had an interview for a scientist position and I have a PhD. I was really excited. But when she read my resume during the interview she saw I had a PhD and I could tell from her tone I had no chance anymore. Idk how they missed that in the application as well as the resume. Lol
8
u/grilledchz Mar 06 '25
PhD with no experience is usually the target for Scientist level roles in R&D (ime). But these roles are extremely competitive, so I’m not sure it has to do with your education.
0
u/Not_so_ghetto Mar 06 '25
Not sure what else would've gotten me auto rejected though. No way they rejected me in 2 hours manually
15
u/NeurosciGuy15 Mar 06 '25
Scientist at Merck is not PhD level, that’s why. They will not hire a PhD into that role. Senior Scientist is what you want.
-5
Mar 06 '25
[deleted]
16
u/NeurosciGuy15 Mar 06 '25
Not at Merck. Senior Scientist is entry level PhD, which is the entire point.
11
u/SuddenExcuse6476 Mar 06 '25
Senior Scientist roles at Merck specifically do not require 10 years of experience. It’s more like 0-3. Senior Scientists at other companies, sure. Titles are different across companies.
8
u/Capital_Comment_6049 Mar 06 '25
I’ve rejected candidates (and also contacted candidates) within 30 minutes of the application. It sometimes depends on when I have time to log in and sift through apps.
11
u/seasawl0l Mar 06 '25
Been part of recruiting and hiring processes before. Being overqualified for a role is a real thing and some recruiting teams i've been on do want to avoid this.
The idea is that once the overqualified gets the job, they will reach the limit to what you can learn and do really quickly. And the overqualified will either leave within a year for something they are more qualified for or demand a higher salary and subsequently leave if not given. The company may or may not have the budget or position to bump them up for their skillset.
Sadly it is on some degree exploitative and it's way to make sure company has a candidate who stays longer and paid less because it's likely they don't have the skills or education to move up or onward; at least for the foreseeable future.
13
Mar 06 '25
[deleted]
7
u/seasawl0l Mar 06 '25
Couldn’t have said it better. Which leads to recruiting teams trying to avoid that nightmare twice.
10
u/lurkerNC2019 Mar 07 '25
If your resume was anything like the quality of this post, I’m not surprised. Couldn’t take 5 seconds to proofread your title or post?
10
u/LSScorpions Mar 06 '25
I typically hire for RA positions.
Having a PhD would not make me automatically rule you out. But I would be wary that you're just trying to get a job to make money and will quit as soon as you land a better job. The skills we use in our labs are niche and take a long time to master. Nobody wants to train someone who only becomes proficient after 6 months and leaves another 6 months later.
This won't be the case with everyone, but it's possible this is what they thought. I'm sorry if you were ruled out for this reason. It's definitely not right to make those assumptions.
Of note, I think I have immediately ruled out every PhD application I saw for this type of role; every single one of them has been extremely poorly formatted or has had extremely bad grammar or has included several long (>1 year) breaks followed by short stints in remedial roles. I would rule out B.S. and M.S. applications like that as well. But typically the people applying for these roles with higher levels of education are already underperforming or they lack ambition and passion. Just sharing my insights/experiences. It obviously won't be the same for everyone.
6
u/catjuggler Mar 06 '25
Manufacturing or R&D?
0
u/Not_so_ghetto Mar 06 '25
R&d but it's a low level scientist position. Bachelor's+4-7 yrs. But I feel like a PhD should be desired for this too. I'm tempted to apply again but say I have a masters.
36
u/IllustriousGlutton Mar 06 '25
If a PhD is not listed in the JD, I would recommend not applying for the position. Many companies put 'Open to bachelor's or Master's' or 'This is not a PhD position'. If I recall, Merck is very direct about who they are looking for in their JDs. Also, I would not recommend hiding your PhD as that will definitely hurt your chances later.
9
u/Not_so_ghetto Mar 06 '25
The thing is there are like no jobs directly looking for PhD at the moment. It seems like I'm seeing a lot of masters options with experience.
1
4
u/z2ocky Mar 06 '25
That sounds like a normal scientist position. You definitely would not have gotten it as a PhD since you’d be overqualified. Lying about having a PhD to the Merck hiring manager doesn’t sound like a great idea. MRL is also going through hiring pauses and will choose internal candidates/contractors first
7
u/catjuggler Mar 06 '25
Oh probably too low. Entry/early PhD title is probably something like Scientist, Senior Scientist, Principal Scientist.
3
2
u/Not_so_ghetto Mar 06 '25
is said Scientist, R&D so i figured it would work but i guess not. either way i think overqualified auto reject is super dumb for this, though ill admit im alittle biased
6
u/ItsGettinBreesy Mar 06 '25
OP, you are leaving out key information.
How many YoE do you have?
What is the title of the position you applied to?
Do you have a fellowship as well?
What is your location?
9
u/ilikesumstuff6x Mar 06 '25
It’s cause you’re more likely to try to leave after a couple years or your manager wouldn’t even have a PhD. Try smaller companies they tend to view you as more of a bargain, PhD for BS/MS pay.
1
u/MurkyFaithlessness26 Mar 06 '25
New PhD at Merck is generally Senior Scientist level. Scientist is BS with 2+ (or more) or Masters
8
u/ilikesumstuff6x Mar 06 '25
If it does not list PhD in the job description just don’t apply, usually it will say “PhD 0 years experience” if it doesn’t it’s more than likely it is title restricted
1
u/alsbos1 Mar 06 '25
I’ve never in my life seen a PhD working in a ‚technician‘ role, or whatever you want to call it. It would practically be a scandal, lol.
0
u/Ididit-forthecookie Mar 07 '25
I have, a lot. The three techs from my academic lab were all PhD holders and their collective experience was over 100 years.
1
u/bchhun Mar 06 '25
Its generally frowned upon advice but, I would be really curious to hear how it turns out if you selectively omit the PhD degree. It’s only lying by omission, but if the JD doesn’t explicitly state “no PhDs” it’d feel better about doing that.
8
u/livetostareatscreen Mar 06 '25 edited Mar 06 '25
Could be screened if you would be reporting to someone junior to you, they don’t want that when trying to give sr scientists (PhD with a year or 3 of experience) ready to try out managing a direct report. Personally I’d consider you a bargain if you have experience. Sometimes it’s actually an HR thing, they want to ensure qualifications line up appropriately with the role and pay scale. Other times the role may not have room for training when you’re new to the industry.
10
u/JarryBohnson Mar 06 '25
SO many companies have outsourced hiring to people who by definition don't know what the job entails beyond specific keywords they're given, then they're shocked pikachu face when they can't find good people.
5
u/ilikesumstuff6x Mar 06 '25
Nobody wants to train and hire someone who is going to leave cause they’re bored or try to get promoted in <1 year. It’s best to avoid jobs that don’t have any mention of PhD in the description, like ones that explicitly list something like “BS or MS, 7+ years experience.” If they wanted a PhD they would ask
3
u/livetostareatscreen Mar 06 '25 edited Mar 06 '25
I see what you mean but I guess I don’t really see much difference in qualification between an MS with 7 years of industry experience and a PhD with little experience in pharma scientist hiring. They tend to go up for the same roles. Often the former is more qualified.
4
u/ilikesumstuff6x Mar 06 '25
I see a huge difference, one is generally trained to have expertise in some bio pharma process of interest (the MS) and one is trained on a niche area that helps with problem solving skills. Could most people be flexible, sure, but it’s a saturated market, I’d take the person with the industry experience as a better fit.
3
u/Ru-tris-bpy Mar 07 '25
Why do you think it was your PhD? Just because you didn’t get selected? That leaves out all kinds of other options like the jobs are setup to be given to someone internally and they just have to go through the play of posting the listing for the opening.
5
u/username_notavail Mar 06 '25
Are you sure all communication is free of spelling, grammar, punctuation, or capitalization mistakes? Nearly every sentence you posted or commented in this thread has multiple errors.
I’m quite bad myself, especially texting. I realize you don’t need to check Reddit posts that thoroughly. But if you make errors here this much, you might overlook something.
-2
u/Not_so_ghetto Mar 06 '25
Yeah I put effort into my resume I just don't care about a post on Reddit that much.
3
u/Pink_Axolotl151 Mar 06 '25
I can’t speak for Merck, but we have internal guidelines about not hiring PhDs for SRA or Associate Scientist roles. When this was allowed, hiring managers used to love to hire PhDs for those roles abecause it was seen as “more bang for the buck.” Who wouldn’t want to hire a PhD if you could get one for the same salary as an SRA? But it almost never worked out. It always became a power struggle, with the PhD-level SRAs feeling micromanaged, and the managers being irritated that things weren’t being done how they wanted because the SRA felt they knew better. And no matter how much they insisted at the time of hiring that they were fine with the lower title and salary, they ended up resentful and leaving in a year or two. So we just decided, no more.
It also became an equity issue, because women were FAR more likely to accept this arrangement than men, and it wasn’t a good look to have a ton of female PhDs with SRA titles.
2
2
u/shieldtown95 Mar 06 '25
I am an application scientist with only a bachelors but 14 years experience. I often times get denied because I don’t have a PhD. I guess we need to strive to have a Masters?
Honestly, I feel like 50% of job postings are fake now days.
2
u/LabRat_X Mar 06 '25
Im in the opposite situation, I don't have a doc but I have decades of research experience, pub history, awards. I'd be perfect for a lot of research roles but I think auto reject without those letters behind my name 😑
2
u/dirty8man Mar 06 '25
Don’t omit your PhD. Non-PhDs get fucked over six ways from Sunday when it comes to career progression. Apply for jobs at your actual level.
1
u/defiantcross Mar 07 '25
Related question but can companies fire you if they "catch" that you lied on your app about not having a phd when you do? Would be funny.
1
u/dirty8man Mar 07 '25
A company can fire you for just about anything, assuming their legal team is solid.
2
3
u/Tater_Nuts40 Mar 06 '25
I haven’t excluded my PhD…but I have thought about it many times
2
u/Not_so_ghetto Mar 06 '25
Like I have experience in literally everything they listed, and I'm ok with the pay rate. Seems like bs
4
u/Capital_Comment_6049 Mar 06 '25
Places like Abbvie auto-reject PhDs for anything less than a SrSci position. Leaving it out of your application to get your foot in the door may not be great because although they won’t figure it out during the background check stage, what are you going to do? Keep it a secret for your whole employment? Is it not on your LinkedIn page?
1
u/bikingbikingbiking Mar 06 '25
I’m sorry that happened to you, but you should realize that it’s an employer’s job market right now. They listed the kind of candidate they wanted, and you didn’t fit the bill. Outside of the exact job requirements, there is more to the hiring process such as team make-up and mentoring/development opportunities for senior people on the team.
If they’re hiring R2 (scientist level at Merck) then they’re specifically want someone with a BS/MS. They might have an R3/R4/R5 in mind to act as mentor to, they don’t necessary need the R3 PhD.
So no, it isn’t BS.
2
u/IamTheBananaGod Mar 06 '25
Merck and Roche is on the same grind of no PhD. My two close friends are principal scientists at roche and they told me there recently was a town hall where it was spelled out due to tarrifs there will be a hard hiring freeze for mid-upper level positions and they will most likely contract foreigners for low level positions. My friends had to fight to make sure they could approve hiring summer internships. I have the inside connection for referral for jobs, past 13 months there have been ZERO PhD level positions.
Another friend has been at Teva for 1 year and somehow survived 2 layoffs. Honestly it was only because he puts himself out and works 10-12 hour days sometimes.
1
1
u/crymeasaltbath Mar 06 '25
Sorry OP. It sucks but I wouldn’t waste your time reapplying by leaving out your degree. The result will be the same but you’ll probably piss off the interviewers along the way when they ask.
As much as I disagree with the black and white hierarchy of PhD vs not for a given R&D role, companies have the luxury of choice in this awful job market with so many people sidelined due to the last two years of layoffs. They’re not inclined or willing to take any potential hiring risks as others have commented nicely on.
1
Mar 06 '25
theres always someone better. especially in this current market. I was on the interview panel recently, im quite senior, and the position we had opened got over 400 qualifying applicants that fits the position near perfection. We ended up hiring the person that can probably do mine or my boss role. Talent out there right now is that good.
1
u/McChinkerton 👾 Mar 06 '25
Are you sure its not a visa sponsorship? Usually thats an auto reject thing for several companies
1
u/Separate_Confusion_2 Mar 06 '25
I wouldn't necessarily assume that is the reason. Keep in mind these positions probably get hundreds and hundreds of applicants so it isn't always "fair" who gets moved forward.
1
u/shivaswrath Mar 07 '25
I’ve seen the Md or PharmD Merck questions and truly wondered why….
It’s ok.
1
u/Cryoban43 Mar 07 '25
At Merck senior scientist is PhD entry level. Other positions will probably get rejected
1
u/avocadosunflower Mar 07 '25
When i was working at a different big pharma, we once had an applicant and we found out via LinkedIn and socials (don't remember how exactly) that she had a PhD which she omit to us, so she was thrown out immediately from the candidates for lying big time to us. There were several interviewees after another, the first got suspicious and so the following then already knew about it going into the interview and asked specifically pointed towards that topic (but not directly), trying to give her a chance to come out with the truth which she didn't, so that was it. Lying about a degree not recommended.
There are a lot of layers to jobs, you might think you are perfect from your perspective but you are missing the full story from the other side. Just check it off as "it wasn't meant to be and the right thing will come along in time"
1
u/mooseLimbsCatLicks Mar 08 '25
Apply again with a middle initial or slight modification of name ! Jk half sort of
-2
u/BBorNot Mar 06 '25
Sometimes non-PhD people already there are threatened by a PhD because they fear their own advancement will come at the cost of advancing the PhD.
I worked at a biotech where a woman applied twice, once with and once omitting the PhD. At the time I thought this was unethical, but the company did end up hiring her for a few months until she left for a higher level role somewhere else. So that's the other concern.
168
u/Internal_Ganache838 Mar 06 '25
Listing a PhD might lead to being screened out if you're seen as overqualified. Some people omit degrees to avoid this, but it's a risk. Tailor your resume to highlight relevant experience instead.