[dekhn]

I went straight to grad school (biophysics, top 10 program) after undergrad. Although it meant 7 years of being poorly paid, and giving up on many great opportunities (like working for Yahoo pre-IPO) I think it really did pay off in the long term. Although I'm a software engineer, my research background has opened up a ton of extra opportunities (like being an advisor for a Venture Capital group, carrying out independent research, and generally having a larger range of job opportunities than otherwise).

The downside is, you won't make a lot of money, and as a grad student, you will have to keep your PhD advisor happy, and it takes a ton of work to get things published so that you can graduate. I know a lot of great people who burned out in the process.

I don't think you can learn advanced bio research by just poking around curiously. You have to be deeply embedded amongst people doing state of the art research for years to develop the knowledge and skills to contribute.

[slopnv]

Based from your experience as an advisor for a VC group, how will a graduate degree be helpful in founding a biotech or nanotech firm? Do you think an undergraduate degree is enough to found say a company like Hewlett-Packard? My opinion is that, with an undergraduate degree, it seems more possible to start a software/internet company than in any other high-tech industyr. Thanks!

[dekhn]

I think the graduate degree helps because it contains many signals, such as 5-7 years of work on a project, an advisor, and papers. That said I'm more than happy to fund smart undergraduates, but it's really hard to see signals that make any one undergraduate stick out from the crowd (doing graduate-level research and publishing papers as an undergraduate is a good signal).