Feedback: I really liked this presentation by Dr. Wolfgang Windl. His sense of humor, speaking rate and quality of content was excellent. I want to highlight particular strengths below:
1. Humor: I found myself quite captivated throughout this lecture and wondered what made it so easy to watch the entire length of it. I realized that a big part of this was the fun remarks he added in between, some of which made me laugh out loud. I've realized now that this is a useful aspect for speakers and that it is not a personality trait that should necessarily be suppressed in formal presentations.
2. Confidence: The speaker appeared very confident in manner and seemed to be comfortable with the material on the slides.
3. Spontaneity: I appreciated that he made certain decisions on the fly (such as which content to skip) and reacted to comments and situations in an extempore manner, which made the presentation further captivating for me.
4. Quality of material: The advice and thoughts presented by this speaker were fantastic. He is in a unique position to give this talk, having worked in industry, national lab and university environments. I like that his plus and minus points for each choice were broad - they encompassed professional life, material aspects, personal life and future prospects, covering all the points that I was interested in.
Things that could be improved/negative feedback:
1. I have just one point in this section: I felt that there could be more diversity in the examples chosen by this speaker. A majority of the famous people highlighted during his talk (shown in a positive light) were men. While I'm sure that he himself has worked with and supported women and individuals from under-represented backgrounds, it would be encouraging for viewers from such minorities (in academia/deep tech/R&D) to see more diverse and relatable examples.
Conclusion:
I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Windl's presentation and would suggest that he is invited to speak in future iterations of this course. He offers a unique perspective in an effective manner and I honestly feel that I have benefited from watching his presentation.
I really liked the perspective that Dr. Windl placed in front of the audience. Knowing about various options that one has after pursuing their higher studies truly brings forth some clarity on what one should expect from various opportunities of work life. He also went in depth about the pros and cons of life at national lab, Industry and academia all the while discussing about the financial, ethical and political aspects of different kinds of research carried out at the aforementioned places. He also compares salaries vs the amount of effort one needs to put across all the domains which really sheds some light into what one has to expect after their PhDs. The presentation also goes around aspects of how experiencing a bit of everything can prove to be very beneficial for anything that one chooses to work on for their rest of life. For instance, academia humbles one, industry puts in some "common sense", dealing with management etc. and working with labs gives a good taste of how research goes in for high impact research. Another captivating thing about this presentation his how Dr. Windl also goes through some lesser discussed aspects of life such as "Midlife Crises" where people think what they will be remembered for when they die and how one can leave some impact through academic endeavors such as Publications, students etc. which is absent in other domains. Lastly, Dr. Windl encourages people to not be afraid of changing paths until one explores and finds what's truly worthwhile.
I loved this seminar by Dr. Windl! Not only was the presentation done well, but the information provided is also crucial for anyone actively seeking employment.
Which sector to go into after graduation has often been a question I contemplate and discuss with my friends and family. But Dr. Windl’s insight into the matter, especially using his own experience of working in each industry, has proved the most useful. To begin with, the fact that he worked in national labs, industry and academia is already very impressive, but then the breakdown of life in each category he provided, along with pros and cons, made comparing the sectors so much easier. As a budding professional, I believe the right path for me at this point is industry. According to Dr. Windl, industry instills a work ethic that will be beneficial later in lab or academic work.
What I truly appreciated about the lecture was that an individual does not need to stick to a single sector forever. I could choose to switch in the future, depending on my needs – something I had never really considered before. Great seminar!
Prof. Windl gave an insightful talk on comparing personal experience in national labs, industry, and universities. I chose this seminar because, as a new PhD student, I do not have a clear path regarding which road I should choose after I graduate.
As a scholar who has personally experienced all three areas, which is not common, he shared some experiences that outsiders are not aware of. For example, it is good to know his experience of continuously taking online courses after leaving the national lab. He also shared some interesting thoughts that I had never considered, such as the legacy in academia. The final slide of his talk was most insightful for me: Every job has different pros and cons, and the key to finding a suitable job is to identify what is important to me. Thanks to Prof. Windl's talk, I now have a clearer thought about what career choice is suitable for me.
One piece of advice on the talk is that I do not think Prof. Windl needed to provide too many details of his research projects at Los Alamos National Lab, Motorola, and Ohio State University. It is good to know the areas he worked on, but too much detail is not necessary for the topic of this talk.
Fantastic presentation on the varying differences between 3 major routes we have as graduate students. As someone who began their graduate career with the intention of taking an academic route, I desperately wish I had been pointed towards this presentation much earlier. Many of the negative aspects that were pointed out in this path are things that I have slowly realized throughout my time as a graduate student. As a result, I have begun to adjust my career path to better suit what I want out of my career.
While the information provided is mostly from the perspective of one person, I do believe Dr. Windl's experiences provide an overview on what can be expected. I look forward to using this information to help me guide my new path and proceed in a successful manner! I am really curious as to how the focus of work has changed in the national labs compared to when this presentation was given. Would really like to see a talk similar to this again with maybe a more modern look.
If I were to critique one aspect of the talk, it would have to be this "legacy" discussion point. To me it feels so tailored towards the academic route, when I don't think its restricted to that career space. Despite that, I also found it might have been focused on a bit too much in the presentation. To me it seems to be the least relevant discussion topic.
Insightful! If I were asked to give this presentation one word, that is what it would be. I found this talk really insightful, as I learned many things that I did not know before, and it would also be useful for me in navigating my future career. Although I noticed some of the pieces of information he disbursed during the presentation were quite outdated, I believe the pieces of information could still be factors that could be considered when determining what path to take when deciding your future career.
Professor Windl spoke about his experiences working in the industry (different positions at Motorola), a national laboratory (a postdoctoral fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory), and academia (a professor at The Ohio State University). He listed the pros and cons of each career path according to his experiences in each of the places and factors that could be considered for each of them. I appreciated the fact that he was completely open and honest in his review of the three sectors of work. Being a professor, that did not make him want his audience to want to follow his path and "sell" academia to them. Instead, he encouraged his listeners to try out each before finally deciding on what they wanted to settle for and even changing paths whenever they wanted to! I liked the fact that he spoke generally, considering international students when listing his pros and cons.
Listening to this presentation was a real eye-opener for me, as I can now confidently decide what I really want to do for my future career with the relief that I can switch whenever I want to and still be accepted wherever I go. Again, what an insightful presentation!
Personally, I genuinely enjoyed watching Dr. Windl’s presentation on “What’s Better - National Lab, Industry, or Academia?” because it introduced me to thinking about potential career paths outside of industry. As a 4+1 computer engineering student, I have tailored my academic experience with the goal of obtaining a well-paying job in industry after graduation. In other words, I have not allotted significant time to evaluating the pros and cons of working in industry in comparison to a career at a national lab or in academia. Accordingly, Dr. Windl’s presentation introduced me to these advantages and disadvantages which reaffirmed my career goal of obtaining a job in industry. While I am definitely drawn to the pros of a career in a national lab or academic, such as: having a life outside of work, job security, and legacy, in my opinion these factors do not outweigh the advantages of a job in industry. For instance, I am personally very motivated by the potential for salary growth, lack of administrative work, impactful technical work, and “common sense infusion”. That being said, Dr. Windl brings up a good point in mentioning that industry jobs can face job insecurity and frequent changes to work culture or managerial visions. These factors do worry me about a job in industry; however, I am still more interested in this career path. Overall, Dr. Windl presented the comparison of career paths in national labs, industry, and academia effectively by clearly listing the corresponding pros and cons while providing justifications for his claims based on his personal experiences. In summation, I gained valuable knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of working in a national lab, industry, and academia, which has helped me make educated decisions about which line of work is best for me and my future career goals.
I'm grateful for Dr. Wolfgang Windl's presentations (.mp4) for comparing careers in industry, academia, and national labs. As an Electrical Engineering student experienced in nano-device fabrication, I found Dr. Windl's story with materials science and engineering particularly interesting. Although it's been some time, the salary comparison graph between academia and national labs from his lecture provided helpful clarification of reality. Dr. Windl's experiences with Los Alamos National Lab, Motorola, and as a Professor at Ohio State University, along with his presentation that clearly compares the pros and cons, helped me understand the trajectory of his life and his personal views. Especially noteworthy was the topic of working in nuclear science and considering the spousal perspective, a new concept for me as a first-year PhD student, which highlighted the importance of considering family and external situations in career planning. Dr. Windl's diverse experiences across different fields have inspired me to broadly plan my future prospects.
I watched this seminar because I am near graduate, and I am looking for some suggestions on my career path. I must admit I want to make a lot of money after graduation, but I found today’s market. So, I have to reconsider and ‘replan’ my future career.
I very much enjoy watching this video. It provides a detailed comparison of career paths in academia, industry, and national laboratories, emphasizing the unique aspects of each sector. The collaborative and open-ended nature of academic research, the project-driven and results-oriented environment in industry, and the blend of fundamental and applied research in national laboratories all bring me a deeper understanding on all of them. Thus what is the most important is still to align my own passion and career goals with the right environment. Like WLB, worrying about fundings.
I did learn a lot through this and I will spend more time on doing more research on these, and I will expand my career options when submitting my resume.
I watched this seminar because I am near graduate, and I am looking for some suggestions on my career path. I must admit I want to make a lot of money after graduation, but I found today’s market. So, I have to reconsider and ‘replan’ my future career.
I very much enjoy watching this video. It provides a detailed comparison of career paths in academia, industry, and national laboratories, emphasizing the unique aspects of each sector. The collaborative and open-ended nature of academic research, the project-driven and results-oriented environment in industry, and the blend of fundamental and applied research in national laboratories all bring me a deeper understanding on all of them. Thus what is the most important is still to align my own passion and career goals with the right environment. Like WLB, worrying about fundings.
I did learn a lot through this and I will spend more time on doing more research on these, and I will expand my career options when submitting my resume.
I am excited to share how impactful Dr. Wolfgang's presentation was. He shared his personal experiences working in different areas including Industry (Motorola Inc. as a staff scientist), Academia (Ohio state University as a Professor ), and National Laboratory ( Los Alamos, as a Postdoc.). He mentioned a good number of advantages being in any of the areas and as well shared possible disadvantages that exist in each area. In Academia, he related how working in an institution can provide seamless academic relationship with many students, job security after getting a tenured position but it may take a while to get one, and also granting academic freedom. At the same time, being in academia can be demanding with little time for personal life activities.
Working in industry gives the opportunity to implement ideas that can directly impact the development of the society, gives a good pay, and can also provide opportunity to have balance between work and personal life activities. However, the frequent change in management ladder can affect the progress of engagement and job security isn't assured as the continuation of engagement is a function of the company's growth. He also added that working in National laboratory provides ample time to have life outside work, access to collaborate with many researchers and can also be a good area to make sustainable earnings. despite all these advantages, citizenship is a restricting factor to get in for most of international students and the chain of communication may not be favorable in getting things done as swift as possible.
Dr. Windl emphasized the importance of considering family, job demands, impact, legacy and finances when choosing a career path and also encourages everyone not to be afraid to change paths based on evolving priorities and circumstances. He also added that it is necessary to recognize that every career option has its advantages and disadvantages and the right choice may vary based on different life stages and priorities. In addendum, he stressed the scope of being impactful which is a good avenue to create a lasting legacy.
I must say, experiences shared in the presentation are definitely going to be helpful.
Dr Windl's presentation cystallized his personal experiences in industry, national lab, and academia and in turn gave me a lot of clarity on where I want to work in my career. Some of the pros of national labs like high salaries were surprising to me although being an international rules it out as a viable career path for me. Also, I underestimated the amount of uninspiring but important work national labs do like stockpile stewardship and it's not something that interests me at all. The focus on spouse and location made sure the analysis was very holistic, which I appreciated. His example on lab bureaucracy was hilarious to me as industry has way worse bureaucracy with respect to orientation courses and training to be completed. I thoroughly enjoyed Dr Windl's review of work in industry as it is most relevant to my interests. His coverage of the pros was comprehensive but his analysis of the cons of industry work is off-mark, probably because the presentation was 13 years ago. Currently, there are lots of great research jobs in industry at big stable companies where research focus doesn't vary too much and there is substantial job security. The work that he did at industry was both more impactful and more interesting than his national lab work, although I think he went into too much detail. The salary numbers also don't mean much in today's context. His analysis on the cons - working in cubicles and technical individual contributors being "losers" also doesn't apply anymore. The analysis on academia surprised me, because it is as close to an ideal environment for me as I can dream about but I never really considered academia to be a primary option for myself. I liked his explanation of the academic environment, legacy, and freedom inherent in the job, and his cons about it being demanding aren't really cons in my eyes. The presentation made me rethink my priorities and reconsider a further career in academia, which is a very valuable thing for a presentation to accomplish.
I found Dr. Windl’s presentation comprehensive and insightful, and his oration eloquent with several intermittent humorous references to keep the audience engaged throughout. He started off his presentation by briefing the audience on his work experience chronologically which served as an important reference for the whole presentation. He then transitioned to talking about the pros and cons of working at a national lab, industry, and academia overarchingly comparing the aspects of job security, research focus, funding, legacy, salary evolution, work environment, bureaucracy, management hierarchy, job location, and life outside of work. He also brought an immigrant’s perspective to working in the United States which is helpful to international students.
Dr. Windl’s presentation on working at industry versus academia versus a national lab was surprisingly impactful even though I have made up my mind on going into industry. While a driving force for industry is salary evolution and a steady work-life balance, I was surprised to see all the other nuances supporting academia and national labs. As youngsters, we often lack the experience to have insights on making informed decisions regarding one’s career. We are often driven by the experiences of others, our level of technical interest, and money. But having someone who has worked in all three give his experience is ideal for graduate students, like us, who are at a pivotal point in our career planning, in making smart and informed decisions. I was, especially, surprised to learn about the perks of working at national labs. But a lot of it definitely stems from me being a non-citizen and being ineligible to work there. But after this presentation, I am definitely open to the idea of one day working at a national lab once I get my citizenship. I see myself transitioning from industry into academia or a national lab at some point where I want more stability and do not care too much about money. Overall, Dr. Windl’s presentation has played an impactful role in validating my decision to go into industry. I do not have any critique as whatever I felt he had missed was then covered in the QnA at the end.
Dr. Wolfgang Windl's lecture on postgraduate career choices served as a comprehensive guide for students navigating the complexities of academia, industry, and national labs. The presentation, while informative and insightful, also left room for constructive feedback.
The lecture effectively dissected the pros and cons of each career path, shedding light on crucial factors like job security, work-life balance, and career growth. Dr. Windl's personal anecdotes added a practical touch, making the content relatable for students facing similar decisions. The incorporation of humor injected a light-hearted tone into serious considerations, making the lecture engaging and approachable.
However, one notable aspect deserving attention is the balance between personal experiences and broader insights. While Dr. Windl's technical anecdotes provided valuable context, they occasionally overshadowed the overarching discussion. Striking a more even distribution between personal stories and general insights would enhance the lecture's overall effectiveness.
Additionally, the visual elements, such as slide design and font choices, could benefit from refinement. Some slides featured disproportionately large words, affecting readability, and certain figures lacked the expected self-explanatory quality. Improving these visual aspects would contribute significantly to the overall clarity and impact of the presentation.
Despite these areas for improvement, Dr. Windl's lecture undeniably delivered valuable information for postgraduate students. The real-world examples and the speaker's ability to inject humor into serious topics make this presentation a worthwhile resource for those grappling with career decisions after completing graduate studies. With a more balanced distribution of content and enhanced visual elements, the lecture has the potential to become an even more impactful guide for students on the brink of making crucial decisions about their professional paths.
Professor Windl provided insights into different industries/sectors through real-life experiences. As an engineering student it is difficult to know where to work post-grad (national labs, industry, or academia) without having experienced them. He provided a comprehensive exploration of the practical facets of careers by navigating through work-life balance, job expectations, and the limitations in each sphere. Furthermore, the presentation did well in providing insights into the merits and drawbacks of various career experiences, including a candid evaluation of salaries. Through his comparison of the three areas, Professor Windl was able to provide valuable guidance for those contemplating their career trajectories and the financial implications therein. He also offered invaluable context for navigating the complex terrain of academic and professional pursuits.
However, some technical aspects of Professor Windl’s personal experience would be challenging to follow for some. A suggestion for improvement concerning this would be to provide more clarity for these sections or keep them brief to help keep the audience engaged. Another area of improvement would be to improve the slide aesthetics by ensuring figures and plots are self-explanatory.
Overall, I appreciated his candidness and humor throughout the presentation, as well as hearing about his life experiences in each area. His seminar serves as a beneficial resource for individuals seeking clarity on their professional career path.
In Professor Windl's presentation, he discussed a wide range of topics, drawing from his experiences in nuclear national lab, academia, and industry. He highlighted practical aspects such as work-life balance, job expectations, and industry limitations.
His insights into the pros and cons of each work experience and salary evaluation based on his career path were particularly informative. He also offered a clear comparison between academia and industry, addressing career choices and income implications.
Using diagrams effectively, he combined objective information with his personal views. For someone like me considering a PhD, his practical advice on financial and career benefits was invaluable. Professor Windl's seminar was beneficial for me to gain more context in navigating my academic and professional career.
I have always had this concern about which occupation will be perfect for me after graduation. Thus, the first time that I saw the title of this lecture, I thought it might help me have a clearer vision of the future. Let's start with an overview of the lecture. I believe Dr. Wolfgang Windl gives a clear understating of how working in academia, national labs, or industry can be different from each other. For each of these positions, the lecturer presented some pros and cons.
I do not want to repeat those pros and cons again, as they are listed in the slides as well. At the end of the presentation, he also discussed what your legacy would be with some famous examples. I believe most of the students have pointed out the positive points about this presentation. I do not want to repeat them. Yes, I enjoyed it, and I learned from it. However, I believe the lecturer could talk less about technical issues from his own experience. I lost track of those parts of the presentation! Moreover, better fonts could be used in the slides! Some words are really large, and there are some words and phrases in some slides, which make it hard to read them. Finally, I believe the figures and plots should be self-explanatory, yet I hardly see this important feature in his presentation.
Once again, I know that this lecture has too many positive points that I really enjoyed as well and helped me to better understand the differences among these job positions, yet I believe this presentation can be improved considering the comments that I gave.
I'm always having the concern that whether I should stay in college for a PhD degree or finish my master's degree and go to the industry or join a national lab to do further research study. This lecture gives a very clear comparison among these three choices.
First of all, stay in the academic is a very wise choice, since this allows you to do the research whatever you want and at meanwhile, you have a very flexible time schedule to arrange your own research. However, in this path, most likely I need to obtain a PhD degree and it's always not easy to be successfully finish a PhD degree. This means I have to be prepared for five or six years to do research and write paper and continue doing research. I asked myself while watching the lecture, do I really wanna stay in school for five years and pursue a PhD degree? I feel like myself would say no and willing to go to the industry.
There are some pros and cons for people who go to the industry. The pros are that you get a good paid salary and you don't need to work whole day long, which means that you will have a good work and life balance. However, the cons are that you may facing some management change or even lose the job when the company doesn't run well and do the lay off. As a result, you need to look for new jobs and it maybe very annoying. But personally, I would prefer go to the industry after graduation. That's also the way I choose.
For staying in the national lab, I personally feel it is not as good as staying in the school. Therefore, I would make this as my last choice. Overall, this lecture has very detailed explained each career paths' pros and cons, providing students a very constructive perspective of choosing their career path. Highly recommend!
One thing I appreciate about most of these speakers but especially Wolfgang is that they always keep it real, giving immensely practical advice without the normal equivocating or preaching that most people do. They emphasize where needed that your mileage may vary, but back up their assertions with personal evidence and anecdotes that reinforce their experience. His focus on data like many engineers is always helpful, to see salaries but also contrast with the softer and more important things like work life balance, location, etc. I personally think the appeal to legacy isn't very strong merely because all of us are young as an audience, so I don't feel a driving need for something like that yet. It is always interesting to see what people in different life phases value however so this is an important part of the presentation.
Dr. Wolfgang Windl's presentation on the pros and cons of working in academia, industry, and national labs was informative, engaging, and provided valuable insights for students navigating the complexities of postgraduate career decisions. The presentation offered a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each field, helping the audience gain insight into various aspects of job choice, including job security, work-life balance, career growth, ethical concerns, salaries, and potential research roles for PhD students.
Academia
Pros: Academic freedom, pleasant work environment, job security
Cons: Unpredictable work schedule, dependence on the institution's reputation for funding and recognition
Pros: Job security, good salary, focus on research work
Cons: Research constraints tied to funding, bureaucratic hurdles
Dr. Windl's presentation was well-organized and engaging, using humor, structured presentation, and interactive engagement to make the session both educational and enjoyable. He left the ultimate decision of which career path to pursue to the individual, encouraging them to carefully consider their priorities and preferences.
Overall, Dr. Windl's insights provided valuable information and considerations for students making career decisions after completing their graduate studies.
This is an interesting seminar to hear the real-life story of a person having job experiences in a national lab, industry, and academia. He mentions the pros and cons of the different positions with a very nice and clear explanation, and draws a comparison based on those. He starts with his experience in a national lab where he mentions job security and the opportunity to focus on research as major plus points. He next discusses his experience in industry about which he says that the work environment and job security might not be good despite good income. He ends with his ongoing experience in academia where he thinks that he has more freedom than that of a national lab or industry. However, the position in academia is highly demanding and needs a lot of effort. The viewers of this seminar will certainly get a good idea about the working environment in different places and be able to choose their career accordingly.
Dr. Windl's lecture on academic and industrial careers was highly engaging and informative. His method of structuring the talk along his own career timeline brought a unique, personal touch to the discussion. It was particularly interesting how he connected different career stages to varying personal values and priorities, such as a recent graduate's focus on salary versus a seasoned professional's emphasis on work-life balance. This perspective was not only enlightening but also humorously presented, making the presentation both enjoyable and thought-provoking. This talk provided valuable insights into potential career paths and the factors that should be considered when choosing them. Overall, Dr. Windl's experienced and humorous approach made for a worthwhile and eye-opening session.
This was quite a fun talk that addressed what are essentially serious considerations with a sense of humor. It also points out, although with a sense of humor, some of the more bleak experiences post-grad school. I think the most valuable part of it was the speaker's experience with "job events" that most people dread: cutting of funding with only a few weeks notice, entire divisions being laid off, etc. It illustrates that even with a PhD, doing a research job that actually has security is a scarce resource. But also, the speaker was able to find a better job after each of these events. This is encouraging to know.
Now that this video is over a decade old, the trends pointed out (decrease in research jobs in industry) was spot on. Based off of the people I know working at national labs, the description of life there is also accurate. I would have liked a bit more detail on how the transition from industry to academia happened, however. This is often mysterious whenever it happens.
Finally, the slides are essentially a good reference. The bullet points throughout essentially serve as an "if this is a consideration, then this is good for that" guide.
Dr. Wolfgang Windl's insightful presentation covered the merits and drawbacks of academia, industry, and national labs, offering a comprehensive view of job choices. He discussed crucial aspects like job security, work-life balance, career growth, and ethical considerations.
By analyzing all three options candidly, Dr. Windl made it easier to evaluate them based on common factors. He highlighted the strengths of academia and national labs, emphasizing job security and research focus. Industry, while more financially rewarding and efficient, lacks job security and research opportunities.
Personally, I favored the security and research focus of National Labs, despite potential limitations in career growth. Dr. Windl stressed that career choices shape our legacies, noting academia's appeal in contributing to research and academic life, albeit with lower salaries and more effort securing funding.
Ultimately, the decision depends on individual interests, goals, and circumstances. Graduate students should thoroughly explore each path, weighing their pros and cons while considering the crucial aspect of work-life balance.
This seminar stands out as one of the most engaging and enlightening sessions I've ever attended. Initially drawn in by the intriguing title, I found the presenter addressing a lingering question I've had since starting my Master's after almost two years of work experience. The insights provided throughout the seminar have brought clarity to my perspective.
Dr. Windl began by sharing experiences from the Los Alamos National Lab, highlighting challenges such as research constraints tied to funding and bureaucratic hurdles. Industry insights were particularly eye-opening, emphasizing the impactful nature of the work, salary evolution, and work-life balance. Despite potential drawbacks like management changes and job insecurity, the industry seemed appealing, especially for its focus on impactful technical work.
While academia may not be my preference, the seminar underscored its merits, including academic freedom, a pleasant work environment, and job security. However, these benefits come with trade-offs such as an unpredictable work schedule and dependence on the institution's reputation for funding and recognition.
In conclusion, Dr. Windl's presentation emerges as a valuable resource for students navigating the complexities of postgraduate career decisions. His skillful combination of humor, structured presentation, interactive engagement, and thought-provoking insights makes the session both educational and enjoyable. It is very clever the way he leaves this question to be answered by the individual themselves, so that they can take their time and brain storm what they actually want to do.
Professor Windl's talk was very helpful and informative. He made a hard topic easy and fun to understand. He talked about his experiences working in national labs, industry, and academia, focusing mainly on the semiconductor industry.
I found the talk very helpful because he listed the benefits and drawbacks of each route from his personal experience. Also, he explained very well the type of results or legacy you might leave in each different route. Furthermore, his topic was related to my interests, so I found some of the more technical examples he gave very interesting and helpful at the same time.
In conclusion, I think this talk would benefit any graduate student who is unsure of their career path.
Professor Windl's presentation was both informative and engaging. His excellent sense of humor was integrated into the lecture, making it enjoyable and easy to focus . He used clear outlines to structure his talk, which helped keep the audience's attention. The use of anecdotes increased the presentation's appeal. Furthermore, Windl's insights into the academic path versus the industry were particularly valuable for me and especially for graduate students who need to make this decision. While his focus was on the semiconductor industry, it would be interesting to hear similar presentations from professors in AI industry. In summary, Professor Windl's presentation is a valuable resource for students facing postgraduate career choices.
Professor Windl has a great sense of humor and uses it very well throughout his presentation. I liked how Professor Windl set up the presentation, he showed an outline of what he was going to talk about at the beginning and then each subsection also had an outline, the overview slides. Then when he went into the subsections, he used a lot of photos on the slides and a lot of stories which I find more interesting and helps to keep my attention. He also interacted with the audience well, especially when going into more details about his industry work and asking the audience if they were interested in the science. I found it really insightful when he started talking about your legacy and how going into academia would allow your legacy to live on easier than being in industry or in a national lab. Since Professor Windl’s presentation mostly focused on semiconductor industry as that is what his experience was, I would be interested in seeing a similar presentation from another professor who is in another industry within electrical engineering.
Professor Windl was an entertaining professor and he is extremely funny. He also makes sure his audience understands the basic idea of relevant complex physics principles, knowing very well his audience were a bunch of electrical and computer engineers. His slide deck was extremely concise, straight to the point, and easy to read so it was easy to follow his lecture and the slide deck. The professor uses personal anecdotes to make his points on academia vs industry which in my opinion is extremely useful. As a graduate student myself doing research, I myself have had doubts on whether to pursue academia or industry and I like how professor Windl's opinions helped reassure me that the choice I made is a good one for me.
This lecture was a very good look into all facets of life and the types of jobs that are possible for a postgraduate student. I thought that he did a great job of keeping attention throughout the presentation by using some humor. I thought that he could have used less "absolute" language when talking about entire industries. For example, talking about how there are very few research jobs available. However, his insights into the life inside Los Alamos was new to me, and I thought it was interesting to hear about. It was obvious that he did not have a very fond memory of his industry experience, but, then again, it is a seminar on his personal experiences. Overall, very good (and funny, which is a big plus for me).
The talk made by OSU professor really changed my prospect about the work path of company, national lab as well as the academic professor. The most closed one I've learnt is about the professor. (obvious, as it is the first job path you can find in school). However, it is still very different when you consider the job on a student's perspectives compared to see it on a professor's. You would need to balance the teaching workload especially you do not want to be an upper level high school teacher. And it could be drastically different when you consider a small university and a large one. While you would need to work with the not-well-trained people (different students) that you can not expect them to outstandingly perform well, the good thing is that after spend a very long period, you can finally get a "work secure" which you will not be fired. Compared with academic path, you will have more time for your life if you choose to work in a National lab. Though you could not have a very high salary like being a professor, you could get real free time during weekend. But you would need to deal with some annoying works that make no sense to you and sometimes you need to go out for business trip for a long time, or sometimes you could not say anything about your work if you really go for a work like nuclear weapon. It is somehow a very stable work without large amount of hardworking, but you would need to make a lot of confess also. And the most different work that differ from my perspectives is the company. Based on this presentation, you will earn a large amount of money if you decide to work in a private company. (compared to the previous two) But you need to first understand that all of your work will be assigned by your boss. And it is possible that your boss change the task quickly and unexpectedly. Also, the office politic is very useful if you want to work smoothly in the cubicle. If you want to do it well in company, you will need to consider to reach your boss' position/ do your boss' job within about four years or you need to consider to change a job. It could be considered a success if you reach out to management position and in comparison the so called technical expert who stayed in the company for many years are just losers. So it sounds like that work in company is a good way to earn quick money. You will get high payment, you will need to deal with instantly changing situations with great pressure.
Wolfgang Windl gave this talk that navigated the pros and cons of national labs, industry, and academia based on his personal experiences. I enjoyed this talk because I don't feel that it's common to have the chance to hear first-hand thoughts on these areas from just one person. I also liked how clear he was about the type of work involved with each, as it gave a clearer understanding on expectations as a worker instead of just general overview of points.
When talking about national labs, Wolfgang did lose me a little bit on the technical talk, but I liked how he branched out into talking about the way working in a national lab affected life outside of work. He brings forth the topic of living situations and even the ethical questions that may come into play depending on the type of work being done. That last point is one that I've personally thought a lot about given my area, so it was interesting hearing someone else talk about that too. National labs offer good job security and collaboration while providing workers with time for family and such, but they are restricted on locations and can be annoying with security and training (which is a complaint as I've worked with government before and have found that the processes for all of that can be incredibly frustrating to sort out).
Industry is where big money is made. One can more easily climb the ladder to get better positions and pay, and there is more flexibility on where to work. It is more focused on application than research (although there is some), and what you do is used to make a difference. The work one does has a bigger impact on citizens than national labs where what is done is done for the government. The problem with industry is that things change both in management and potentially one's security of their position. Work environment may not be great either, and it can limit your family life more than national labs. I was interested in learning about this area more because there are not many options for my main interest in the commercial sector, but it does seem like I may be able to make more money here if I desired.
Academia was one that didn't surprise me personally given that my dad has been a professor for my whole life, but it's reassuring to have my knowledge of the area confirmed from another source. Academia is one of the most time consuming paths. Work is not just done during the normal work day but also at home and for varying amounts of time between teaching, grading, office hours, and research. It's a demanding but rewarding job. You get to be around what's new and engage with the next generations. You leave a bigger impact on the world and the people you interact with. It takes time to get to where you want to be, but you can have great job security if you have tenure. As Wolfgang pointed out, the legacy factor does come into play. There's a bigger picture of what you leave behind and the impact you've made on the world. Whether it's through students or papers, it's something that will last.
As I said, I knew about academia from a personal perspective, and while I find it respectable, I've known it's not for me. That being the case, I've been uncertain of if I want to go into a national lab or industry. Wolfgang laid out each area with more depth and personal touch than I've heard before, and it's given me a better idea on what I want to do. It also makes me less nervous about if I can't go where I want to go. I feel more prepared to enter the workforce now that I have a better idea of what to expect.
For one final note, I appreciated Wolfgang's humor and lightness in his talk. He made a great speaker who kept me entertained, and it felt like he just wanted to help me find clarity by keeping things light. Over all, I think he did a fantastic job.
Being an international graduate student, I started thinking about wether I should continue my path in academia, industry or national lab. This seminar was very useful to get a grasp on all three of those. Prof. Windl talked about work-life balance, career planning and growth and job security, which everyone should think of at some points of our lives. the fact that speaker worked in both - industry and academy, made session more interesting and engaging.
Industry gave me the impression of much more secure, however it present less research jobs, which are the highest interest for most of graduate students. The salaries are a big plus too, as well as efficiency (no time is wasted). Personally, I liked National Labs the most, as they offer good job security and they are quite research oriented. The downside was the limited career growth, however I think that can still be a good first step before moving on to the stable "grown-up" job. Working in academia, on the other hand, allows individuals to pursue research interests and contribute to the academic life, leaving a legacy behind themselves. In fact, according to prof. Windl your choice of career determins your legacy. Academia positions may have lower salaries, less job security, and require a great deal of effort to secure funding for research projects, however they give great academic community and teaching opportunities, which are driving some people. At this point of life, prof. Windl decided to pursue his career in academia.
Ultimately, the decision to work in industry, national labs, or academia depends on individual interests, goals, and personal circumstances. It is important for graduate students to explore all options and weigh the pros and cons of each career path before making a decision and not forget the factor of life-work balance.
Dr. Wolfgang Windl's presentation on the pros and cons of working in academia, industry, and national labs was informative and engaging. The talk provided a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each field, helping the audience gain insight into various aspects of job choice, including job security, work-life balance, career growth, and ethical concerns.
Dr. Windl provided a candid and concise analysis of all three options, which made the evaluation of the job choice on the same factors/standards much easier. He also highlighted the salaries and work-life balance in National Labs and academia, which offered excellent job security but could have limited career growth, especially in remote locations. In contrast, he pointed out that working in industry offers higher salaries and better locations but comes with little job security and administrative work like writing proposals. Dr. Windl provided several valuable pointers, including the importance of common sense infusion in the industry, the degree of freedom in academic research, the value of legacy and productivity, and the potential research roles for Ph.D. students in the semiconductor industry.
Overall, Dr. Windl's insights provided thought-provoking information that would help me when making career decisions.
As someone who is deciding between working in industry, academia, and the national lab – this presentation was very useful. I like how Dr. Windl got the opportunity to work in all three and was able to give his personal experience in all three. I was surprised to learn about how much bureaucracy there is in national labs and about the limited job security there is in academia. From this presentation I think that working in industry makes the most sense to me. I can earn a good salary, have relatively good work life balance, and I can do little to no administrative work and focus on technical work which I enjoy.
The talk describes the pros and cons of working in industry (research), academia and at national labs. The speaker shared his own personal experience, however he has a provided an unbiased view. This talk is highly relevant for any graduate student who are confronted with making a career choice. I particularly liked the way the speaker presented, it was engaging. It covered not only the pros and cons about the job but also how the jobs can impact personal life. Furthermore, it provided a viewpoint of what one is getting into post student life.
Overall, the views provided about a job in industry, national lab and academia was presented in a simple, to the point manner. The way the information was presented in the slides was very clear and well organized.
Dr. Windl shares his experiences working in national labs, industry, and academia from his time in Los Alamos National Lab, Motorola, and Ohio State University, respectively. As someone that has worked in industry, is about to finish my graduate degree, and has done research collaborations with Sandia, this was an extremely interesting talk that I could relate to. As soon as I saw the title I knew I was going to enjoy watching this to completion.
For national labs, Dr. Windl states that, essentially, you get to be part of a good, driven community that has like minded goals, and it doesn't consume too much of your life. Although, government bureaucracy often gets in the way of things. Dr. Windl shared his work on radiation damage, and it was fun to see what research an individual performs in that field. One takeaway is that whether or not you can get a well-paying job and work in a well-funded field varies from one area of research to the next, so there is no catch-all advice to be given here. Of course, you also have to be comfortable working on what the government is working on here, which can of course contain weapons or technologies that are adjacent to weapons. There are also plenty of security-related things you have to do that feel like time wasters. As someone whose employer works with a lot of SBIRs and has to maintain certain government-related levels of cybersecurity, I can relate to this.
Moving onto industry, the immediate mention is that it can be much more fun and well-paying in its highs. Dr. Windl worked as a researcher at Motorola. The salary evolution is the big plus with working in industry and has a big focus on technical work with a relatively small amount of time-wasters. You get to work on things that have some non-trivial meaning (if you pick a good employer), but are often worked harder than you are at a national lab. However, frequent job changes in the management ladder can lead to work refocusing multiple times per year. The work environment isn't as inclusive as pure research roles and you might not have the same level of security (especially with regards to tenure).
Dr. Windl is a professor at OSU and relates his experience here. As I mentioned, once you are tenured this is the most secure role by far. You are given a large amount of freedom relative to the other roles, but are still not free from certain bureaucrats above you. This is the most demanding job with little time for life outside of the role. I personally relate to this. While working in industry simultaneously with my school and research, it is much easier to plan around a consistent work schedule than a varying course or research load.
Dr. Windl mentions that your choice of career will determine your legacy. This topic is fascinating to me. It's hard to imagine the effect that your works will have once you are gone. Most people choose not to think about this for one reason or another. I'm glad that Dr. Windl brought it up in his presentation.
To summarize Dr. Windl's thoughts on different areas, doing research in academia requires you to be excited about things that some might be bothered by (such as teaching), but has the potential to provide you a safe net to work on things you really want to. National labs are a comfortable environment to work on projects that you don't have to make into your life. Industry is the riskiest area that could have huge benefits if your area takes off. Dr. Windl has decided that he wants his legacy to be in academia. I think this is very respectable and could see myself following the same approach. I don't want to have a boss in the traditional sense, whatever I end up pursuing I want freedom most of all. Dr. Windl's presentation was extremely insightful and I could relate to many of the things he said. I'm sure I will need some time to fully go over what I absorbed from this, and wish I could have attended it in person to ask some questions.
This lecture is delivered by Dr. Wolfgang Windl, a professor from Ohio State University and he talks about the pros and cons of working in National Labs, Industry and Academia as he has experience in all three.
Prof.Windl discusses the advantages and disadvantages of working in National Labs, industry, and academia. According to him, working in National Labs provides job security and good work-life balance, but it is difficult to settle down in remote locations with family. Additionally, some jobs in National Labs require citizenship, and some research areas involve ethical concerns, as National Labs usually build weapons. However, he gives useful information about the average salary one can expect while working in National Labs.
On the other hand, he also discusses working in industry, which offers a higher salary and better locations. A career in industry is advantageous in the sense that there is an evolution of salary and the opportunity to work on impactful projects. However, there is very little job security, and administrative work like writing proposals is scarce.
Prof. Windl shares his experience in Academia, stating that it provides job security and an academic environment, but life tends to be very busy. Academia is a good choice for individuals who enjoy teaching and want to build their legacy.
Overall, I believe Prof. Windl's insights provide thought-provoking information that can be useful when making career decisions.
I found this presentation by Dr.Wolfgang Windl to be very engaging. I would say that he knows his audience well and talked about things that are important from the perspective of students, especially international students, like job security and work life balance.
He was very candid about his experiences and didn’t place one choice over the other. Rather, he presented students with facts and trends, and left them to decide what they deemed most important in their career.
For me personally, this talk was especially eye opening, as I always considered joining the industry after my graduate degree. However, I also love research (and job security) and would now consider working at National Labs as a very serious option. I do feel that Dr. Windl didn’t speak much about citizenship requirements for job opportunities at National Labs, as that is one consideration that has held me back from wanting to work at National Labs. Most good companies are willing to sponsor international students but I personally haven’t found that to be the case with National labs.
After hearing Dr. Windl speak about academia, it made me even more skeptical to consider it as a career option. I would like to have a good balance between work and life and for that reason, I feel like I would be least likely to consider academia as a final career path.
Even though some perspectives were missing, this talk certainly gave me more to consider about the career path I would choose : academia, national labs or industry.
The presentation by Dr. Windl was very helpful and informative, especially for Ph.D. students who are considering a career in research. He provided a holistic view of all aspects of job choice, including family, location, peers, internal bureaucracy and politics. Dr. Windl presented his experience in a candid and concise manner, which made the evaluation of all three options (industry, national lab and academia) on the same factors/standards much easier.
During the talk, Dr. Windl discussed different perspectives on working in different research institutions and drew a clear picture of salaries and work-life balance in national labs and academia. He highlighted the industry as the clear winner in compensations, bonuses, and other incentives based on performance. However, he also pointed out that research positions are not as abundant in the semiconductor industry as they once were, but there are other sub-domains in Electrical Engineering which might offer research roles for graduating Ph.D. students.
While the presentation was nice overall, the video was a bit dated and the picture quality and sound were not that great. Nonetheless, the presentation was very enjoyable and entertaining. One of the great qualities of this talk is that it provided several good pointers, including common sense infusion in the industry, what degree of freedom actually exists in academic research, legacy and productivity.
In conclusion, Dr. Windl’s presentation was a valuable starting point for those of us who will be making the decision to choose a job in the future. He presented the pros and cons of working in academia, industry and national labs, and addressed questions that many Ph.D. students have in mind while weighing the different options.
Dr. Wolfgang Windl In his session on a comparative session of different career choices covered many facets of choosing a professional career. He emphasised the importance of one’s family, internal politics, location, peers, etc all of which which are crucial in making the right decision. He evaluated all three job options - lab, industry and Academia on the same factors/standards, making it easy to follow along. Embedded personal experience encountered in his nuclear engineering career was impactful. This session will be useful for graduate students but even more so for for undergraduate juniors and seniors as it is very important for them be aware of the career options very early in their life.
Dr.Windl keeps the audience engaged by asking questions. A two way conversation is always better than a one way “speech” as it helps the speaker to gauge the pulse of a large audience. Also the presentation was not too serious and cranks up the audience with a “pleasant witticism” often. I am an admirer of such way of delivering presentations. It can make the presentation more engaging and entertaining, capturing the audience's attention and making them more receptive to the speaker's message. When information is presented in such a way, it can be easier for the audience to understand and retain the key points of a message. One way of evaluating the effectiveness of a presentation is to find how many questions were asked by audience. As there were many, I can say it was a very effective presentation.
While each career path has its advantages and disadvantages, this lecture will help to provide an analytical understanding of these paths. In short, the National labs offer a unique environment for research and development, with access to cutting-edge equipment and resources. Industry positions often provide opportunities for career advancement, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Academia provides a stimulating environment for researchers who enjoy teaching, mentoring, and pursuing independent research. Dr.Windl concludes saying that important to carefully consider the pros and cons of each career path and different options can be right for different stages in life. The best choice for an individual depends on their personal goals, interests, values and life options.
I found the talk to be very candid, informative, and useful. Dr. Windl covered all aspects of job choice, including family, internal politics, location, and peers. Although these factors may seem trivial, they are crucial in making the right decision. The talk provided me with several good pointers that I was not aware of before, such as the infusion of common sense in the industry, the degree of freedom in academic research, salary ranges, legacy, and productivity. The presenter evaluated all three job options on the same factors/standards, making it easy for us to follow along. This talk will serve as a great starting point for those of us who will do this analysis on our own. I particularly appreciated the portions of the talk that were targeted at Ph.D. students aiming for research jobs.
Although Dr. Windl mentioned that there are few research positions available in the semiconductor industry, which is his expertise, some of us would appreciate more insight into the differences between research-based roles and non-research/managerial/technical roles. It would be beneficial to understand the expectations, hierarchy, salaries, and promotion process of research roles, and whether they are worth accepting if available. It may also be helpful to have some perspective on research roles in other sub-domains of Electrical Engineering.
Finally, I liked the simplicity of the presentation, with pictures and short bullet points used effectively to keep it well-organized.
Dr. Windl delivered an excellent presentation on "What's Better - National Lab, Industry, or Academia?", sharing his experience in all three paths, as different as they may be, which makes for a really interesting talk. Although, being an international student, there are some challenges someone like me might face, for example getting into a national lab, nonetheless, it was extremely informative to hear about the pros and cons of these varied work environments.
The presentation was easy to understand, due to the concise bullet point format as well as some neat graphs, which was interspersed with Dr. Windl's personal experiences. Apart from the obvious factor of work-life balance, he also covered certain points that one might not give much thought to while considering their future career path, such as the location of the job and the job safety, which is less in the industry today as compared to the academia. Overall, this presentation definitely gave me a lot to think about when it comes to my future career path.
Dr. Windl shares his personal experiences and insights on working in three different fields: national labs, industry, and academia. In terms of national labs, he highlights the work-life balance and the opportunity to work on national priority problems. However, there are also challenges such as limited research areas and the requirement for citizenship. He also talks about his work in nuclear research and emerging research areas in renewable energy. Being a TA for the research group SoCET, I've seen this facet since SoCET collaborates with SCALE (defense) and with Sandia Labs, and student groups have to be hand-picked so that they satisfy the requirements.
Moving onto industry, Dr. Windl talks about his time at Motorola working in the semiconductor product sector. He enjoyed the core technical work and work-life balance, but there was job insecurity and frequent changes in management. He also goes into technical details about his work in process modeling and the transition from a technical ladder to a management ladder.
Finally, Dr. Windl discusses academia and the importance of academic freedom and collaboration with students. However, he notes that academic work demands a high amount of time and effort and may not always lead to success in research projects or collaborations with students. Despite this, he recommends pursuing academia for individuals who enjoy recognition and seeing their students grow into professors. The last point is something I resonate with, as it strongly swerved me away from academia when faced with this decision.
The main takeaway from Dr. Windl's talk is that each field has its advantages and disadvantages, and it ultimately depends on an individual's personal goals and preferences. Job security, work-life balance, technical growth, and recognition are all important factors to consider when choosing a career path. It is also essential to be aware of the challenges in each field and be prepared to adapt to changes in management, research areas, and student collaborations.
This presentation is perhaps one of the more informative ones I have seen regarding the different career paths after graduate school. It is a unique opportunity to hear from someone who has experienced three of the main career paths and what they did and did not like. Despite Professor Windl liking academia the most of the three, I thought he did a great job in presenting the pros and cons of each path. He covered a wide range of factors from the more obvious like work/life balance and salary, to the less talked about factors such as location and opportunity for career/salary growth. With regard to national labs, I found the discussion about the location of the national labs to be particular helpful as it certainly was not something I first thought about. This unbiased discussion allows for anyone viewing to figure out which path is right for them by being able to properly see the benefits and downsides of each respective path.
Furthermore, the overall presentation was laid out very well and was delivered in a confident manner. The speed of the presentation felt just right to where I wasn’t getting left behind, but I also didn’t find myself getting bored. I think fully exploring each career path separately is a wise way to set up the presentation as discussing the same aspects for each path simultaneously could get a bit confusing. Also, there was a good mix of humor throughout the presentation which helps keep the presentation engaging and helps make the speaker feel more approachable and relatable. Overall, I really enjoyed this presentation as it gave me lots of new insight into each of these career paths.
This presentation is perhaps one of the more informative ones I have seen regarding the different career paths after graduate school. It is a unique opportunity to hear from someone who has experienced three of the main career paths and what they did and did not like. Despite Professor Windl liking academia the most of the three, I thought he did a great job in presenting the pros and cons of each path. He covered a wide range of factors from the more obvious like work/life balance and salary, to the less talked about factors such as location and opportunity for career/salary growth. With regard to national labs, I found the discussion about the location of the national labs to be particular helpful as it certainly was not something I first thought about. This unbiased discussion allows for anyone viewing to figure out which path is right for them by being able to properly see the benefits and downsides of each respective path.
Furthermore, the overall presentation was laid out very well and was delivered in a confident manner. The speed of the presentation felt just right to where I wasn’t getting left behind, but I also didn’t find myself getting bored. I think fully exploring each career path separately is a wise way to set up the presentation as discussing the same aspects for each path simultaneously could get a bit confusing. Also, there was a good mix of humor throughout the presentation which helps keep the presentation engaging and helps make the speaker feel more approachable and relatable. Overall, I really enjoyed this presentation as it gave me lots of new insight into each of these career paths.
Wolfgang is someone who has insights into the inner-workings of academia, the industry and government labs. He presented a breakdown of the pros and cons of each work environment to help us better decide our future direction. In his talk, he summarised national lab positions as the most stable at the cost of government bureaucracy. Industry jobs are the most financially rewarding but the employee risks being laid off at any time due to market turmoil. Academia provides the most autonomy to conduct research and can be stable position with tenure but the work can be very overwhelming, with the professor juggling the needs of the research work, advising a graduate student, and teaching courses.
What I liked most about his presentation was the interpersonal experiences he had with his colleagues based on the academic background they were from. This set expectations for me as to who I will be surrounded with. I liked the fact that he infused moderate amounts of humour to retain the audience's attention throughout the talk. I felt he dove too deep into his technical research in some parts.
I personally gained a greater understanding on how these three career paths work and will be aiming for a job at a national lab or industry. At the end of the day, it is all about the kind of life one desires, and striking a balance between research work and life to achieve maximum fulfillment.
I’m interested in this seminar because, during the in-person seminar, Professor Klimeck introduced his own experience from a national lab, to industry, and eventually at Purdue University. It’s quite interesting to find that the speaker, Professor Windl, has such a similar journey so it’s very attractive to hear what’s the difference between the two Professor’s experiences.
First, I like the bullet-point style comparison the speaker used for the comparison of pros and cons for each role. This makes the presentation quite easy to follow, and also good for later reference. I also like all the examples and details Professor Windl gave in his presentation, especially those comparing the working styles of different places because these are experiences that can only come from people with a lot of experience. And I think the part especially helpful to me is the comparison of academic jobs in big and small universities because I’m always wondering if one day I’m going to take an academic job, what would be the trade-off to consider, and what might be the difference in requirements from different universities. Professor Windl gave a really good insight into this. Combining what Professor Windl shared and my personal preference, I’m now clearer about what to expect after I graduate and what might be my choice of first job.
I think one thing that could probably be further introduced in the future is when one is changing the path of his or her career choice, how the skills and experiences from previous jobs could be transferred to the new role and new area. It seems that Professor Windl has changed his path several times so it would be great if we could know more about how he made this change so smooth and successful. Besides that, I hope the video player on the NanoHub website could be updated because it’s still using the Adobe Flash Player, and now in 2023 most of the browsers don’t support that anymore. So it caused me some problems in enabling the video to play. I think this is a really good presentation so I hope with a more modern player, more people could learn from Professor Windl’s experience.
I’m interested in this seminar because, during the in-person seminar, Professor Klimeck introduced his own experience from a national lab, to industry, and eventually at Purdue University. It’s quite interesting to find that the speaker, Professor Windl, has such a similar journey so it’s very attractive to hear what’s the difference between the two Professor’s experiences.
First, I like the bullet-point style comparison the speaker used for the comparison of pros and cons for each role. This makes the presentation quite easy to follow, and also good for later reference. I also like all the examples and details Professor Windl gave in his presentation, especially those comparing the working styles of different places because these are experiences that can only come from people with a lot of experience. And I think the part especially helpful to me is the comparison of academic jobs in big and small universities because I’m always wondering if one day I’m going to take an academic job, what would be the trade-off to consider, and what might be the difference in requirements from different universities. Professor Windl gave a really good insight into this. Combining what Professor Windl shared and my personal preference, I’m now clearer about what to expect after I graduate and what might be my choice of first job.
I think one thing that could probably be further introduced in the future is when one is changing the path of his or her career choice, how the skills and experiences from previous jobs could be transferred to the new role and new area. It seems that Professor Windl has changed his path several times so it would be great if we could know more about how he made this change so smooth and successful. Besides that, I hope the video player on the NanoHub website could be updated because it’s still using the Adobe Flash Player, and now in 2023 most of the browsers don’t support that anymore. So it caused me some problems in enabling the video to play. I think this is a really good presentation so I hope with a more modern player, more people could learn from Professor Windl’s experience.
I think I have already decided on my career path by going into the industry. However, I'd like to hear from different aspects to make sure that the decision I made is correct.
I like that the speaker shared different daily lives, pros, and cons for a national lab, industry, and academia. Since, I only had an internship, without any actual work experience, this provided me with an excellent reference to look at.
After watching the lecture video, I think going into the industry is still more suitable for me. Because I think doing something that has a real impact on the market is very satisfying. Solving different problems is also what I'm interested in.
The speaker provided me with a good thought about getting a Ph.D. After looking at the statistics, getting a Ph.D. looks more time/cost beneficial than having a master's degree. I think I'll consider this option.
There are several advantages to going into academia, such as, "academic freedom", which I think is very important. If you go into the industry, you might have to follow certain rules and protocols. Going into academia gives you more freedom to implement things your own way.
Overall, this is a very helpful lecture. Although it didn't change my mind to go into industries, it gave me more thoughts and I'll consider and discuss with others about getting a Ph.D.
This was a quite valuable presentation for me, Prof. Winds talked about the advantages and disadvantages of working in a national lab, industry, and academia. I have to say Prof. Windl gives us a very interesting and instructive presentation.
I am a master student. I really want to go into industry, He told us some cons of the industry field, which are something I never thought of before. This really opens my eyes.
His presentation also included his major, and he can analyze questions from complex perspectives such as salary, work-life balance, the work environment itself, and much more.
Overall it is an awesome seminar. Dr. Windl conveyed all the important information in an engaging way, keeping the students entertained the whole time.
Prof. Windl gave a very interesting and informative talk on the three major career choices that Ph.D. or Masters graduates are faced with - national labs, industry or academia. In general, it is difficult to find someone who has experience of working in all three of these sectors, and hence his experiences are very useful to learn from. Since he has experience of all three sectors, his analysis and opinions are not likely to be biased and can be expected to be accurate. He provided quite unique perspective to working in these fields and gave out pros and cons for each of these sectors. Some of the things that he discussed such as the impact of career choice on family, and the work location are things that are often over-looked and so I appreciated that a lot. At the same time, his talk was very engaging as well as informative and his presentation style has a touch of humor to it as well.
He first describes his experience in national labs. One of the major advantages of working in a national lab that stood out for me was the fact that you get to work in an environment where you are sorrounded by a lot of other people who are working in the same idea as you and it is easy to collaborate. At the same time you have access to very good tools to perform your research. Research is also the number one priority in these labs. However, there were some clear drawbacks of working in a national lab such as remote locations and security overkill. Although, administrative work is comparatively less than that in academia you still have to face a lot of bureaucracy. Salaries are also not as high as industry. One more disadvantage is that you are often forced to do research in areas which you might not be interested in due to national interests.
Next he describes his industry experience. The biggest benefit of working in industry is the gain in salary. If you are able to work properly there is a lot of money in it in the form of bonuses and increments. At the same time, there is more focus on technical work rather than administrative work. There is also the opportunity to work on something that matters by doing research as well as implementing it to create a product. Industries are also often located in better locations as compared to national labs. However, industry is very volatile and there is little job security. There are often changes at higher level managements which can lead to changes in your work and research. The work environment is often very fast and congested which everyone may not be suited to.
Finally he talks about his experience in the industry. One of the best aspects of academia is the ability to build a great legacy in the form of experiences with students and their development. There is the opportunity to change someone else's life with your contribution. Working in academia provides the opportunity to get a lot of recognition and awards which can help achieve job satisfaction. There is also academic freedom to work on what you like and once the position of a tenured professor is reached, there is very high job security. One of the biggest disadvantages of working in academia is the huge pressure of work and also the fact that you have to constantly work with untrained individuals. There is also the constraint of managing research with teaching which can become complicated. The tools to conduct research also vary with the size of the university you work in. There is also a constant pressure of working to attain more and more external funds.
At the end he concludes by saying that it is always okay to change career paths based on your life priorities at that time. There is no one best career path, it's a matter of choosing what is best for you and what you want out of your life. This was very enlightening as it forced me to think about what I really want out of my life and how to think about choosing my own career path. Overall, I really enjoyed this lecture.
Reviewer Persona: I am a second year international PhD student in ECE department.
This talk really benefitted me as I will have to make this choice for my upcoming internships and more importantly when I graduate. Although some factors that the presenter mentioned were known to me beforehand, I became aware of some new factors through this talk. The presenter mentioned some rarely discussed factors like location suitability to family, peers who we work with, bureaucracy, etc. Some issues related to office politics and the fact that experience pays off in industry but not so much in academia made me more aware of the decision-making process.
Secondly, I liked the brief presentation and effective slides with minimal use of text. Dr. Windl focused on the three choices: Academia, National labs and industry using only a few slides and in the rest of the presentation he made us aware about the work that he did and his perspectives. His career path is extremely impressive and a big motivation for students like us to opt for a hybrid career just like he did. It also resolves a myth that after a Ph.D. we get restricted to one type of job and should not think ahead of it. I was also impressed by his advice of leaving the job when we feel minimal scope of growth in that role/company.
Overall, the session really made me aware of career choices after Ph.D.
Prof. Wolfgang Windl has had the unique experience of working at all potential future career tracks of graduate students: national labs, industry and academia. Given his experiences, he shares the pros and cons of each workplace in honest and insightful talk where he pulled no punches.
While he talks about the standard factors that go into deciding your possible career path, i.e. money, career growth, colleagues, work-life balance etc., he makes sure to talk about certain “intangible” aspects of different careers which makes this talk insightful. Here are a couple of examples which will explain what I mean by these intangible aspects.
“Common-Sense Infusion”: While difficult to explain what common sense infusion means, you know it when you see it in a colleague. My personal experiences agree with Prof. Windl’s observation that spending some time in the industry brings “common-sense” - something you can’t fully get from simply an undergraduate degree.
Working with Students: Prof. Windl said that being a professor can be rewarding because of the possible impact you can have on a student’s life. Conversely, he added that if you don’t like working with students, this is the wrong job for you. I appreciated the bluntness of this statement and this provided to me a good litmus test of whether academia is right for you.
I found this talk quite candid, useful and informative. Specifically, I appreciated Dr. Windl talking holistically about all aspects of job choice - family, internal bureaucracy and politics, location and peers. These factors appear trivial, but I feel they are important factors while making the decision. I received several good pointers, about which I wasn't aware before. These include common sense infusion in the industry, what degree of freedom actually exists in academic research, salary ranges, legacy and productivity. One of the great qualities of this talk is that the presenter compiled his experience in a candid and concise manner and evaluated all three options on the same factors/standards. I feel many of us do/will do this analysis on our own and this public presentation will be a good starting point. I also liked that fact that many portions of the talk were targeted and beneficial for Ph.D. students who might aim for a job with research.
Dr. Windl mentioned that there are not many research positions left in the industry, specifically for semiconductor industry, which is his expertise. Even though this might be the case, some of us will really appreciate a few insights about how research base roles are different from non-research/managerial/technical roles? How different are the expectations, the hierarchy, salaries, how promotions work, and/or if research roles are good to accept if available? There are other sub-domains in Electrical Engineering which might offer research roles for graduating Ph.D. students. So it might be good to know some perspective of how they function.
Lastly, I appreciated the simplicity of presentation - using pictures and short bullets. It was well-organized and effectively presented.
Dr Windl explains neatly and provides different perspectives on working in different research institutions — industry, national lab and academia. As I am a 2nd year PhD student and intend to follow a career in research, this talk directly addresses the questions I have in mind and weigh the pros and cons of each institution. He uses his experience to explain the topic in his presentations. The presentation is quite enjoyable and entertaining. Inviting this speaker for the presentations was invaluable because he has experience in the industry, national lab and academia.
He discusses various factors like salary, family, spouse, citizenship considerations, location and remote working, that affects career decisions. He draws a clear picture of salaries and work-life balance in national labs and academia. He states that the industry is the clear winner in compensations, bonuses and other incentives based on performance. This presentation is a good example to say that it’s never too old to change career paths.
In summary, the presenter does a very good job of presenting the pros and cons of working in academia, industry and national labs.
PS: The presentation was nice, overall. But the video was too old, the picture quality was not that good, and the sound was noisy too. It’s understandable given that the video was published a decade ago. The flash player on the website did not work and I had to download the video to watch it.
Overall I found the comparison of national labs, industry, and academia quite insightful. It is nice to hear from someone who has a unique perspective in this way, as the speaker has worked in all three before.
The pros and cons of each option was discussed in depth, and the speaker represented more viewpoints than just his own, qualifying that much of it was based on personal preference. This was refreshing as it reinforced the individuality of career decisions.
I did not like the slide change noises so much. I also felt like some of the jokes were a bit outdated, a bit male-centered. But the recording is fairly old so this makes sense.
I did appreciate the discussion of office politics. This is important to mention for anyone entering the industry.
The Legacy discussion was another good discussion, something I haven't thought about much before. It is good to feel that the work you did left a lasting positive impact somewhere. And good to feel that others are recognizing you and appreciating what you are doing for others and for the world. This is something I may need to consider when making career path decisions.
I really appreciated the summary at the end. Noting that it is never too late to change paths, and that each path is right for certain people. He focuses on the individuality of the choice, and how each person should ask themselves what is important to them, and how that can change over the course of your life.
Overall, I liked this discussion a lot, especially since recently I have been reevaluating some of my career path decisions. I will take a lot of this advice to heart as I weigh my options.
This is a very fascinating topic, and I believe that this question also plagues most PhD students. From the experience of the speaker, it is not difficult to see that the speaker has worked in national lab, industry and academia. And the speakers also put forward their feelings based on their own work experience. In addition to work experience, the speaker also thinks that work location, funding, salary, honor, etc. are equally important. In the end, the speaker thinks that all jobs have their advantages and disadvantages, and you should decide the job you want according to your own ideas.
For me, his speech was very clear and organized. From the introduction, to a detailed description of the work in the three fields in three ways, and finally a summary. His final advice is equally pertinent. This speech not only considers the advantages and disadvantages of the job itself, it also considers factors such as geography, culture, family, etc. But I have a small suggestion that this speech needs to keep pace with the times. Perhaps the experience of three years ago is not very applicable now, let alone thirty years ago.
This is a very fascinating topic, and I believe that this question also plagues most PhD students. From the experience of the speaker, it is not difficult to see that the speaker has worked in national lab, industry and academia. And the speakers also put forward their feelings based on their own work experience. In addition to work experience, the speaker also thinks that work location, funding, salary, honor, etc. are equally important. In the end, the speaker thinks that all jobs have their advantages and disadvantages, and you should decide the job you want according to your own ideas.
For me, his speech was very clear and organized. From the introduction, to a detailed description of the work in the three fields in three ways, and finally a summary. His final advice is equally pertinent. This speech not only considers the advantages and disadvantages of the job itself, it also considers factors such as geography, culture, family, etc. But I have a small suggestion that this speech needs to keep pace with the times. Perhaps the experience of three years ago is not very applicable now, let alone thirty years ago.
Dr. Windl provides a useful listing of pros and cons of each major area. He provides a clear view of what each area is like so that the audience can use their own judgement and personal preferences to pick the directions that are right for them.
When discussing national labs, Dr. Windl covers the sense of meaning and drive that working on important societal problems can provide but weighs it against the remote location and bureaucracy that is present. I found this section really useful because I hadn't considered a national lab before and primarily viewed industry and academia as the two major options for engineers. This was the most informative part of the presentation for me.
When discussing industry, Dr. Windl summarizes that industry provides the highest salary typically and has room for life outside of work but that research jobs are sparse. I think mentioning company size would be important here because it can drastically affect work environment, culture, job pace, and benefits (salary, stock options).
When discussing academia, the benefit of working with students as well as job security from a tenured position are discussed as pros. However, a long path to security and high demands are some of the problem areas in academic positions. I appreciated the honest view of job demands - I didn’t realize that academic positions could be the most demanding of the three. It seems that this stems from the fact that the measurement of success for academics is publications but much of their time must also be spent on teaching.
Overall, I liked the very clear organization of the presentation where each major area is discussed in a consistent format. Each section begins with an overview of pros and cons followed by supporting evidence of each claim in the overview slide. Dr. Windl also spoke in a clear way and at a good pace. I enjoyed this comparison of the major paths that us as ECE students can pursue. The only thing I didn't like is that Dr. Windl is speaking from a perspective that once you start in ECE, you stay in ECE. He doesn't mention anything about career changes, entrepreneurship, non-profits or other “non-conventional” career paths. I think at least bringing up these options is important for students to consider.
Dr. Windl was especially engaging because of his blunt humor and brutal honesty. He did not compromise his opinions in order to draw the viewer towards a specific field. His analysis of each career path gave the audience fair and objective comparisons, while still providing his valuable personal insights. I specifically appreciated that he provided data to back up his claims, like the value of different degrees based on salary. He also managed to sprinkle in bits of his work, providing just enough detail to convey the general ideas without getting too specific to the point it bores the audience. The slides were very well organized and the way he summarized each of the different fields was helpful to get a good overview.
I found the talk by Dr.Windl to be quite insightful between concerning the differences between academia and industry. In particular, I found his work at Los Alamos national labs to be very interesting and it will certainly make me consider looking for that type of the role in the future.
I thought that the presentation was very clearly layed out and presented well; going through Dr.Windl's career in chronological order made the pros and cons he listed seem more personable as he described his professional experiences. I found it insightful how he described each type of role according to what values a person has: a new graduate may be concerned about salary while a tenured professional might value life outside of work, and thus desire to work in a national lab.
One thing that was hard to follow about the presentation was Dr.Windl's technical work. As someone who wasn't too familiar with the semiconductor industry, it made it difficult to follow at times; however, I think his advice is still relevant to other career areas so it did not detract from the presentation.
Overall the found the presentation worth attending and it has given me a new prospective for the type of roles I may want to peruse after I graduate. Dr.Windl affectively leverages his experience (with amble humor) to create an engaging and informative presentation.
As someone who has never been able to decide in which track to proceed, this seminar was like advice from Prof.Windl. Gaining an insight into his career in each track and its pros and cons was very interesting and engaging. It also helped drive the point in me that making a choice does not mean that the other paths are closed. It provided a fresh perspective to my eternal dilemma. Talking about work environment, salaries and job examples was very informative. It was refreshing to learn about Prof.Windl’s career. I request Dr.Klimmeck to upload more such seminars on Nanohub.
Prof. Wolfgang Windl gives his two cents on the different kinds of jobs out there - national lab, industry and academia. In doing so, he draws from his diverse and valuable experience and compiles into a very entertaining talk. Being in the 4th year of my PhD, I quite often think about jobs, and I found this talk extremely insightful.
He starts off with his experience in national labs. As a non-citizen, I have very few options there as national labs usually prefer citizens due to the high national security issues associated with the job. Otherwise, they have decent pay, and one is allowed a good amount of work-life balance. It is well known that industry jobs are the most paid. They also let one work on things that have real societal impact. However, he points out an important downside being that managerial change almost always causes a change in the work that you do. Finally, he ended up in academia where he enjoys working with students, "keeps him young". He also finds lot of satisfaction in how the jobs allows you to leave a legacy long after you are gone, in the form of your teachings being passed on through your students. However, he cautions that academia is the most demanding of all the jobs.
In conclusion, I found the talk very helpful and relevant as it presents the pros and cons of the kinds of jobs out there, and how each of jobs might seem more enticing at various stages in life.
Industry vs Academia is a key question that is undoubtedly on your mind if you are a doctoral student. I am a PhD student at Purdue ECE and have been thinking about this quite a lot. I have spoken to a lot of people both from Industry and Academia. I secured an internship at a National lab for my upcoming summer (2022) to gain some experience of how it will be to work in a National Lab. I came across this talk at the right point of time in my career, where I have enough time to prepare for either academia or the industry once I have figured out where I want to go. Up until now, my life has only revolved around an academic setting. Straight out of undergrad, I went on to pursue my Master's and immediately after that, I started my PhD. Having no industry experience, this seminar was extremely informative and engaging to me.
The speaker clearly listed the Pros and Cons of national labs, industry and academia. It gave me better perspectives and insights into various factors that I must consider before I decide to take a career path - family, spouse, remote locations, citizenship requirements and salaries. I got a clear picture of academia vs national labs in terms of the compensation and work-life balance. I have heard enough experiences from people who work in the industry but this talk is really different as the speaker has experience in all three walks of life. The industry is a clear winner in terms of performance-based incentives and bonuses/compensations. However, the only thing which I feel is different now is that the industry has a lot more research roles than it had a decade ago. This talk reinforced my thinking and decision making process and gave me a broader vision to look at things and evaluate what is the best path for me. The speaker was really engaging and expressive, had a good sense of humour and delivered powerful pointers succinctly.
This presentation was very interesting and useful, and the presenter showed us like three different career paths: industry, academia, or national labs. His presentation was very detailed because it was based on the presenter's actual personal experience, each with plenty of examples and comparisons. This presentation was especially valuable to me as I am currently a graduate student and I am unsure of my future career options.
I enjoyed the presentation because the material covered was highly relevant to graduate students who need to decide on their career ambitions after graduation, providing not only examples of jobs but also work environments and salaries. The way he talked about each career path was not narrowly based on personal experience, and through his presentation helped me understand both lives and a number of work-related considerations.
I thought the presentation was great to have such a speaker get to the point while keeping it interesting, and I really appreciated the speaker's humor, which will really enhance the seminar experience. Overall, it was an enjoyable and valuable seminar.
I think the presentation was casual, but informative. Currently, I am a Master's student that's most likely to go through PhD, so thinking about my career after that seems to a little further in the future. However, I think it is good to think about these things earlier rather than later.
While, I had more heavily considered working as academia before, the presenter seemed to dissuade me. There seems to be a lot of focus on finding funding and teaching students, neither of which appeal to me. Despite having the perceived "freedom" to pursue research in the fields you want, you are actually very restricted by funding.
I had previously not known or heard much about National Labs, but it seems like an interesting career option to pursue. You get to focus on research and have a work environment where you will likely be able to find other experts to discuss topics with. I don't mind being in a remote location as the presenter points out.
The main pull of industry seems to be money. You will probably meet all sorts of people and like in National Labs, you don't need to worry about funding or taking care of managerial duties. However, you only work on what is assigned to you. Even if you find a topic interesting, if the direction of the company changes, you will be forced to quit and work on the next project. Depending on this, I might be ok with industry, but may end up leaving companies if I no longer find their work relevant to me.
Overall, the presenter does a good job presenting the pros and cons of three career directions in academia, national labs and industry after PhD.
Overall, I really liked this presentation. I am currently working on a PhD and am trying to decide whether to pursue industry, academia, or a national lab for my future employment (I am leaning towards academia or a national lab). It was very cool to hear from someone who has done all three. I liked how the presenter went through the high-level pros and cons of all three, and then started going into more detail about each path and told his own stories. This format was easy to follow and flowed well from topic to topic.
This presentation goes into a lot of detail, and provided useful information about salary, workload, culture, and research topics that apply for all three pathways.
The presentation was almost a bit too detailed for my needs. I think most of the important points could be summarized in a 20-30 minute abridged version. I would recommend splitting the presentation into four separate talks, one highlighting the differences between the three career pathways, and then separate presentations that go into a lot of detail about each path. This would allow views to pick and choose the topics they were interested in.
I appreciated the presenter’s sense of humor and engaging presentation style. I watched this presentation for a class (Purdue ECE 694), and thought it would be pretty boring, but my expectations were greatly exceeded in this regard. I think this was my favorite presentation I attended for the ECE 694 course – it was relevant to me, mostly new information, and very well presented. I wish I could have been at this presentation in real life so I could have asked some questions.
My only complaint is this: I was unable to open the presentation through the web player, so I had to download the video. It would be a bit more convenient if this got fixed.
The seminar "What's Better - National Lab, industry or Academia?" by Wolfgang Windl is very informative and inspiring. He explains what are the advantages and disadvantages of having a career in a national lab, industry and academia.
Having a career in national lab can be a great job for people who want to focus on research while having a good salary and personal life. It is also a bad idea for people who don't want to split from their spouses, and the security check is overkill.
Having a career in industry can be a great job for people who want to have a increase in their salary, and most of the time can focus on technical work along with some personal life. But it is not a good idea for people who don't want to deal with complex management environment and limited/compact working space.
Having a career in academia can be a great job for people who want to focus on academics. It has a great environment with your collegues and students. But it can be very challenging for people who want a lot of time on their personal life.
I believe Wolfgan Windl explains and uses the fact of himself to give us a sense what will be a suitable career. I highly recommend for people who still having thoughts on their career path and personal development, this is the seminar you must take.
As a PhD student who intends to pursuit research career, I have long been wondering what the differences between research positions at universities, national labs and companies are, so this lecture really answers my question.
The speaker first introduced his career experiences, which covered all the three types mentioned before and made this speech persuasive. Then he introduces the three different type of positions one by one. For each type, he first gives an overview of the pros and cons. Then he uses his own research projects as examples to give us a direct impression of the common research areas at those places. After that, he listed the salaries and common locations of the jobs, which are very important factors that we consider when choosing a job. Finally, he offered a summary that concludes his speech.
The speech is well-organized with clear structures. During his speech, he answerd students' questions and also asked some questions for students to answer, which is good interaction with the audience. He also used many figures, charts and pictures in his slides to demonstrate his ideas, some of which are quite funny. I do think that this speech comprehensively disscussed the three types of jobs and covered most of the aspects that we care about, yet it's not lengthy and all the contents are in point. The opinions offered by this speech would also help me when I make the decision in future.
A question we've all asked ourselves over the last few years, no doubt. What's better? I came into this seminar with my own opinions, which I can summarize as a desire to be in industry above all else and move on with my life. And I wasn't expecting my opinions on this to be changed much, to be honest. But, surprisingly, it kind of was. I had never considered national labs as anything on my radar. The information presented in this however has moved my understanding of what I want a little bit closer to that idea. The speaker had a ton of experience with this material and with this lifestyle, and gave a very engaging overview of the main options for a lot of grad students. I was surprised to hear you can have a life outside work in a national lab environment, one of my only qualms of both industry and academic workloads. The fact they tend to be in isolated locations was a bonus in my mind, as I tend to like quite outdoors locations. A con I had not considered about industry was mentioned, the idea that projects might be quickly changing and you may not tackle a problem long enough to really dive as deep as you may want into the solution.
The video aspect of the presentation sadly did not work for me, as adobe is no longer supported, so I listened to the audio podcast version of this while looking through the presentation slides. A retaping of this information / lecture with an updated video format would be super useful I think, as this information itself is super useful too. The slides were well put together with just enough information and visuals to be engaging yet not overpower the speaker as they explained what was going on.
The speaker was highly engaging and hilarious, and this is the best seminar I have seen so far. The topic at hand is highly relevant and a question I have been wondering for some time, where I should be heading off too with my PhD, and this seminar has definitely helped me answer this question (probably a national lab). The presentation was extremely clear, and the speaker used his own life as a model for what a career path might look like - I appreciate that the speaker was able to share this, and I feel that the speaker having such an amazingly varied background uniquely qualified him as the best person around to deliver this talk. The presentation was very focused on exactly what we needed to know and it was way more engaging than the other seminars I have seen. There's nothing I would want to change about this seminar.
This lecture is indeed very informative and interesting.
The speaker organized the content well. From his personal experience in national laboratory, industry and academia, he put together the potential pros and cons. For each experience, the speaker uses some examples to picture what it is like to work there.
The content itself is very useful for the audience. Personally, even though I have always stayed in school, I did not have much opportunities to learn about details in faculty's life, not to mention that in other two areas. So the lecture is very informative to me. For example, it never comes to my mind that the constantly changing in management could happen in technology company, which might cost me a lot of time trying to tackle a problem expiring soon.
I also want to mention the speaker did a great job in interacting with students and keeping the lecture interesting. Overall, I think this is an excellent lecture.
The presentation by Wolfgang Windl was interesting enough as he talked about different paths after graduation masters program. He mentioned that there are 3 major paths after graduation: national lab, academia and industry. He compared the advantages and disadvantages of those paths based on his personal experiences. For example, he stated that the advantage of working at national lab was that he could have life outside work, had good job security and good salary and lots of peers to interact. However, he stated that the disadvantage of working at national lab was it is often located far and limited research area. Similar to national lab, he talked about pluses and minuses of working at academia and industry. As I am always wondering whether I should work on industry or academia, the presentation helped me a lot and believe that it will lead to better decision.
The presentation is by Wolfgang Windl is about the merits and demerits of choosing different career options after graduation. The speaker has ample experience and draws a lot of examples from his personal experience. After graduation, students can take three major paths - Academia, industry, and national lab. He compared various benefits and shortcomings of all the possible paths one could take after graduation. He compares the aspects such as work-life, job security, salary, the scope of research etc., among these three types of jobs. He begins with the national lab and states its advantages: an excellent work-life balance, better job security, salary, and research opportunities. He also compares the salary with academia. The speaker then talks about the industry with its advantages of remuneration, research and development prospects, disadvantages of the work environment, and possible job insecurity. In contrast, there are advantages such as job security and working in an engaging educational environment in academia. It was exciting to attend his talk and learn from his personal experiences. The presenter clarifies that there is no right choice; one could choose whichever path they want to pursue depending on the situation.
This seminar by Wolfgang Windl is very useful, especially for graduate students as the speaker narrates his experiences at different jobs along with the pros and cons of each. The speaker has working experience in a national lab, industry as well as academia. He compares the aspects such as work life, job security, salary, scope of research etc. among these three types of jobs. He starts with national lab and states its advantages such as a good work-life balance, better job security, salary, and research opportunities. The disadvantages could be remote locations and limited research areas. He also compares the salary pattern with Academia. He, then gives an overview of industry along with its advantages of salary, research and development opportunities and disadvantages of work environment and possible job insecurity. Regarding academia, he mentions advantages such as job security and being able to work in an interesting academic environment while it could also be demanding. It was very interesting to listen to his work experience in these three areas. It is encouraging to know that choosing different jobs at different stages of life could be a correct decision but also how important it is to consider family, finances, impact of the job etc. while making the choice.
The seminar by professor Windl is very interesting and instructive. The professor uses his real-life experience to discuss how to make a decision among work in industry, national lab and academia. Multiple interesting figures and funny stories are also included in this presentation which make the seminar a lot of fun.
Professor Windl begins the seminar with his own resume, and he analyzes the pros and cons of jobs in national lab, industry, and academia sequentially with his own life experience. For jobs in national lab, the pros include life outside work and good job security while bureaucracy and location maybe adverse factors for some people. For jobs in industry, job salary evolution is much faster, administrative work is less and collaborating colleagues generally are very well trained and knowledgeable. However, professor also mentions in industry, career promotion path maybe difficult for people focusing on technical work and working environment like cubicles maybe quite noisy and annoying. Finally, jobs in academia have the pros of job security, job environment and possibility to contribute to impactful work that lasts for a long time. The cons of academic jobs include the high demand of the job and long work time. Professor finally summarizes the seminar by pointing out that every option has pros and cons, and people should not be afraid to change options.
Personally, I enjoy this seminar a lot. As a PhD student, sometimes I am confused about what is the correct choice after graduate school. This seminar is very interesting and helps me to think more clearly about this question.
Wolfgang Windl presented an engaging talk on what's better - national lab, industry or Academia. These are the main 3 walks of life that students have to choose from after their undergraduate/graduate studies. It's a confusion most students go through and often hunt for people from each walk of life who can give advice on the same. This presentation analyzed the pros and cons of the three fields and provides students with the information in a nutshell.
As a person who has been in all the fields, the speaker supported the speech with numerous real-life examples. This helped me understand his message better. He provided a holistic picture of work in each field by considering professional factors like work nature as well as personal factors family, location. A unique factor he brings about is the factor of legacy. It made me really think what impact I would create through my career.
The best part about the lecture was the summary the speaker gave. He says that there is no "correct" option. It really depends on one's interests and the point of time they are looking for a career option. I felt this as a pragmatic perspective and encourages the audience think to go with a choice that is best for them.
This video discusses the advantages and disadvantages of different career choices after graduation. It provides in-depth information regarding different types of careers. Anybody can change his mind regarding career after watching this video. The speaker says that if you join National Lab, this will be a secured job for you, but you will have to increase your research skills. If you join the industry, your pay will increase, and you manufacture new products, which is beneficial for the people, and you enjoy it. If you work as a teacher in university, you have the freedom to work with your choice with anybody. After watching this video, I have changed my mind to join the industry because it provides innovative products to manufacture. It is a revolutionary video to choose different fields in career.
This presentation was entertaining to watch and contained lots of useful information. I am on the fence between the career paths described in the presentation and felt it did a good job of describing the pros and cons of each path with respect to things like salary, job security, work-life balance. I had been previously been leaning towards an industry career but the commentary about poor job security, work environment, and denigration of technical roles will make me consider the other two career paths more-seriously.
It could be useful to hear statistics about the career paths, e.g. salaries, retention rates, publication counts, to supplement the anecdotal information. It seems like some of the characteristics of the presenter's path, e.g. getting tenure at the outset of academic career or being able to write papers while employed in industry, are not common for all people in those jobs and could significantly impact their desirability, and their commonality should be a factor when deciding on career path.
The presentation on “What’s better: National lab, industry or academia?” by Wolfgang Windl is an extremely organized and engaging presentation and gives a great perspective to people who are confused about choosing one of the three. Having been in that situation, I agree with almost all the remarks that the author makes with respect to each of them. The author himself has experience working in all three sectors and he talks about the pros and cons. He gives insights on aspects like pay, the location of the work, job security, exposure to research, lab bureaucracy, and the work environment.
I enjoyed his humor and the way he kept the audience involved throughout the presentation. As a person, who has one year of experience with an academic organization, I totally agree with his points. It also throws light on the aspects that I should look into when I search for a job after my graduate studies. The author also talks about how important it is to maintain a work-life balance and how a career in academia is conducive to it.
Overall, the presentation gives a clear overview and I would recommend it to anyone who is looking for a job role and confused about making a decision.
This presentation was given on the pros and cons of different career choices after we graduate. At the beginning of the semester, this topic was talked about briefly, but this presentation was definitely more in depth and more informative. To summarize, if you choose to work in a National Lab, the job is very secure and pays well. You also get to mainly focus on your research. If you choose to work in an industry, the salary will increase over your career rapidly and also you get to make products that will immediately impact everyday life. If you choose to work in a university/academia environment, you get the freedom to choose what you work on and who you work with.
For me, I definitely want to be in the industry because research isn't my priority. I would like to work on products that is for sure going to help people in the next few months or years. Also, I am a person that likes to have a set goal, therefore, working in a university doesn't suit me. After watching this presentation, I didn't change my mind of going into the industry, but it did clarify some of my questions regarding career paths.
I enjoyed listening to what Professor Windl had to say and felt that it was very informative. When I decided that I wanted to continue my education my reasoning was to get more research experience through a thesis. However, my plans have changed and I am looking more towards going into industry. Academia has crossed my mind at times but it has never been my preferred option.
What i took away most from this presentation was the pros and cons of each of the three options. Prof. Windl does a good job of listing them and explaining them further. The pros and cons touch on salary, environment, and social aspects of each career path. I have seen similar comparisons through other means but with Prof. Windl's experience in all three options he is able to also share some of his past experiences and his takeaways from each. Although his experience does not define everyone else's experiences, hearing his stories provides a good insight of what you could expect if you take a certain path.
One thing he touched on that was something that I never would have thought of was the environment of each path and how it would affect you. For example, he says that when you work in academia you will be surrounded by a bunch of younger students that will somewhat keep you in touch with their culture and what they relate too. For the research path, he talks about how it may be hard for a male to find a partner because the engineering field is male dominated and often you will be in remote locations with not much contact. As a former prospective researcher, this has never crossed my mind even though it can have a significant impact on my life.
Overall, the presentation was vey informative and more than less entertaining because Prof. Windl shares his own stories and uses humor fairly often to keep the students engaged. I would not say that he changed my career path decision but he did provide more insight to each path. Anyway he states near the end that it is okay to switch paths because you never know what your future holds[.
Finding someone with experience in all three - National Laboratory, Industry and academia is very rare. (It is very fascinating how Prof Klimeck and his friends seem to have experience from all three places.) This talk is a great place to start for Grad students in their early career or even about to graduate. Usually, when a grad student networks with a certain person from say industry/academia/lab, that person usually has a very specific insight and can only share their experience with that particular domain. This talk covers everything from the salary to lifestyle a job has to offer in different domains. This is much needed as the only metric of comparison is usually the pay and lifestyle ignored quite often and leading to no satisfaction with the job.
Also, the speaker spoke the graduate student language, very humble while being relatable and was very engaging throughout the talk while explaining the challenges he faced, and how he overcame those. The slides were very well organised with comparisons and plots with statistics wherever required, which makes the talk more compelling. One thing about the talk I found very interesting was how to remain relevant in academia and being flexible to change topics when needed. While academia offers the freedom of choosing topics or changing even, industry/labs do not give the freedom. The speaker also compares job security, job location and the types of restrictions-privacy policies- that come with a job.
Overall, I think the talk is very relevant to any graduate student and the structure of this talk clarifies many questions and gives a starting point for their career path.
Listening to the lecture talk by professor Windl, more about the different careers that exist in the engineering and technology industries can be learned. The professor starts the talk by sharing some of his experiences in the industry and proceeds to give insights about the areas where research has been minimal yet these areas are well paying compared to conventional areas such as simple mechanics. Perhaps the most important part is the point where the professor shares more about the pros and cons of these jobs such as working in the nuclear plants. In this case, one risks their own life although the job is well paying. Comparing the national lab, industry, or academia field, Windl points out that what matters most is your comfort and satisfaction in the career and the legacy you leave behind.
One of the key issues that came as a surprise to me was the comparison of different age groups and jobs. From this lecture, it was evident that people in their late 50s are more relaxed in any kind of job and while the young generation is very choosy. This can be lethal to one’s career as a young person since these industries require experience and without it, good pay remains an imagination. Lastly, I was shocked to learn that despite the minimum wage laws in the United States, some states offer more salaries and benefits for the same job than others. For example, the states in New England, mid-Atlantic and pacific west offer over $80,000 while other like central plain states offer an average of $73,000. This information is useful for young and promising graduates who are eyeing the technical industry in the future. Knowing what is needed and offered in return in different states can be the difference between job satisfaction and poor morale among the employees.
This talk by professor Windl is extremely intriguing and useful for graduate students who are still figuring out their career path. Professor gives his own insights and talks about his own experiences and dilemma that he faced. The presentation is concise and very informative and the professor does a fine job covering those contents.
After watching this seminar, I have a better idea and understanding on the career path that is best suited for me. I came to know more about the pros and cons of each path and as well as my compatibility and interest in them.
Professor also mentions about how a career in academia gives a good work life balance, however I felt that might be the case in every field if only we are dedicated and have good time management skills.
This entire talk was down to earth, honest, and I have absolutely no criticisms except the one point stated above.
This talk is very engaging. The information presented is useful and is usually difficult to get in one place. The good part of the talk is focusses on all facets of life not just the technical. This gives a broader perspective to help make the imp decision. Very clear examples are presented in humorous way. The list outlined of pros and cons for each place is very clear and useful. This will be useful for individuals as each one has different priorities on what matters most for us. The insight on how some time in industry helps provides new direction. The talk also conveys the key challenge in industry of doing true research rather than development. However, I think this part can still be conveyed more optimistically. The talk is comprehensive covers everything from big to small from quality of research, financial topics and even very simple things like logistics of seating in a company. Talk also highlights the challenge in academia to work with students with limited training particularly after getting used to professionals in industry and the biggest headache getting the funding. The content and visuals in talk are very well presented, I highly recommend the talk. It is the best on the topic I have found.
This lecture contained some of the most useful and insightful information I've seen on the subject, on as well as being engaging and entertaining throughout. Professor Windl shares his experiences clearly, and is very honest about the drawbacks and benefits for each career. Going into the presentation, I thought I was certain which career I would be most interested, or at the very least I thought I was absolutely certain that I didn't want to go down the national labs path. Now I find myself reconsidering my position.
Professor Windl's presentation goes beyond just listing the pros and cons of each career (while those are still very well done and helpful), and also explains his own personal opinions from his own experiences. Things like explaining how he enjoyed the remote mountain environments on the national lab job, or how he disliked the cubicle work environment from industry. He's able to give insight through his own experience, but also leaves it open to the listener for them to think of how they would feel about the same situations. I particularly liked in the academia section where he listed most of the negatives of the job, only to then explain how working with students makes it worth the work, or the aspect of the legacy question he brought up.
The only negative things I have to say about the presentation are that Professor Windl's explanations of the science behind the work he was doing, while interesting, did not seem particularly relevant to the subject of thee lecture itself. Also when explaining the science of the industry job, he brings up "mission statements," but does not elaborate or give any insight or experience as to how mission statements function at an industry job beyond seeming annoyed when mentioning them.
Overall, this presentation is engaging, informative, and leaves the viewer with a new perspective on the subject of different career paths.
Well, let me first say that Prof. Windl did a great job making this presentation fun! It was literally very insightful and funny to watch!
Before watching this presentation, I was thinking that I will find a certain answer for what's better, National Lab, Industry, or Academia? After watching this presentation, I definitely believe that academia is the best option for me. I know each path has its own pores and cons, but for me, I think in academia you work for yourself more that for other people.
I only disagree with Prof. Windl in one point: I think in academia you can easily find a balance between life and work. As oppose to other jobs, I guess. It's all about time management.
Finally, I guess it's important to try different paths in the beginning of our career. Later, we can opt whatever we like ("Don't be afraid of changing paths").
As someone who is currently wrestling with this very question, I found this seminar insightful and extremely useful. Dr. Windl is a phenomenal and engaging speaker, and his humor made this seminar a joy to watch as well. The presentation had a clear organization and flowed smoothly throughout. Personally, I appreciate being able to hear about someone's personal experiences in all three sectors - I think that is a very unique opportunity, and potentially more informative than overarching, vague statements about pros/cons of each. Dr. Windl isn't afraid to talk about the things that young professionals are really interested in - location, salary, opportunity for advancement, and the dreaded bureaucracy - that often get glossed over for shinier topics.
On a personal level, the discussion of legacy was very important to me and I appreciate that Dr. Windl included it in the presentation. I know he said it's more of a "mid-life crisis" question, but as someone who is just starting their PhD, I think it's crucial to have something to look towards so you can say "I'm doing this for a reason." It was interesting to see that master's degrees really do not affect that much change in a person's job status, and definitely reaffirmed my desire to finish my Doctorate. This entire talk was down to earth, honest, and I have absolutely no criticisms!
I would recommend this presentation in a way it is organized. The presenter first introduces his own career and gives us a rough idea about how is the work like in the lab and academia. Then he talks about the overview of the pros and cons working in the lab and academia, and illustrate them further afterwards.
The pros of working in the industry including salary evolution, focus on technical work, doing things that has impact, research plus development work, while the cons are work environment, job insecurity, frequent changes in management ladder, etc. One of the most important things I learn from this presentation is something that I haven't exposed myself to - the colleagues & bosses. How to get along with the people around you, above you and below you is essential. Besides, now I know that working in academia will be more intensive - most demanding job, meaning little time for life.
In this presentation, Prof. Windl wonderfully elaborated the differences between working at a national lab, industry and academia. The casual jokes in between successfully maintained the audience’s interest while at the same time the speaker was able to explain the material.
Prof. Windl’s description of his life while working at the Los Alamos Lab was interesting as he described the pros and cons of life there. Finally, I was able to understand the meaning of the phrase – “It’s a good place to raise a family”. The fact that these locations are remote and away from the city spots was new to me and will be an important factor in future decision making. One fact which was surprising about the labs was that there was much more concentrated in the field of nuclear science as opposed to renewable since I was of the opposite opinion.
Having worked at a company for three years I could relate to the pros and cons of working in an environment full of targets to be met. A constant change of authority is something one should be wary of as sometimes this could mean that most of the previous work could become a waste of time.
I agree with Prof. Wendl’s description of working in an academic institution. I understand the stress of time management that most professors face as a result of looking after the student’s work, research and other responsibilities. Prof. Windl’s take on the legacy question was intriguing as I had never thought about this.
To summarize this was a really interesting presentation. Informing the students about the options they have in their future and the pros and cons of each field help them make an informed choice.
I think Professor Windl's talk was quite entertaining and informative. Life experiences, while anecdotal, offer broader insights about how I can think about potential career paths and I think Professor Windl did a great job of telling his story while offering valuable lessons he learned along the way. I can relate to "Its a great place to raise a family" as I have had multiple interviews that almost exactly that same phrase was stated to me (also the schools are great). I think he does a good job of highlighting extra factors like location and the type of work (nukes=bad) that have a large impact on your happiness in a job. Having two years of industry experience, he is quite accurate with the description of industry work. Project scope and management changes are frequent and often driven by the bottom line. Cubicles are no longer in most places but open work environments have their drawbacks as well. Further, some industry can be cutthroat and requires you to perform and deliver results in a short amount of time. Some people get overwhelmed by this and can be quite intimidated. Further, he is exactly right when describing job security in industry. Reorganizations and layoffs are common in bad times or even when times are okay but not to management/shareholder expectations. Overall I thought his talk was excellent and gave great insight to how to think about a job and career.
Prof. Windl gives a great talk here, and one that I really appreciate being available. As someone who's just started grad school, choosing a career path can seem like a ways away sometimes, but I still think it's something to consider. Personally I've been interested in working at a national lab, so I was really glad to hear about Prof. Windl's experiences working at Los Alamos. Even though national lab positions tend to pay less than industry or academia I'm still interested in pursuing this kind of position because of the type of research I want to be involved in.
Also, I really appreciate his discussion of maintaining a good work-life balance and how this ends up working out in industry/academia/national lab. As I've been pursuing my graduate education I've found that it's hard to have a good balance, and after I graduate my biggest goal is to work a more sensible 9 to 5 schedule. This is something to consider too, and if that means going to an industry position as opposed to academia or a national lab then I'm still open to the possibility. But still overall a great talk that I would definitely recommend to anyone in grad school.
I have always wondered what career path to choose after Ph.D. and this presentation addresses this exact point. The presentation by Prof. Windl is particularly interesting because he gave out some of his own experiences in the most honest way possible. He starts off by addressing the pros and cons of national lab jobs. Some of the pros are- job security, not extensive workload, interesting research, however the there are some cons such as working in remote areas, government bureaucracy etc. One of the things that he mentioned is that these labs usually have limited research areas including nuclear weapons, which may or may not be of someone’s preference.
Next, he goes on to discuss the pros and cons of industry (Motorola). One crucial thing he pointed out was that industry jobs have a pretty steep salary curve (one can basically double salary if worked real hard). In addition, the works in industry have real-world application and is fun to do. Also, one can develop his/her research career by publishing papers in industry research. The cons include frequent changes in management and insecurity. Also, sometimes industry jobs (process engineering) can be extremely boring.
Next, he discusses job experience at academia. The pros here are working with students which, according to him, is fun. The job also comes with good security once you are tenured. Also, if one is lucky he can leave a legacy behind if he is a successful professor. The minus is that it is extremely demanding.
Overall it is a very interesting presentation. The presentation had a bad resolution and some of the texts were not very clear.
It was great watching Dr. Windl’s lecture. This talk can be a very good guide for students who are yet to figure out which path they wish to tread along their career. The best part of the lecture was that each job was described with the pros and cons that it offers. The talk gives us a first-hand experience from a person who has been in three different fields of a professional career. Understanding Dr. Windl’s perspective on the pros and cons of each field and analyzing the same with respect to my perspective, will help me in choosing a career path for my self with more caution and better judgment. I liked the part where Dr. Windl discusses the salaries in different locations in the United States. Though my field of study significantly differs from Atomistic modeling, the salary figures weren’t quite relevant to the jobs that I would be looking for. Nevertheless, it gave me a brief idea of the salary distribution in various locations of the US.
Dr. Windl’s presentation slides were quite succinct and clear. By his good sense of humor, Dr. Windl could keep his audience engaged throughout the presentation. But, I feel there can be one little improvement. He speaks a little too much about the technical details of his work which is really hard for someone, belonging to a different background, to comprehend. This may elicit some disinterest in the listeners. That apart, I feel that this talk is an amazing career guide for freshers and those who are about to graduate to make proper choices for their careers.
I like the lecture very much about the personal growth. For me, I am a Ph.D student on the track on network security. I like the topic very much and I have a good advisor and nice team. However, I will feel stressed when I look forward to my future life. Though I think research is good, I do not want to bind my life in the paper writing, funding chasing, presentation delievering and so on. I would like to do some real jobs, and make some real money.
What inspired a lot in the lecture is the last slide: "What could I do if I start over". The lecturer is a Physics professor, and he had a fantastic life in nuclear area. Even for him such a wonderful life, he would choose some different path. For me, only 25 year old student, I would select different path for sure. I may not start my Ph.D. I may not come to US. I may start my own company at the age of 20. I may try many different lifes. But I do not regret of my selection. I can still be successful in my Ph.D life.
Yesterday has past, tomorrow is the future. Only today is the present
I really enjoyed Professor Wolfgang Windl's lecture. I am pursuing a Master's Degree and I am trying to determine what I would like to do for my job after I complete my degree in about a year. I appreciate that he went into as much detail as he could about his experiences in the different kinds of jobs as an Electrical Engineer with his allotted time. This overview of his experiences working at Los Alamos National Lab, Motorola, and Ohio State helped me know a little more of what to expect in those kinds of jobs.
The thing I liked most about the lecture was the pros/cons list for each type of job. I never really thought about how in industry it is very common for the corporate ladder to become a huge focus and a distraction from the engineering work that is being done. He mentioned how the changes in leadership bring changes in the vision of what is most important or what needs to be done to achieve a goal. I am glad he gave some insight into the salaries you can expect from the different jobs/degrees, but I think salaries also are highly dependent on the area you are working in. I am studying DSP and Machine Learning, which is a significantly different market than Semiconductors, so the salaries are also different.
Thanks to Dr. Windl's excellent presentation. This session is very informative and attractive. I've gained a lot of valuable information which is definitely helpful for my future career. Dr. Windl first shared his personal career experience, then followed by an overview of working in national labs, industry, and academia. Dr. Windl described the advantage and disadvantages of the three different careers from many aspects such as salary, working environment, life, research areas, etc.. Actually, I have been thinking about this question since I was a Ph.D. student. All my information about future careers comes from either other students or from the forum. I am glad I can watch this presentation since I have gained valuable information which is quite different than I thought. I think this will definitely be helpful in the near future when I make the decision for the career.
I am in my third year and at this stage of life it is really important to know what you are aiming for and this lecture surely helped me clear my mind.
The lecture talks about the pros and cons of different work fields and the coping mechanism there. From my stand of view I think it gives the basic idea as well as a different perspective also. For example, the retaining of legacy which might be possible with academia is something that I never thought about. Again in case of national labs, location plays a crucial issue which was not under my consideration.
A quantitative comparison was also shown to give some idea about the salary one might expect for choosing a particular field which was helpful.
Overall, it was a good lecture to refresh one's mind and focus on what we are aiming for.
This informational session on the difference between a career at National Lab, in Industry and in Academia by Dr. Windl is a must watch for every student. Each of us have come across this question at least once while planning our career.
Dr. Windl has vividly and in the most humorous way showed the difference in career in these three sectors, giving relevant examples. He clearly lists down the pros and cons of these three sectors:
National lab: Job security, good salary, focus on work, yet having a good work-life balance. But the job is of confidential nature, requires relocation to remote places, and scope of research is very narrow.
Industry: Salary involution, less administrative work. But comes with job insecurity. The frequent changes in management ladder requires constant refocusing of work. However, while talking on this topic one point that turned out to be very confusing for me is that according to him "A Masters degree is not a wise decision financially as the salary raise is less compared with those of Bachelor’s degree, but PhD is much more worth." As an international student, this comes as a news and a bit of surprise too. Back in our country, where PhD isn’t much talked about on daily basis, Masters degree is highly glorified. In fact it has been a recent trend that most of Engineering students head to the USA to pursue a Master’s degree as it is considered very superior compared to Bachelor’s degree.
Academia: Stable job, “Freedom” to work on passion projects rather than some pre-assigned projects as in industry, interaction with young talents and a great network from talents across the globe. However, because of the amount of time spent in mentoring students, monitoring research progress, preparing classes and resources for lectures, writing grant proposal on regular basis, leaves very sparse personal time. He also points out the difficulties of being part of small universities, i.e. lack of resources, funding sources and sufficient manpower.
Overall it is an excellent session. Dr. Windl has conveyed these important information in the an engaging way, keeping the students entertained and yet enlightened the whole time.
This was my favourite lecture out of the whole series. As a graduate student, I have contemplated long and hard about all possible future employment avenues. I had always assessed the merits and demerits of possible career paths mostly on the traditional rubrics of job location, security, and income. Hence, it was very refreshing to hear a fresh perspective from Professor Windl where he mentioned metrics like leaving behind a legacy, having quality family time; parameters I wouldn’t have thought of when mulling over professional responsibilities.
Professor Windl’s lecture was infused with humor. Be it his remark on how you can’t tell even your spouse the specifics of your work if you are in a national lab, or him including a comic strip, the result was that his talk was very engaging, on top of being informative. I especially liked how towards the end he asks students to assign priorities first, and then look for career paths that match those.
The only suggestion I could think of would be to cut down on some of the technical details of his jobs and projects. I felt they broke the flow of the narrative a bit. The presentation on the whole though is a great resource to any graduate student!
In this lecture, Professor Windl discusses his personal take on the advantages and disadvantages of careers in academia, industry and national labs. This topic is particularly interesting to me because I have been debating this choice over the past few months and while I have plenty of time to make a decision for myself, it is helpful to get a variety of viewpoints on the subject.
I appreciated that Professor Windl discusses many aspects of each of the career paths including salary, work-life balance, the work environment itself, and much more. This provided a holistic view of each option and there were several points that he brought up that I hadn't thought of before. First, when discussing his experiences working at Los Alamos National, he mentions the extra bureaucracy that can go along with government jobs. This is something that I could see myself getting frustrated with so it is good to keep in mind. Second, many of Windl's concerns with job security and the politics within industry is something that I have personally seen for myself in the various internships I have held. Finally, I thought it was interesting how Windl discusses leaving a legacy and how there are more different ways to do that in academia than in other routes. This was an important insight that I don't think many young students who are just entering the workforce contemplate.
In terms of the presentation itself, Windl gets the information across in a clear and concise manner while adding humor and stories that keep the listener engaged and entertained. The only small improvements I would suggest would be to present the structure of the presentation to the audience and be more organized in transition slides and to spend less time on the technical details of his research which may be a bit involved for the given audience.
Overall, the presentation was both informative and entertaining and I would reccomend it to anyone who is debating whether academia, industry, or national labs is the correct career option for them.
In this lecture, Prof.Windl compared the difference among national lab,industry and academia from his personal experience. I am very interested in this topic since I need to find a job after graduation and it it helpful to know the advantages and disadvantages of different job positions.
Industry and academia are two common choices for phd students. Industry positions have salary evolution(money is important) and focus on technical work. However, it is not stable. Frequent changes in management ladder,along with refocusing of work may occur. If fired in middle age, it is hard to find a proper job. Staying on the technical ladder sometimes means "loser" in many companies. For academia positions, competition is fierce especially for good university. Academic environment is pure and simple. After becoming tenured professor, job is secure and no one can fire you. Academic freedom is also a big advantage.Professor can spend their time as they want. They can choose to work in office or from home. There is no boss and professor is just like manager. However, there is long way until "there". At the beginning, assistant professors need to be very hard working to become tenured professor.
For me, academic freedom appeals me a lot and I like the environment at college. I prefer stable positions though it mean less salary. Academia is fir for me.In conclusion, every option has its pros and cons and this lecture inspire me how to make a choice.
This talk aptly summarizes what to expect when choosing among the three different career paths, ie National Labs, Industry or Academics. Prof. Windl's rich experience in all of the three options helps us in understanding the pros and cons of each choice. He does an excellent job in explaining the quality of work and life that one can expect for everyone of these choices. I specially how he discusses about salary, location, job security, job satisfaction, quality of work and working environment all at the same time.
From Prof. Windl's talk and a similar talk given by Prof. Klimeck, I have gained valuable information which will help me in the future in choosing a career path.
I specially enjoyed the frequent jokes and use of graphics in this presentation to make it interesting. The Dilbert comic strip with Prof. Windl's name in it was something unexpected and I enjoyed it. Also the message driven by the summary slide that different options are right for different stages and don't be afraid to change path is something that I will keep in mind.
This talk aptly summarizes what to expect when choosing among the three different career paths, ie National Labs, Industry or Academics. Prof. Windl's rich experience in all of the three options helps us in understanding the pros and cons of each choice. He does an excellent job in explaining the quality of work and life that one can expect for everyone of these choices. I specially how he discusses about salary, location, job security, job satisfaction, quality of work and working environment all at the same time.
From Prof. Windl's talk and a similar talk given by Prof. Klimeck, I have gained valuable information which will help me in the future in choosing a career path.
I specially enjoyed the frequent jokes and use of graphics in this presentation to make it interesting. The Dilbert comic strip with Prof. Windl's name in it was something unexpected and I enjoyed it. Also the message driven by the summary slide that different options are right for different stages and don't be afraid to change path is something that I will keep in mind.
The video is a comparison of working in a national lab, industry and academia. Dr. Windl gives examples of his own life to make this comparison. Some of the points he talks about in doing so are:
1)He outlines the pros and cons of working in a national lab from when he used to work in a national lab. He talks about how working in a national lab is also conducive to having a life outside of work i.e, there is work life balance. He talks about aspects like job security, location of the job in a national lab. He talks about some challenges for example, Citizenship is often required, and there may be limited research areas. He elaborates on his work on nuclear research, he also talks about emerging research areas in nuclear and renewable energy. He elaborates on his work. He also tells us that working in a national lab might mean working on national priority problems. For example he worked in nuclear power generation. He also talks about the political dimension of working on a nuclear project.
2) Dr. Windl also gives an overview of working in an industry, in his case, Motorola. He talks about his experience working in the semiconductor product sector at Motorola. He also gives a brief overviewo f the company. He encourages us to work in some domain that will have an impact. Working in industry, he talks about how he enjoyed doing core technical work with very little administrative work and how it is possible to concurrently maintain a work life balance. He talks about how there is a frequent change in the management ladder along with refocusing of work and how the work environment has changed with hardly any research jobs available today. He also talks about job insecurity.
3)He goes into technical details about some of the work that he was involved in at Motorola - process modelling. That was the time when semiconductors got so small, new materials came up like metal gates, high k dielectrics. Motorola decided to have an atomistic modelling group of which he was a part.
4)He talks about colleagues and bosses. He talks about how everyone starts off as a staff scientist, working on technical projects. After 3-4 years, an individual needs to make the choice of climbing the technical ladder or to go to the management ladder. The management body is seen to be more competent whereas staying in the technical ladder may lead to stagnation in growth. This creates a dangerous climate causing office politics.
5)Dr. Windl also gives an overview of working in academia. He elaborates on how the academic environment affects work. He talks about how much academic freedom there is and how it is possible to collaborate with students who are learning new things. He also talks about how important it is to get academic funding. The tells us about some of the disadvantages as well. For example: this kind of work has very high time demands. Also research means working with students who are learning which may not work out in our favour. But he also says that the individual who enjoys receiving recognition and seeing their students turn into professors as well should definitely give thought about pursuing this line.
Overall, I would recommend watching this to anyone who wants an overview of the three fields.
This a very fascinating talk which discusses the pros and cons of jobs in National lab, industry, or academia, with a lot of useful information, original perspectives, and a clear structure. It inspires me a lot since right now I am struggling which path to choose after graduation. I rated it as four stars instead of five, since it was first released in 2009 and the data used there might be a little bit out of dated. Despite of this, this is still a very helpful talk and I strongly recommend it.
The speaker, Prof. Windl, first talks about his experience working in the Los Alamos National Lab. He mentions the advantages in salary, research, job security, and cooperation with other experts and he also emphasized that one disadvantage of working in that national lab is its remote locations. For the industry job, he gives some useful suggestions, including knowing exactly what you are going to do before signing up, and being clear of your career development. He states the behavior training and “common sense infusion” are beneficial, which the lab or academic job might not provide. For the academic job, the one he currently has, he emphasizes the big part of teaching and working with students and the freedom of choosing research topics. Even though he chooses the academic job at last, it seems he still benefits in some way from his past experiences in lab and industry. This makes me think about having more open mind of choosing the path.
As someone who will soon face the situation of deciding what kind of job to take, the presentation held significant importance to me. Professor Windl is a fantastic speaker who kept me engaged throughout the presentation. It was great to receive information from someone who has experienced what it is like to work in several different environments. It was also interesting to see what kind of work is involved in atomistic modeling.
The positives and negatives of each working environment were clearly mentioned along with the presenters own experiences. Prof. Windl mentioned how job satisfaction may vary from person to person and on their priorities and also spoke about factors like job security, maintaining a legacy, and monetary gains from each job. It gave me perspective regarding what kind of working environments are available to a prospective job seeker and makes me better placed to make a decision.
On the question of whether a PhD is better than a Masters degree, I believe the time investment into a PhD should also be taken into consideration. Overall it was a wonderful presentation and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I had always wanted to be in academia since my undergrad. This presentation has made me more open to oppurtunities and think about different merits and demerits in the work environment. I feel that the personal experience of the Prof. Is very insightful and left me pondering.
The presenatation started of with the Prof sharing their experience in a National Lab. He describes how the work will be, the geographic location and limited area of research that are funded. Since it is a work for the defence of the Nation, often a citizenship is required. Later, the prof moves to talk about his research in an industry. He explains the different aspects of an industry related work but is skeptical about the life we would have outside work. He also stresses on job insecurity inspite of a salary evolution. That is the risk we would take. Moving on, He describes his work in the academia. He insists that we can have our research “freedom” and not bound my other’s requirements, tho we would have to write proposals to get grants and funds. The environment is lively with working with student s and training them. On the negative side, there is no time for personal life.
This lecture has left me thinking on different paths and what I really want in my career life. I honestly feel that a good balance between our career and personal life is absolutely essential
On a side note, I am student of VLSI and MOS devices characterization and found his research work, which he cites as examples were really interesting.
I found this talk to be very informative at least to me as I have been introspecting on the career that lies ahead of me. Industry, academia and national labs were exactly the choice I was pondering upon. So this talk broadened my perspectives on considering a career in one of the above mentioned areas. Through out the talk, the speaker talked about the pros and cons of each these options by citing examples from his own life.
Being an international student who come here with a lot of financial obligations, industry might seem a better option as they would be paying better than the other counterparts. However, this could be a bad option if we don't get the right kind of job, in terms of work life balance and the nature of work by itself. This talk gave me a clear picture as to what to look for in the long run. Its not always money that matters but we must consider a lot of other factors as well.
Though it gave us a birdseye view of what goes on in each of the three options, the choices that we make would vary from individual to individual. This was also pointed by the speaker. Also, having a PHD option at the back of head, this talk gave me a clear picture as to what factors are to be considered while taking up PHD. For example, factors like location may not be of prime importance while the advisor and problem statement are to be kept in mind. One key take away from this talk would be the advice that the speaker gave about being able to adapt to different stages in a career.
To sum it all, the talk was well organised supplemented with real world examples of what really goes in an industry, academia and national labs which gave me insights about choosing a career in one of the three options.
This was a very good presentation. The presenter, Dr. Windl, did an excellent job of not only maintaining my attention as well as the audience's, but also incorporated humor and emotion into his presentation to retain his listeners. His ability to interweave information within his energetic presentation is very helpful.
Additionally, Dr. Windl starts his presentation by giving a brief history of himself in regards to his academic and industrial careers. This was very useful in establishing credibility in his presentation, and within the first few minutes I could tell he was a very good candidate to discuss the pros and cons of National Labs, Industry, and Academia.
Throughout the presentation, Dr. Windl was able to supplement his claims of the pro's and con's of all three options, while still maintaining the fact that these are not necessarily universals truths, but rather his experiences. Although I am not as interested in going into academia, it was very worthwhile to hear about his experiences of what makes it a great option. Also, I appreciated the fact that he did not make it all about what work was the most challenging or fulfilling, but also about which options provided the best opportunities to have a life outside of work.
In the end, Dr. Windl stated that the choice you make comes down to you and how you want to live your life. He clearly presented the facts and his personal experiences within each of the three areas of work, and is not directing us to one path, but rather to consider the pro's and con's of each, and compare that with how you wish to live your life.
The speaker is very entertaining and the content talked about is solid and valuable. I wanted to hear someone's opinion on the differences of working in academia, industry and government labs, but I was concerned it could be a boring stretched out presentation. Luckily, though, this talk felt like it went by very quickly because of the speaker's interjection of humor and good use of visuals. However, I do think the organization could be improved. It felt a little off to me that while the speaker was summarizing the points of one area, the slides had already moved on to the overview of the next area. It would have been better to have a summary slide listing the pros and cons again; otherwise, it is a little confusing to hear a summary of the pros and cons of one area while seeing the overview slide of the next area which lists the pros and cons of that area. That being said, this issue is relatively minor and overall, I think the slides were effective in getting across the differences of working in these three different areas. This is an excellent talk.
Armed with a robust sense of humor and plenty of experience under his belt, Professor Windl completely knocks this presentation out of the park. He summarized pros and cons of all three "modes of work", going after the things that typical graduating PhDs might not be thinking about (impact on family/spouse, having a life outside work, job stability, etc.) His presentation is wonderfully creative (just wait to see how he ties the US nuclear arsenal with a guy's likelihood to find a wife), but he still maintains a grounded, down-to-earth feel. At the end of his talk, he tells the students to figure out what is important in your life first, then decide what job to take. This advice, is the best advice I've heard on picking jobs. Throw away what everyone else thinks about your job - choose what matters to you. Very, very well done.
This was a very engaging presentation, Dr. Windl made sure to keep the audience interested with a good combination of humor and directly engaging with the students. He first highlighted the relevant information his own career and how it related to the presentation topic.
Main pro/cons for each of National Lab, Industry and Academia were presented, with extra information given for each point. It was very helpful to have had his own experiences in each field presented to have an almost first hand view into what it entails to work in each area, from day to day life to salary, professional development, type of actual work done at the place.
This kind of presentation are really valuable for graduate students, specially if you haven't had experience in more than one career area, with this kind of information it is easier to make decisions on wether a certain path is what you want or it can make you consider other choices that before you may have not known about.
Dr. Windl makes it clear at the beginning that this talk would be not only informative but funny as well. On the informative side, I enjoyed his pros/cons regarding industry, academia, and national labs. It was helpful that he described his average workday, as it shed some light on how working in one of the three would be.
I appreciated how Dr. Windl discussed life outside work, and it made me very interested in a national lab as I enjoy mountains, remoteness, and small cities. His personal story of a past student of his getting a job at Intel and hating it was also informative as your job shouldn’t be about the company you’re working for - it should be about the work you do.
Overall, this was an hour well spent and lots were learned.
Prof. Wolfgang Windl clearly delineated the difference between working at academia, industry and national labs. He highlighted the various key factors one should be aware of before signing up for the job like job security, work culture, location, work-life balance etc. He clearly states how these factors differ between working at academia, industry and national labs. A nice point he stated was that one would prefer each of these jobs at different stages in his/ her life. He lucidly explains that one track is not better than the other, however one is more suited compared to the other depending on the person's needs at that point of time. This angle was quite interesting.
He walked us through the all jobs he had and explained what we can expect from those options. Despite being an international resident, he was able to work in all the three categories, which I never thought was possible. So, it was clear that there are options available in each sector for international students as well. However, he displayed a lot of technical stuff which I wasn't able to follow. I feel he could have skipped those technical stuff as it was not the main point of discussion.
He was engaging through the talk and gave an irreplaceable content that everyone should keep in mind before taking up a job. Overall, he did a great job and it also put me into thinking about my career. Also, his humor sense was charming.
Dr. Wolfgang Windl highlights the differences between three workplace environments where people can go for a career. Dr Windl compared each environment using things such as: job salary, job stability, "burocracy", location; as his metrics. What I like from his presentation is that Dr. Windl speaks thru his experiences in each place. Hence, it is like having some inside information about each environment.
One extremely valuable action Dr. Windl did during his lecture was using his experiences to show advantages and disadvantages of each environment. For example, Dr. Windl mentioned he still receives emails from the National Lab he worked at years after leaving the place which could become annoying over time, but he also remarked that the job stability in a National Lab is better.
Although, this presentation expose each environment in a detailed way, Dr. Windl shows a little bias towards an Academia environment, which could be due to his current position and preferences. But, as he speaks using his experiences as his backup, anyone that listen this lecture should consider this bias as relevant information.
In summary, this lecture fulfills its objective of making a comparison between the three environments (national labs, industry and academia), and it is done in an extremely blunt and straight manner, which is something I personally like. It highlights the comparison thru the perspective of a person that experienced all three environments making this lecture a valuable resource for anyone that is in the point of his/her career where he/she has to make a choice between them.
This talk is particularly interesting for me because I am currently choosing between industry and national labs. I like the points he maid about remote locations, job security, and diversity at national labs. One of the things that I don't like about the national labs is the inability to chose which project I work on. Another big thing that bothers me about the national labs is that you can't talk about what you do.
Some of the time he spent on his work was interesting but didn't seem relevant to the talk.
I enjoyed the candid nature of his discussion. I know he said exactly what he felt about each of the topics he discussed. I feel like he could have talked a bit less about his research and a bit more about the working environment in each industry.
Dr. Windl from The Ohio State University cames off as blunt which is a refreshing take on the debate between the three paths. His breakdown of the disparity between Labs, Industry, and Academia was perfect. I disagree with his take on Masters vs Ph.D. as his data may be out of date compare to now. It clear that he was a bit bias for Ph.D. and Academia which is to be expected as a Professor, I would hope for a less bias version of this presentation in the future. A potential way of doing this could be a panel type presentation between three engineers who are in each path. I would also be curious to hear a Start-up perspective as I feel that it differs greatly from the standard Industry path. Regardless of bias, this was an enjoyable and informative presentation.
This was a valuable presentation that exposed me to the advantages and disadvantages of working in a national lab, industry, and academia. It gave me a better idea of what to expect in each type of environment, which is especially useful to me as I begin making decisions on a career path. I like how Dr. Windl gave a lot of specific examples of pros and cons of each work environment, both in general and some that applied to his situation. I especially like how he pointed out how each type of work environment might affect finding a spouse and raising a family, which one might not readily think of when considering these options. He also did a good job with the presentation slides, which summarized the key points succinctly and were easy to read. The presentation slides contained a good mix of text and graphics, both of which were very relevant. Some of the slides were also amusing and supported the funny remarks that Dr. Windl gave along the way. This also helped keep the presentation interesting. This was definitely a helpful presentation and I really recommend that others watch it to gain a better perspective of each type of work environment. Overall, it was engaging and I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I will keep the points discussed in mind as I continue exploring career options.
I liked the perspective that this speaker gave into the options of high level engineer. They seemed to be very aware of their implicit biases and gave ample information not only about what they personally experienced (working in a national lab) but gave other career paths as well. I appreciated the fact that this speaker pointed out the trend of engineers to go into arms manufacturing, the slide titled "arms race stockpile" was very interesting and slightly alarming to me. The speakers own work in radiation damage was also very interesting as that is a field I am not very familiar with. I also found it refreshing that the speaker talked about the balance of personal life with career choices, specifically how having a career in the nuclear industry would affect spousal relationships. I particularly liked the graphic illustrating academic legacy, showing the sort of flow chart of influential engineers and scientists. This seems like a very important thing to consider when choosing a career. This talk was a great mix of technical information and examples with general life advice for a person in graduate school.
I greatly appreciated the wealth of experience that Dr. Windl has able to share with us. To be more specific, I really appreciated the hard and direct comparisons between the three career paths. For example, instead of talking about what a National Lab researcher does as opposed to what a University Professor does, he goes into explicit detail about salary, general life considerations like location, family accomodation, and work life balance. THESE are the kinds of comparisons that are most valuable for students in our position.
While I appreciated the hard comparisons, I definitely disagreed with Dr. Windl's summary of why a PhD is much more desirable than master's degree. While its true that a PhD recipient may have a higher starting salary, that does not mean its an obviously better option. Masters and PhD's have different goals, so the real question isn't "how much money?", its a question of "what is your passion?" I thought since Dr. Windl went ahead and included a brief comparison of Masters vs. PhD, he should have at least provided a much more thoughtful analysis. Again, this is because the question of Masters vs. PhD is another area where students like us could use some insight.
Having been all too familiar with the idea of landing a high paying job in corporate since by undergraduate days, I will honestly say that I had never put so much thought into pursing a different career path. However, after having sat through the presentation, I now have a much broader view of my future prospects. From the presentation, I got to live all three experiences vicariously. I liked how he talked about pursuing academia for a more satisfying life and enjoying a higher degree of impact on society. Having spent few months in corporate, I could relate with his feelings about company culture and how it may be controlled by the whims of the administration. His National Lab comments were valuable too. All in all, I liked how Dr. Windl tried to lay out all the pros and cons of each of the career trajectories. I still feel like needing some first hand experience but his observations have given me a lot of foresight and have been a real eye opener.
I think the lecture was very good. It is very challenging to give a fair opinion on the different career paths. Everyone has their bias and most people do not truly have the range of experience to give an accurate assessment.
While Dr. Windl clearly prefers academia he did not choose to talk down on other career paths, which I frequently see. Rather he gave fair pros and cons of the job and stated that it more aligns with his personal preferences - he doesn't mind the work load and loves the discovery and students. When talking about his experience in industry/national labs he did not isolate the talk to experiences that were specific to his position. Instead he managed to draw out the more universal lessons about each and apply them to companies/labs at large. Things like pay, work life balance and culture are all incredibly important when talking about industry/labs and he does a good job at conveying the pros and cons of each. The only complaint I have in regard to the content is that it did not cover anything especially ground breaking. It was interesting to hear someone talk about their life experiences and what they have learned from their careers but the things discussed should be common knowledge to a student at this point. Information about pay, culture, work life balance etc are not new bits of information. I would have liked to see something more unique pulled out of his experiences.
But as I said over all very good video, very fair and thorough. The information was well presented and I got a couple of laughs as well. I really did not expect Hitler to be the first imaged relating to "How to be remembered". A nice bit of dark humor thrown in.
Professor Windl kept the audience engaged in his presentation with is congenial tone. His presentation was very funny (I enjoyed his "will your wife hate you for going nuke" graph). He made valid points about working in a National Lab. I think a factor that is often overlooked while job searching is the location. He raised good points: national labs are often in remote areas and are very large so you have to deal with a large bureaucracy. There is a limited number of research areas that they focus on in National Labs, so it is not uncommon to work on something you had not initially planned (for example he ended up working on maintaining nuclear weapons). There seem to be a lot of similarities between working at a national lab and working in industry (good work life balance, difficult work on research that you want to work on, etc.). It was especially interesting looking at the comparison of salary growths depending on which area you go into.
This lecture provided a good comparison between the three different career options like the three discussed in this lecture i.e. National Lab, Industry and Academia. He cited good examples using his personal experiences to illustrate the pros and cons of each of these options.
What I liked about the talk is the use of real examples to illustrate what the speaker is trying to convey. It helps us get a closer to real scenario picture. So its really a hard decision to single out one of them as the best option. He successfully pointed out that a lot depends on the situations and job scenarios which will ultimately help us choose the better option and it varies from individual to individual.
So another case study or a talk from a person settled in a national lab or industry might present a different perspective. On a broader scale probably, the discussed points holds good. So it is upto the individual to find out what fits him or her the most based on the available set of options.
This lecture was very personally informative for me, as I am currently confused between the pros and cons of academic research vs industry. These pros and cons were clearly laid out in a lucid and simple to understand manner.
A important point put forth was the discussion on National Labs. Being an international student, I have always been curious about the inner workings of these laboratories. The various factors one must consider before signing up to work in these organizations was also emphasized upon. While location may not be so important whilst pursuing a PhD, it is something to consider while evaluating a career prospect. I was really glad that this was something that was touched upon.
I felt that his advice on being ready to adapt yourself, or being ready to make changes at any stage in your career, to be quite profound. His advice on getting back to academia while working/publishing articles for a few years at an industrial research group was especially helpful.
As a general comment, I feel the life of a Post-Doc could have been elucidated more.
Prof. Windl answered a critical question for all engineering students. I think almost everyone would like to compare the three career choices carefully for themselves. however, for most of us, we do not have someone with such rich experience to ask for advice. So the talk he gave is really what I need.
The people work in national lab have good work/life balance, but the salary is not as competitive as that of industry, so maybe the job in national lab suits someone who value the work security. The faculties must work much hard, but the feeling of achievement and freedom is the reward for them. Besides, they are the bosses for themselves, though they rarely give themselves vacation with salary. So, for one to make a decision, he must know first what is his own priority, which is a question no one could answer for him.
To really make a decision is hard. Fortunately, I still have several years. And I could do internships in different place, which I believe should help me to find what I most enjoy.
Professor Wolfgang Windl mainly illustrate three main options of working at national lab, industry and stay in academia. National lab usually have a lot of fund from the government, and the work location usually is really nice(if you like natural scenes a lot). However, their research topics are rather limited and the salaries usually follows a normal distribution that has an average about $13600. As opposed to national lab, industries does have a lot of topics (not research) and the salaries can range from $40000 to over a million. And the salaries usually goes hand in hand with your increasing working experiences. However, the problems of the industry is that working condition might be bad, and may suffer from constant changing in job focus. Finally, if you decide to stay in academia, you will have a nice working condition since you graduated from that. Also, you will get legacy if you succeed in your area. However, this is a long way to go, and you pretty much need to dedicate your life into your research area.
I really like how professor Wolfgang Windl listed not only the pros and cons for all three different types of possible works options, but also shared a lot of personal experiences from those different types of job. For example, in the national lab experience, he mentioned that he works in a lab that are completely different from labs of universities or the companies. And the location is really nice. This really gives an intuitive idea of what working in a national lab really is. Also this material is super useful from now on to even when you already are working. Since, you need to try to experience different things to finally decides what is best for you. At the end of the lecture, professor Wolfgang Windl encouraged us not to be afraid of changing path. Find out what is best for you now and then decide carefully. Overall, I consider this lecture is awesome.
The talk is a comparison between the industry and national labs Jobs. Toward this end,the speaker provided his own experience in national labs and industry. The conclusion is that national lab is good if you want to stay more time with family and industry is good if you want more money.
I will brief here some of the main points in the lecture:
The speaker started by his resume as Postdoc, staff scientist then professor in Ohio university.
The advantage of national lab job :Can have a life outside work, Job security, good salary – Focus on research work, Large, lots of peers to interact.
The disadvantage of job in national labs jobs : Often in remote locations, Homogeneous workforce,Government bureaucracy; safety/security, Citizenship often required.
The advantage of working in industry :
Salary evolution, Focus on technical work, Doing something that has impact, Research plus development work , Can have (some) life outside of work .
The disadvantage of working in industry:
Frequent changes in management ladder, along with refocusing of work ,Work area leayout(cubicles) , Hardly any research jobs available today ,Job insecurity.
The work in industry is some kind like Dilbert series.
The talk is very nice the speaker could use visualization effectively. The speaker could relate the job description to the individual variations between people.
I think it will be nice if he get the audience involved by asking some questions
This presentation raises several useful points and I like the presentation given by Professor Windl. It is a interesting presentation. Very humorous and it makes the flow of the presentation nature and comfortable. It gives us a chance to have a thought of the life working for industry, labs or academia. Those are the thing we will never touch unless we finish our school.
If I have the chance I would also want to share my thought. I would to point out a importance of communication skills. I believe it is important and essential for everyone either you are working in industry, labs or academia. I was a “lone wolf” when I was working on my bachelor degree. It was tough to work out all the problem myself but it was still doable. When I started my research job, everything changed. It was impossible to solved out the thing by one’s own effort anymore. Actually, most of topics are interdisciplinary. You may have the knowledge to solve part of the project but the rest of them you should never seen before. This is why communication skills play a important role. With good communication skills, it helps you to explain your problem more efficient to the college or consultor so that you have more chance to solved the problem that you are facing.
The speaker talked about different aspects of working in three different job environments: nation labs, industry and academia.
When working in national labs, you could have more life outside of work, job security, a good and decent salary and a lot of peers. However, locations of national labs are often remote and local population can be homogeneous. Often time the bureaucracy and security overkill can also be a burden overtime. For sensitive areas, a citizenship is required.
For industry jobs, one can have a better salary evolution if enough efforts are put, and is able to focus more on the technical stuff without too much burden from administrative processes. Because the nature of the work is leaning more towards development, the one's work can also have more impact. There can still be some life outside of work if it is the right company. However, when working in the industry, there can be frequent changes in managements that leads to the change of direction the team. The working environment has more distractions which can be terrible for some people. Career in a company can also heavily depend on the performance of the company itself, and as a result the job is less secure compared to jobs in the national labs. There can also be office politics that many people dislike. The speaker specifically mentioned that it is very important to know what exactly one would be doing for a industry job before signing the contract as some jobs in the industry can be quite boring.
The speaker said the best part of a career in academia is the environment and specifically the students. The job is also secure once entering tenure track. Professors can also leave a good legacy in the academia in terms of students, publications and recognition. When choosing universities, it is very important to consider the size of the university, the student body, teaching load, the opportunities the university can offer and capability of the university such as being able to provide lab instruments or important facilities.
In summary, the speaker said every option has its pros and cons and different options might be best for different stages of life. The most important aspects to consider when making a decision are: work life balance, finances, impact/legacy, development vs research and whether one can work with a boss or not. The most important thing to remember is never be afraid of changing the path.
I think this presentation is very informative and the speaker made strong points drawing his rich personal experiences.
The speaker illustrates the pros and cons among National Lab, Industry and Academia.
I remember that during the first lecture, Professor Klimeck did it as well. I like this sharing from professors very much, because we have few chances to listen about it. Every time we can discuss some points for research with professors, but I will really be appreciated if a certain professor could share his experiences!
Comparing with Professor Klimeck's job, the speaker tells us more about his research work. Although I am not working in this area (I am learning AC), I feel satisfied as well for widening my knowledge and knowing some experiences which I may never hold. So if the speakers describe their research work in detail, I will not think that it is a waste of time.
Besides, his points are closer to life. I mean that: One of his emphasizing point is spouse splitting. When others compare National Lab with industry or something else, they may just focus on the security of lab, salary as well as research freedom, like Professor Kilmeck. However, the remote working place does a negative influence for researcher in National Lab. So I think the discussion of that is meaningful. We need a life other than work.
I totally agree with his statement: "Choose different option for different stages." That is correct.
Choosing industry or academia has always been a question for a PhD doing strong application-based researches like me. The speaker's experience is across industry(motorola) and academia(OSU), so I think his presentation is very persuasive for me.
At the 3rd slide, he analysed pros and cons of joining a national lab, which includes items for a foreign student like me. He also said that he like working in the national lab, also the sad fact that workers getting fired. The details about daily work were really good and funny. If without his presentation, I would not take national lab as a pratical option.
His speech included both his major, research area(even with nice pictures!) and he can analyze questions from complex perspectives such as funding, wife, location, bureaucracy, payment and so on.
In his later slides he also analyze the pros and cons to work in industry. The facts that there may be not enough research jobs astonish me.
Overally, I think he has good speech skills and can deliver things clearly and logically, though some science concepts are quite new to me. The organization is consistent and with good logic so it's not very hard to follow him.
After this seminar, I learned to consider the career choice combined with more factors, not just salary. Although some data he referred are out-of-data in today's view, the mind-flow still applied. Also he made me to think about possibilities of changing research area in the long term. I shared this seminar to other PhD students that are confused by the same question as me.
I really appreciated his unique perspectives from academia, national labs, and industry. Because of his experiences he was able to compare and contrast the different types of work environments, types of projects, and types of legacies. I am personally considering industry for a few years after I graduate, then moving back into academia.
Here are some highlights from the types of jobs that stood out to me and my interests:
National Lab: Job security, bureaucracy, good work/life balance, inflexible work topics.
Industry: Better salaries, decent work/life, real-world projects, cubicle farms
Academia: Security (tenure, takes a while), legacy, teaching, research freedom
His comments on the master’s salary in industry caught my attention, that a master’s degree will not earn you much in industry (compared to PhD). This does not match the research I had done on the topic (master’s degrees can earn 18% more over their career, and their starting salaries are on average $10k more), I imagine things have changed over the years since his presentation. I would be interested in hearing more recent interests at the research facilities as well, as this presentation is from 7 years ago.
While he got a little too in-depth in the science of his work throughout the presentation, he also had a very good sense of humor, overall an extremely informative presentation, I would enjoy listening to this presentation in person. Considering where I am in my academic career, I am unsure of which path to take in the near future, and I appreciate his ending advice of ‘Don’t be afraid to change paths’.
Dr. Windl did an excellent job laying out the pros and cons of industry, nationals labs, and research. Personally, as someone looking to join the national labs next Fall, I found a number of his points about the lab very reassuring. In particular I look forward to having a life outside work as well as job security.
One the the points that I thought the presentation could improve upon was roughly in the middle of the presentation, the speaker focused on some of the work he did while at Motorola, going into great detail on the science behind what he was doing. As someone who doesn't have an interest in the area, this topic became very difficult to listen to. It's inclusion distracted from what was otherwise a very well organized presentation.
I also very much appreciate the bits of humor interjected and the very straight forward way the speaker described his points. This engaged me as the audience and made me pay much more attention to his individual points. His presentation was very organized, and he certainly covered the complete spectrum of the topic in sufficient detail.
Overall I gave the presentation a 4/5, with one point being removed for the extra technical information about his research that I feel was superfluous, but still an excellent presentation and one I would love to hear in person.
This lecture introduces the difference between national lab, industry and academia. I have to say, it is perfect and the talker is very funny.I love this talk.
After graduation, we have to face the question of where to work. No matter what we choose, every options has its pros and cons. There are some comparisons between national lab, industry and academia.
National lab: the good things are job security, good salary, focusing on work, and we can have a life outside work, while the bad things are the remote location, bureaucracy and the limited research area (most of them are sensitive researches). The speaker showed us his working experience of nuclear weapon research in the national lab, including what he did, where he worked and how was the salary. It's cool that he showed some real pictures of his work place to let us realize what "remote" really means.
Industry: Here, we can enjoy the things of salary involution, less administrative work, like proposal writing, and doing something that has meaning (which can be converted to real product). However, we have to bare frequent changes in management ladder, refocusing of work, job insecurity and the cubicles where we work. A wise suggestion is given by the speaker, that master is not so good financially, cause it only leads to tiny increase of salary compared with bachelor degree, but PhD is much more worthwhile.
Academia: In university, the job is stable and free. We can even leave some legacy (our students/publications/awards) after our death. But working there also means little time for life, and the people we work with are in training, because many of them are students.
Just as the speaker said, try to figure out what's important for you now and don't be afraid to change path. This is the right attitude we should hold while we pursue our career.
This was a great presentation! Dr. Windl goes into details in explaining the various career paths and discusses the benefits of each. I especially liked his details about where some national labs are in remote areas. However, being an older student and having worked with the Government already, I know there are some labs that are not in remote areas. For example, Livermore National lab is actually in a city area. Other jobs that are also not in remote areas can be like SPAWAR Pacific and/or Atlantic. Although these are not national labs they have just a good job security and work in conjunction with National labs to accomplish a specific government directive. I am not sure if he was suppose to give out the data on how many warhead we currently have in our stockpile. Isn't that data be classified?
I also liked the fact that Dr. Windl gave insight into what is really important. For example, he discussed the importance of legacy, where not only can you make an impact on your students, but when they donate to your University they themselves make an impact on other students. There are definitely a lot of struggles in the Industry. I think his example of management changing frequently in industry parallels that of the government and national labs as well.
I was not aware about the salaries in academia so I particularly enjoyed his comparison on the salaries. I understand that salary is not everything but financial stability is very important in life.
Dr Windl talks about his time at National labs and compares and contrasts this with his time at Motorola and Ohio State
I like the way he mentions that you start of with a position at the industry and then switch to academia since this path is always something which is possible(but you need to keep in mind that you may want to get into academia and follow what is ongoing in the field.) Dr Windl also mentions how writing proposals takes up a major part of his time and you need to keep the money flowing in to make sure you can do interesting research work.
Most of the work in national labs involves either nuclear stockpile simulation and his atomistic background was a good fit. He describes the work life balance at
national labs and says that being a professor is much harder. This is not something that I would have known.
Another interesting point that Dr Windl brings in this presentation is what is important changes with what part of your life you are in. These in turn cause you to change what you want to focus and work on. This was very insightful advice.
A very interesting presentation by Dr Windl - especially the Dilbert comic strip which he shared.
This lecture is very useful for Ph.D students like us because the main objective that is presented during the lecture is our life career after graduated from the university.
The spokesman is Dr. Windl, he first gave his own experiences about his career choices that were formed and his opinions for us. This is very helpful because we could take advantage of his experiences so that we could understand what those different working environments look like. Dr. Windl also discussed different factors that should be taken into consideration before choosing the future working environment. He gave details about different areas. For instance, National Laboratory is bounding with work security, and academia has less competitive than industry.
For the slides, I believe some slides have too much text information, and it could be made simpler. And the diagram in 6th slide could be made more clearly. The visual information in the slide is too much as well, some graphs are meaningless, or give repeat information. So that the slide could be better if it has less text information and less visual.
I picked this lecture because I wanted to get the perspective of an experienced individual on what career path to pick and this lecture did more than just state the pros and cons. The speaker makes the lecture very funny and interesting. He also has a lot of experience in teaching, industry and national laboratories and can provide a first person review of all three. From his talk, I can see that working in national laboratories can be both interesting and rewarding however, salaries can be fixed. His talk made me realise that even if a job in the industry is highly paying, it can get a little monotonous and not as satisfying. Teaching seems to be something that he has settled on and is passionate about. However, his needs and views about a job could be very different from mine and I'll have to experience each of them myself to settle on a definite career path.
A very refreshing and insightful lecture. The speaker, Dr Windl, seemed honest in talking about how his career choices were shaped up and his opinions about each of them. I thought it was very helpful to hear about the experience of someone who has had careers in different work environments. He talks about the good and the bad for all options. He also discusses different factors to think about before choosing one option. They are : living conditions in typical locations, salary/promotions and bonusses, job security, work/life management, legacy etc.. This lecture brought up several things that I found interesting. One main point he brought up was that depending on which point you are in your life, the career path that suits you may be different. While a 20 something without a family to look after may be able to work overtime and devote a lot of time to work, someone with a family to look after may want more time to spend with the family. From his experiences he talks about how working in national labs vs industry vs academia is different/similar in these aspects. While I very much appreciated the honesty, bluntness and the humor he brought to keep the audience engaged, I didn’t care for the slide “Will your wife hate you going nuke?”. However, I understand that this video may have been recorded a long time ago and the audience may have been an all-male crowd that day. But I would have given the speaker and the content five stars had it been more gender inclusive.
Dr. Windl's presentation on national labs, academia, and industry helped me to better make a distinction of which route I would like to go after graduation.
One of the things that I learned during the presentation was the job security that National Labs often have, at the cost of government bureaucracy and restricted location for work. I also learned that your research work can be particularly limited when working working for national labs.
Dr. Windl's talk about his work in industry brought to light information that I had not known previously. The large raises of 15-20% as well as bonuses was something that I had not known was so much higher than other areas. The information about the job security was also something that has helped me weigh my decisions better of what I will do after graduation.
Dr. Windl's information from his time in academia was something that I found particularly useful because of my current career goals. The "freedom" aspect of the job something that was particularly interesting to me. His thoughts on how he is able to work on his on passion projects was something that spoke to me.
One particular aspect that I think would improve the presentation would be more information on the differences in different types of universities (teaching vs research). This was mentioned, but I feel that it could have been expanded on more.
The seminar is very helpful and resourceful for people pursuing study and need to decide their future. The Speaker shares his work experience in 3 different areas: national labs, industry, and academia by addressing the pros and cons for each one in an objective manner by discussing different aspects like work hours, work environment, work location, salary and others which may affect someone's decision and lead him/her to his/her right carer path.
The speaker has a great sense of humor which makes the lecture interesting and he is good at keeping everyone's attention. The slides are informative and help to keep the lecture dynamic and I liked the last slide which is ended by " Don't be afraid to change path"
As someone trying to decide what course I would like to take in my professional life, I've found this presentation about Wolfgang's work experiences to be particularly useful and a good supplement to similar presentations given by others. Wolfgang's diverse experiences allow him to provide a single perspective on the three areas mentioned in the presentation, which I think is more unique and helpful than hearing from three different sources about their respective areas. This was well presented and I enjoyed Wolfgang's humor which kept an already interesting presentation very engaging throughout its entirety.
The only thing I would have liked to have seen added in the presentation is more detail on his transitions between the three major areas. This was briefly addressed during the Q+A at the end, but I would have liked to hear more about how difficult it was to move to academia from industry, what factors lead to the presenter's decisions to move to/from industry and academia, and if there was any benefit lost by making such transitions rather than staying in a single area for one's whole career.
The seminar helped me understand the several pros and cons that go into working in the National Lab, Industry and Academia.
Having myself worked in Broadcom for two years, the seminar helped me reminisce my experience of having worked in the industry while giving me a fresh insight into potentially working with the National Lab and Academia.
With respect to working with the industry I understood several things. Firstly, I learnt that it is important to ask the company you intend to work or find out by talking to employees of the company already in that position on what exactly the work is in-order to ensure that the job does end up being not mind-numbing to you. .
I also learnt that being in the industry helps you interact and build a network with several talented people which is otherwise hard to do if you are in the academia where you meet people less frequently and in conferences.
Having a research based job in the industry with opportunities to publish papers helps get back into the academia much easily.
Apart from industries, with respect to the academia I learnt that it’s hard to get things done in small universities due to lack of resources and sufficient manpower. Big groups in academia tend to have stronger funding but you know less about what another person is doing and hence the project on the whole.
Working with the national lab and academia have better job securities compared to working in the industry as they cannot be acquired whereas working in the industry helps you stay stronger financially.
I also learnt that working in areas such as graphene, energy, super battery with the academia pays off better currently due to the trends in progress in the mentioned areas.
Lastly, Professor Wolfgang Windl talks about “tenure”. I wish he had elaborated some more on the term with respect to the academia, the know-hows and the legal aspects that go into it.
Overall the seminar session was extremely resourceful and helped me understand it’s one’s priorities that have to weighed in-order to choose between working with the government, the industry or the academia.
This talk is very recommended for people pursuing study and are confused in choosing their career path. The speaker has a huge experience in all different types of jobs which are: Academia, Industry and National Lab. The most impressive thing in that talk is using an interesting comparison manner to show the Pros. and Cons. for each type of job. For example, if you need to collect much more money, National Lab work is better than being Professor in Academia but in the other hand, if you are international -like my case- the chance in Academia is much better than national lab. Also, the graphs of salaries and the degree effect is very good. For instance, if you become more patient and get Ph.D. instead of Master of Science, your jump in salary -if you work in Industry- will be higher. This thing encourages me a lot. Another interesting point for me was his experience with Motorola and the job-insecurity definition that he explains during his work in it and in Post-doc position. He showed with examples that the factor of money to be the only dominant isn't right thing. A negative point was an example of how to be a famous. I didn't like his way for showing examples for it with his examples. In summary, the talk is very useful and make an excellent argument about choosing the career path with considering all factors in it and how that changes within your career timeline.
Dr. Windl's presentation did an excellent job of comparing and contrasting the various options that one has after graduation. He was an excellent person, for the job, as he has experience in all three areas. One of the key aspects of his presentation I enjoyed was when he would go over the work that was accomplished during each of these jobs. It gave me a perspective into what interests me, why it is interesting, and the disadvantages of working this job. Further, Dr. Windl inserted some humor in his talk which was much enjoyed, with his slide, "Will your wife hate you going nuke?"
An even better option for this seminar would be to invite three different people who have been in industry, academia, and national lab all their life. Such a panel discussion would be more helpful as such individuals would be able to list some of aspects of the job of somebody well accustomed to this lifestyle. Furthermore, I think the discussion aspect would be more interesting compared to one person who has been involved in all three.
This lecture is very dynamic. The presenter talks in a good pace and has a great sense of humor. It is probably the funniest lecture. The presenter goes through his life experience on 3 different job types: national lab, industry and being a professor. Although explaining each job type from his point of view and through personal stories, it ends giving pros and cons for each of the 3 types of jobs. The pros and cons are presented in an objective manner and they discuss aspects like work environment, work hours, work environment, work location (if it is remote or in a big city), salary and more philosophical thinks like legacy or ethics of the work. This lecture make a great use of visuals, all the slides contain useful or fun information and help to keep the lecture dynamic. The only thing I would change from the talk is reduce a little bit the time where he talks about some technical details of his work.
The speaker right away shows a good sense of humor and is engaging with the audience. He’s good at keeping everyone’s attention. The first subject he discusses is working at a National lab. He starts off by pointing out the pluses and minuses. I thought the pluses of working at a national lab outweighed the minuses. Even some of his minuses were pluses in my opinion. He then goes into some detail about what he did at Los Alamos. He did a good job of staying broad so I could understand what he did and the importance of it. His work included finding the displacement threshold using radiation on certain materials. One of the biggest problems I thought was the bureaucracy he described. It seemed to be the biggest minus of everything and could be the deciding factor for most people.
The next topic is Industry. He starts off by pointing out that industry is best for making money. This segways into the pluses and minuses again. I thought the pluses slightly outweighed the minuses, but the minuses were pretty bad. The worst part was that there are hardly any research jobs available in industry. This Is probably even more true today, as this lecture was a few years ago. He then talks about his time at Motorola. His job mainly involved process modeling. It got a bit technical, but he did a good job of making it understandable. Another good thing about industry is that it has a wide variety of locations, unlike national labs. He gave good advice on avoiding “mind numbing jobs.” I liked how he said he started to like Dilbert cartoons after he worked in industry. Although partially a joke, he made a good point on how industry can change your perspective on the business world.
The final topic is on Academia. It probably has the most minuses of the three. He says that it is the most demanding job and that there is little time for life. He also says that there is a lot of freedom in academia, but at some point, it may be too much. I thought the legacy question was unimportant myself, but others may have found it important. It mainly had to do with how people viewed your life after you past away. He then goes into the specifics of academia and how research works. There is a different balance between teaching and researching at different universities depending on the size of the university. He then ends by summarizing how the three differ and how we should all take these into consideration when picking between the three.
Overall I thought the speaker was great. He kept my attention and I thought his advice was honest and blunt. It helped that he had a better sense of humor than most speakers. After watching the lecture, I think I am more suited to choose which of the three I would want to start out my career in.
This is a very interesting topic and usually it’s very difficult to find someone who has experience of working in a national lab, industry as well as academia. The presenter compares the three areas on their pros and cons. normally each person has a preference to a specific working culture. But we need to self-assess ourselves before diving into that work field. Being said that presenter’s varied work experience also showed that one can work in different work cultures and decide for themselves what works best for them. The selection of job can be based on pay, location, work environment, administrative work and job security. I also agree with the presenter, the job selection can also depend on at what stage of life you are at. I think being a graduate student; I will have less restrictions or constraints while selecting the first job. I do not see myself working in an academic environment but I would love to work in a national lab or corporate research lab. I like how presenter described each work culture with his personal experience. Even though his list of pros and cons are based on personal experience, I did not find them biased. The difference in research done in all these different sectors is very clear. From his personal research experience, I could see clear distinction between research with a freedom to work on research topic that interests you and a fast-paced teamwork-oriented research. Overall, it’s an informative and enlightening seminar topic and would recommend watching it.
This seminar has got to be one of the most engaging and interesting seminars I have ever watched or attended. Initially, I was just intrigued by the seminar title, however, as I kept on watching, I realized the presenter is actually giving answers to a very persistent question I have always had. Having a work experience of almost 4 years before I began my Masters, this question kept lingering in the back of my mind. However, when I saw his insight, it really made sense and I would say I see things a bit clearer.
The presenter began by going over his time at the Los Alamos National Lab, where he said there were few advantages in terms of his research area as he didn't want to work on nuclear weapons but had to as part of his funding situation. He also mentioned about the illogical communication about attending mandatory courses even when he had left the lab, which really made no sense. One thing that really interested me is the amount of lab bureaucracy. I didn't expect something like that at a national lab, but unfortunately that is the case. In terms of the salary, he pointed out that although the initial salary is at par with the industry, the rise is pretty flat.
For me the section where the presenter presented his industry experience was most insightful. I have always desired to do work that has an impact and it seems industry is the only place for that. Not only is the focus on technical work, but an employee has a decent salary evolution which is a great motivation. Also, an employee gets to have a fair enough work-life balance. Of course, there were certain cons, for example - frequent changes in the management that can lead to work confusion, job insecurity especially if the market goes down or the company makes a mistake in guessing the market trend. In such cases, despite being innocent, an employee can find himself out of a job. A big plus is that a graduate degree from a reputed first-tier university goes miles in securing a job that matches a student's expertise.
Even though I don't quite fancy a job in academia, there are undoubtedly some pros in this area compared to national labs or industry. Firstly, there is academic freedom and a very pleasant work environment with students. Secondly, there is very little or almost no job insecurity. The icing on the cake is the type of legacy one leaves behind at the end of an academic career in terms of supervised students and research work. However, all of that comes at a cost. For example, there is no set work-time: one almost has no time for personal life. Secondly, recognition or stable funding depends on the type of the institution. If it's a large first tier university, then there is large scale stable funding, inter departmental collaboration and technology exchange. However, in medium or low tier universities, there is a risk of abrupt ending of funding, very long time to get recognized and lack of good quality students.
As a conclusion, I really enjoyed this seminar as it helped me be convinced of my decision to join the industry. I would highly recommend this seminar to any and every student with whom I come across.
If you are a grad student and are uncertain about your future (i.e. where you want to work, academia, industry or a national lab) this is a great resource. The presenter talks about his time working in all three and does a good job showing the strengths and weakness of each. That said he did seem a little biased toward academia at times, like when he was talking about legacy. To his credit he did mention the greatest weakness of academia, that you as a professor can only work on things you can get funded, not whatever you want. In particular his pros/cons slides for each place are very helpful and a concise way of thinking of each type of venue.
One thing I particularly liked about this talk, is the presenter did a good job of using powerpoint. In our class (ECE694) many of the speakers have fallen for the ppt trap and they have slides with bullets listing what they are going to say. In contrast this speaker only uses the bullets when it makes sense like with the pros/cons slides that function as an outline for his discussion of each type of work environment. He also has many slides that use ppt well and uses flowcharts, scientific figures and pictures to good effect. I like when he showed a little about his work at each stop and went a little into the details of how he used his atomistic modeling technique at all 3 places he has been. It helps show how a career can be constructed from a scientific modeling technique and demonstrates the depth, focus and breadth of work he did.
I don’t have anything the speaker could improve, but Dr. Klimeck (or whoever is responsible for nanohub) could do a better job hosting the talk on nanohub. On the website, the “View Presentation” button launches a swf player which is total trash. You can’t make it full screen and it stops after every slide. If you poke around you can find a mp4 version of the talk which was much better, but it shouldn’t require searching. If you want to use an embedded player, youtube would be much better.
I appreciated that the speaker was very open and honest about his experiences (as much as he could considering he worked on nukes for the government, at least). The way he spoke about each career path was not narrow-mindedly colored by his own personal experience. The descriptions were of course largely influenced by his experience, but weren't at all close to a, "I had a bad boss therefore industry sucks," or, "All my grad students are dumber than a sack of bricks so don't go to academia," level of narrow-mindedness. To that end, he also did not say any one option was better. He was able to articulate what circumstances may cause someone to seek each of the career paths.
A few things I appreciated:
The speaker effectively described his research (no dwelling)
The speaker emphasized that different paths suit different people at different points in their lives, AND described the paths/people/points effectively
The speaker described paths in terms of multiple factors (i.e. colleagues, level of bureaucracy, legacy, salary)
I gave the talk 4/5 stars because the speaker talked with an outdated view of engineers. There was a slide about working on nukes and making your wife happy (albeit a funny slide, in my opinion). He also mentioned that going into certain fields as a single man means you'll come out as a single man because of the lack of women (this assumes said man is heterosexual and disregards any woman in the room). Unless he knew for a fact he was talking to exclusively heterosexual men, these comments were inappropriate and only reinforce engineering stereotypes. The speaker did not come across as sexist or homophobic at all, but rather not educated about basic inclusiveness in this regard. I must note that he was inclusive of different nationalities, being a German in the USA himself. I hope that in future discussions, the speaker accounts for people of other genders and sexual preferences when making those comments (totally doable, by the way, and can be just as funny while letting everyone in on the joke).
This is maybe one of the most interesting points that students want to know.
The presenter compare good and bad points on three job environments, national lab, industrial lab, and academic (university).
I just wanted to be a faculty member. However, I didn't have concrete information on the life of a professor. But, this time, I learned it.
All of three jobs have their own pros and cons. These descriptions are detailed because it is based on the presentor's experience.
For example, I didn't know how much difference in salary (e.g.., academic organization provides low salary), job insecurity for industrial lab, remote location of the working environment for national labs, and how much time to enjoy my life other than the main job (e.g., no such time on academic job).
These are very concrete and interesting points. Plus, the presenter is humorous in a proper level. I liked it.
If I pointed out some minus point, there are three points.
1. Some summaries are not intuitive when I read at first time. Use more intuitive description.
2. Don't mention your too detailed specific research area (off topic)
3. It seems hard and not his experience. But, I guess he talked about some industrial 'research' job. However, I want to get information on industrial 'engineering' job if possible
Although there are still some limitations and cons, the subject is very interesting for me. So, I give the perfect score on this lecture.
This presentation mainly demonstrated three different career paths: going to industry, academia, or national labs. It is particularly valuable to students who did not have a plan for the future.
Based on his personal experience, the speaker provided a detailed comparison among the three paths. At first, he talked about pros and cons of working in national labs, which were concluded from his a year and half working experience in Los Alamos Lab. Next, he illustrated working in industries like Motorola. Finally, he talked about his postdoc life at Ohio State University. To be more specific, he mainly discussed from the following aspects: technical details of what he worked on, the working environment, location problems, working load, and salaries. He also concluded that every path has advantages and disadvantages. For example, it is hard for people in research labs to find a balance between job and life, and funding would be a big problem. Industry often provides higher salaries but people have to deal with their managers. Even though academia has nice working environment but the teaching load might be heavy.
I found the speaker convincing because what he told us was his real life experience, and his stories were funny and enlightening. I would recommend this presentation.
The presenter clearly stated the objective: comparing and contrasting careers in industry, national laboratories, and academia. I particularly appreciated the concise pro con slides for each career choice. It was valuable to learn where the various occupations fell on the spectrum of income, life balance, and job security. The audience was effectively engaged halfway through the lecture with a slide of famous scientists. The lecturer asked the audience to name the scientists from their pictures alone. Overall this was an enjoyable and valuable lecture.
This talk is very interesting and useful to grad students who start worrying about what happens next after getting the certificate. 3 major possible career path are outlined: National Lab, Industry, and Academia, and each with extensive examples and comparisons.
One important point to note is the speaker actually worked in all 3 of the industry, so a relatively objective and detailed comparison between them are given. For example, the workload of National Lab < Industry < Professors.
The speaker also used a lot of graphs when explaining funding and salaries, in terms of degrees, experience, and area of work.
Lastly, some technical details of each of the job the speaker worked in was given, which I think was very nice as this gives some feeling of what kind of research each areas are actually doing.
Overall, this is a useful talk that provides information one must know before deciding where to go after graduation.
Undoubtedly one of the best talks in the seminar in my opinion. The talk not only provides a lot of relevant information but also does that in a entertaining and engaging manner. Listing/talking about the pros and cons of industry and academia is just what you would expect to hear. It really helped me take a peek into both lives though the experiences of the speaker. One of the questions that perplex people inclined to join the academia is that of funding. What if I'm not able to find enough funding to support students. The speaker, in the Q&A, talks about his experience with this and that was really helpful. We usually hear that different options suit different individuals. But the speaker tells the audience that at different stages in a single individuals life different things would seem attractive. For instance after 4-5 yrs in industry you would have to choose either the technical ladder or the management ladder to climb. At this point in time academia suddenly would start to look more interesting as making that choice is hard and either of those options may not be satisfactory (with all the accompanying politics).
All in all, that talk was excellent and inviting such speakers who speaks to the point and at the same time keeps it interesting would really enhance the seminar experience.
I really enjoyed this talk because it not only provides some work (research) examples but also working environments and salaries. I believe these are the most concerns for graduate students.
This talk gives detail comparison of three different job types. National labs can give you balance between life and work, but usually the locations are remote. People can focus on research. On the other hand, working in a company could earn you more money, especially when you work ten years or more in a company (His salary doubled in four years). However, it is more product related than research focused in a company. It is less secure to work in a company because company fires people depending on market. Working in academia will give you opportunity with young people and make you young. The ultimate goal is academic tenure and professor work very hard for it with little life.
This talk also answered my question that what would be difference in future career path between with a Master's degree and a PhD degree. This talk is also very interesting. A couple of jokes helped to make people refocus to the talk. So I consider this is a very good talk.
The talk weighs the pros and cons of working in industry (research), academia and at national labs based on the personal experiences of the speaker.
I enjoyed this talk as the material covered is highly relevant for graduate students who need to decide their career aspirations (long term) once they depart from university. I am a Master's student and have not experienced the long cycle of academic life of creating proposals, submitting papers for review etc. So this talk was a great window into what I think a post or job is about and what actually it is about. Further I have prior work experience so I could relate to some of the points of working in industry; especially the idea of creating something immediate that can be consumed by customers and the satisfaction that brings. Additionally, as an international student this was a window of working at different positions in America
The talk is not all about material pros and cons specific to the job but also talks about your sphere of life outside work and the impact your career choices can have on your friends, family and other personal life. This was an interesting angle that I have not seen before in similar talks. Depriving your spouse or family from achieving their career goals as a consequence of your choices can happen. There were some attributes assigned to jobs that are a litmus test to whether you might enjoy the job long term. For example, academic jobs are largely working with students - do you like that?
Personally this talk reinforced some of my thoughts on these career paths and also clarified my thinking with respect to others. Leaving the talk I will make a more accurate decision of which path I would like to travel. Furthermore, I really appreciated the humor and candid nature of the speaker. It really transformed the talk and kept me engaged throughout.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Aravindh Shankar @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Feedback: I really liked this presentation by Dr. Wolfgang Windl. His sense of humor, speaking rate and quality of content was excellent. I want to highlight particular strengths below:
1. Humor: I found myself quite captivated throughout this lecture and wondered what made it so easy to watch the entire length of it. I realized that a big part of this was the fun remarks he added in between, some of which made me laugh out loud. I've realized now that this is a useful aspect for speakers and that it is not a personality trait that should necessarily be suppressed in formal presentations.
2. Confidence: The speaker appeared very confident in manner and seemed to be comfortable with the material on the slides.
3. Spontaneity: I appreciated that he made certain decisions on the fly (such as which content to skip) and reacted to comments and situations in an extempore manner, which made the presentation further captivating for me.
4. Quality of material: The advice and thoughts presented by this speaker were fantastic. He is in a unique position to give this talk, having worked in industry, national lab and university environments. I like that his plus and minus points for each choice were broad - they encompassed professional life, material aspects, personal life and future prospects, covering all the points that I was interested in.
Things that could be improved/negative feedback:
1. I have just one point in this section: I felt that there could be more diversity in the examples chosen by this speaker. A majority of the famous people highlighted during his talk (shown in a positive light) were men. While I'm sure that he himself has worked with and supported women and individuals from under-represented backgrounds, it would be encouraging for viewers from such minorities (in academia/deep tech/R&D) to see more diverse and relatable examples.
Conclusion:
I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Windl's presentation and would suggest that he is invited to speak in future iterations of this course. He offers a unique perspective in an effective manner and I honestly feel that I have benefited from watching his presentation.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Sai Ritvik Tanksalkar @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I really liked the perspective that Dr. Windl placed in front of the audience. Knowing about various options that one has after pursuing their higher studies truly brings forth some clarity on what one should expect from various opportunities of work life. He also went in depth about the pros and cons of life at national lab, Industry and academia all the while discussing about the financial, ethical and political aspects of different kinds of research carried out at the aforementioned places. He also compares salaries vs the amount of effort one needs to put across all the domains which really sheds some light into what one has to expect after their PhDs. The presentation also goes around aspects of how experiencing a bit of everything can prove to be very beneficial for anything that one chooses to work on for their rest of life. For instance, academia humbles one, industry puts in some "common sense", dealing with management etc. and working with labs gives a good taste of how research goes in for high impact research. Another captivating thing about this presentation his how Dr. Windl also goes through some lesser discussed aspects of life such as "Midlife Crises" where people think what they will be remembered for when they die and how one can leave some impact through academic endeavors such as Publications, students etc. which is absent in other domains. Lastly, Dr. Windl encourages people to not be afraid of changing paths until one explores and finds what's truly worthwhile.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Taasin Azam @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I loved this seminar by Dr. Windl! Not only was the presentation done well, but the information provided is also crucial for anyone actively seeking employment.
Which sector to go into after graduation has often been a question I contemplate and discuss with my friends and family. But Dr. Windl’s insight into the matter, especially using his own experience of working in each industry, has proved the most useful. To begin with, the fact that he worked in national labs, industry and academia is already very impressive, but then the breakdown of life in each category he provided, along with pros and cons, made comparing the sectors so much easier. As a budding professional, I believe the right path for me at this point is industry. According to Dr. Windl, industry instills a work ethic that will be beneficial later in lab or academic work.
What I truly appreciated about the lecture was that an individual does not need to stick to a single sector forever. I could choose to switch in the future, depending on my needs – something I had never really considered before. Great seminar!
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jingsong Lin @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Prof. Windl gave an insightful talk on comparing personal experience in national labs, industry, and universities. I chose this seminar because, as a new PhD student, I do not have a clear path regarding which road I should choose after I graduate.
As a scholar who has personally experienced all three areas, which is not common, he shared some experiences that outsiders are not aware of. For example, it is good to know his experience of continuously taking online courses after leaving the national lab. He also shared some interesting thoughts that I had never considered, such as the legacy in academia. The final slide of his talk was most insightful for me: Every job has different pros and cons, and the key to finding a suitable job is to identify what is important to me. Thanks to Prof. Windl's talk, I now have a clearer thought about what career choice is suitable for me.
One piece of advice on the talk is that I do not think Prof. Windl needed to provide too many details of his research projects at Los Alamos National Lab, Motorola, and Ohio State University. It is good to know the areas he worked on, but too much detail is not necessary for the topic of this talk.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Charles Thomas Brookshire @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fantastic presentation on the varying differences between 3 major routes we have as graduate students. As someone who began their graduate career with the intention of taking an academic route, I desperately wish I had been pointed towards this presentation much earlier. Many of the negative aspects that were pointed out in this path are things that I have slowly realized throughout my time as a graduate student. As a result, I have begun to adjust my career path to better suit what I want out of my career.
While the information provided is mostly from the perspective of one person, I do believe Dr. Windl's experiences provide an overview on what can be expected. I look forward to using this information to help me guide my new path and proceed in a successful manner! I am really curious as to how the focus of work has changed in the national labs compared to when this presentation was given. Would really like to see a talk similar to this again with maybe a more modern look.
If I were to critique one aspect of the talk, it would have to be this "legacy" discussion point. To me it feels so tailored towards the academic route, when I don't think its restricted to that career space. Despite that, I also found it might have been focused on a bit too much in the presentation. To me it seems to be the least relevant discussion topic.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Taiwo Michael Adeshakin @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Insightful! If I were asked to give this presentation one word, that is what it would be. I found this talk really insightful, as I learned many things that I did not know before, and it would also be useful for me in navigating my future career. Although I noticed some of the pieces of information he disbursed during the presentation were quite outdated, I believe the pieces of information could still be factors that could be considered when determining what path to take when deciding your future career.
Professor Windl spoke about his experiences working in the industry (different positions at Motorola), a national laboratory (a postdoctoral fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory), and academia (a professor at The Ohio State University). He listed the pros and cons of each career path according to his experiences in each of the places and factors that could be considered for each of them. I appreciated the fact that he was completely open and honest in his review of the three sectors of work. Being a professor, that did not make him want his audience to want to follow his path and "sell" academia to them. Instead, he encouraged his listeners to try out each before finally deciding on what they wanted to settle for and even changing paths whenever they wanted to! I liked the fact that he spoke generally, considering international students when listing his pros and cons.
Listening to this presentation was a real eye-opener for me, as I can now confidently decide what I really want to do for my future career with the relief that I can switch whenever I want to and still be accepted wherever I go. Again, what an insightful presentation!
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Caroline Campbell Gilbert @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Personally, I genuinely enjoyed watching Dr. Windl’s presentation on “What’s Better - National Lab, Industry, or Academia?” because it introduced me to thinking about potential career paths outside of industry. As a 4+1 computer engineering student, I have tailored my academic experience with the goal of obtaining a well-paying job in industry after graduation. In other words, I have not allotted significant time to evaluating the pros and cons of working in industry in comparison to a career at a national lab or in academia. Accordingly, Dr. Windl’s presentation introduced me to these advantages and disadvantages which reaffirmed my career goal of obtaining a job in industry. While I am definitely drawn to the pros of a career in a national lab or academic, such as: having a life outside of work, job security, and legacy, in my opinion these factors do not outweigh the advantages of a job in industry. For instance, I am personally very motivated by the potential for salary growth, lack of administrative work, impactful technical work, and “common sense infusion”. That being said, Dr. Windl brings up a good point in mentioning that industry jobs can face job insecurity and frequent changes to work culture or managerial visions. These factors do worry me about a job in industry; however, I am still more interested in this career path. Overall, Dr. Windl presented the comparison of career paths in national labs, industry, and academia effectively by clearly listing the corresponding pros and cons while providing justifications for his claims based on his personal experiences. In summation, I gained valuable knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of working in a national lab, industry, and academia, which has helped me make educated decisions about which line of work is best for me and my future career goals.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Hongjae Nam @ on
0.0 out of 5 stars
I'm grateful for Dr. Wolfgang Windl's presentations (.mp4) for comparing careers in industry, academia, and national labs. As an Electrical Engineering student experienced in nano-device fabrication, I found Dr. Windl's story with materials science and engineering particularly interesting. Although it's been some time, the salary comparison graph between academia and national labs from his lecture provided helpful clarification of reality. Dr. Windl's experiences with Los Alamos National Lab, Motorola, and as a Professor at Ohio State University, along with his presentation that clearly compares the pros and cons, helped me understand the trajectory of his life and his personal views. Especially noteworthy was the topic of working in nuclear science and considering the spousal perspective, a new concept for me as a first-year PhD student, which highlighted the importance of considering family and external situations in career planning. Dr. Windl's diverse experiences across different fields have inspired me to broadly plan my future prospects.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jiaming Wang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I watched this seminar because I am near graduate, and I am looking for some suggestions on my career path. I must admit I want to make a lot of money after graduation, but I found today’s market. So, I have to reconsider and ‘replan’ my future career.
I very much enjoy watching this video. It provides a detailed comparison of career paths in academia, industry, and national laboratories, emphasizing the unique aspects of each sector. The collaborative and open-ended nature of academic research, the project-driven and results-oriented environment in industry, and the blend of fundamental and applied research in national laboratories all bring me a deeper understanding on all of them. Thus what is the most important is still to align my own passion and career goals with the right environment. Like WLB, worrying about fundings.
I did learn a lot through this and I will spend more time on doing more research on these, and I will expand my career options when submitting my resume.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jiaming Wang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I watched this seminar because I am near graduate, and I am looking for some suggestions on my career path. I must admit I want to make a lot of money after graduation, but I found today’s market. So, I have to reconsider and ‘replan’ my future career.
I very much enjoy watching this video. It provides a detailed comparison of career paths in academia, industry, and national laboratories, emphasizing the unique aspects of each sector. The collaborative and open-ended nature of academic research, the project-driven and results-oriented environment in industry, and the blend of fundamental and applied research in national laboratories all bring me a deeper understanding on all of them. Thus what is the most important is still to align my own passion and career goals with the right environment. Like WLB, worrying about fundings.
I did learn a lot through this and I will spend more time on doing more research on these, and I will expand my career options when submitting my resume.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yusuf Kolawole Adebakin @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I am excited to share how impactful Dr. Wolfgang's presentation was. He shared his personal experiences working in different areas including Industry (Motorola Inc. as a staff scientist), Academia (Ohio state University as a Professor ), and National Laboratory ( Los Alamos, as a Postdoc.). He mentioned a good number of advantages being in any of the areas and as well shared possible disadvantages that exist in each area. In Academia, he related how working in an institution can provide seamless academic relationship with many students, job security after getting a tenured position but it may take a while to get one, and also granting academic freedom. At the same time, being in academia can be demanding with little time for personal life activities.
Working in industry gives the opportunity to implement ideas that can directly impact the development of the society, gives a good pay, and can also provide opportunity to have balance between work and personal life activities. However, the frequent change in management ladder can affect the progress of engagement and job security isn't assured as the continuation of engagement is a function of the company's growth. He also added that working in National laboratory provides ample time to have life outside work, access to collaborate with many researchers and can also be a good area to make sustainable earnings. despite all these advantages, citizenship is a restricting factor to get in for most of international students and the chain of communication may not be favorable in getting things done as swift as possible.
Dr. Windl emphasized the importance of considering family, job demands, impact, legacy and finances when choosing a career path and also encourages everyone not to be afraid to change paths based on evolving priorities and circumstances. He also added that it is necessary to recognize that every career option has its advantages and disadvantages and the right choice may vary based on different life stages and priorities. In addendum, he stressed the scope of being impactful which is a good avenue to create a lasting legacy.
I must say, experiences shared in the presentation are definitely going to be helpful.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Shivam Duhan @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr Windl's presentation cystallized his personal experiences in industry, national lab, and academia and in turn gave me a lot of clarity on where I want to work in my career. Some of the pros of national labs like high salaries were surprising to me although being an international rules it out as a viable career path for me. Also, I underestimated the amount of uninspiring but important work national labs do like stockpile stewardship and it's not something that interests me at all. The focus on spouse and location made sure the analysis was very holistic, which I appreciated. His example on lab bureaucracy was hilarious to me as industry has way worse bureaucracy with respect to orientation courses and training to be completed. I thoroughly enjoyed Dr Windl's review of work in industry as it is most relevant to my interests. His coverage of the pros was comprehensive but his analysis of the cons of industry work is off-mark, probably because the presentation was 13 years ago. Currently, there are lots of great research jobs in industry at big stable companies where research focus doesn't vary too much and there is substantial job security. The work that he did at industry was both more impactful and more interesting than his national lab work, although I think he went into too much detail. The salary numbers also don't mean much in today's context. His analysis on the cons - working in cubicles and technical individual contributors being "losers" also doesn't apply anymore. The analysis on academia surprised me, because it is as close to an ideal environment for me as I can dream about but I never really considered academia to be a primary option for myself. I liked his explanation of the academic environment, legacy, and freedom inherent in the job, and his cons about it being demanding aren't really cons in my eyes. The presentation made me rethink my priorities and reconsider a further career in academia, which is a very valuable thing for a presentation to accomplish.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Pallavi Gajjar @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I found Dr. Windl’s presentation comprehensive and insightful, and his oration eloquent with several intermittent humorous references to keep the audience engaged throughout. He started off his presentation by briefing the audience on his work experience chronologically which served as an important reference for the whole presentation. He then transitioned to talking about the pros and cons of working at a national lab, industry, and academia overarchingly comparing the aspects of job security, research focus, funding, legacy, salary evolution, work environment, bureaucracy, management hierarchy, job location, and life outside of work. He also brought an immigrant’s perspective to working in the United States which is helpful to international students.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Vaishakh Deshpande @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl’s presentation on working at industry versus academia versus a national lab was surprisingly impactful even though I have made up my mind on going into industry. While a driving force for industry is salary evolution and a steady work-life balance, I was surprised to see all the other nuances supporting academia and national labs. As youngsters, we often lack the experience to have insights on making informed decisions regarding one’s career. We are often driven by the experiences of others, our level of technical interest, and money. But having someone who has worked in all three give his experience is ideal for graduate students, like us, who are at a pivotal point in our career planning, in making smart and informed decisions. I was, especially, surprised to learn about the perks of working at national labs. But a lot of it definitely stems from me being a non-citizen and being ineligible to work there. But after this presentation, I am definitely open to the idea of one day working at a national lab once I get my citizenship. I see myself transitioning from industry into academia or a national lab at some point where I want more stability and do not care too much about money. Overall, Dr. Windl’s presentation has played an impactful role in validating my decision to go into industry. I do not have any critique as whatever I felt he had missed was then covered in the QnA at the end.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Prajwal Rao @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Wolfgang Windl's lecture on postgraduate career choices served as a comprehensive guide for students navigating the complexities of academia, industry, and national labs. The presentation, while informative and insightful, also left room for constructive feedback.
The lecture effectively dissected the pros and cons of each career path, shedding light on crucial factors like job security, work-life balance, and career growth. Dr. Windl's personal anecdotes added a practical touch, making the content relatable for students facing similar decisions. The incorporation of humor injected a light-hearted tone into serious considerations, making the lecture engaging and approachable.
However, one notable aspect deserving attention is the balance between personal experiences and broader insights. While Dr. Windl's technical anecdotes provided valuable context, they occasionally overshadowed the overarching discussion. Striking a more even distribution between personal stories and general insights would enhance the lecture's overall effectiveness.
Additionally, the visual elements, such as slide design and font choices, could benefit from refinement. Some slides featured disproportionately large words, affecting readability, and certain figures lacked the expected self-explanatory quality. Improving these visual aspects would contribute significantly to the overall clarity and impact of the presentation.
Despite these areas for improvement, Dr. Windl's lecture undeniably delivered valuable information for postgraduate students. The real-world examples and the speaker's ability to inject humor into serious topics make this presentation a worthwhile resource for those grappling with career decisions after completing graduate studies. With a more balanced distribution of content and enhanced visual elements, the lecture has the potential to become an even more impactful guide for students on the brink of making crucial decisions about their professional paths.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Samantha Kaitlyn Newlin Thompson @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Professor Windl provided insights into different industries/sectors through real-life experiences. As an engineering student it is difficult to know where to work post-grad (national labs, industry, or academia) without having experienced them. He provided a comprehensive exploration of the practical facets of careers by navigating through work-life balance, job expectations, and the limitations in each sphere. Furthermore, the presentation did well in providing insights into the merits and drawbacks of various career experiences, including a candid evaluation of salaries. Through his comparison of the three areas, Professor Windl was able to provide valuable guidance for those contemplating their career trajectories and the financial implications therein. He also offered invaluable context for navigating the complex terrain of academic and professional pursuits.
However, some technical aspects of Professor Windl’s personal experience would be challenging to follow for some. A suggestion for improvement concerning this would be to provide more clarity for these sections or keep them brief to help keep the audience engaged. Another area of improvement would be to improve the slide aesthetics by ensuring figures and plots are self-explanatory.
Overall, I appreciated his candidness and humor throughout the presentation, as well as hearing about his life experiences in each area. His seminar serves as a beneficial resource for individuals seeking clarity on their professional career path.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Younggil Chang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
In Professor Windl's presentation, he discussed a wide range of topics, drawing from his experiences in nuclear national lab, academia, and industry. He highlighted practical aspects such as work-life balance, job expectations, and industry limitations.
His insights into the pros and cons of each work experience and salary evaluation based on his career path were particularly informative. He also offered a clear comparison between academia and industry, addressing career choices and income implications.
Using diagrams effectively, he combined objective information with his personal views. For someone like me considering a PhD, his practical advice on financial and career benefits was invaluable. Professor Windl's seminar was beneficial for me to gain more context in navigating my academic and professional career.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Mehdi Davoudi @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I have always had this concern about which occupation will be perfect for me after graduation. Thus, the first time that I saw the title of this lecture, I thought it might help me have a clearer vision of the future. Let's start with an overview of the lecture. I believe Dr. Wolfgang Windl gives a clear understating of how working in academia, national labs, or industry can be different from each other. For each of these positions, the lecturer presented some pros and cons.
I do not want to repeat those pros and cons again, as they are listed in the slides as well. At the end of the presentation, he also discussed what your legacy would be with some famous examples. I believe most of the students have pointed out the positive points about this presentation. I do not want to repeat them. Yes, I enjoyed it, and I learned from it. However, I believe the lecturer could talk less about technical issues from his own experience. I lost track of those parts of the presentation! Moreover, better fonts could be used in the slides! Some words are really large, and there are some words and phrases in some slides, which make it hard to read them. Finally, I believe the figures and plots should be self-explanatory, yet I hardly see this important feature in his presentation.
Once again, I know that this lecture has too many positive points that I really enjoyed as well and helped me to better understand the differences among these job positions, yet I believe this presentation can be improved considering the comments that I gave.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yi Xie @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I'm always having the concern that whether I should stay in college for a PhD degree or finish my master's degree and go to the industry or join a national lab to do further research study. This lecture gives a very clear comparison among these three choices.
First of all, stay in the academic is a very wise choice, since this allows you to do the research whatever you want and at meanwhile, you have a very flexible time schedule to arrange your own research. However, in this path, most likely I need to obtain a PhD degree and it's always not easy to be successfully finish a PhD degree. This means I have to be prepared for five or six years to do research and write paper and continue doing research. I asked myself while watching the lecture, do I really wanna stay in school for five years and pursue a PhD degree? I feel like myself would say no and willing to go to the industry.
There are some pros and cons for people who go to the industry. The pros are that you get a good paid salary and you don't need to work whole day long, which means that you will have a good work and life balance. However, the cons are that you may facing some management change or even lose the job when the company doesn't run well and do the lay off. As a result, you need to look for new jobs and it maybe very annoying. But personally, I would prefer go to the industry after graduation. That's also the way I choose.
For staying in the national lab, I personally feel it is not as good as staying in the school. Therefore, I would make this as my last choice. Overall, this lecture has very detailed explained each career paths' pros and cons, providing students a very constructive perspective of choosing their career path. Highly recommend!
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Andrew Swanback @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
One thing I appreciate about most of these speakers but especially Wolfgang is that they always keep it real, giving immensely practical advice without the normal equivocating or preaching that most people do. They emphasize where needed that your mileage may vary, but back up their assertions with personal evidence and anecdotes that reinforce their experience. His focus on data like many engineers is always helpful, to see salaries but also contrast with the softer and more important things like work life balance, location, etc. I personally think the appeal to legacy isn't very strong merely because all of us are young as an audience, so I don't feel a driving need for something like that yet. It is always interesting to see what people in different life phases value however so this is an important part of the presentation.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rakesh Kumar Iyer @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Wolfgang Windl's presentation on the pros and cons of working in academia, industry, and national labs was informative, engaging, and provided valuable insights for students navigating the complexities of postgraduate career decisions. The presentation offered a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each field, helping the audience gain insight into various aspects of job choice, including job security, work-life balance, career growth, ethical concerns, salaries, and potential research roles for PhD students.
Academia
Industry
National Labs
Dr. Windl's presentation was well-organized and engaging, using humor, structured presentation, and interactive engagement to make the session both educational and enjoyable. He left the ultimate decision of which career path to pursue to the individual, encouraging them to carefully consider their priorities and preferences.
Overall, Dr. Windl's insights provided valuable information and considerations for students making career decisions after completing their graduate studies.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Shoaib Mahmud @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is an interesting seminar to hear the real-life story of a person having job experiences in a national lab, industry, and academia. He mentions the pros and cons of the different positions with a very nice and clear explanation, and draws a comparison based on those. He starts with his experience in a national lab where he mentions job security and the opportunity to focus on research as major plus points. He next discusses his experience in industry about which he says that the work environment and job security might not be good despite good income. He ends with his ongoing experience in academia where he thinks that he has more freedom than that of a national lab or industry. However, the position in academia is highly demanding and needs a lot of effort. The viewers of this seminar will certainly get a good idea about the working environment in different places and be able to choose their career accordingly.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Shuting Du @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl's lecture on academic and industrial careers was highly engaging and informative. His method of structuring the talk along his own career timeline brought a unique, personal touch to the discussion. It was particularly interesting how he connected different career stages to varying personal values and priorities, such as a recent graduate's focus on salary versus a seasoned professional's emphasis on work-life balance. This perspective was not only enlightening but also humorously presented, making the presentation both enjoyable and thought-provoking. This talk provided valuable insights into potential career paths and the factors that should be considered when choosing them. Overall, Dr. Windl's experienced and humorous approach made for a worthwhile and eye-opening session.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Scott Edward Kenning @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This was quite a fun talk that addressed what are essentially serious considerations with a sense of humor. It also points out, although with a sense of humor, some of the more bleak experiences post-grad school. I think the most valuable part of it was the speaker's experience with "job events" that most people dread: cutting of funding with only a few weeks notice, entire divisions being laid off, etc. It illustrates that even with a PhD, doing a research job that actually has security is a scarce resource. But also, the speaker was able to find a better job after each of these events. This is encouraging to know.
Now that this video is over a decade old, the trends pointed out (decrease in research jobs in industry) was spot on. Based off of the people I know working at national labs, the description of life there is also accurate. I would have liked a bit more detail on how the transition from industry to academia happened, however. This is often mysterious whenever it happens.
Finally, the slides are essentially a good reference. The bullet points throughout essentially serve as an "if this is a consideration, then this is good for that" guide.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Oindrilla Sanyal @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Wolfgang Windl's insightful presentation covered the merits and drawbacks of academia, industry, and national labs, offering a comprehensive view of job choices. He discussed crucial aspects like job security, work-life balance, career growth, and ethical considerations.
By analyzing all three options candidly, Dr. Windl made it easier to evaluate them based on common factors. He highlighted the strengths of academia and national labs, emphasizing job security and research focus. Industry, while more financially rewarding and efficient, lacks job security and research opportunities.
Personally, I favored the security and research focus of National Labs, despite potential limitations in career growth. Dr. Windl stressed that career choices shape our legacies, noting academia's appeal in contributing to research and academic life, albeit with lower salaries and more effort securing funding.
Ultimately, the decision depends on individual interests, goals, and circumstances. Graduate students should thoroughly explore each path, weighing their pros and cons while considering the crucial aspect of work-life balance.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Aravindkumar Rajakumar @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This seminar stands out as one of the most engaging and enlightening sessions I've ever attended. Initially drawn in by the intriguing title, I found the presenter addressing a lingering question I've had since starting my Master's after almost two years of work experience. The insights provided throughout the seminar have brought clarity to my perspective.
Dr. Windl began by sharing experiences from the Los Alamos National Lab, highlighting challenges such as research constraints tied to funding and bureaucratic hurdles. Industry insights were particularly eye-opening, emphasizing the impactful nature of the work, salary evolution, and work-life balance. Despite potential drawbacks like management changes and job insecurity, the industry seemed appealing, especially for its focus on impactful technical work.
While academia may not be my preference, the seminar underscored its merits, including academic freedom, a pleasant work environment, and job security. However, these benefits come with trade-offs such as an unpredictable work schedule and dependence on the institution's reputation for funding and recognition.
In conclusion, Dr. Windl's presentation emerges as a valuable resource for students navigating the complexities of postgraduate career decisions. His skillful combination of humor, structured presentation, interactive engagement, and thought-provoking insights makes the session both educational and enjoyable. It is very clever the way he leaves this question to be answered by the individual themselves, so that they can take their time and brain storm what they actually want to do.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Chihyu Lai @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Professor Windl's talk was very helpful and informative. He made a hard topic easy and fun to understand. He talked about his experiences working in national labs, industry, and academia, focusing mainly on the semiconductor industry.
I found the talk very helpful because he listed the benefits and drawbacks of each route from his personal experience. Also, he explained very well the type of results or legacy you might leave in each different route. Furthermore, his topic was related to my interests, so I found some of the more technical examples he gave very interesting and helpful at the same time.
In conclusion, I think this talk would benefit any graduate student who is unsure of their career path.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Hyunseung Kim @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Professor Windl's presentation was both informative and engaging. His excellent sense of humor was integrated into the lecture, making it enjoyable and easy to focus . He used clear outlines to structure his talk, which helped keep the audience's attention. The use of anecdotes increased the presentation's appeal. Furthermore, Windl's insights into the academic path versus the industry were particularly valuable for me and especially for graduate students who need to make this decision. While his focus was on the semiconductor industry, it would be interesting to hear similar presentations from professors in AI industry. In summary, Professor Windl's presentation is a valuable resource for students facing postgraduate career choices.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rose Yvonne Sardina @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Professor Windl has a great sense of humor and uses it very well throughout his presentation. I liked how Professor Windl set up the presentation, he showed an outline of what he was going to talk about at the beginning and then each subsection also had an outline, the overview slides. Then when he went into the subsections, he used a lot of photos on the slides and a lot of stories which I find more interesting and helps to keep my attention. He also interacted with the audience well, especially when going into more details about his industry work and asking the audience if they were interested in the science. I found it really insightful when he started talking about your legacy and how going into academia would allow your legacy to live on easier than being in industry or in a national lab. Since Professor Windl’s presentation mostly focused on semiconductor industry as that is what his experience was, I would be interested in seeing a similar presentation from another professor who is in another industry within electrical engineering.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Nikita Ravi @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Professor Windl was an entertaining professor and he is extremely funny. He also makes sure his audience understands the basic idea of relevant complex physics principles, knowing very well his audience were a bunch of electrical and computer engineers. His slide deck was extremely concise, straight to the point, and easy to read so it was easy to follow his lecture and the slide deck. The professor uses personal anecdotes to make his points on academia vs industry which in my opinion is extremely useful. As a graduate student myself doing research, I myself have had doubts on whether to pursue academia or industry and I like how professor Windl's opinions helped reassure me that the choice I made is a good one for me.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Peter Anson Sperry @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture was a very good look into all facets of life and the types of jobs that are possible for a postgraduate student. I thought that he did a great job of keeping attention throughout the presentation by using some humor. I thought that he could have used less "absolute" language when talking about entire industries. For example, talking about how there are very few research jobs available. However, his insights into the life inside Los Alamos was new to me, and I thought it was interesting to hear about. It was obvious that he did not have a very fond memory of his industry experience, but, then again, it is a seminar on his personal experiences. Overall, very good (and funny, which is a big plus for me).
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Fanyang Cheng @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The talk made by OSU professor really changed my prospect about the work path of company, national lab as well as the academic professor. The most closed one I've learnt is about the professor. (obvious, as it is the first job path you can find in school). However, it is still very different when you consider the job on a student's perspectives compared to see it on a professor's. You would need to balance the teaching workload especially you do not want to be an upper level high school teacher. And it could be drastically different when you consider a small university and a large one. While you would need to work with the not-well-trained people (different students) that you can not expect them to outstandingly perform well, the good thing is that after spend a very long period, you can finally get a "work secure" which you will not be fired. Compared with academic path, you will have more time for your life if you choose to work in a National lab. Though you could not have a very high salary like being a professor, you could get real free time during weekend. But you would need to deal with some annoying works that make no sense to you and sometimes you need to go out for business trip for a long time, or sometimes you could not say anything about your work if you really go for a work like nuclear weapon. It is somehow a very stable work without large amount of hardworking, but you would need to make a lot of confess also. And the most different work that differ from my perspectives is the company. Based on this presentation, you will earn a large amount of money if you decide to work in a private company. (compared to the previous two) But you need to first understand that all of your work will be assigned by your boss. And it is possible that your boss change the task quickly and unexpectedly. Also, the office politic is very useful if you want to work smoothly in the cubicle. If you want to do it well in company, you will need to consider to reach your boss' position/ do your boss' job within about four years or you need to consider to change a job. It could be considered a success if you reach out to management position and in comparison the so called technical expert who stayed in the company for many years are just losers. So it sounds like that work in company is a good way to earn quick money. You will get high payment, you will need to deal with instantly changing situations with great pressure.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Nicole Marie Kozel @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Wolfgang Windl gave this talk that navigated the pros and cons of national labs, industry, and academia based on his personal experiences. I enjoyed this talk because I don't feel that it's common to have the chance to hear first-hand thoughts on these areas from just one person. I also liked how clear he was about the type of work involved with each, as it gave a clearer understanding on expectations as a worker instead of just general overview of points.
When talking about national labs, Wolfgang did lose me a little bit on the technical talk, but I liked how he branched out into talking about the way working in a national lab affected life outside of work. He brings forth the topic of living situations and even the ethical questions that may come into play depending on the type of work being done. That last point is one that I've personally thought a lot about given my area, so it was interesting hearing someone else talk about that too. National labs offer good job security and collaboration while providing workers with time for family and such, but they are restricted on locations and can be annoying with security and training (which is a complaint as I've worked with government before and have found that the processes for all of that can be incredibly frustrating to sort out).
Industry is where big money is made. One can more easily climb the ladder to get better positions and pay, and there is more flexibility on where to work. It is more focused on application than research (although there is some), and what you do is used to make a difference. The work one does has a bigger impact on citizens than national labs where what is done is done for the government. The problem with industry is that things change both in management and potentially one's security of their position. Work environment may not be great either, and it can limit your family life more than national labs. I was interested in learning about this area more because there are not many options for my main interest in the commercial sector, but it does seem like I may be able to make more money here if I desired.
Academia was one that didn't surprise me personally given that my dad has been a professor for my whole life, but it's reassuring to have my knowledge of the area confirmed from another source. Academia is one of the most time consuming paths. Work is not just done during the normal work day but also at home and for varying amounts of time between teaching, grading, office hours, and research. It's a demanding but rewarding job. You get to be around what's new and engage with the next generations. You leave a bigger impact on the world and the people you interact with. It takes time to get to where you want to be, but you can have great job security if you have tenure. As Wolfgang pointed out, the legacy factor does come into play. There's a bigger picture of what you leave behind and the impact you've made on the world. Whether it's through students or papers, it's something that will last.
As I said, I knew about academia from a personal perspective, and while I find it respectable, I've known it's not for me. That being the case, I've been uncertain of if I want to go into a national lab or industry. Wolfgang laid out each area with more depth and personal touch than I've heard before, and it's given me a better idea on what I want to do. It also makes me less nervous about if I can't go where I want to go. I feel more prepared to enter the workforce now that I have a better idea of what to expect.
For one final note, I appreciated Wolfgang's humor and lightness in his talk. He made a great speaker who kept me entertained, and it felt like he just wanted to help me find clarity by keeping things light. Over all, I think he did a fantastic job.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Mariam Gigauri @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Being an international graduate student, I started thinking about wether I should continue my path in academia, industry or national lab. This seminar was very useful to get a grasp on all three of those. Prof. Windl talked about work-life balance, career planning and growth and job security, which everyone should think of at some points of our lives. the fact that speaker worked in both - industry and academy, made session more interesting and engaging.
Industry gave me the impression of much more secure, however it present less research jobs, which are the highest interest for most of graduate students. The salaries are a big plus too, as well as efficiency (no time is wasted). Personally, I liked National Labs the most, as they offer good job security and they are quite research oriented. The downside was the limited career growth, however I think that can still be a good first step before moving on to the stable "grown-up" job. Working in academia, on the other hand, allows individuals to pursue research interests and contribute to the academic life, leaving a legacy behind themselves. In fact, according to prof. Windl your choice of career determins your legacy. Academia positions may have lower salaries, less job security, and require a great deal of effort to secure funding for research projects, however they give great academic community and teaching opportunities, which are driving some people. At this point of life, prof. Windl decided to pursue his career in academia.
Ultimately, the decision to work in industry, national labs, or academia depends on individual interests, goals, and personal circumstances. It is important for graduate students to explore all options and weigh the pros and cons of each career path before making a decision and not forget the factor of life-work balance.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rithu Thomas @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Wolfgang Windl's presentation on the pros and cons of working in academia, industry, and national labs was informative and engaging. The talk provided a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each field, helping the audience gain insight into various aspects of job choice, including job security, work-life balance, career growth, and ethical concerns.
Dr. Windl provided a candid and concise analysis of all three options, which made the evaluation of the job choice on the same factors/standards much easier. He also highlighted the salaries and work-life balance in National Labs and academia, which offered excellent job security but could have limited career growth, especially in remote locations. In contrast, he pointed out that working in industry offers higher salaries and better locations but comes with little job security and administrative work like writing proposals. Dr. Windl provided several valuable pointers, including the importance of common sense infusion in the industry, the degree of freedom in academic research, the value of legacy and productivity, and the potential research roles for Ph.D. students in the semiconductor industry.
Overall, Dr. Windl's insights provided thought-provoking information that would help me when making career decisions.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Sohan Zaveri @ on
1.0 out of 5 stars
As someone who is deciding between working in industry, academia, and the national lab – this presentation was very useful. I like how Dr. Windl got the opportunity to work in all three and was able to give his personal experience in all three. I was surprised to learn about how much bureaucracy there is in national labs and about the limited job security there is in academia. From this presentation I think that working in industry makes the most sense to me. I can earn a good salary, have relatively good work life balance, and I can do little to no administrative work and focus on technical work which I enjoy.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ashwin Boddeti @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
The talk describes the pros and cons of working in industry (research), academia and at national labs. The speaker shared his own personal experience, however he has a provided an unbiased view. This talk is highly relevant for any graduate student who are confronted with making a career choice. I particularly liked the way the speaker presented, it was engaging. It covered not only the pros and cons about the job but also how the jobs can impact personal life. Furthermore, it provided a viewpoint of what one is getting into post student life.
Overall, the views provided about a job in industry, national lab and academia was presented in a simple, to the point manner. The way the information was presented in the slides was very clear and well organized.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Fischer Bordwell @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl shares his experiences working in national labs, industry, and academia from his time in Los Alamos National Lab, Motorola, and Ohio State University, respectively. As someone that has worked in industry, is about to finish my graduate degree, and has done research collaborations with Sandia, this was an extremely interesting talk that I could relate to. As soon as I saw the title I knew I was going to enjoy watching this to completion.
For national labs, Dr. Windl states that, essentially, you get to be part of a good, driven community that has like minded goals, and it doesn't consume too much of your life. Although, government bureaucracy often gets in the way of things. Dr. Windl shared his work on radiation damage, and it was fun to see what research an individual performs in that field. One takeaway is that whether or not you can get a well-paying job and work in a well-funded field varies from one area of research to the next, so there is no catch-all advice to be given here. Of course, you also have to be comfortable working on what the government is working on here, which can of course contain weapons or technologies that are adjacent to weapons. There are also plenty of security-related things you have to do that feel like time wasters. As someone whose employer works with a lot of SBIRs and has to maintain certain government-related levels of cybersecurity, I can relate to this.
Moving onto industry, the immediate mention is that it can be much more fun and well-paying in its highs. Dr. Windl worked as a researcher at Motorola. The salary evolution is the big plus with working in industry and has a big focus on technical work with a relatively small amount of time-wasters. You get to work on things that have some non-trivial meaning (if you pick a good employer), but are often worked harder than you are at a national lab. However, frequent job changes in the management ladder can lead to work refocusing multiple times per year. The work environment isn't as inclusive as pure research roles and you might not have the same level of security (especially with regards to tenure).
Dr. Windl is a professor at OSU and relates his experience here. As I mentioned, once you are tenured this is the most secure role by far. You are given a large amount of freedom relative to the other roles, but are still not free from certain bureaucrats above you. This is the most demanding job with little time for life outside of the role. I personally relate to this. While working in industry simultaneously with my school and research, it is much easier to plan around a consistent work schedule than a varying course or research load.
Dr. Windl mentions that your choice of career will determine your legacy. This topic is fascinating to me. It's hard to imagine the effect that your works will have once you are gone. Most people choose not to think about this for one reason or another. I'm glad that Dr. Windl brought it up in his presentation.
To summarize Dr. Windl's thoughts on different areas, doing research in academia requires you to be excited about things that some might be bothered by (such as teaching), but has the potential to provide you a safe net to work on things you really want to. National labs are a comfortable environment to work on projects that you don't have to make into your life. Industry is the riskiest area that could have huge benefits if your area takes off. Dr. Windl has decided that he wants his legacy to be in academia. I think this is very respectable and could see myself following the same approach. I don't want to have a boss in the traditional sense, whatever I end up pursuing I want freedom most of all. Dr. Windl's presentation was extremely insightful and I could relate to many of the things he said. I'm sure I will need some time to fully go over what I absorbed from this, and wish I could have attended it in person to ask some questions.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Gowri Ramshankar @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture is delivered by Dr. Wolfgang Windl, a professor from Ohio State University and he talks about the pros and cons of working in National Labs, Industry and Academia as he has experience in all three.
Prof.Windl discusses the advantages and disadvantages of working in National Labs, industry, and academia. According to him, working in National Labs provides job security and good work-life balance, but it is difficult to settle down in remote locations with family. Additionally, some jobs in National Labs require citizenship, and some research areas involve ethical concerns, as National Labs usually build weapons. However, he gives useful information about the average salary one can expect while working in National Labs.
On the other hand, he also discusses working in industry, which offers a higher salary and better locations. A career in industry is advantageous in the sense that there is an evolution of salary and the opportunity to work on impactful projects. However, there is very little job security, and administrative work like writing proposals is scarce.
Prof. Windl shares his experience in Academia, stating that it provides job security and an academic environment, but life tends to be very busy. Academia is a good choice for individuals who enjoy teaching and want to build their legacy.
Overall, I believe Prof. Windl's insights provide thought-provoking information that can be useful when making career decisions.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Saakshi Dikshit @ on
3.0 out of 5 stars
I found this presentation by Dr. Wolfgang Windl to be very engaging. I would say that he knows his audience well and talked about things that are important from the perspective of students, especially international students, like job security and work life balance.
He was very candid about his experiences and didn’t place one choice over the other. Rather, he presented students with facts and trends, and left them to decide what they deemed most important in their career.
For me personally, this talk was especially eye opening, as I always considered joining the industry after my graduate degree. However, I also love research (and job security) and would now consider working at National Labs as a very serious option. I do feel that Dr. Windl didn’t speak much about citizenship requirements for job opportunities at National Labs, as that is one consideration that has held me back from wanting to work at National Labs. Most good companies are willing to sponsor international students but I personally haven’t found that to be the case with National labs.
After hearing Dr. Windl speak about academia, it made me even more skeptical to consider it as a career option. I would like to have a good balance between work and life and for that reason, I feel like I would be least likely to consider academia as a final career path.
Even though some perspectives were missing, this talk certainly gave me more to consider about the career path I would choose : academia, national labs or industry.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jeffry Louis Victor @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Here is a merged review of the two provided:
The presentation by Dr. Windl was very helpful and informative, especially for Ph.D. students who are considering a career in research. He provided a holistic view of all aspects of job choice, including family, location, peers, internal bureaucracy and politics. Dr. Windl presented his experience in a candid and concise manner, which made the evaluation of all three options (industry, national lab and academia) on the same factors/standards much easier.
During the talk, Dr. Windl discussed different perspectives on working in different research institutions and drew a clear picture of salaries and work-life balance in national labs and academia. He highlighted the industry as the clear winner in compensations, bonuses, and other incentives based on performance. However, he also pointed out that research positions are not as abundant in the semiconductor industry as they once were, but there are other sub-domains in Electrical Engineering which might offer research roles for graduating Ph.D. students.
While the presentation was nice overall, the video was a bit dated and the picture quality and sound were not that great. Nonetheless, the presentation was very enjoyable and entertaining. One of the great qualities of this talk is that it provided several good pointers, including common sense infusion in the industry, what degree of freedom actually exists in academic research, legacy and productivity.
In conclusion, Dr. Windl’s presentation was a valuable starting point for those of us who will be making the decision to choose a job in the future. He presented the pros and cons of working in academia, industry and national labs, and addressed questions that many Ph.D. students have in mind while weighing the different options.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Manish Kumar Krishne Gowda @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Wolfgang Windl In his session on a comparative session of different career choices covered many facets of choosing a professional career. He emphasised the importance of one’s family, internal politics, location, peers, etc all of which which are crucial in making the right decision. He evaluated all three job options - lab, industry and Academia on the same factors/standards, making it easy to follow along. Embedded personal experience encountered in his nuclear engineering career was impactful. This session will be useful for graduate students but even more so for for undergraduate juniors and seniors as it is very important for them be aware of the career options very early in their life.
Dr.Windl keeps the audience engaged by asking questions. A two way conversation is always better than a one way “speech” as it helps the speaker to gauge the pulse of a large audience. Also the presentation was not too serious and cranks up the audience with a “pleasant witticism” often. I am an admirer of such way of delivering presentations. It can make the presentation more engaging and entertaining, capturing the audience's attention and making them more receptive to the speaker's message. When information is presented in such a way, it can be easier for the audience to understand and retain the key points of a message. One way of evaluating the effectiveness of a presentation is to find how many questions were asked by audience. As there were many, I can say it was a very effective presentation.
While each career path has its advantages and disadvantages, this lecture will help to provide an analytical understanding of these paths. In short, the National labs offer a unique environment for research and development, with access to cutting-edge equipment and resources. Industry positions often provide opportunities for career advancement, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Academia provides a stimulating environment for researchers who enjoy teaching, mentoring, and pursuing independent research. Dr.Windl concludes saying that important to carefully consider the pros and cons of each career path and different options can be right for different stages in life. The best choice for an individual depends on their personal goals, interests, values and life options.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Gourab Barik @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I found the talk to be very candid, informative, and useful. Dr. Windl covered all aspects of job choice, including family, internal politics, location, and peers. Although these factors may seem trivial, they are crucial in making the right decision. The talk provided me with several good pointers that I was not aware of before, such as the infusion of common sense in the industry, the degree of freedom in academic research, salary ranges, legacy, and productivity. The presenter evaluated all three job options on the same factors/standards, making it easy for us to follow along. This talk will serve as a great starting point for those of us who will do this analysis on our own. I particularly appreciated the portions of the talk that were targeted at Ph.D. students aiming for research jobs.
Although Dr. Windl mentioned that there are few research positions available in the semiconductor industry, which is his expertise, some of us would appreciate more insight into the differences between research-based roles and non-research/managerial/technical roles. It would be beneficial to understand the expectations, hierarchy, salaries, and promotion process of research roles, and whether they are worth accepting if available. It may also be helpful to have some perspective on research roles in other sub-domains of Electrical Engineering.
Finally, I liked the simplicity of the presentation, with pictures and short bullet points used effectively to keep it well-organized.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Asawari Walkade @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl delivered an excellent presentation on "What's Better - National Lab, Industry, or Academia?", sharing his experience in all three paths, as different as they may be, which makes for a really interesting talk. Although, being an international student, there are some challenges someone like me might face, for example getting into a national lab, nonetheless, it was extremely informative to hear about the pros and cons of these varied work environments.
The presentation was easy to understand, due to the concise bullet point format as well as some neat graphs, which was interspersed with Dr. Windl's personal experiences. Apart from the obvious factor of work-life balance, he also covered certain points that one might not give much thought to while considering their future career path, such as the location of the job and the job safety, which is less in the industry today as compared to the academia. Overall, this presentation definitely gave me a lot to think about when it comes to my future career path.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Sarang Pramod @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl shares his personal experiences and insights on working in three different fields: national labs, industry, and academia. In terms of national labs, he highlights the work-life balance and the opportunity to work on national priority problems. However, there are also challenges such as limited research areas and the requirement for citizenship. He also talks about his work in nuclear research and emerging research areas in renewable energy. Being a TA for the research group SoCET, I've seen this facet since SoCET collaborates with SCALE (defense) and with Sandia Labs, and student groups have to be hand-picked so that they satisfy the requirements.
Moving onto industry, Dr. Windl talks about his time at Motorola working in the semiconductor product sector. He enjoyed the core technical work and work-life balance, but there was job insecurity and frequent changes in management. He also goes into technical details about his work in process modeling and the transition from a technical ladder to a management ladder.
Finally, Dr. Windl discusses academia and the importance of academic freedom and collaboration with students. However, he notes that academic work demands a high amount of time and effort and may not always lead to success in research projects or collaborations with students. Despite this, he recommends pursuing academia for individuals who enjoy recognition and seeing their students grow into professors. The last point is something I resonate with, as it strongly swerved me away from academia when faced with this decision.
The main takeaway from Dr. Windl's talk is that each field has its advantages and disadvantages, and it ultimately depends on an individual's personal goals and preferences. Job security, work-life balance, technical growth, and recognition are all important factors to consider when choosing a career path. It is also essential to be aware of the challenges in each field and be prepared to adapt to changes in management, research areas, and student collaborations.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Alex Rogers @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This presentation is perhaps one of the more informative ones I have seen regarding the different career paths after graduate school. It is a unique opportunity to hear from someone who has experienced three of the main career paths and what they did and did not like. Despite Professor Windl liking academia the most of the three, I thought he did a great job in presenting the pros and cons of each path. He covered a wide range of factors from the more obvious like work/life balance and salary, to the less talked about factors such as location and opportunity for career/salary growth. With regard to national labs, I found the discussion about the location of the national labs to be particular helpful as it certainly was not something I first thought about. This unbiased discussion allows for anyone viewing to figure out which path is right for them by being able to properly see the benefits and downsides of each respective path.
Furthermore, the overall presentation was laid out very well and was delivered in a confident manner. The speed of the presentation felt just right to where I wasn’t getting left behind, but I also didn’t find myself getting bored. I think fully exploring each career path separately is a wise way to set up the presentation as discussing the same aspects for each path simultaneously could get a bit confusing. Also, there was a good mix of humor throughout the presentation which helps keep the presentation engaging and helps make the speaker feel more approachable and relatable. Overall, I really enjoyed this presentation as it gave me lots of new insight into each of these career paths.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Alex Rogers @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This presentation is perhaps one of the more informative ones I have seen regarding the different career paths after graduate school. It is a unique opportunity to hear from someone who has experienced three of the main career paths and what they did and did not like. Despite Professor Windl liking academia the most of the three, I thought he did a great job in presenting the pros and cons of each path. He covered a wide range of factors from the more obvious like work/life balance and salary, to the less talked about factors such as location and opportunity for career/salary growth. With regard to national labs, I found the discussion about the location of the national labs to be particular helpful as it certainly was not something I first thought about. This unbiased discussion allows for anyone viewing to figure out which path is right for them by being able to properly see the benefits and downsides of each respective path.
Furthermore, the overall presentation was laid out very well and was delivered in a confident manner. The speed of the presentation felt just right to where I wasn’t getting left behind, but I also didn’t find myself getting bored. I think fully exploring each career path separately is a wise way to set up the presentation as discussing the same aspects for each path simultaneously could get a bit confusing. Also, there was a good mix of humor throughout the presentation which helps keep the presentation engaging and helps make the speaker feel more approachable and relatable. Overall, I really enjoyed this presentation as it gave me lots of new insight into each of these career paths.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Andrew Gan @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Wolfgang is someone who has insights into the inner-workings of academia, the industry and government labs. He presented a breakdown of the pros and cons of each work environment to help us better decide our future direction. In his talk, he summarised national lab positions as the most stable at the cost of government bureaucracy. Industry jobs are the most financially rewarding but the employee risks being laid off at any time due to market turmoil. Academia provides the most autonomy to conduct research and can be stable position with tenure but the work can be very overwhelming, with the professor juggling the needs of the research work, advising a graduate student, and teaching courses.
What I liked most about his presentation was the interpersonal experiences he had with his colleagues based on the academic background they were from. This set expectations for me as to who I will be surrounded with. I liked the fact that he infused moderate amounts of humour to retain the audience's attention throughout the talk. I felt he dove too deep into his technical research in some parts.
I personally gained a greater understanding on how these three career paths work and will be aiming for a job at a national lab or industry. At the end of the day, it is all about the kind of life one desires, and striking a balance between research work and life to achieve maximum fulfillment.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Hongyang Liu @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I’m interested in this seminar because, during the in-person seminar, Professor Klimeck introduced his own experience from a national lab, to industry, and eventually at Purdue University. It’s quite interesting to find that the speaker, Professor Windl, has such a similar journey so it’s very attractive to hear what’s the difference between the two Professor’s experiences.
First, I like the bullet-point style comparison the speaker used for the comparison of pros and cons for each role. This makes the presentation quite easy to follow, and also good for later reference. I also like all the examples and details Professor Windl gave in his presentation, especially those comparing the working styles of different places because these are experiences that can only come from people with a lot of experience. And I think the part especially helpful to me is the comparison of academic jobs in big and small universities because I’m always wondering if one day I’m going to take an academic job, what would be the trade-off to consider, and what might be the difference in requirements from different universities. Professor Windl gave a really good insight into this. Combining what Professor Windl shared and my personal preference, I’m now clearer about what to expect after I graduate and what might be my choice of first job.
I think one thing that could probably be further introduced in the future is when one is changing the path of his or her career choice, how the skills and experiences from previous jobs could be transferred to the new role and new area. It seems that Professor Windl has changed his path several times so it would be great if we could know more about how he made this change so smooth and successful. Besides that, I hope the video player on the NanoHub website could be updated because it’s still using the Adobe Flash Player, and now in 2023 most of the browsers don’t support that anymore. So it caused me some problems in enabling the video to play. I think this is a really good presentation so I hope with a more modern player, more people could learn from Professor Windl’s experience.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Hongyang Liu @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I’m interested in this seminar because, during the in-person seminar, Professor Klimeck introduced his own experience from a national lab, to industry, and eventually at Purdue University. It’s quite interesting to find that the speaker, Professor Windl, has such a similar journey so it’s very attractive to hear what’s the difference between the two Professor’s experiences.
First, I like the bullet-point style comparison the speaker used for the comparison of pros and cons for each role. This makes the presentation quite easy to follow, and also good for later reference. I also like all the examples and details Professor Windl gave in his presentation, especially those comparing the working styles of different places because these are experiences that can only come from people with a lot of experience. And I think the part especially helpful to me is the comparison of academic jobs in big and small universities because I’m always wondering if one day I’m going to take an academic job, what would be the trade-off to consider, and what might be the difference in requirements from different universities. Professor Windl gave a really good insight into this. Combining what Professor Windl shared and my personal preference, I’m now clearer about what to expect after I graduate and what might be my choice of first job.
I think one thing that could probably be further introduced in the future is when one is changing the path of his or her career choice, how the skills and experiences from previous jobs could be transferred to the new role and new area. It seems that Professor Windl has changed his path several times so it would be great if we could know more about how he made this change so smooth and successful. Besides that, I hope the video player on the NanoHub website could be updated because it’s still using the Adobe Flash Player, and now in 2023 most of the browsers don’t support that anymore. So it caused me some problems in enabling the video to play. I think this is a really good presentation so I hope with a more modern player, more people could learn from Professor Windl’s experience.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Cheng-hsiu Shih @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I think I have already decided on my career path by going into the industry. However, I'd like to hear from different aspects to make sure that the decision I made is correct.
I like that the speaker shared different daily lives, pros, and cons for a national lab, industry, and academia. Since, I only had an internship, without any actual work experience, this provided me with an excellent reference to look at.
After watching the lecture video, I think going into the industry is still more suitable for me. Because I think doing something that has a real impact on the market is very satisfying. Solving different problems is also what I'm interested in.
The speaker provided me with a good thought about getting a Ph.D. After looking at the statistics, getting a Ph.D. looks more time/cost beneficial than having a master's degree. I think I'll consider this option.
There are several advantages to going into academia, such as, "academic freedom", which I think is very important. If you go into the industry, you might have to follow certain rules and protocols. Going into academia gives you more freedom to implement things your own way.
Overall, this is a very helpful lecture. Although it didn't change my mind to go into industries, it gave me more thoughts and I'll consider and discuss with others about getting a Ph.D.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jianqiang Lin @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This was a quite valuable presentation for me, Prof. Winds talked about the advantages and disadvantages of working in a national lab, industry, and academia. I have to say Prof. Windl gives us a very interesting and instructive presentation.
I am a master student. I really want to go into industry, He told us some cons of the industry field, which are something I never thought of before. This really opens my eyes.
His presentation also included his major, and he can analyze questions from complex perspectives such as salary, work-life balance, the work environment itself, and much more.
Overall it is an awesome seminar. Dr. Windl conveyed all the important information in an engaging way, keeping the students entertained the whole time.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Md Adnan Faisal Hossain @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Prof. Windl gave a very interesting and informative talk on the three major career choices that Ph.D. or Masters graduates are faced with - national labs, industry or academia. In general, it is difficult to find someone who has experience of working in all three of these sectors, and hence his experiences are very useful to learn from. Since he has experience of all three sectors, his analysis and opinions are not likely to be biased and can be expected to be accurate. He provided quite unique perspective to working in these fields and gave out pros and cons for each of these sectors. Some of the things that he discussed such as the impact of career choice on family, and the work location are things that are often over-looked and so I appreciated that a lot. At the same time, his talk was very engaging as well as informative and his presentation style has a touch of humor to it as well.
He first describes his experience in national labs. One of the major advantages of working in a national lab that stood out for me was the fact that you get to work in an environment where you are sorrounded by a lot of other people who are working in the same idea as you and it is easy to collaborate. At the same time you have access to very good tools to perform your research. Research is also the number one priority in these labs. However, there were some clear drawbacks of working in a national lab such as remote locations and security overkill. Although, administrative work is comparatively less than that in academia you still have to face a lot of bureaucracy. Salaries are also not as high as industry. One more disadvantage is that you are often forced to do research in areas which you might not be interested in due to national interests.
Next he describes his industry experience. The biggest benefit of working in industry is the gain in salary. If you are able to work properly there is a lot of money in it in the form of bonuses and increments. At the same time, there is more focus on technical work rather than administrative work. There is also the opportunity to work on something that matters by doing research as well as implementing it to create a product. Industries are also often located in better locations as compared to national labs. However, industry is very volatile and there is little job security. There are often changes at higher level managements which can lead to changes in your work and research. The work environment is often very fast and congested which everyone may not be suited to.
Finally he talks about his experience in the industry. One of the best aspects of academia is the ability to build a great legacy in the form of experiences with students and their development. There is the opportunity to change someone else's life with your contribution. Working in academia provides the opportunity to get a lot of recognition and awards which can help achieve job satisfaction. There is also academic freedom to work on what you like and once the position of a tenured professor is reached, there is very high job security. One of the biggest disadvantages of working in academia is the huge pressure of work and also the fact that you have to constantly work with untrained individuals. There is also the constraint of managing research with teaching which can become complicated. The tools to conduct research also vary with the size of the university you work in. There is also a constant pressure of working to attain more and more external funds.
At the end he concludes by saying that it is always okay to change career paths based on your life priorities at that time. There is no one best career path, it's a matter of choosing what is best for you and what you want out of your life. This was very enlightening as it forced me to think about what I really want out of my life and how to think about choosing my own career path. Overall, I really enjoyed this lecture.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Amit Kumar Singh Yadav @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Reviewer Persona: I am a second year international PhD student in ECE department.
This talk really benefitted me as I will have to make this choice for my upcoming internships and more importantly when I graduate. Although some factors that the presenter mentioned were known to me beforehand, I became aware of some new factors through this talk. The presenter mentioned some rarely discussed factors like location suitability to family, peers who we work with, bureaucracy, etc. Some issues related to office politics and the fact that experience pays off in industry but not so much in academia made me more aware of the decision-making process.
Secondly, I liked the brief presentation and effective slides with minimal use of text. Dr. Windl focused on the three choices: Academia, National labs and industry using only a few slides and in the rest of the presentation he made us aware about the work that he did and his perspectives. His career path is extremely impressive and a big motivation for students like us to opt for a hybrid career just like he did. It also resolves a myth that after a Ph.D. we get restricted to one type of job and should not think ahead of it. I was also impressed by his advice of leaving the job when we feel minimal scope of growth in that role/company.
Overall, the session really made me aware of career choices after Ph.D.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yash Sanghvi @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Prof. Wolfgang Windl has had the unique experience of working at all potential future career tracks of graduate students: national labs, industry and academia. Given his experiences, he shares the pros and cons of each workplace in honest and insightful talk where he pulled no punches.
While he talks about the standard factors that go into deciding your possible career path, i.e. money, career growth, colleagues, work-life balance etc., he makes sure to talk about certain “intangible” aspects of different careers which makes this talk insightful. Here are a couple of examples which will explain what I mean by these intangible aspects.
“Common-Sense Infusion”: While difficult to explain what common sense infusion means, you know it when you see it in a colleague. My personal experiences agree with Prof. Windl’s observation that spending some time in the industry brings “common-sense” - something you can’t fully get from simply an undergraduate degree.
Working with Students: Prof. Windl said that being a professor can be rewarding because of the possible impact you can have on a student’s life. Conversely, he added that if you don’t like working with students, this is the wrong job for you. I appreciated the bluntness of this statement and this provided to me a good litmus test of whether academia is right for you.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Kratika Bhagtani @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I found this talk quite candid, useful and informative. Specifically, I appreciated Dr. Windl talking holistically about all aspects of job choice - family, internal bureaucracy and politics, location and peers. These factors appear trivial, but I feel they are important factors while making the decision. I received several good pointers, about which I wasn't aware before. These include common sense infusion in the industry, what degree of freedom actually exists in academic research, salary ranges, legacy and productivity. One of the great qualities of this talk is that the presenter compiled his experience in a candid and concise manner and evaluated all three options on the same factors/standards. I feel many of us do/will do this analysis on our own and this public presentation will be a good starting point. I also liked that fact that many portions of the talk were targeted and beneficial for Ph.D. students who might aim for a job with research.
Dr. Windl mentioned that there are not many research positions left in the industry, specifically for semiconductor industry, which is his expertise. Even though this might be the case, some of us will really appreciate a few insights about how research base roles are different from non-research/managerial/technical roles? How different are the expectations, the hierarchy, salaries, how promotions work, and/or if research roles are good to accept if available? There are other sub-domains in Electrical Engineering which might offer research roles for graduating Ph.D. students. So it might be good to know some perspective of how they function.
Lastly, I appreciated the simplicity of presentation - using pictures and short bullets. It was well-organized and effectively presented.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Adhitha Weerasiri Dias Kariyawasam Majuwana Gamage Don @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr Windl explains neatly and provides different perspectives on working in different research institutions — industry, national lab and academia. As I am a 2nd year PhD student and intend to follow a career in research, this talk directly addresses the questions I have in mind and weigh the pros and cons of each institution. He uses his experience to explain the topic in his presentations. The presentation is quite enjoyable and entertaining. Inviting this speaker for the presentations was invaluable because he has experience in the industry, national lab and academia.
He discusses various factors like salary, family, spouse, citizenship considerations, location and remote working, that affects career decisions. He draws a clear picture of salaries and work-life balance in national labs and academia. He states that the industry is the clear winner in compensations, bonuses and other incentives based on performance. This presentation is a good example to say that it’s never too old to change career paths.
In summary, the presenter does a very good job of presenting the pros and cons of working in academia, industry and national labs.
PS: The presentation was nice, overall. But the video was too old, the picture quality was not that good, and the sound was noisy too. It’s understandable given that the video was published a decade ago. The flash player on the website did not work and I had to download the video to watch it.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Aiden Lawrence Gonzalez @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Overall I found the comparison of national labs, industry, and academia quite insightful. It is nice to hear from someone who has a unique perspective in this way, as the speaker has worked in all three before.
The pros and cons of each option was discussed in depth, and the speaker represented more viewpoints than just his own, qualifying that much of it was based on personal preference. This was refreshing as it reinforced the individuality of career decisions.
I did not like the slide change noises so much. I also felt like some of the jokes were a bit outdated, a bit male-centered. But the recording is fairly old so this makes sense.
I did appreciate the discussion of office politics. This is important to mention for anyone entering the industry.
The Legacy discussion was another good discussion, something I haven't thought about much before. It is good to feel that the work you did left a lasting positive impact somewhere. And good to feel that others are recognizing you and appreciating what you are doing for others and for the world. This is something I may need to consider when making career path decisions.
I really appreciated the summary at the end. Noting that it is never too late to change paths, and that each path is right for certain people. He focuses on the individuality of the choice, and how each person should ask themselves what is important to them, and how that can change over the course of your life.
Overall, I liked this discussion a lot, especially since recently I have been reevaluating some of my career path decisions. I will take a lot of this advice to heart as I weigh my options.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Liangqi Yuan @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is a very fascinating topic, and I believe that this question also plagues most PhD students. From the experience of the speaker, it is not difficult to see that the speaker has worked in national lab, industry and academia. And the speakers also put forward their feelings based on their own work experience. In addition to work experience, the speaker also thinks that work location, funding, salary, honor, etc. are equally important. In the end, the speaker thinks that all jobs have their advantages and disadvantages, and you should decide the job you want according to your own ideas.
For me, his speech was very clear and organized. From the introduction, to a detailed description of the work in the three fields in three ways, and finally a summary. His final advice is equally pertinent. This speech not only considers the advantages and disadvantages of the job itself, it also considers factors such as geography, culture, family, etc. But I have a small suggestion that this speech needs to keep pace with the times. Perhaps the experience of three years ago is not very applicable now, let alone thirty years ago.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Liangqi Yuan @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is a very fascinating topic, and I believe that this question also plagues most PhD students. From the experience of the speaker, it is not difficult to see that the speaker has worked in national lab, industry and academia. And the speakers also put forward their feelings based on their own work experience. In addition to work experience, the speaker also thinks that work location, funding, salary, honor, etc. are equally important. In the end, the speaker thinks that all jobs have their advantages and disadvantages, and you should decide the job you want according to your own ideas.
For me, his speech was very clear and organized. From the introduction, to a detailed description of the work in the three fields in three ways, and finally a summary. His final advice is equally pertinent. This speech not only considers the advantages and disadvantages of the job itself, it also considers factors such as geography, culture, family, etc. But I have a small suggestion that this speech needs to keep pace with the times. Perhaps the experience of three years ago is not very applicable now, let alone thirty years ago.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Geoffrey Cramer @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl provides a useful listing of pros and cons of each major area. He provides a clear view of what each area is like so that the audience can use their own judgement and personal preferences to pick the directions that are right for them.
When discussing national labs, Dr. Windl covers the sense of meaning and drive that working on important societal problems can provide but weighs it against the remote location and bureaucracy that is present. I found this section really useful because I hadn't considered a national lab before and primarily viewed industry and academia as the two major options for engineers. This was the most informative part of the presentation for me.
When discussing industry, Dr. Windl summarizes that industry provides the highest salary typically and has room for life outside of work but that research jobs are sparse. I think mentioning company size would be important here because it can drastically affect work environment, culture, job pace, and benefits (salary, stock options).
When discussing academia, the benefit of working with students as well as job security from a tenured position are discussed as pros. However, a long path to security and high demands are some of the problem areas in academic positions. I appreciated the honest view of job demands - I didn’t realize that academic positions could be the most demanding of the three. It seems that this stems from the fact that the measurement of success for academics is publications but much of their time must also be spent on teaching.
Overall, I liked the very clear organization of the presentation where each major area is discussed in a consistent format. Each section begins with an overview of pros and cons followed by supporting evidence of each claim in the overview slide. Dr. Windl also spoke in a clear way and at a good pace. I enjoyed this comparison of the major paths that us as ECE students can pursue. The only thing I didn't like is that Dr. Windl is speaking from a perspective that once you start in ECE, you stay in ECE. He doesn't mention anything about career changes, entrepreneurship, non-profits or other “non-conventional” career paths. I think at least bringing up these options is important for students to consider.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ryan Christopher Olson @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl was especially engaging because of his blunt humor and brutal honesty. He did not compromise his opinions in order to draw the viewer towards a specific field. His analysis of each career path gave the audience fair and objective comparisons, while still providing his valuable personal insights. I specifically appreciated that he provided data to back up his claims, like the value of different degrees based on salary. He also managed to sprinkle in bits of his work, providing just enough detail to convey the general ideas without getting too specific to the point it bores the audience. The slides were very well organized and the way he summarized each of the different fields was helpful to get a good overview.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
James Robert Smith @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I found the talk by Dr.Windl to be quite insightful between concerning the differences between academia and industry. In particular, I found his work at Los Alamos national labs to be very interesting and it will certainly make me consider looking for that type of the role in the future.
I thought that the presentation was very clearly layed out and presented well; going through Dr.Windl's career in chronological order made the pros and cons he listed seem more personable as he described his professional experiences. I found it insightful how he described each type of role according to what values a person has: a new graduate may be concerned about salary while a tenured professional might value life outside of work, and thus desire to work in a national lab.
One thing that was hard to follow about the presentation was Dr.Windl's technical work. As someone who wasn't too familiar with the semiconductor industry, it made it difficult to follow at times; however, I think his advice is still relevant to other career areas so it did not detract from the presentation.
Overall the found the presentation worth attending and it has given me a new prospective for the type of roles I may want to peruse after I graduate. Dr.Windl affectively leverages his experience (with amble humor) to create an engaging and informative presentation.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Aparna Karnik @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
As someone who has never been able to decide in which track to proceed, this seminar was like advice from Prof.Windl. Gaining an insight into his career in each track and its pros and cons was very interesting and engaging. It also helped drive the point in me that making a choice does not mean that the other paths are closed. It provided a fresh perspective to my eternal dilemma. Talking about work environment, salaries and job examples was very informative. It was refreshing to learn about Prof.Windl’s career. I request Dr.Klimmeck to upload more such seminars on Nanohub.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ravi Abhishek Shankar @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Prof. Wolfgang Windl gives his two cents on the different kinds of jobs out there - national lab, industry and academia. In doing so, he draws from his diverse and valuable experience and compiles into a very entertaining talk. Being in the 4th year of my PhD, I quite often think about jobs, and I found this talk extremely insightful.
He starts off with his experience in national labs. As a non-citizen, I have very few options there as national labs usually prefer citizens due to the high national security issues associated with the job. Otherwise, they have decent pay, and one is allowed a good amount of work-life balance. It is well known that industry jobs are the most paid. They also let one work on things that have real societal impact. However, he points out an important downside being that managerial change almost always causes a change in the work that you do. Finally, he ended up in academia where he enjoys working with students, "keeps him young". He also finds lot of satisfaction in how the jobs allows you to leave a legacy long after you are gone, in the form of your teachings being passed on through your students. However, he cautions that academia is the most demanding of all the jobs.
In conclusion, I found the talk very helpful and relevant as it presents the pros and cons of the kinds of jobs out there, and how each of jobs might seem more enticing at various stages in life.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jayanth Bhargav @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Industry vs Academia is a key question that is undoubtedly on your mind if you are a doctoral student. I am a PhD student at Purdue ECE and have been thinking about this quite a lot. I have spoken to a lot of people both from Industry and Academia. I secured an internship at a National lab for my upcoming summer (2022) to gain some experience of how it will be to work in a National Lab. I came across this talk at the right point of time in my career, where I have enough time to prepare for either academia or the industry once I have figured out where I want to go. Up until now, my life has only revolved around an academic setting. Straight out of undergrad, I went on to pursue my Master's and immediately after that, I started my PhD. Having no industry experience, this seminar was extremely informative and engaging to me.
The speaker clearly listed the Pros and Cons of national labs, industry and academia. It gave me better perspectives and insights into various factors that I must consider before I decide to take a career path - family, spouse, remote locations, citizenship requirements and salaries. I got a clear picture of academia vs national labs in terms of the compensation and work-life balance. I have heard enough experiences from people who work in the industry but this talk is really different as the speaker has experience in all three walks of life. The industry is a clear winner in terms of performance-based incentives and bonuses/compensations. However, the only thing which I feel is different now is that the industry has a lot more research roles than it had a decade ago. This talk reinforced my thinking and decision making process and gave me a broader vision to look at things and evaluate what is the best path for me. The speaker was really engaging and expressive, had a good sense of humour and delivered powerful pointers succinctly.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Fangrui Qin @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This presentation was very interesting and useful, and the presenter showed us like three different career paths: industry, academia, or national labs. His presentation was very detailed because it was based on the presenter's actual personal experience, each with plenty of examples and comparisons. This presentation was especially valuable to me as I am currently a graduate student and I am unsure of my future career options.
I enjoyed the presentation because the material covered was highly relevant to graduate students who need to decide on their career ambitions after graduation, providing not only examples of jobs but also work environments and salaries. The way he talked about each career path was not narrowly based on personal experience, and through his presentation helped me understand both lives and a number of work-related considerations.
I thought the presentation was great to have such a speaker get to the point while keeping it interesting, and I really appreciated the speaker's humor, which will really enhance the seminar experience. Overall, it was an enjoyable and valuable seminar.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Bertrand Zhaoyuan Zhang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I think the presentation was casual, but informative. Currently, I am a Master's student that's most likely to go through PhD, so thinking about my career after that seems to a little further in the future. However, I think it is good to think about these things earlier rather than later.
While, I had more heavily considered working as academia before, the presenter seemed to dissuade me. There seems to be a lot of focus on finding funding and teaching students, neither of which appeal to me. Despite having the perceived "freedom" to pursue research in the fields you want, you are actually very restricted by funding.
I had previously not known or heard much about National Labs, but it seems like an interesting career option to pursue. You get to focus on research and have a work environment where you will likely be able to find other experts to discuss topics with. I don't mind being in a remote location as the presenter points out.
The main pull of industry seems to be money. You will probably meet all sorts of people and like in National Labs, you don't need to worry about funding or taking care of managerial duties. However, you only work on what is assigned to you. Even if you find a topic interesting, if the direction of the company changes, you will be forced to quit and work on the next project. Depending on this, I might be ok with industry, but may end up leaving companies if I no longer find their work relevant to me.
Overall, the presenter does a good job presenting the pros and cons of three career directions in academia, national labs and industry after PhD.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Christopher Mark Lacny @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Overall, I really liked this presentation. I am currently working on a PhD and am trying to decide whether to pursue industry, academia, or a national lab for my future employment (I am leaning towards academia or a national lab). It was very cool to hear from someone who has done all three. I liked how the presenter went through the high-level pros and cons of all three, and then started going into more detail about each path and told his own stories. This format was easy to follow and flowed well from topic to topic.
This presentation goes into a lot of detail, and provided useful information about salary, workload, culture, and research topics that apply for all three pathways.
The presentation was almost a bit too detailed for my needs. I think most of the important points could be summarized in a 20-30 minute abridged version. I would recommend splitting the presentation into four separate talks, one highlighting the differences between the three career pathways, and then separate presentations that go into a lot of detail about each path. This would allow views to pick and choose the topics they were interested in.
I appreciated the presenter’s sense of humor and engaging presentation style. I watched this presentation for a class (Purdue ECE 694), and thought it would be pretty boring, but my expectations were greatly exceeded in this regard. I think this was my favorite presentation I attended for the ECE 694 course – it was relevant to me, mostly new information, and very well presented. I wish I could have been at this presentation in real life so I could have asked some questions.
My only complaint is this: I was unable to open the presentation through the web player, so I had to download the video. It would be a bit more convenient if this got fixed.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yuchen Tang @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Reviewed by Yuchen Tang, PUID 0029609607
The seminar "What's Better - National Lab, industry or Academia?" by Wolfgang Windl is very informative and inspiring. He explains what are the advantages and disadvantages of having a career in a national lab, industry and academia.
Having a career in national lab can be a great job for people who want to focus on research while having a good salary and personal life. It is also a bad idea for people who don't want to split from their spouses, and the security check is overkill.
Having a career in industry can be a great job for people who want to have a increase in their salary, and most of the time can focus on technical work along with some personal life. But it is not a good idea for people who don't want to deal with complex management environment and limited/compact working space.
Having a career in academia can be a great job for people who want to focus on academics. It has a great environment with your collegues and students. But it can be very challenging for people who want a lot of time on their personal life.
I believe Wolfgan Windl explains and uses the fact of himself to give us a sense what will be a suitable career. I highly recommend for people who still having thoughts on their career path and personal development, this is the seminar you must take.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ziyi Yang @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
As a PhD student who intends to pursuit research career, I have long been wondering what the differences between research positions at universities, national labs and companies are, so this lecture really answers my question.
The speaker first introduced his career experiences, which covered all the three types mentioned before and made this speech persuasive. Then he introduces the three different type of positions one by one. For each type, he first gives an overview of the pros and cons. Then he uses his own research projects as examples to give us a direct impression of the common research areas at those places. After that, he listed the salaries and common locations of the jobs, which are very important factors that we consider when choosing a job. Finally, he offered a summary that concludes his speech.
The speech is well-organized with clear structures. During his speech, he answerd students' questions and also asked some questions for students to answer, which is good interaction with the audience. He also used many figures, charts and pictures in his slides to demonstrate his ideas, some of which are quite funny. I do think that this speech comprehensively disscussed the three types of jobs and covered most of the aspects that we care about, yet it's not lengthy and all the contents are in point. The opinions offered by this speech would also help me when I make the decision in future.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Alexey Serov @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
A question we've all asked ourselves over the last few years, no doubt. What's better? I came into this seminar with my own opinions, which I can summarize as a desire to be in industry above all else and move on with my life. And I wasn't expecting my opinions on this to be changed much, to be honest. But, surprisingly, it kind of was. I had never considered national labs as anything on my radar. The information presented in this however has moved my understanding of what I want a little bit closer to that idea. The speaker had a ton of experience with this material and with this lifestyle, and gave a very engaging overview of the main options for a lot of grad students. I was surprised to hear you can have a life outside work in a national lab environment, one of my only qualms of both industry and academic workloads. The fact they tend to be in isolated locations was a bonus in my mind, as I tend to like quite outdoors locations. A con I had not considered about industry was mentioned, the idea that projects might be quickly changing and you may not tackle a problem long enough to really dive as deep as you may want into the solution.
The video aspect of the presentation sadly did not work for me, as adobe is no longer supported, so I listened to the audio podcast version of this while looking through the presentation slides. A retaping of this information / lecture with an updated video format would be super useful I think, as this information itself is super useful too. The slides were well put together with just enough information and visuals to be engaging yet not overpower the speaker as they explained what was going on.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Joseph Anthony Zullo @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The speaker was highly engaging and hilarious, and this is the best seminar I have seen so far. The topic at hand is highly relevant and a question I have been wondering for some time, where I should be heading off too with my PhD, and this seminar has definitely helped me answer this question (probably a national lab). The presentation was extremely clear, and the speaker used his own life as a model for what a career path might look like - I appreciate that the speaker was able to share this, and I feel that the speaker having such an amazingly varied background uniquely qualified him as the best person around to deliver this talk. The presentation was very focused on exactly what we needed to know and it was way more engaging than the other seminars I have seen. There's nothing I would want to change about this seminar.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yuting Li @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture is indeed very informative and interesting.
The speaker organized the content well. From his personal experience in national laboratory, industry and academia, he put together the potential pros and cons. For each experience, the speaker uses some examples to picture what it is like to work there.
The content itself is very useful for the audience. Personally, even though I have always stayed in school, I did not have much opportunities to learn about details in faculty's life, not to mention that in other two areas. So the lecture is very informative to me. For example, it never comes to my mind that the constantly changing in management could happen in technology company, which might cost me a lot of time trying to tackle a problem expiring soon.
I also want to mention the speaker did a great job in interacting with students and keeping the lecture interesting. Overall, I think this is an excellent lecture.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Kyeonghoon Son @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
The presentation by Wolfgang Windl was interesting enough as he talked about different paths after graduation masters program. He mentioned that there are 3 major paths after graduation: national lab, academia and industry. He compared the advantages and disadvantages of those paths based on his personal experiences. For example, he stated that the advantage of working at national lab was that he could have life outside work, had good job security and good salary and lots of peers to interact. However, he stated that the disadvantage of working at national lab was it is often located far and limited research area. Similar to national lab, he talked about pluses and minuses of working at academia and industry. As I am always wondering whether I should work on industry or academia, the presentation helped me a lot and believe that it will lead to better decision.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Vishal Satyavinayak Purohit @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
The presentation is by Wolfgang Windl is about the merits and demerits of choosing different career options after graduation. The speaker has ample experience and draws a lot of examples from his personal experience. After graduation, students can take three major paths - Academia, industry, and national lab. He compared various benefits and shortcomings of all the possible paths one could take after graduation. He compares the aspects such as work-life, job security, salary, the scope of research etc., among these three types of jobs. He begins with the national lab and states its advantages: an excellent work-life balance, better job security, salary, and research opportunities. He also compares the salary with academia. The speaker then talks about the industry with its advantages of remuneration, research and development prospects, disadvantages of the work environment, and possible job insecurity. In contrast, there are advantages such as job security and working in an engaging educational environment in academia. It was exciting to attend his talk and learn from his personal experiences. The presenter clarifies that there is no right choice; one could choose whichever path they want to pursue depending on the situation.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Swaathi Shri Thiruvallore Thattai @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This seminar by Wolfgang Windl is very useful, especially for graduate students as the speaker narrates his experiences at different jobs along with the pros and cons of each. The speaker has working experience in a national lab, industry as well as academia. He compares the aspects such as work life, job security, salary, scope of research etc. among these three types of jobs. He starts with national lab and states its advantages such as a good work-life balance, better job security, salary, and research opportunities. The disadvantages could be remote locations and limited research areas. He also compares the salary pattern with Academia. He, then gives an overview of industry along with its advantages of salary, research and development opportunities and disadvantages of work environment and possible job insecurity. Regarding academia, he mentions advantages such as job security and being able to work in an interesting academic environment while it could also be demanding. It was very interesting to listen to his work experience in these three areas. It is encouraging to know that choosing different jobs at different stages of life could be a correct decision but also how important it is to consider family, finances, impact of the job etc. while making the choice.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Wenbo Sun @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The seminar by professor Windl is very interesting and instructive. The professor uses his real-life experience to discuss how to make a decision among work in industry, national lab and academia. Multiple interesting figures and funny stories are also included in this presentation which make the seminar a lot of fun.
Professor Windl begins the seminar with his own resume, and he analyzes the pros and cons of jobs in national lab, industry, and academia sequentially with his own life experience. For jobs in national lab, the pros include life outside work and good job security while bureaucracy and location maybe adverse factors for some people. For jobs in industry, job salary evolution is much faster, administrative work is less and collaborating colleagues generally are very well trained and knowledgeable. However, professor also mentions in industry, career promotion path maybe difficult for people focusing on technical work and working environment like cubicles maybe quite noisy and annoying. Finally, jobs in academia have the pros of job security, job environment and possibility to contribute to impactful work that lasts for a long time. The cons of academic jobs include the high demand of the job and long work time. Professor finally summarizes the seminar by pointing out that every option has pros and cons, and people should not be afraid to change options.
Personally, I enjoy this seminar a lot. As a PhD student, sometimes I am confused about what is the correct choice after graduate school. This seminar is very interesting and helps me to think more clearly about this question.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Srinidhi Murali @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Wolfgang Windl presented an engaging talk on what's better - national lab, industry or Academia. These are the main 3 walks of life that students have to choose from after their undergraduate/graduate studies. It's a confusion most students go through and often hunt for people from each walk of life who can give advice on the same. This presentation analyzed the pros and cons of the three fields and provides students with the information in a nutshell.
As a person who has been in all the fields, the speaker supported the speech with numerous real-life examples. This helped me understand his message better. He provided a holistic picture of work in each field by considering professional factors like work nature as well as personal factors family, location. A unique factor he brings about is the factor of legacy. It made me really think what impact I would create through my career.
The best part about the lecture was the summary the speaker gave. He says that there is no "correct" option. It really depends on one's interests and the point of time they are looking for a career option. I felt this as a pragmatic perspective and encourages the audience think to go with a choice that is best for them.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Folk Narongrit @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This video discusses the advantages and disadvantages of different career choices after graduation. It provides in-depth information regarding different types of careers. Anybody can change his mind regarding career after watching this video. The speaker says that if you join National Lab, this will be a secured job for you, but you will have to increase your research skills. If you join the industry, your pay will increase, and you manufacture new products, which is beneficial for the people, and you enjoy it. If you work as a teacher in university, you have the freedom to work with your choice with anybody. After watching this video, I have changed my mind to join the industry because it provides innovative products to manufacture. It is a revolutionary video to choose different fields in career.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jimmy Ian Gammell @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This presentation was entertaining to watch and contained lots of useful information. I am on the fence between the career paths described in the presentation and felt it did a good job of describing the pros and cons of each path with respect to things like salary, job security, work-life balance. I had been previously been leaning towards an industry career but the commentary about poor job security, work environment, and denigration of technical roles will make me consider the other two career paths more-seriously.
It could be useful to hear statistics about the career paths, e.g. salaries, retention rates, publication counts, to supplement the anecdotal information. It seems like some of the characteristics of the presenter's path, e.g. getting tenure at the outset of academic career or being able to write papers while employed in industry, are not common for all people in those jobs and could significantly impact their desirability, and their commonality should be a factor when deciding on career path.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Charulatha Narashiman @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
The presentation on “What’s better: National lab, industry or academia?” by Wolfgang Windl is an extremely organized and engaging presentation and gives a great perspective to people who are confused about choosing one of the three. Having been in that situation, I agree with almost all the remarks that the author makes with respect to each of them. The author himself has experience working in all three sectors and he talks about the pros and cons. He gives insights on aspects like pay, the location of the work, job security, exposure to research, lab bureaucracy, and the work environment.
I enjoyed his humor and the way he kept the audience involved throughout the presentation. As a person, who has one year of experience with an academic organization, I totally agree with his points. It also throws light on the aspects that I should look into when I search for a job after my graduate studies. The author also talks about how important it is to maintain a work-life balance and how a career in academia is conducive to it.
Overall, the presentation gives a clear overview and I would recommend it to anyone who is looking for a job role and confused about making a decision.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Zhixiang Wang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This presentation was given on the pros and cons of different career choices after we graduate. At the beginning of the semester, this topic was talked about briefly, but this presentation was definitely more in depth and more informative. To summarize, if you choose to work in a National Lab, the job is very secure and pays well. You also get to mainly focus on your research. If you choose to work in an industry, the salary will increase over your career rapidly and also you get to make products that will immediately impact everyday life. If you choose to work in a university/academia environment, you get the freedom to choose what you work on and who you work with.
For me, I definitely want to be in the industry because research isn't my priority. I would like to work on products that is for sure going to help people in the next few months or years. Also, I am a person that likes to have a set goal, therefore, working in a university doesn't suit me. After watching this presentation, I didn't change my mind of going into the industry, but it did clarify some of my questions regarding career paths.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jonah Aifuwa @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I enjoyed listening to what Professor Windl had to say and felt that it was very informative. When I decided that I wanted to continue my education my reasoning was to get more research experience through a thesis. However, my plans have changed and I am looking more towards going into industry. Academia has crossed my mind at times but it has never been my preferred option.
What i took away most from this presentation was the pros and cons of each of the three options. Prof. Windl does a good job of listing them and explaining them further. The pros and cons touch on salary, environment, and social aspects of each career path. I have seen similar comparisons through other means but with Prof. Windl's experience in all three options he is able to also share some of his past experiences and his takeaways from each. Although his experience does not define everyone else's experiences, hearing his stories provides a good insight of what you could expect if you take a certain path.
One thing he touched on that was something that I never would have thought of was the environment of each path and how it would affect you. For example, he says that when you work in academia you will be surrounded by a bunch of younger students that will somewhat keep you in touch with their culture and what they relate too. For the research path, he talks about how it may be hard for a male to find a partner because the engineering field is male dominated and often you will be in remote locations with not much contact. As a former prospective researcher, this has never crossed my mind even though it can have a significant impact on my life.
Overall, the presentation was vey informative and more than less entertaining because Prof. Windl shares his own stories and uses humor fairly often to keep the students engaged. I would not say that he changed my career path decision but he did provide more insight to each path. Anyway he states near the end that it is okay to switch paths because you never know what your future holds[.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Akshita Ramya Kamsali @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Finding someone with experience in all three - National Laboratory, Industry and academia is very rare. (It is very fascinating how Prof Klimeck and his friends seem to have experience from all three places.) This talk is a great place to start for Grad students in their early career or even about to graduate. Usually, when a grad student networks with a certain person from say industry/academia/lab, that person usually has a very specific insight and can only share their experience with that particular domain. This talk covers everything from the salary to lifestyle a job has to offer in different domains. This is much needed as the only metric of comparison is usually the pay and lifestyle ignored quite often and leading to no satisfaction with the job.
Also, the speaker spoke the graduate student language, very humble while being relatable and was very engaging throughout the talk while explaining the challenges he faced, and how he overcame those. The slides were very well organised with comparisons and plots with statistics wherever required, which makes the talk more compelling. One thing about the talk I found very interesting was how to remain relevant in academia and being flexible to change topics when needed. While academia offers the freedom of choosing topics or changing even, industry/labs do not give the freedom. The speaker also compares job security, job location and the types of restrictions-privacy policies- that come with a job.
Overall, I think the talk is very relevant to any graduate student and the structure of this talk clarifies many questions and gives a starting point for their career path.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Zian Wang @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Listening to the lecture talk by professor Windl, more about the different careers that exist in the engineering and technology industries can be learned. The professor starts the talk by sharing some of his experiences in the industry and proceeds to give insights about the areas where research has been minimal yet these areas are well paying compared to conventional areas such as simple mechanics. Perhaps the most important part is the point where the professor shares more about the pros and cons of these jobs such as working in the nuclear plants. In this case, one risks their own life although the job is well paying. Comparing the national lab, industry, or academia field, Windl points out that what matters most is your comfort and satisfaction in the career and the legacy you leave behind.
One of the key issues that came as a surprise to me was the comparison of different age groups and jobs. From this lecture, it was evident that people in their late 50s are more relaxed in any kind of job and while the young generation is very choosy. This can be lethal to one’s career as a young person since these industries require experience and without it, good pay remains an imagination. Lastly, I was shocked to learn that despite the minimum wage laws in the United States, some states offer more salaries and benefits for the same job than others. For example, the states in New England, mid-Atlantic and pacific west offer over $80,000 while other like central plain states offer an average of $73,000. This information is useful for young and promising graduates who are eyeing the technical industry in the future. Knowing what is needed and offered in return in different states can be the difference between job satisfaction and poor morale among the employees.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Suyash Jagadeesh Ail @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This talk by professor Windl is extremely intriguing and useful for graduate students who are still figuring out their career path. Professor gives his own insights and talks about his own experiences and dilemma that he faced. The presentation is concise and very informative and the professor does a fine job covering those contents.
After watching this seminar, I have a better idea and understanding on the career path that is best suited for me. I came to know more about the pros and cons of each path and as well as my compatibility and interest in them.
Professor also mentions about how a career in academia gives a good work life balance, however I felt that might be the case in every field if only we are dedicated and have good time management skills.
This entire talk was down to earth, honest, and I have absolutely no criticisms except the one point stated above.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Kamal Manohar Karda @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This talk is very engaging. The information presented is useful and is usually difficult to get in one place. The good part of the talk is focusses on all facets of life not just the technical. This gives a broader perspective to help make the imp decision. Very clear examples are presented in humorous way. The list outlined of pros and cons for each place is very clear and useful. This will be useful for individuals as each one has different priorities on what matters most for us. The insight on how some time in industry helps provides new direction. The talk also conveys the key challenge in industry of doing true research rather than development. However, I think this part can still be conveyed more optimistically. The talk is comprehensive covers everything from big to small from quality of research, financial topics and even very simple things like logistics of seating in a company. Talk also highlights the challenge in academia to work with students with limited training particularly after getting used to professionals in industry and the biggest headache getting the funding. The content and visuals in talk are very well presented, I highly recommend the talk. It is the best on the topic I have found.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Steven Spencer @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture contained some of the most useful and insightful information I've seen on the subject, on as well as being engaging and entertaining throughout. Professor Windl shares his experiences clearly, and is very honest about the drawbacks and benefits for each career. Going into the presentation, I thought I was certain which career I would be most interested, or at the very least I thought I was absolutely certain that I didn't want to go down the national labs path. Now I find myself reconsidering my position.
Professor Windl's presentation goes beyond just listing the pros and cons of each career (while those are still very well done and helpful), and also explains his own personal opinions from his own experiences. Things like explaining how he enjoyed the remote mountain environments on the national lab job, or how he disliked the cubicle work environment from industry. He's able to give insight through his own experience, but also leaves it open to the listener for them to think of how they would feel about the same situations. I particularly liked in the academia section where he listed most of the negatives of the job, only to then explain how working with students makes it worth the work, or the aspect of the legacy question he brought up.
The only negative things I have to say about the presentation are that Professor Windl's explanations of the science behind the work he was doing, while interesting, did not seem particularly relevant to the subject of thee lecture itself. Also when explaining the science of the industry job, he brings up "mission statements," but does not elaborate or give any insight or experience as to how mission statements function at an industry job beyond seeming annoyed when mentioning them.
Overall, this presentation is engaging, informative, and leaves the viewer with a new perspective on the subject of different career paths.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Abdulrahman Alanazi @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Well, let me first say that Prof. Windl did a great job making this presentation fun! It was literally very insightful and funny to watch!
Before watching this presentation, I was thinking that I will find a certain answer for what's better, National Lab, Industry, or Academia? After watching this presentation, I definitely believe that academia is the best option for me. I know each path has its own pores and cons, but for me, I think in academia you work for yourself more that for other people.
I only disagree with Prof. Windl in one point: I think in academia you can easily find a balance between life and work. As oppose to other jobs, I guess. It's all about time management.
Finally, I guess it's important to try different paths in the beginning of our career. Later, we can opt whatever we like ("Don't be afraid of changing paths").
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Serena Alexis Nicoll @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
As someone who is currently wrestling with this very question, I found this seminar insightful and extremely useful. Dr. Windl is a phenomenal and engaging speaker, and his humor made this seminar a joy to watch as well. The presentation had a clear organization and flowed smoothly throughout. Personally, I appreciate being able to hear about someone's personal experiences in all three sectors - I think that is a very unique opportunity, and potentially more informative than overarching, vague statements about pros/cons of each. Dr. Windl isn't afraid to talk about the things that young professionals are really interested in - location, salary, opportunity for advancement, and the dreaded bureaucracy - that often get glossed over for shinier topics.
On a personal level, the discussion of legacy was very important to me and I appreciate that Dr. Windl included it in the presentation. I know he said it's more of a "mid-life crisis" question, but as someone who is just starting their PhD, I think it's crucial to have something to look towards so you can say "I'm doing this for a reason." It was interesting to see that master's degrees really do not affect that much change in a person's job status, and definitely reaffirmed my desire to finish my Doctorate. This entire talk was down to earth, honest, and I have absolutely no criticisms!
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Zixuan Li @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I would recommend this presentation in a way it is organized. The presenter first introduces his own career and gives us a rough idea about how is the work like in the lab and academia. Then he talks about the overview of the pros and cons working in the lab and academia, and illustrate them further afterwards.
The pros of working in the industry including salary evolution, focus on technical work, doing things that has impact, research plus development work, while the cons are work environment, job insecurity, frequent changes in management ladder, etc. One of the most important things I learn from this presentation is something that I haven't exposed myself to - the colleagues & bosses. How to get along with the people around you, above you and below you is essential. Besides, now I know that working in academia will be more intensive - most demanding job, meaning little time for life.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Akhil Prasad @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
In this presentation, Prof. Windl wonderfully elaborated the differences between working at a national lab, industry and academia. The casual jokes in between successfully maintained the audience’s interest while at the same time the speaker was able to explain the material.
Prof. Windl’s description of his life while working at the Los Alamos Lab was interesting as he described the pros and cons of life there. Finally, I was able to understand the meaning of the phrase – “It’s a good place to raise a family”. The fact that these locations are remote and away from the city spots was new to me and will be an important factor in future decision making. One fact which was surprising about the labs was that there was much more concentrated in the field of nuclear science as opposed to renewable since I was of the opposite opinion.
Having worked at a company for three years I could relate to the pros and cons of working in an environment full of targets to be met. A constant change of authority is something one should be wary of as sometimes this could mean that most of the previous work could become a waste of time.
I agree with Prof. Wendl’s description of working in an academic institution. I understand the stress of time management that most professors face as a result of looking after the student’s work, research and other responsibilities. Prof. Windl’s take on the legacy question was intriguing as I had never thought about this.
To summarize this was a really interesting presentation. Informing the students about the options they have in their future and the pros and cons of each field help them make an informed choice.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Collin Andrew Stipe @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I think Professor Windl's talk was quite entertaining and informative. Life experiences, while anecdotal, offer broader insights about how I can think about potential career paths and I think Professor Windl did a great job of telling his story while offering valuable lessons he learned along the way. I can relate to "Its a great place to raise a family" as I have had multiple interviews that almost exactly that same phrase was stated to me (also the schools are great). I think he does a good job of highlighting extra factors like location and the type of work (nukes=bad) that have a large impact on your happiness in a job. Having two years of industry experience, he is quite accurate with the description of industry work. Project scope and management changes are frequent and often driven by the bottom line. Cubicles are no longer in most places but open work environments have their drawbacks as well. Further, some industry can be cutthroat and requires you to perform and deliver results in a short amount of time. Some people get overwhelmed by this and can be quite intimidated. Further, he is exactly right when describing job security in industry. Reorganizations and layoffs are common in bad times or even when times are okay but not to management/shareholder expectations. Overall I thought his talk was excellent and gave great insight to how to think about a job and career.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Zachariah Olson Martin @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Prof. Windl gives a great talk here, and one that I really appreciate being available. As someone who's just started grad school, choosing a career path can seem like a ways away sometimes, but I still think it's something to consider. Personally I've been interested in working at a national lab, so I was really glad to hear about Prof. Windl's experiences working at Los Alamos. Even though national lab positions tend to pay less than industry or academia I'm still interested in pursuing this kind of position because of the type of research I want to be involved in.
Also, I really appreciate his discussion of maintaining a good work-life balance and how this ends up working out in industry/academia/national lab. As I've been pursuing my graduate education I've found that it's hard to have a good balance, and after I graduate my biggest goal is to work a more sensible 9 to 5 schedule. This is something to consider too, and if that means going to an industry position as opposed to academia or a national lab then I'm still open to the possibility. But still overall a great talk that I would definitely recommend to anyone in grad school.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Mohammad Mushfiqur Rahman @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I have always wondered what career path to choose after Ph.D. and this presentation addresses this exact point. The presentation by Prof. Windl is particularly interesting because he gave out some of his own experiences in the most honest way possible. He starts off by addressing the pros and cons of national lab jobs. Some of the pros are- job security, not extensive workload, interesting research, however the there are some cons such as working in remote areas, government bureaucracy etc. One of the things that he mentioned is that these labs usually have limited research areas including nuclear weapons, which may or may not be of someone’s preference.
Next, he goes on to discuss the pros and cons of industry (Motorola). One crucial thing he pointed out was that industry jobs have a pretty steep salary curve (one can basically double salary if worked real hard). In addition, the works in industry have real-world application and is fun to do. Also, one can develop his/her research career by publishing papers in industry research. The cons include frequent changes in management and insecurity. Also, sometimes industry jobs (process engineering) can be extremely boring.
Next, he discusses job experience at academia. The pros here are working with students which, according to him, is fun. The job also comes with good security once you are tenured. Also, if one is lucky he can leave a legacy behind if he is a successful professor. The minus is that it is extremely demanding.
Overall it is a very interesting presentation. The presentation had a bad resolution and some of the texts were not very clear.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rajiv Mittal @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
It was great watching Dr. Windl’s lecture. This talk can be a very good guide for students who are yet to figure out which path they wish to tread along their career. The best part of the lecture was that each job was described with the pros and cons that it offers. The talk gives us a first-hand experience from a person who has been in three different fields of a professional career. Understanding Dr. Windl’s perspective on the pros and cons of each field and analyzing the same with respect to my perspective, will help me in choosing a career path for my self with more caution and better judgment. I liked the part where Dr. Windl discusses the salaries in different locations in the United States. Though my field of study significantly differs from Atomistic modeling, the salary figures weren’t quite relevant to the jobs that I would be looking for. Nevertheless, it gave me a brief idea of the salary distribution in various locations of the US.
Dr. Windl’s presentation slides were quite succinct and clear. By his good sense of humor, Dr. Windl could keep his audience engaged throughout the presentation. But, I feel there can be one little improvement. He speaks a little too much about the technical details of his work which is really hard for someone, belonging to a different background, to comprehend. This may elicit some disinterest in the listeners. That apart, I feel that this talk is an amazing career guide for freshers and those who are about to graduate to make proper choices for their careers.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Weicheng Wang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I like the lecture very much about the personal growth. For me, I am a Ph.D student on the track on network security. I like the topic very much and I have a good advisor and nice team. However, I will feel stressed when I look forward to my future life. Though I think research is good, I do not want to bind my life in the paper writing, funding chasing, presentation delievering and so on. I would like to do some real jobs, and make some real money.
What inspired a lot in the lecture is the last slide: "What could I do if I start over". The lecturer is a Physics professor, and he had a fantastic life in nuclear area. Even for him such a wonderful life, he would choose some different path. For me, only 25 year old student, I would select different path for sure. I may not start my Ph.D. I may not come to US. I may start my own company at the age of 20. I may try many different lifes. But I do not regret of my selection. I can still be successful in my Ph.D life.
Yesterday has past, tomorrow is the future. Only today is the present
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Stanley S Dye @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I really enjoyed Professor Wolfgang Windl's lecture. I am pursuing a Master's Degree and I am trying to determine what I would like to do for my job after I complete my degree in about a year. I appreciate that he went into as much detail as he could about his experiences in the different kinds of jobs as an Electrical Engineer with his allotted time. This overview of his experiences working at Los Alamos National Lab, Motorola, and Ohio State helped me know a little more of what to expect in those kinds of jobs.
The thing I liked most about the lecture was the pros/cons list for each type of job. I never really thought about how in industry it is very common for the corporate ladder to become a huge focus and a distraction from the engineering work that is being done. He mentioned how the changes in leadership bring changes in the vision of what is most important or what needs to be done to achieve a goal. I am glad he gave some insight into the salaries you can expect from the different jobs/degrees, but I think salaries also are highly dependent on the area you are working in. I am studying DSP and Machine Learning, which is a significantly different market than Semiconductors, so the salaries are also different.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Liming Wu @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thanks to Dr. Windl's excellent presentation. This session is very informative and attractive. I've gained a lot of valuable information which is definitely helpful for my future career. Dr. Windl first shared his personal career experience, then followed by an overview of working in national labs, industry, and academia. Dr. Windl described the advantage and disadvantages of the three different careers from many aspects such as salary, working environment, life, research areas, etc.. Actually, I have been thinking about this question since I was a Ph.D. student. All my information about future careers comes from either other students or from the forum. I am glad I can watch this presentation since I have gained valuable information which is quite different than I thought. I think this will definitely be helpful in the near future when I make the decision for the career.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Sarah Nahar Chowdhury @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I am in my third year and at this stage of life it is really important to know what you are aiming for and this lecture surely helped me clear my mind.
The lecture talks about the pros and cons of different work fields and the coping mechanism there. From my stand of view I think it gives the basic idea as well as a different perspective also. For example, the retaining of legacy which might be possible with academia is something that I never thought about. Again in case of national labs, location plays a crucial issue which was not under my consideration.
A quantitative comparison was also shown to give some idea about the salary one might expect for choosing a particular field which was helpful.
Overall, it was a good lecture to refresh one's mind and focus on what we are aiming for.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rajni K Sah @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This informational session on the difference between a career at National Lab, in Industry and in Academia by Dr. Windl is a must watch for every student. Each of us have come across this question at least once while planning our career.
Dr. Windl has vividly and in the most humorous way showed the difference in career in these three sectors, giving relevant examples. He clearly lists down the pros and cons of these three sectors:
Overall it is an excellent session. Dr. Windl has conveyed these important information in the an engaging way, keeping the students entertained and yet enlightened the whole time.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Swati Shikha @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This was my favourite lecture out of the whole series. As a graduate student, I have contemplated long and hard about all possible future employment avenues. I had always assessed the merits and demerits of possible career paths mostly on the traditional rubrics of job location, security, and income. Hence, it was very refreshing to hear a fresh perspective from Professor Windl where he mentioned metrics like leaving behind a legacy, having quality family time; parameters I wouldn’t have thought of when mulling over professional responsibilities.
Professor Windl’s lecture was infused with humor. Be it his remark on how you can’t tell even your spouse the specifics of your work if you are in a national lab, or him including a comic strip, the result was that his talk was very engaging, on top of being informative. I especially liked how towards the end he asks students to assign priorities first, and then look for career paths that match those.
The only suggestion I could think of would be to cut down on some of the technical details of his jobs and projects. I felt they broke the flow of the narrative a bit. The presentation on the whole though is a great resource to any graduate student!
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Dakota J Hamilton @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
In this lecture, Professor Windl discusses his personal take on the advantages and disadvantages of careers in academia, industry and national labs. This topic is particularly interesting to me because I have been debating this choice over the past few months and while I have plenty of time to make a decision for myself, it is helpful to get a variety of viewpoints on the subject.
I appreciated that Professor Windl discusses many aspects of each of the career paths including salary, work-life balance, the work environment itself, and much more. This provided a holistic view of each option and there were several points that he brought up that I hadn't thought of before. First, when discussing his experiences working at Los Alamos National, he mentions the extra bureaucracy that can go along with government jobs. This is something that I could see myself getting frustrated with so it is good to keep in mind. Second, many of Windl's concerns with job security and the politics within industry is something that I have personally seen for myself in the various internships I have held. Finally, I thought it was interesting how Windl discusses leaving a legacy and how there are more different ways to do that in academia than in other routes. This was an important insight that I don't think many young students who are just entering the workforce contemplate.
In terms of the presentation itself, Windl gets the information across in a clear and concise manner while adding humor and stories that keep the listener engaged and entertained. The only small improvements I would suggest would be to present the structure of the presentation to the audience and be more organized in transition slides and to spend less time on the technical details of his research which may be a bit involved for the given audience.
Overall, the presentation was both informative and entertaining and I would reccomend it to anyone who is debating whether academia, industry, or national labs is the correct career option for them.
Dakota Hamilton
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Chunguang Wang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
In this lecture, Prof.Windl compared the difference among national lab,industry and academia from his personal experience. I am very interested in this topic since I need to find a job after graduation and it it helpful to know the advantages and disadvantages of different job positions.
Industry and academia are two common choices for phd students. Industry positions have salary evolution(money is important) and focus on technical work. However, it is not stable. Frequent changes in management ladder,along with refocusing of work may occur. If fired in middle age, it is hard to find a proper job. Staying on the technical ladder sometimes means "loser" in many companies. For academia positions, competition is fierce especially for good university. Academic environment is pure and simple. After becoming tenured professor, job is secure and no one can fire you. Academic freedom is also a big advantage.Professor can spend their time as they want. They can choose to work in office or from home. There is no boss and professor is just like manager. However, there is long way until "there". At the beginning, assistant professors need to be very hard working to become tenured professor.
For me, academic freedom appeals me a lot and I like the environment at college. I prefer stable positions though it mean less salary. Academia is fir for me.In conclusion, every option has its pros and cons and this lecture inspire me how to make a choice.
Chunguang Wang
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rahul Deshmukh @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This talk aptly summarizes what to expect when choosing among the three different career paths, ie National Labs, Industry or Academics. Prof. Windl's rich experience in all of the three options helps us in understanding the pros and cons of each choice. He does an excellent job in explaining the quality of work and life that one can expect for everyone of these choices. I specially how he discusses about salary, location, job security, job satisfaction, quality of work and working environment all at the same time.
From Prof. Windl's talk and a similar talk given by Prof. Klimeck, I have gained valuable information which will help me in the future in choosing a career path.
I specially enjoyed the frequent jokes and use of graphics in this presentation to make it interesting. The Dilbert comic strip with Prof. Windl's name in it was something unexpected and I enjoyed it. Also the message driven by the summary slide that different options are right for different stages and don't be afraid to change path is something that I will keep in mind.
Rahul Deshmukh
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rahul Deshmukh @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This talk aptly summarizes what to expect when choosing among the three different career paths, ie National Labs, Industry or Academics. Prof. Windl's rich experience in all of the three options helps us in understanding the pros and cons of each choice. He does an excellent job in explaining the quality of work and life that one can expect for everyone of these choices. I specially how he discusses about salary, location, job security, job satisfaction, quality of work and working environment all at the same time.
From Prof. Windl's talk and a similar talk given by Prof. Klimeck, I have gained valuable information which will help me in the future in choosing a career path.
I specially enjoyed the frequent jokes and use of graphics in this presentation to make it interesting. The Dilbert comic strip with Prof. Windl's name in it was something unexpected and I enjoyed it. Also the message driven by the summary slide that different options are right for different stages and don't be afraid to change path is something that I will keep in mind.
Rahul Deshmukh
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Shreya Ghosh @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The video is a comparison of working in a national lab, industry and academia. Dr. Windl gives examples of his own life to make this comparison. Some of the points he talks about in doing so are:
1)He outlines the pros and cons of working in a national lab from when he used to work in a national lab. He talks about how working in a national lab is also conducive to having a life outside of work i.e, there is work life balance. He talks about aspects like job security, location of the job in a national lab. He talks about some challenges for example, Citizenship is often required, and there may be limited research areas. He elaborates on his work on nuclear research, he also talks about emerging research areas in nuclear and renewable energy. He elaborates on his work. He also tells us that working in a national lab might mean working on national priority problems. For example he worked in nuclear power generation. He also talks about the political dimension of working on a nuclear project.
2) Dr. Windl also gives an overview of working in an industry, in his case, Motorola. He talks about his experience working in the semiconductor product sector at Motorola. He also gives a brief overviewo f the company. He encourages us to work in some domain that will have an impact. Working in industry, he talks about how he enjoyed doing core technical work with very little administrative work and how it is possible to concurrently maintain a work life balance. He talks about how there is a frequent change in the management ladder along with refocusing of work and how the work environment has changed with hardly any research jobs available today. He also talks about job insecurity.
3)He goes into technical details about some of the work that he was involved in at Motorola - process modelling. That was the time when semiconductors got so small, new materials came up like metal gates, high k dielectrics. Motorola decided to have an atomistic modelling group of which he was a part.
4)He talks about colleagues and bosses. He talks about how everyone starts off as a staff scientist, working on technical projects. After 3-4 years, an individual needs to make the choice of climbing the technical ladder or to go to the management ladder. The management body is seen to be more competent whereas staying in the technical ladder may lead to stagnation in growth. This creates a dangerous climate causing office politics.
5)Dr. Windl also gives an overview of working in academia. He elaborates on how the academic environment affects work. He talks about how much academic freedom there is and how it is possible to collaborate with students who are learning new things. He also talks about how important it is to get academic funding. The tells us about some of the disadvantages as well. For example: this kind of work has very high time demands. Also research means working with students who are learning which may not work out in our favour. But he also says that the individual who enjoys receiving recognition and seeing their students turn into professors as well should definitely give thought about pursuing this line.
Overall, I would recommend watching this to anyone who wants an overview of the three fields.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yifan Wang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This a very fascinating talk which discusses the pros and cons of jobs in National lab, industry, or academia, with a lot of useful information, original perspectives, and a clear structure. It inspires me a lot since right now I am struggling which path to choose after graduation. I rated it as four stars instead of five, since it was first released in 2009 and the data used there might be a little bit out of dated. Despite of this, this is still a very helpful talk and I strongly recommend it.
The speaker, Prof. Windl, first talks about his experience working in the Los Alamos National Lab. He mentions the advantages in salary, research, job security, and cooperation with other experts and he also emphasized that one disadvantage of working in that national lab is its remote locations. For the industry job, he gives some useful suggestions, including knowing exactly what you are going to do before signing up, and being clear of your career development. He states the behavior training and “common sense infusion” are beneficial, which the lab or academic job might not provide. For the academic job, the one he currently has, he emphasizes the big part of teaching and working with students and the freedom of choosing research topics. Even though he chooses the academic job at last, it seems he still benefits in some way from his past experiences in lab and industry. This makes me think about having more open mind of choosing the path.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rohan Ashok Contractor @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
As someone who will soon face the situation of deciding what kind of job to take, the presentation held significant importance to me. Professor Windl is a fantastic speaker who kept me engaged throughout the presentation. It was great to receive information from someone who has experienced what it is like to work in several different environments. It was also interesting to see what kind of work is involved in atomistic modeling.
The positives and negatives of each working environment were clearly mentioned along with the presenters own experiences. Prof. Windl mentioned how job satisfaction may vary from person to person and on their priorities and also spoke about factors like job security, maintaining a legacy, and monetary gains from each job. It gave me perspective regarding what kind of working environments are available to a prospective job seeker and makes me better placed to make a decision.
On the question of whether a PhD is better than a Masters degree, I believe the time investment into a PhD should also be taken into consideration. Overall it was a wonderful presentation and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Sudharsan Sundaram @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I had always wanted to be in academia since my undergrad. This presentation has made me more open to oppurtunities and think about different merits and demerits in the work environment. I feel that the personal experience of the Prof. Is very insightful and left me pondering.
The presenatation started of with the Prof sharing their experience in a National Lab. He describes how the work will be, the geographic location and limited area of research that are funded. Since it is a work for the defence of the Nation, often a citizenship is required. Later, the prof moves to talk about his research in an industry. He explains the different aspects of an industry related work but is skeptical about the life we would have outside work. He also stresses on job insecurity inspite of a salary evolution. That is the risk we would take. Moving on, He describes his work in the academia. He insists that we can have our research “freedom” and not bound my other’s requirements, tho we would have to write proposals to get grants and funds. The environment is lively with working with student s and training them. On the negative side, there is no time for personal life.
This lecture has left me thinking on different paths and what I really want in my career life. I honestly feel that a good balance between our career and personal life is absolutely essential
On a side note, I am student of VLSI and MOS devices characterization and found his research work, which he cites as examples were really interesting.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Gaurav Sreedhar @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I found this talk to be very informative at least to me as I have been introspecting on the career that lies ahead of me. Industry, academia and national labs were exactly the choice I was pondering upon. So this talk broadened my perspectives on considering a career in one of the above mentioned areas. Through out the talk, the speaker talked about the pros and cons of each these options by citing examples from his own life.
Being an international student who come here with a lot of financial obligations, industry might seem a better option as they would be paying better than the other counterparts. However, this could be a bad option if we don't get the right kind of job, in terms of work life balance and the nature of work by itself. This talk gave me a clear picture as to what to look for in the long run. Its not always money that matters but we must consider a lot of other factors as well.
Though it gave us a birdseye view of what goes on in each of the three options, the choices that we make would vary from individual to individual. This was also pointed by the speaker. Also, having a PHD option at the back of head, this talk gave me a clear picture as to what factors are to be considered while taking up PHD. For example, factors like location may not be of prime importance while the advisor and problem statement are to be kept in mind. One key take away from this talk would be the advice that the speaker gave about being able to adapt to different stages in a career.
To sum it all, the talk was well organised supplemented with real world examples of what really goes in an industry, academia and national labs which gave me insights about choosing a career in one of the three options.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Matthew G Gaydos @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This was a very good presentation. The presenter, Dr. Windl, did an excellent job of not only maintaining my attention as well as the audience's, but also incorporated humor and emotion into his presentation to retain his listeners. His ability to interweave information within his energetic presentation is very helpful.
Additionally, Dr. Windl starts his presentation by giving a brief history of himself in regards to his academic and industrial careers. This was very useful in establishing credibility in his presentation, and within the first few minutes I could tell he was a very good candidate to discuss the pros and cons of National Labs, Industry, and Academia.
Throughout the presentation, Dr. Windl was able to supplement his claims of the pro's and con's of all three options, while still maintaining the fact that these are not necessarily universals truths, but rather his experiences. Although I am not as interested in going into academia, it was very worthwhile to hear about his experiences of what makes it a great option. Also, I appreciated the fact that he did not make it all about what work was the most challenging or fulfilling, but also about which options provided the best opportunities to have a life outside of work.
In the end, Dr. Windl stated that the choice you make comes down to you and how you want to live your life. He clearly presented the facts and his personal experiences within each of the three areas of work, and is not directing us to one path, but rather to consider the pro's and con's of each, and compare that with how you wish to live your life.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Blake Matthias Ketter @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The speaker is very entertaining and the content talked about is solid and valuable. I wanted to hear someone's opinion on the differences of working in academia, industry and government labs, but I was concerned it could be a boring stretched out presentation. Luckily, though, this talk felt like it went by very quickly because of the speaker's interjection of humor and good use of visuals. However, I do think the organization could be improved. It felt a little off to me that while the speaker was summarizing the points of one area, the slides had already moved on to the overview of the next area. It would have been better to have a summary slide listing the pros and cons again; otherwise, it is a little confusing to hear a summary of the pros and cons of one area while seeing the overview slide of the next area which lists the pros and cons of that area. That being said, this issue is relatively minor and overall, I think the slides were effective in getting across the differences of working in these three different areas. This is an excellent talk.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Caleb Tung @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Armed with a robust sense of humor and plenty of experience under his belt, Professor Windl completely knocks this presentation out of the park. He summarized pros and cons of all three "modes of work", going after the things that typical graduating PhDs might not be thinking about (impact on family/spouse, having a life outside work, job stability, etc.) His presentation is wonderfully creative (just wait to see how he ties the US nuclear arsenal with a guy's likelihood to find a wife), but he still maintains a grounded, down-to-earth feel. At the end of his talk, he tells the students to figure out what is important in your life first, then decide what job to take. This advice, is the best advice I've heard on picking jobs. Throw away what everyone else thinks about your job - choose what matters to you. Very, very well done.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Vianney A. del C. Filos-Gonzalez @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This was a very engaging presentation, Dr. Windl made sure to keep the audience interested with a good combination of humor and directly engaging with the students. He first highlighted the relevant information his own career and how it related to the presentation topic.
Main pro/cons for each of National Lab, Industry and Academia were presented, with extra information given for each point. It was very helpful to have had his own experiences in each field presented to have an almost first hand view into what it entails to work in each area, from day to day life to salary, professional development, type of actual work done at the place.
This kind of presentation are really valuable for graduate students, specially if you haven't had experience in more than one career area, with this kind of information it is easier to make decisions on wether a certain path is what you want or it can make you consider other choices that before you may have not known about.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Lucas Michael Cohen @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl makes it clear at the beginning that this talk would be not only informative but funny as well. On the informative side, I enjoyed his pros/cons regarding industry, academia, and national labs. It was helpful that he described his average workday, as it shed some light on how working in one of the three would be.
I appreciated how Dr. Windl discussed life outside work, and it made me very interested in a national lab as I enjoy mountains, remoteness, and small cities. His personal story of a past student of his getting a job at Intel and hating it was also informative as your job shouldn’t be about the company you’re working for - it should be about the work you do.
Overall, this was an hour well spent and lots were learned.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Karthik Vijay Annur Myilswamy @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Prof. Wolfgang Windl clearly delineated the difference between working at academia, industry and national labs. He highlighted the various key factors one should be aware of before signing up for the job like job security, work culture, location, work-life balance etc. He clearly states how these factors differ between working at academia, industry and national labs. A nice point he stated was that one would prefer each of these jobs at different stages in his/ her life. He lucidly explains that one track is not better than the other, however one is more suited compared to the other depending on the person's needs at that point of time. This angle was quite interesting.
He walked us through the all jobs he had and explained what we can expect from those options. Despite being an international resident, he was able to work in all the three categories, which I never thought was possible. So, it was clear that there are options available in each sector for international students as well. However, he displayed a lot of technical stuff which I wasn't able to follow. I feel he could have skipped those technical stuff as it was not the main point of discussion.
He was engaging through the talk and gave an irreplaceable content that everyone should keep in mind before taking up a job. Overall, he did a great job and it also put me into thinking about my career. Also, his humor sense was charming.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Juan Antonio Kim Hoo Chong Chie @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Wolfgang Windl highlights the differences between three workplace environments where people can go for a career. Dr Windl compared each environment using things such as: job salary, job stability, "burocracy", location; as his metrics. What I like from his presentation is that Dr. Windl speaks thru his experiences in each place. Hence, it is like having some inside information about each environment.
One extremely valuable action Dr. Windl did during his lecture was using his experiences to show advantages and disadvantages of each environment. For example, Dr. Windl mentioned he still receives emails from the National Lab he worked at years after leaving the place which could become annoying over time, but he also remarked that the job stability in a National Lab is better.
Although, this presentation expose each environment in a detailed way, Dr. Windl shows a little bias towards an Academia environment, which could be due to his current position and preferences. But, as he speaks using his experiences as his backup, anyone that listen this lecture should consider this bias as relevant information.
In summary, this lecture fulfills its objective of making a comparison between the three environments (national labs, industry and academia), and it is done in an extremely blunt and straight manner, which is something I personally like. It highlights the comparison thru the perspective of a person that experienced all three environments making this lecture a valuable resource for anyone that is in the point of his/her career where he/she has to make a choice between them.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ryan Dailey @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This talk is particularly interesting for me because I am currently choosing between industry and national labs. I like the points he maid about remote locations, job security, and diversity at national labs. One of the things that I don't like about the national labs is the inability to chose which project I work on. Another big thing that bothers me about the national labs is that you can't talk about what you do.
Some of the time he spent on his work was interesting but didn't seem relevant to the talk.
I enjoyed the candid nature of his discussion. I know he said exactly what he felt about each of the topics he discussed. I feel like he could have talked a bit less about his research and a bit more about the working environment in each industry.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Nathan Ankomah-Mensah @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl from The Ohio State University cames off as blunt which is a refreshing take on the debate between the three paths. His breakdown of the disparity between Labs, Industry, and Academia was perfect. I disagree with his take on Masters vs Ph.D. as his data may be out of date compare to now. It clear that he was a bit bias for Ph.D. and Academia which is to be expected as a Professor, I would hope for a less bias version of this presentation in the future. A potential way of doing this could be a panel type presentation between three engineers who are in each path. I would also be curious to hear a Start-up perspective as I feel that it differs greatly from the standard Industry path. Regardless of bias, this was an enjoyable and informative presentation.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Phillip Lipinski @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This was a valuable presentation that exposed me to the advantages and disadvantages of working in a national lab, industry, and academia. It gave me a better idea of what to expect in each type of environment, which is especially useful to me as I begin making decisions on a career path. I like how Dr. Windl gave a lot of specific examples of pros and cons of each work environment, both in general and some that applied to his situation. I especially like how he pointed out how each type of work environment might affect finding a spouse and raising a family, which one might not readily think of when considering these options. He also did a good job with the presentation slides, which summarized the key points succinctly and were easy to read. The presentation slides contained a good mix of text and graphics, both of which were very relevant. Some of the slides were also amusing and supported the funny remarks that Dr. Windl gave along the way. This also helped keep the presentation interesting. This was definitely a helpful presentation and I really recommend that others watch it to gain a better perspective of each type of work environment. Overall, it was engaging and I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I will keep the points discussed in mind as I continue exploring career options.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Leonardo Luchetti @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I liked the perspective that this speaker gave into the options of high level engineer. They seemed to be very aware of their implicit biases and gave ample information not only about what they personally experienced (working in a national lab) but gave other career paths as well. I appreciated the fact that this speaker pointed out the trend of engineers to go into arms manufacturing, the slide titled "arms race stockpile" was very interesting and slightly alarming to me. The speakers own work in radiation damage was also very interesting as that is a field I am not very familiar with. I also found it refreshing that the speaker talked about the balance of personal life with career choices, specifically how having a career in the nuclear industry would affect spousal relationships. I particularly liked the graphic illustrating academic legacy, showing the sort of flow chart of influential engineers and scientists. This seems like a very important thing to consider when choosing a career. This talk was a great mix of technical information and examples with general life advice for a person in graduate school.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
1 Like 0 Dislike
Carl J Olthoff @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I greatly appreciated the wealth of experience that Dr. Windl has able to share with us. To be more specific, I really appreciated the hard and direct comparisons between the three career paths. For example, instead of talking about what a National Lab researcher does as opposed to what a University Professor does, he goes into explicit detail about salary, general life considerations like location, family accomodation, and work life balance. THESE are the kinds of comparisons that are most valuable for students in our position.
While I appreciated the hard comparisons, I definitely disagreed with Dr. Windl's summary of why a PhD is much more desirable than master's degree. While its true that a PhD recipient may have a higher starting salary, that does not mean its an obviously better option. Masters and PhD's have different goals, so the real question isn't "how much money?", its a question of "what is your passion?" I thought since Dr. Windl went ahead and included a brief comparison of Masters vs. PhD, he should have at least provided a much more thoughtful analysis. Again, this is because the question of Masters vs. PhD is another area where students like us could use some insight.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Keshav Raheja @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Having been all too familiar with the idea of landing a high paying job in corporate since by undergraduate days, I will honestly say that I had never put so much thought into pursing a different career path. However, after having sat through the presentation, I now have a much broader view of my future prospects. From the presentation, I got to live all three experiences vicariously. I liked how he talked about pursuing academia for a more satisfying life and enjoying a higher degree of impact on society. Having spent few months in corporate, I could relate with his feelings about company culture and how it may be controlled by the whims of the administration. His National Lab comments were valuable too. All in all, I liked how Dr. Windl tried to lay out all the pros and cons of each of the career trajectories. I still feel like needing some first hand experience but his observations have given me a lot of foresight and have been a real eye opener.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Jacob A Covey @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I think the lecture was very good. It is very challenging to give a fair opinion on the different career paths. Everyone has their bias and most people do not truly have the range of experience to give an accurate assessment.
While Dr. Windl clearly prefers academia he did not choose to talk down on other career paths, which I frequently see. Rather he gave fair pros and cons of the job and stated that it more aligns with his personal preferences - he doesn't mind the work load and loves the discovery and students. When talking about his experience in industry/national labs he did not isolate the talk to experiences that were specific to his position. Instead he managed to draw out the more universal lessons about each and apply them to companies/labs at large. Things like pay, work life balance and culture are all incredibly important when talking about industry/labs and he does a good job at conveying the pros and cons of each. The only complaint I have in regard to the content is that it did not cover anything especially ground breaking. It was interesting to hear someone talk about their life experiences and what they have learned from their careers but the things discussed should be common knowledge to a student at this point. Information about pay, culture, work life balance etc are not new bits of information. I would have liked to see something more unique pulled out of his experiences.
But as I said over all very good video, very fair and thorough. The information was well presented and I got a couple of laughs as well. I really did not expect Hitler to be the first imaged relating to "How to be remembered". A nice bit of dark humor thrown in.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Aaron M Barnes @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Professor Windl kept the audience engaged in his presentation with is congenial tone. His presentation was very funny (I enjoyed his "will your wife hate you for going nuke" graph). He made valid points about working in a National Lab. I think a factor that is often overlooked while job searching is the location. He raised good points: national labs are often in remote areas and are very large so you have to deal with a large bureaucracy. There is a limited number of research areas that they focus on in National Labs, so it is not uncommon to work on something you had not initially planned (for example he ended up working on maintaining nuclear weapons). There seem to be a lot of similarities between working at a national lab and working in industry (good work life balance, difficult work on research that you want to work on, etc.). It was especially interesting looking at the comparison of salary growths depending on which area you go into.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Shramana Chakraborty @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture provided a good comparison between the three different career options like the three discussed in this lecture i.e. National Lab, Industry and Academia. He cited good examples using his personal experiences to illustrate the pros and cons of each of these options.
What I liked about the talk is the use of real examples to illustrate what the speaker is trying to convey. It helps us get a closer to real scenario picture. So its really a hard decision to single out one of them as the best option. He successfully pointed out that a lot depends on the situations and job scenarios which will ultimately help us choose the better option and it varies from individual to individual.
So another case study or a talk from a person settled in a national lab or industry might present a different perspective. On a broader scale probably, the discussed points holds good. So it is upto the individual to find out what fits him or her the most based on the available set of options.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Sarada Krithivasan @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture was very personally informative for me, as I am currently confused between the pros and cons of academic research vs industry. These pros and cons were clearly laid out in a lucid and simple to understand manner.
A important point put forth was the discussion on National Labs. Being an international student, I have always been curious about the inner workings of these laboratories. The various factors one must consider before signing up to work in these organizations was also emphasized upon. While location may not be so important whilst pursuing a PhD, it is something to consider while evaluating a career prospect. I was really glad that this was something that was touched upon.
I felt that his advice on being ready to adapt yourself, or being ready to make changes at any stage in your career, to be quite profound. His advice on getting back to academia while working/publishing articles for a few years at an industrial research group was especially helpful.
As a general comment, I feel the life of a Post-Doc could have been elucidated more.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
xiwen zhang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Prof. Windl answered a critical question for all engineering students. I think almost everyone would like to compare the three career choices carefully for themselves. however, for most of us, we do not have someone with such rich experience to ask for advice. So the talk he gave is really what I need.
The people work in national lab have good work/life balance, but the salary is not as competitive as that of industry, so maybe the job in national lab suits someone who value the work security. The faculties must work much hard, but the feeling of achievement and freedom is the reward for them. Besides, they are the bosses for themselves, though they rarely give themselves vacation with salary. So, for one to make a decision, he must know first what is his own priority, which is a question no one could answer for him.
To really make a decision is hard. Fortunately, I still have several years. And I could do internships in different place, which I believe should help me to find what I most enjoy.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ziyu Gong @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Professor Wolfgang Windl mainly illustrate three main options of working at national lab, industry and stay in academia. National lab usually have a lot of fund from the government, and the work location usually is really nice(if you like natural scenes a lot). However, their research topics are rather limited and the salaries usually follows a normal distribution that has an average about $13600. As opposed to national lab, industries does have a lot of topics (not research) and the salaries can range from $40000 to over a million. And the salaries usually goes hand in hand with your increasing working experiences. However, the problems of the industry is that working condition might be bad, and may suffer from constant changing in job focus. Finally, if you decide to stay in academia, you will have a nice working condition since you graduated from that. Also, you will get legacy if you succeed in your area. However, this is a long way to go, and you pretty much need to dedicate your life into your research area.
I really like how professor Wolfgang Windl listed not only the pros and cons for all three different types of possible works options, but also shared a lot of personal experiences from those different types of job. For example, in the national lab experience, he mentioned that he works in a lab that are completely different from labs of universities or the companies. And the location is really nice. This really gives an intuitive idea of what working in a national lab really is. Also this material is super useful from now on to even when you already are working. Since, you need to try to experience different things to finally decides what is best for you. At the end of the lecture, professor Wolfgang Windl encouraged us not to be afraid of changing path. Find out what is best for you now and then decide carefully. Overall, I consider this lecture is awesome.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
robert andrawis @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The talk is a comparison between the industry and national labs Jobs. Toward this end,the speaker provided his own experience in national labs and industry. The conclusion is that national lab is good if you want to stay more time with family and industry is good if you want more money.
I will brief here some of the main points in the lecture:
The speaker started by his resume as Postdoc, staff scientist then professor in Ohio university.
The advantage of national lab job :Can have a life outside work, Job security, good salary – Focus on research work, Large, lots of peers to interact.
The disadvantage of job in national labs jobs : Often in remote locations, Homogeneous workforce,Government bureaucracy; safety/security, Citizenship often required.
The advantage of working in industry :
Salary evolution, Focus on technical work, Doing something that has impact, Research plus development work , Can have (some) life outside of work .
The disadvantage of working in industry:
Frequent changes in management ladder, along with refocusing of work ,Work area leayout(cubicles) , Hardly any research jobs available today ,Job insecurity.
The work in industry is some kind like Dilbert series.
The talk is very nice the speaker could use visualization effectively. The speaker could relate the job description to the individual variations between people.
I think it will be nice if he get the audience involved by asking some questions
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yuhang Zhu @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This presentation raises several useful points and I like the presentation given by Professor Windl. It is a interesting presentation. Very humorous and it makes the flow of the presentation nature and comfortable. It gives us a chance to have a thought of the life working for industry, labs or academia. Those are the thing we will never touch unless we finish our school.
If I have the chance I would also want to share my thought. I would to point out a importance of communication skills. I believe it is important and essential for everyone either you are working in industry, labs or academia. I was a “lone wolf” when I was working on my bachelor degree. It was tough to work out all the problem myself but it was still doable. When I started my research job, everything changed. It was impossible to solved out the thing by one’s own effort anymore. Actually, most of topics are interdisciplinary. You may have the knowledge to solve part of the project but the rest of them you should never seen before. This is why communication skills play a important role. With good communication skills, it helps you to explain your problem more efficient to the college or consultor so that you have more chance to solved the problem that you are facing.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Xiran Wang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
The speaker talked about different aspects of working in three different job environments: nation labs, industry and academia.
When working in national labs, you could have more life outside of work, job security, a good and decent salary and a lot of peers. However, locations of national labs are often remote and local population can be homogeneous. Often time the bureaucracy and security overkill can also be a burden overtime. For sensitive areas, a citizenship is required.
For industry jobs, one can have a better salary evolution if enough efforts are put, and is able to focus more on the technical stuff without too much burden from administrative processes. Because the nature of the work is leaning more towards development, the one's work can also have more impact. There can still be some life outside of work if it is the right company. However, when working in the industry, there can be frequent changes in managements that leads to the change of direction the team. The working environment has more distractions which can be terrible for some people. Career in a company can also heavily depend on the performance of the company itself, and as a result the job is less secure compared to jobs in the national labs. There can also be office politics that many people dislike. The speaker specifically mentioned that it is very important to know what exactly one would be doing for a industry job before signing the contract as some jobs in the industry can be quite boring.
The speaker said the best part of a career in academia is the environment and specifically the students. The job is also secure once entering tenure track. Professors can also leave a good legacy in the academia in terms of students, publications and recognition. When choosing universities, it is very important to consider the size of the university, the student body, teaching load, the opportunities the university can offer and capability of the university such as being able to provide lab instruments or important facilities.
In summary, the speaker said every option has its pros and cons and different options might be best for different stages of life. The most important aspects to consider when making a decision are: work life balance, finances, impact/legacy, development vs research and whether one can work with a boss or not. The most important thing to remember is never be afraid of changing the path.
I think this presentation is very informative and the speaker made strong points drawing his rich personal experiences.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Dingjie Liu @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The speaker illustrates the pros and cons among National Lab, Industry and Academia.
I remember that during the first lecture, Professor Klimeck did it as well. I like this sharing from professors very much, because we have few chances to listen about it. Every time we can discuss some points for research with professors, but I will really be appreciated if a certain professor could share his experiences!
Comparing with Professor Klimeck's job, the speaker tells us more about his research work. Although I am not working in this area (I am learning AC), I feel satisfied as well for widening my knowledge and knowing some experiences which I may never hold. So if the speakers describe their research work in detail, I will not think that it is a waste of time.
Besides, his points are closer to life. I mean that: One of his emphasizing point is spouse splitting. When others compare National Lab with industry or something else, they may just focus on the security of lab, salary as well as research freedom, like Professor Kilmeck. However, the remote working place does a negative influence for researcher in National Lab. So I think the discussion of that is meaningful. We need a life other than work.
I totally agree with his statement: "Choose different option for different stages." That is correct.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Xiaoyu Xiang @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Choosing industry or academia has always been a question for a PhD doing strong application-based researches like me. The speaker's experience is across industry(motorola) and academia(OSU), so I think his presentation is very persuasive for me.
At the 3rd slide, he analysed pros and cons of joining a national lab, which includes items for a foreign student like me. He also said that he like working in the national lab, also the sad fact that workers getting fired. The details about daily work were really good and funny. If without his presentation, I would not take national lab as a pratical option.
His speech included both his major, research area(even with nice pictures!) and he can analyze questions from complex perspectives such as funding, wife, location, bureaucracy, payment and so on.
In his later slides he also analyze the pros and cons to work in industry. The facts that there may be not enough research jobs astonish me.
Overally, I think he has good speech skills and can deliver things clearly and logically, though some science concepts are quite new to me. The organization is consistent and with good logic so it's not very hard to follow him.
After this seminar, I learned to consider the career choice combined with more factors, not just salary. Although some data he referred are out-of-data in today's view, the mind-flow still applied. Also he made me to think about possibilities of changing research area in the long term. I shared this seminar to other PhD students that are confused by the same question as me.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Emily Fredette @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I really appreciated his unique perspectives from academia, national labs, and industry. Because of his experiences he was able to compare and contrast the different types of work environments, types of projects, and types of legacies. I am personally considering industry for a few years after I graduate, then moving back into academia.
Here are some highlights from the types of jobs that stood out to me and my interests:
National Lab: Job security, bureaucracy, good work/life balance, inflexible work topics.
Industry: Better salaries, decent work/life, real-world projects, cubicle farms
Academia: Security (tenure, takes a while), legacy, teaching, research freedom
His comments on the master’s salary in industry caught my attention, that a master’s degree will not earn you much in industry (compared to PhD). This does not match the research I had done on the topic (master’s degrees can earn 18% more over their career, and their starting salaries are on average $10k more), I imagine things have changed over the years since his presentation. I would be interested in hearing more recent interests at the research facilities as well, as this presentation is from 7 years ago.
While he got a little too in-depth in the science of his work throughout the presentation, he also had a very good sense of humor, overall an extremely informative presentation, I would enjoy listening to this presentation in person. Considering where I am in my academic career, I am unsure of which path to take in the near future, and I appreciate his ending advice of ‘Don’t be afraid to change paths’.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
1 Like 0 Dislike
Garrett McMindes @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl did an excellent job laying out the pros and cons of industry, nationals labs, and research. Personally, as someone looking to join the national labs next Fall, I found a number of his points about the lab very reassuring. In particular I look forward to having a life outside work as well as job security.
One the the points that I thought the presentation could improve upon was roughly in the middle of the presentation, the speaker focused on some of the work he did while at Motorola, going into great detail on the science behind what he was doing. As someone who doesn't have an interest in the area, this topic became very difficult to listen to. It's inclusion distracted from what was otherwise a very well organized presentation.
I also very much appreciate the bits of humor interjected and the very straight forward way the speaker described his points. This engaged me as the audience and made me pay much more attention to his individual points. His presentation was very organized, and he certainly covered the complete spectrum of the topic in sufficient detail.
Overall I gave the presentation a 4/5, with one point being removed for the extra technical information about his research that I feel was superfluous, but still an excellent presentation and one I would love to hear in person.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ren Li @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture introduces the difference between national lab, industry and academia. I have to say, it is perfect and the talker is very funny.I love this talk.
After graduation, we have to face the question of where to work. No matter what we choose, every options has its pros and cons. There are some comparisons between national lab, industry and academia.
National lab: the good things are job security, good salary, focusing on work, and we can have a life outside work, while the bad things are the remote location, bureaucracy and the limited research area (most of them are sensitive researches). The speaker showed us his working experience of nuclear weapon research in the national lab, including what he did, where he worked and how was the salary. It's cool that he showed some real pictures of his work place to let us realize what "remote" really means.
Industry: Here, we can enjoy the things of salary involution, less administrative work, like proposal writing, and doing something that has meaning (which can be converted to real product). However, we have to bare frequent changes in management ladder, refocusing of work, job insecurity and the cubicles where we work. A wise suggestion is given by the speaker, that master is not so good financially, cause it only leads to tiny increase of salary compared with bachelor degree, but PhD is much more worthwhile.
Academia: In university, the job is stable and free. We can even leave some legacy (our students/publications/awards) after our death. But working there also means little time for life, and the people we work with are in training, because many of them are students.
Just as the speaker said, try to figure out what's important for you now and don't be afraid to change path. This is the right attitude we should hold while we pursue our career.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Shahzad Hameedi @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This was a great presentation! Dr. Windl goes into details in explaining the various career paths and discusses the benefits of each. I especially liked his details about where some national labs are in remote areas. However, being an older student and having worked with the Government already, I know there are some labs that are not in remote areas. For example, Livermore National lab is actually in a city area. Other jobs that are also not in remote areas can be like SPAWAR Pacific and/or Atlantic. Although these are not national labs they have just a good job security and work in conjunction with National labs to accomplish a specific government directive. I am not sure if he was suppose to give out the data on how many warhead we currently have in our stockpile. Isn't that data be classified?
I also liked the fact that Dr. Windl gave insight into what is really important. For example, he discussed the importance of legacy, where not only can you make an impact on your students, but when they donate to your University they themselves make an impact on other students. There are definitely a lot of struggles in the Industry. I think his example of management changing frequently in industry parallels that of the government and national labs as well.
I was not aware about the salaries in academia so I particularly enjoyed his comparison on the salaries. I understand that salary is not everything but financial stability is very important in life.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Sabarish Vettakkorumakankav Sridhar @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dr Windl talks about his time at National labs and compares and contrasts this with his time at Motorola and Ohio State
I like the way he mentions that you start of with a position at the industry and then switch to academia since this path is always something which is possible(but you need to keep in mind that you may want to get into academia and follow what is ongoing in the field.) Dr Windl also mentions how writing proposals takes up a major part of his time and you need to keep the money flowing in to make sure you can do interesting research work.
Most of the work in national labs involves either nuclear stockpile simulation and his atomistic background was a good fit. He describes the work life balance at
national labs and says that being a professor is much harder. This is not something that I would have known.
Another interesting point that Dr Windl brings in this presentation is what is important changes with what part of your life you are in. These in turn cause you to change what you want to focus and work on. This was very insightful advice.
A very interesting presentation by Dr Windl - especially the Dilbert comic strip which he shared.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Xiao Hu @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture is very useful for Ph.D students like us because the main objective that is presented during the lecture is our life career after graduated from the university.
The spokesman is Dr. Windl, he first gave his own experiences about his career choices that were formed and his opinions for us. This is very helpful because we could take advantage of his experiences so that we could understand what those different working environments look like. Dr. Windl also discussed different factors that should be taken into consideration before choosing the future working environment. He gave details about different areas. For instance, National Laboratory is bounding with work security, and academia has less competitive than industry.
For the slides, I believe some slides have too much text information, and it could be made simpler. And the diagram in 6th slide could be made more clearly. The visual information in the slide is too much as well, some graphs are meaningless, or give repeat information. So that the slide could be better if it has less text information and less visual.
Overall it has a 4/5 score.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Nikkitha Subbiah @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I picked this lecture because I wanted to get the perspective of an experienced individual on what career path to pick and this lecture did more than just state the pros and cons. The speaker makes the lecture very funny and interesting. He also has a lot of experience in teaching, industry and national laboratories and can provide a first person review of all three. From his talk, I can see that working in national laboratories can be both interesting and rewarding however, salaries can be fixed. His talk made me realise that even if a job in the industry is highly paying, it can get a little monotonous and not as satisfying. Teaching seems to be something that he has settled on and is passionate about. However, his needs and views about a job could be very different from mine and I'll have to experience each of them myself to settle on a definite career path.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yeshani Wijesekara @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
A very refreshing and insightful lecture. The speaker, Dr Windl, seemed honest in talking about how his career choices were shaped up and his opinions about each of them. I thought it was very helpful to hear about the experience of someone who has had careers in different work environments. He talks about the good and the bad for all options. He also discusses different factors to think about before choosing one option. They are : living conditions in typical locations, salary/promotions and bonusses, job security, work/life management, legacy etc.. This lecture brought up several things that I found interesting. One main point he brought up was that depending on which point you are in your life, the career path that suits you may be different. While a 20 something without a family to look after may be able to work overtime and devote a lot of time to work, someone with a family to look after may want more time to spend with the family. From his experiences he talks about how working in national labs vs industry vs academia is different/similar in these aspects. While I very much appreciated the honesty, bluntness and the humor he brought to keep the audience engaged, I didn’t care for the slide “Will your wife hate you going nuke?”. However, I understand that this video may have been recorded a long time ago and the audience may have been an all-male crowd that day. But I would have given the speaker and the content five stars had it been more gender inclusive.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Roland N Green @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl's presentation on national labs, academia, and industry helped me to better make a distinction of which route I would like to go after graduation.
One of the things that I learned during the presentation was the job security that National Labs often have, at the cost of government bureaucracy and restricted location for work. I also learned that your research work can be particularly limited when working working for national labs.
Dr. Windl's talk about his work in industry brought to light information that I had not known previously. The large raises of 15-20% as well as bonuses was something that I had not known was so much higher than other areas. The information about the job security was also something that has helped me weigh my decisions better of what I will do after graduation.
Dr. Windl's information from his time in academia was something that I found particularly useful because of my current career goals. The "freedom" aspect of the job something that was particularly interesting to me. His thoughts on how he is able to work on his on passion projects was something that spoke to me.
One particular aspect that I think would improve the presentation would be more information on the differences in different types of universities (teaching vs research). This was mentioned, but I feel that it could have been expanded on more.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ahmad Subhi Alawneh @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
The seminar is very helpful and resourceful for people pursuing study and need to decide their future. The Speaker shares his work experience in 3 different areas: national labs, industry, and academia by addressing the pros and cons for each one in an objective manner by discussing different aspects like work hours, work environment, work location, salary and others which may affect someone's decision and lead him/her to his/her right carer path.
The speaker has a great sense of humor which makes the lecture interesting and he is good at keeping everyone's attention. The slides are informative and help to keep the lecture dynamic and I liked the last slide which is ended by " Don't be afraid to change path"
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Daniel Klanke @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
As someone trying to decide what course I would like to take in my professional life, I've found this presentation about Wolfgang's work experiences to be particularly useful and a good supplement to similar presentations given by others. Wolfgang's diverse experiences allow him to provide a single perspective on the three areas mentioned in the presentation, which I think is more unique and helpful than hearing from three different sources about their respective areas. This was well presented and I enjoyed Wolfgang's humor which kept an already interesting presentation very engaging throughout its entirety.
The only thing I would have liked to have seen added in the presentation is more detail on his transitions between the three major areas. This was briefly addressed during the Q+A at the end, but I would have liked to hear more about how difficult it was to move to academia from industry, what factors lead to the presenter's decisions to move to/from industry and academia, and if there was any benefit lost by making such transitions rather than staying in a single area for one's whole career.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Vichitha Kekanaje Chinmaya @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The seminar helped me understand the several pros and cons that go into working in the National Lab, Industry and Academia.
Having myself worked in Broadcom for two years, the seminar helped me reminisce my experience of having worked in the industry while giving me a fresh insight into potentially working with the National Lab and Academia.
With respect to working with the industry I understood several things. Firstly, I learnt that it is important to ask the company you intend to work or find out by talking to employees of the company already in that position on what exactly the work is in-order to ensure that the job does end up being not mind-numbing to you. .
I also learnt that being in the industry helps you interact and build a network with several talented people which is otherwise hard to do if you are in the academia where you meet people less frequently and in conferences.
Having a research based job in the industry with opportunities to publish papers helps get back into the academia much easily.
Apart from industries, with respect to the academia I learnt that it’s hard to get things done in small universities due to lack of resources and sufficient manpower. Big groups in academia tend to have stronger funding but you know less about what another person is doing and hence the project on the whole.
Working with the national lab and academia have better job securities compared to working in the industry as they cannot be acquired whereas working in the industry helps you stay stronger financially.
I also learnt that working in areas such as graphene, energy, super battery with the academia pays off better currently due to the trends in progress in the mentioned areas.
Lastly, Professor Wolfgang Windl talks about “tenure”. I wish he had elaborated some more on the term with respect to the academia, the know-hows and the legal aspects that go into it.
Overall the seminar session was extremely resourceful and helped me understand it’s one’s priorities that have to weighed in-order to choose between working with the government, the industry or the academia.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Mustafa Abdallah @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
This talk is very recommended for people pursuing study and are confused in choosing their career path. The speaker has a huge experience in all different types of jobs which are: Academia, Industry and National Lab. The most impressive thing in that talk is using an interesting comparison manner to show the Pros. and Cons. for each type of job. For example, if you need to collect much more money, National Lab work is better than being Professor in Academia but in the other hand, if you are international -like my case- the chance in Academia is much better than national lab. Also, the graphs of salaries and the degree effect is very good. For instance, if you become more patient and get Ph.D. instead of Master of Science, your jump in salary -if you work in Industry- will be higher. This thing encourages me a lot. Another interesting point for me was his experience with Motorola and the job-insecurity definition that he explains during his work in it and in Post-doc position. He showed with examples that the factor of money to be the only dominant isn't right thing. A negative point was an example of how to be a famous. I didn't like his way for showing examples for it with his examples. In summary, the talk is very useful and make an excellent argument about choosing the career path with considering all factors in it and how that changes within your career timeline.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
John Frederick Ribeiro @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dr. Windl's presentation did an excellent job of comparing and contrasting the various options that one has after graduation. He was an excellent person, for the job, as he has experience in all three areas. One of the key aspects of his presentation I enjoyed was when he would go over the work that was accomplished during each of these jobs. It gave me a perspective into what interests me, why it is interesting, and the disadvantages of working this job. Further, Dr. Windl inserted some humor in his talk which was much enjoyed, with his slide, "Will your wife hate you going nuke?"
An even better option for this seminar would be to invite three different people who have been in industry, academia, and national lab all their life. Such a panel discussion would be more helpful as such individuals would be able to list some of aspects of the job of somebody well accustomed to this lifestyle. Furthermore, I think the discussion aspect would be more interesting compared to one person who has been involved in all three.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Daniel Mas Montserrat @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This lecture is very dynamic. The presenter talks in a good pace and has a great sense of humor. It is probably the funniest lecture. The presenter goes through his life experience on 3 different job types: national lab, industry and being a professor. Although explaining each job type from his point of view and through personal stories, it ends giving pros and cons for each of the 3 types of jobs. The pros and cons are presented in an objective manner and they discuss aspects like work environment, work hours, work environment, work location (if it is remote or in a big city), salary and more philosophical thinks like legacy or ethics of the work. This lecture make a great use of visuals, all the slides contain useful or fun information and help to keep the lecture dynamic. The only thing I would change from the talk is reduce a little bit the time where he talks about some technical details of his work.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Tyler Dean Rodriguez @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The speaker right away shows a good sense of humor and is engaging with the audience. He’s good at keeping everyone’s attention. The first subject he discusses is working at a National lab. He starts off by pointing out the pluses and minuses. I thought the pluses of working at a national lab outweighed the minuses. Even some of his minuses were pluses in my opinion. He then goes into some detail about what he did at Los Alamos. He did a good job of staying broad so I could understand what he did and the importance of it. His work included finding the displacement threshold using radiation on certain materials. One of the biggest problems I thought was the bureaucracy he described. It seemed to be the biggest minus of everything and could be the deciding factor for most people.
The next topic is Industry. He starts off by pointing out that industry is best for making money. This segways into the pluses and minuses again. I thought the pluses slightly outweighed the minuses, but the minuses were pretty bad. The worst part was that there are hardly any research jobs available in industry. This Is probably even more true today, as this lecture was a few years ago. He then talks about his time at Motorola. His job mainly involved process modeling. It got a bit technical, but he did a good job of making it understandable. Another good thing about industry is that it has a wide variety of locations, unlike national labs. He gave good advice on avoiding “mind numbing jobs.” I liked how he said he started to like Dilbert cartoons after he worked in industry. Although partially a joke, he made a good point on how industry can change your perspective on the business world.
The final topic is on Academia. It probably has the most minuses of the three. He says that it is the most demanding job and that there is little time for life. He also says that there is a lot of freedom in academia, but at some point, it may be too much. I thought the legacy question was unimportant myself, but others may have found it important. It mainly had to do with how people viewed your life after you past away. He then goes into the specifics of academia and how research works. There is a different balance between teaching and researching at different universities depending on the size of the university. He then ends by summarizing how the three differ and how we should all take these into consideration when picking between the three.
Overall I thought the speaker was great. He kept my attention and I thought his advice was honest and blunt. It helped that he had a better sense of humor than most speakers. After watching the lecture, I think I am more suited to choose which of the three I would want to start out my career in.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Rasika Kalwit @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is a very interesting topic and usually it’s very difficult to find someone who has experience of working in a national lab, industry as well as academia. The presenter compares the three areas on their pros and cons. normally each person has a preference to a specific working culture. But we need to self-assess ourselves before diving into that work field. Being said that presenter’s varied work experience also showed that one can work in different work cultures and decide for themselves what works best for them. The selection of job can be based on pay, location, work environment, administrative work and job security. I also agree with the presenter, the job selection can also depend on at what stage of life you are at. I think being a graduate student; I will have less restrictions or constraints while selecting the first job. I do not see myself working in an academic environment but I would love to work in a national lab or corporate research lab. I like how presenter described each work culture with his personal experience. Even though his list of pros and cons are based on personal experience, I did not find them biased. The difference in research done in all these different sectors is very clear. From his personal research experience, I could see clear distinction between research with a freedom to work on research topic that interests you and a fast-paced teamwork-oriented research. Overall, it’s an informative and enlightening seminar topic and would recommend watching it.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Pranay Banerjee @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This seminar has got to be one of the most engaging and interesting seminars I have ever watched or attended. Initially, I was just intrigued by the seminar title, however, as I kept on watching, I realized the presenter is actually giving answers to a very persistent question I have always had. Having a work experience of almost 4 years before I began my Masters, this question kept lingering in the back of my mind. However, when I saw his insight, it really made sense and I would say I see things a bit clearer.
The presenter began by going over his time at the Los Alamos National Lab, where he said there were few advantages in terms of his research area as he didn't want to work on nuclear weapons but had to as part of his funding situation. He also mentioned about the illogical communication about attending mandatory courses even when he had left the lab, which really made no sense. One thing that really interested me is the amount of lab bureaucracy. I didn't expect something like that at a national lab, but unfortunately that is the case. In terms of the salary, he pointed out that although the initial salary is at par with the industry, the rise is pretty flat.
For me the section where the presenter presented his industry experience was most insightful. I have always desired to do work that has an impact and it seems industry is the only place for that. Not only is the focus on technical work, but an employee has a decent salary evolution which is a great motivation. Also, an employee gets to have a fair enough work-life balance. Of course, there were certain cons, for example - frequent changes in the management that can lead to work confusion, job insecurity especially if the market goes down or the company makes a mistake in guessing the market trend. In such cases, despite being innocent, an employee can find himself out of a job. A big plus is that a graduate degree from a reputed first-tier university goes miles in securing a job that matches a student's expertise.
Even though I don't quite fancy a job in academia, there are undoubtedly some pros in this area compared to national labs or industry. Firstly, there is academic freedom and a very pleasant work environment with students. Secondly, there is very little or almost no job insecurity. The icing on the cake is the type of legacy one leaves behind at the end of an academic career in terms of supervised students and research work. However, all of that comes at a cost. For example, there is no set work-time: one almost has no time for personal life. Secondly, recognition or stable funding depends on the type of the institution. If it's a large first tier university, then there is large scale stable funding, inter departmental collaboration and technology exchange. However, in medium or low tier universities, there is a risk of abrupt ending of funding, very long time to get recognized and lack of good quality students.
As a conclusion, I really enjoyed this seminar as it helped me be convinced of my decision to join the industry. I would highly recommend this seminar to any and every student with whom I come across.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Ian C Stevenson @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
If you are a grad student and are uncertain about your future (i.e. where you want to work, academia, industry or a national lab) this is a great resource. The presenter talks about his time working in all three and does a good job showing the strengths and weakness of each. That said he did seem a little biased toward academia at times, like when he was talking about legacy. To his credit he did mention the greatest weakness of academia, that you as a professor can only work on things you can get funded, not whatever you want. In particular his pros/cons slides for each place are very helpful and a concise way of thinking of each type of venue.
One thing I particularly liked about this talk, is the presenter did a good job of using powerpoint. In our class (ECE694) many of the speakers have fallen for the ppt trap and they have slides with bullets listing what they are going to say. In contrast this speaker only uses the bullets when it makes sense like with the pros/cons slides that function as an outline for his discussion of each type of work environment. He also has many slides that use ppt well and uses flowcharts, scientific figures and pictures to good effect. I like when he showed a little about his work at each stop and went a little into the details of how he used his atomistic modeling technique at all 3 places he has been. It helps show how a career can be constructed from a scientific modeling technique and demonstrates the depth, focus and breadth of work he did.
I don’t have anything the speaker could improve, but Dr. Klimeck (or whoever is responsible for nanohub) could do a better job hosting the talk on nanohub. On the website, the “View Presentation” button launches a swf player which is total trash. You can’t make it full screen and it stops after every slide. If you poke around you can find a mp4 version of the talk which was much better, but it shouldn’t require searching. If you want to use an embedded player, youtube would be much better.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Allison Perna @ on
4.0 out of 5 stars
I appreciated that the speaker was very open and honest about his experiences (as much as he could considering he worked on nukes for the government, at least). The way he spoke about each career path was not narrow-mindedly colored by his own personal experience. The descriptions were of course largely influenced by his experience, but weren't at all close to a, "I had a bad boss therefore industry sucks," or, "All my grad students are dumber than a sack of bricks so don't go to academia," level of narrow-mindedness. To that end, he also did not say any one option was better. He was able to articulate what circumstances may cause someone to seek each of the career paths.
A few things I appreciated:
I gave the talk 4/5 stars because the speaker talked with an outdated view of engineers. There was a slide about working on nukes and making your wife happy (albeit a funny slide, in my opinion). He also mentioned that going into certain fields as a single man means you'll come out as a single man because of the lack of women (this assumes said man is heterosexual and disregards any woman in the room). Unless he knew for a fact he was talking to exclusively heterosexual men, these comments were inappropriate and only reinforce engineering stereotypes. The speaker did not come across as sexist or homophobic at all, but rather not educated about basic inclusiveness in this regard. I must note that he was inclusive of different nationalities, being a German in the USA himself. I hope that in future discussions, the speaker accounts for people of other genders and sexual preferences when making those comments (totally doable, by the way, and can be just as funny while letting everyone in on the joke).
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Taegyu Kim @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is maybe one of the most interesting points that students want to know.
The presenter compare good and bad points on three job environments, national lab, industrial lab, and academic (university).
I just wanted to be a faculty member. However, I didn't have concrete information on the life of a professor. But, this time, I learned it.
All of three jobs have their own pros and cons. These descriptions are detailed because it is based on the presentor's experience.
For example, I didn't know how much difference in salary (e.g.., academic organization provides low salary), job insecurity for industrial lab, remote location of the working environment for national labs, and how much time to enjoy my life other than the main job (e.g., no such time on academic job).
These are very concrete and interesting points. Plus, the presenter is humorous in a proper level. I liked it.
If I pointed out some minus point, there are three points.
1. Some summaries are not intuitive when I read at first time. Use more intuitive description.
2. Don't mention your too detailed specific research area (off topic)
3. It seems hard and not his experience. But, I guess he talked about some industrial 'research' job. However, I want to get information on industrial 'engineering' job if possible
Although there are still some limitations and cons, the subject is very interesting for me. So, I give the perfect score on this lecture.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Yafei Mao @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This presentation mainly demonstrated three different career paths: going to industry, academia, or national labs. It is particularly valuable to students who did not have a plan for the future.
Based on his personal experience, the speaker provided a detailed comparison among the three paths. At first, he talked about pros and cons of working in national labs, which were concluded from his a year and half working experience in Los Alamos Lab. Next, he illustrated working in industries like Motorola. Finally, he talked about his postdoc life at Ohio State University. To be more specific, he mainly discussed from the following aspects: technical details of what he worked on, the working environment, location problems, working load, and salaries. He also concluded that every path has advantages and disadvantages. For example, it is hard for people in research labs to find a balance between job and life, and funding would be a big problem. Industry often provides higher salaries but people have to deal with their managers. Even though academia has nice working environment but the teaching load might be heavy.
I found the speaker convincing because what he told us was his real life experience, and his stories were funny and enlightening. I would recommend this presentation.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Nicholas Alexander Mcdonough @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The presenter clearly stated the objective: comparing and contrasting careers in industry, national laboratories, and academia. I particularly appreciated the concise pro con slides for each career choice. It was valuable to learn where the various occupations fell on the spectrum of income, life balance, and job security. The audience was effectively engaged halfway through the lecture with a slide of famous scientists. The lecturer asked the audience to name the scientists from their pictures alone. Overall this was an enjoyable and valuable lecture.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Man Chung Chim @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
This talk is very interesting and useful to grad students who start worrying about what happens next after getting the certificate. 3 major possible career path are outlined: National Lab, Industry, and Academia, and each with extensive examples and comparisons.
One important point to note is the speaker actually worked in all 3 of the industry, so a relatively objective and detailed comparison between them are given. For example, the workload of National Lab < Industry < Professors.
The speaker also used a lot of graphs when explaining funding and salaries, in terms of degrees, experience, and area of work.
Lastly, some technical details of each of the job the speaker worked in was given, which I think was very nice as this gives some feeling of what kind of research each areas are actually doing.
Overall, this is a useful talk that provides information one must know before deciding where to go after graduation.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
1 Like 0 Dislike
Vijai Thottahil Jayadevan @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
Undoubtedly one of the best talks in the seminar in my opinion. The talk not only provides a lot of relevant information but also does that in a entertaining and engaging manner. Listing/talking about the pros and cons of industry and academia is just what you would expect to hear. It really helped me take a peek into both lives though the experiences of the speaker. One of the questions that perplex people inclined to join the academia is that of funding. What if I'm not able to find enough funding to support students. The speaker, in the Q&A, talks about his experience with this and that was really helpful. We usually hear that different options suit different individuals. But the speaker tells the audience that at different stages in a single individuals life different things would seem attractive. For instance after 4-5 yrs in industry you would have to choose either the technical ladder or the management ladder to climb. At this point in time academia suddenly would start to look more interesting as making that choice is hard and either of those options may not be satisfactory (with all the accompanying politics).
All in all, that talk was excellent and inviting such speakers who speaks to the point and at the same time keeps it interesting would really enhance the seminar experience.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Wei Yang @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
I really enjoyed this talk because it not only provides some work (research) examples but also working environments and salaries. I believe these are the most concerns for graduate students.
This talk gives detail comparison of three different job types. National labs can give you balance between life and work, but usually the locations are remote. People can focus on research. On the other hand, working in a company could earn you more money, especially when you work ten years or more in a company (His salary doubled in four years). However, it is more product related than research focused in a company. It is less secure to work in a company because company fires people depending on market. Working in academia will give you opportunity with young people and make you young. The ultimate goal is academic tenure and professor work very hard for it with little life.
This talk also answered my question that what would be difference in future career path between with a Master's degree and a PhD degree. This talk is also very interesting. A couple of jokes helped to make people refocus to the talk. So I consider this is a very good talk.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.
0 Like 0 Dislike
Sarvesh Vijay Pradhan @ on
5.0 out of 5 stars
The talk weighs the pros and cons of working in industry (research), academia and at national labs based on the personal experiences of the speaker.
I enjoyed this talk as the material covered is highly relevant for graduate students who need to decide their career aspirations (long term) once they depart from university. I am a Master's student and have not experienced the long cycle of academic life of creating proposals, submitting papers for review etc. So this talk was a great window into what I think a post or job is about and what actually it is about. Further I have prior work experience so I could relate to some of the points of working in industry; especially the idea of creating something immediate that can be consumed by customers and the satisfaction that brings. Additionally, as an international student this was a window of working at different positions in America
The talk is not all about material pros and cons specific to the job but also talks about your sphere of life outside work and the impact your career choices can have on your friends, family and other personal life. This was an interesting angle that I have not seen before in similar talks. Depriving your spouse or family from achieving their career goals as a consequence of your choices can happen. There were some attributes assigned to jobs that are a litmus test to whether you might enjoy the job long term. For example, academic jobs are largely working with students - do you like that?
Personally this talk reinforced some of my thoughts on these career paths and also clarified my thinking with respect to others. Leaving the talk I will make a more accurate decision of which path I would like to travel. Furthermore, I really appreciated the humor and candid nature of the speaker. It really transformed the talk and kept me engaged throughout.
Reply Report abuse
Please login to vote.