Tech vs pharma in-house Forum

[Anonymous User]

A friend is trying to figure out which in-house offer to take. Background is 5th year, V10, if that matters. Compensation is similar for both, so now it boils down what industry is better for a long term career. Both seem pretty solid as far as I can see. Anyone have any idea of a factor that might make one of the two better for long-term career growth or any other such tie-breakers?

[Itcamefromthesea]

In-house tech here. It probably depends more on the company and legal department than tech vs. pharma. If you are talking FAANG, some of that list can be a little Lord of the Flies, although not a bad career move. Tech lawyers get to mooch off of all the perks for engineers. On the down side, there is a high level of organizational chaos you probably don’t see as much in pharma (I would guess).

[Anonymous User]

Pharma counsel checking in. Probably grass is greener syndrome, I'd say go for the FAANG.

[Anonymous User]

Following because I feel like I’ll be making this decision soon. At a V30 in Boston currently but those are two thriving industries in Boston that I would look to exit into.

[Anonymous User]

Following because I feel like I’ll be making this decision soon. At a V30 in Boston currently but those are two thriving industries in Boston that I would look to exit into.

I'm in Boston, was in-house tech, now in biotech. I'm making more money, and I feel like my career growth and opportunities expanded by shifting sectors. Plus, the pharma/biotech companies are closer to central Boston rather than way out on 128.

[Anonymous User]

Pharma counsel checking in. Probably grass is greener syndrome, I'd say go for the FAANG.

Any reasons in particular you would say pharma is the lesser choice?

[Anonymous User]

Is there anything to the refrain I’ve heard that once in pharma, kinda always in pharma? Whereas tech would leave more career doors open?

[Anonymous User]

Previous pharma counsel poster here. Let's say you have to choose between Pfizer/Bigpharma vs Google/Bigtech. The Pfizer's of the world are trying to expand into cloud-based health.

If you get an offer at Google, jump on it, try to switch into their health division, learn some stuff, vest those RSU's, and then if you're still interested in pharma, Bigpharma will be clamoring for you.

I don't see how the reverse (Bigpharma to FAANG) would be as easy (or lucrative) to do.

[Anonymous User]

Previous pharma counsel poster here. Let's say you have to choose between Pfizer/Bigpharma vs Google/Bigtech. The Pfizer's of the world are trying to expand into cloud-based health.

If you get an offer at Google, jump on it, try to switch into their health division, learn some stuff, vest those RSU's, and then if you're still interested in pharma, Bigpharma will be clamoring for you.

I don't see how the reverse (Bigpharma to FAANG) would be as easy (or lucrative) to do.

Talking about the cloud has a soporific effect on me. The subject matter I have seen for pharma seems much more interesting. Have you found it to be so?

Also, is it true that once in pharma, always in pharma, aside from tech-based scenarios such as the one you present?

[Anonymous User]

personal view having done some of both: I prefer tech because it's a less highly-regulated space (generally). IMO, regulators and USAO are looking to attack pharma and healthcare by any means available, whereas tech TENDS to be more wide open, which means there are fewer people second guessing your legal decisions. that said that can be reversed, too -- benefits of pharma are that everyone at the company realizes it's highly regulated and therefore understands more when you say 'no'; and tech also in certain areas DOES receive a lot of media and political attention -- like working on ads, or social media for example.

kind of depends on what you like as a lawyer -- do you want more scale, a bigger company with fewer lawyers but also fewer legal issues (tech), or a smaller company with more lawyers but also more legal issues (pharma). maybe you like that complexity or subject matter, so pharma would make sense to you. for me, I prefer less regulated spaces.

[Anonymous User]

Previous pharma counsel here. Chiming into a couple of questions posed above.

Whether pharma work is more interesting: are there specific subject areas you're talking about? Seems like most work would be similarly interesting or disinteresting depending on the person's interests.

Once in pharma: in my years here, I've seen people move to other pharma, biotech, and device companies. Have also seen people move to a completely different industry but never seen a move to tech (yet).