> Your analysis should start with the people who got the final permanent job

LOL. I was being generous to you be doing otherwise.

Faculty running successful large wet labs at R1s could jump to the private sector and make millions/yr minimum. Those people are the equivalent of a Director in the tech world. (Or, at the very very least, a Staff/Principal. But really more like Director/VP).

Look at what faculty who run large DARPA-funded labs in CS make when they jump to industry. They usually enter as either Principal/Staff or more commonly as Director. Those are very high six / low 7 figure positions. It's comparable in biotech.

To be perhaps excessively blunt, you have no fucking clue who you're talking about.

> should be compared to the median American, who earns $36K

WTF? Why are we comparing STEM PhDs to the median American?

The average virologist has a STEM undergraduate degree, a PhD, significant additional training, knows their way around complicated lab equipment, has experience designing/debugging complicated experiments, and is usually not such a half-bad programmer either.

(And, again, those are the losers. The average successful PI has all of that plus is leading a group of 10-20 employees in complicated R&D. Possibly also has an MD.)

Even the losers could easily find jobs that leverage those skills or mildly retool to get a high-class software job. In either case, they would earn much more than $36K in any number of industries. Because they have significant experience and training. Unlike the median American.

> not the extreme outliers you mentor.

My mentees are not extreme outliers. They come from a no-name university with an unexceptional CS program. $160K is not an outlier total comp in tech. It's pretty darn normal. National statistics say that the average Software Eng salary is $110K. Salary. Not Comp. Salary. Throw in typical stock/bonus and you get to $160K pretty easily.

But even that $110K number is a shitload more than the $20K virology phd candidates are paid (often for 60-80 hours of lab work each week).

My undergrad mentees are a much better group to compare STEM PhDs against than this "median American" thing you're suggesting:

1. In some cases it's a direct comparison. Many non-CS STEM PhDs are at least as qualified for entry-level software jobs as CS undergrads from unexceptional places. Or can be in very short order. Lots of lab work these days involves significant programming. All lab work involves building a the skills and mindset that make for excellent debugging. And soft engs with domain expertise are valuable.

2. Software isn't the only industry that pays well; the biotech industry also pays quite well. The sorts of people working in virology weblabs are almost certainly able to get WAAY better paying jobs at Biogen or Amgen or whatever.

3. Lots of virologists are MD/PhDs. I don't have to tell you that MDs make more than $35K/yr, right?

> $60K to $100K for high-status intellectual work is something most people would cling onto.

Sure. But -- and this is the point -- it's NOT a good monetary or social status outcome for the people who actually fucking QUALIFY for those jobs. Which, again, isn't the "median American".

Literally no one working on NIH grants is maximizing their earning potential. If you can't concede this point, then you're choosing willful ignorance and there's not much point in having a conversation.