I was thinking about this today - how does the professional career of a law professor/academic/researcher differ from that of a professor/academic/researcher in the biomedical sciences? I read quite often about law academics who say they have relative freedom to pursue their own research in their own time. Of course funding is an issue but I get the impression that it is not as desperately urgent and competitive as it can be in the biomedical sector. Because funding isn't as big a driving force, publications also aren't driven by the almost detrimental need to secure funding. Is that a correct perception or am I far off? That, and the fact that law academics aren't bogged down by laboratory requirements and procedures by which to pursue research (I know, that's a very crude way of putting it).

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22050638-2,00.html?from=mostpop

As for me I am seriously considering leaving academia (I am in my 30s as well) or at least taking a long hiatus from it not because I hate it, but I guess I am feeling a little restless and I know there are a couple of things I would like to do in the 'outside world' before I come back to academia later.

If you are not enjoying your current work situation, then I'd say you've got more to gain by leaving it to do something you enjoy. I am not in my mid-late 30s but I'm not far from it. I am in the process of making big changes to my career path too.

As for breaking into academia later in life, there are a lot of factors that come into play. The 30s isn't a bad time to begin a career in academia, I have a good friend and colleague who completed his PhD in his mid 30s and although we are in agreement that it gives you a little less time to start on the pathway towards a professor tenureship, it can still happen. Within a couple of years of his postdoc he is now in a surprisingly good position at a well respected university. I know he sometimes kicks himself to remind himself that it all was a combination of hard work and luck that got him to his current position.

Another thing - I know of a few IP lawyers whose expertise is evidenced by their PhD background in a scientific area, as well as a law degree. These lawyers do not seem to identify themselves as "Dr" in their formal business cards or letterheads for some reason, always something like: 'LLB PhD'. I'm wondering if it is because they want to avoid the impression that they are legal academics with a legal doctorate (as opposed to a science doctorate), and to emphasis their professional capacity as lawyers rather than scientists.

By the way, where I said that "My colleagues and I are generally of the opinion that...", I'm not saying that we've sat down and discussed it. I mean I've never seen them use their 'Dr' title anywhere else except where relevant in work-related circumstances (ie. not on their electricity bills, or library card, or cricket club membership).

In answering the original post - it wasn't the 'doctor' title that attracted me. Funnily enough it was being able to say I complete a PhD, or that I have a PhD in something. I didn't care so much about the 'Dr' thing! For eg on a business card I'd much rather have "RogueAcademic PhD" than "Dr RogueAcademic". Probably because 'Dr' these days is much more closely related to (or confused for) medical practitioners. That's not to say I might head down that path sometime in the future.

(That last post was directed to rick).

What is your definition of 'informal' in your circumstances? If an academic institution treats its research and its research students with informality, then it is negligent in its approach.

There is a difference between the concept of 'ownership' and the idea of protecting your own IP. juno is correct that ownership may be determined by a number of professional circumstances. But generally speaking your IP is best protected by the content of your research diary. Applying for a patent is generally the next step if you have IP which may be commercially viable. I'm not a patent attorney or a lawyer though, so cannot go into it with much depth.

Many many many moons ago, when I was much younger during my undergraduate years, I did a little bit of TV extra (Neighbours!) and minor movie extra work. The pay was excellent for the amount of work involved and my friends had a great big laugh the few times they caught me somewhere in the background on TV.

As of last year my ugly mug (albeit with a cheesy grin) was used in brochure advertising by an industry-related insurance/superannuation organisation. As of this year I recently discovered that the same mug shot has been recycled and is in use in another one of their brochures.

Your research journal/diary is what it predominantly comes down to.

IIRC the 'doctor' title is more attributable to PhD graduates if you take into account its historical use due to the nature of study and knowledge gained/contributed.

In these contemporary times though, in my humble opinion the 'doctor' title awarded to PhD graduates is far more relevant and appropriately 'applied' (for lack of a better word) in academic circles than in the community. Medical practitioners have more of a duty of care towards the community (and a more directly applicable qualification) and therefore the privilege of using "Dr" allows these individuals stand out from the crowd particularly in the event of a medical emergency. My colleagues and I are generally of the opinion that, as PhD graduates, the "Dr" title is not for everyday use except only for professional academic use.

Regarding your question about working and doing a PhD simultaneously:

Generally speaking it is possible to retain a casual position but it can be very hard and it depends on what kind of PhD area you're going into as well. People going into a biomedical PhD may have a schedule that is dictated by laboratory work demands, whereas certain paper-only related PhD may offer more time management flexibility.

I've known some people who are able to work part time and complete a PhD part time but that really comes down to an arrangement that you and your supervisor is comfortable with, if at all.

Some others I know began as research assistant and were offered PhD projects which they are able to complete on a part time basis while they work in the same department in the same research group.

To get an interview for a post-doc in this competitive job market means you've made it through a selection process that has seen you shortlisted for consideration. So you've got that on your side at least.