Return to Answer

In applied areas like engineering, a year or two of industrial experience will not hurt your CV -- but it certainly will not be a key item there.

In pure sciences (mathematics, physics, astronomy), this may be more like waste of time.

No rule is without exceptions, of course. If you spend a year or two at a research unit of some highly advanced and renown company -- then this may look good in the eyes of the people from academia. The general rule, however, is simple (at least in the West): if you are building an academic career, then stay in academia and don't leave.

In applied areas, a year or two of industrial experience will not hurt your CV -- but it certainly isn't a necessary requirement.

In pure sciences (mathematics, physics, astronomy), this may be more like waste of time.

No rule is without exceptions, of course. If you spend some time at a research unit of some highly advanced and renown company -- then this may look good in the eyes of the people from academia. But then, again, this is likely to happen in applied areas. The general rule, however, is simple (at least in the West): if you are building an academic career, then stay in academia and don't leave.

I did my PhD in Europe, and then worked in the US, first in academia and then at a government lab. I never heard of industrial experience being of any value whatsoever for an academic career.

In applied areas like engineering, a year or two of industrial experience wouldn't hurt -- but it certainly wouldn't be of big importance.

In pure sciences (mathematics, physics, astronomy), this may be more like waste of time.

Perhaps, in your country things are different (and I don't know in what area you are working). But in the West the general rule is simple: if you wish to build a career in academia -- stay there and don't leave.

In applied areas like engineering, a year or two of industrial experience will not hurt your CV -- but it certainly will not be a key item there.

In pure sciences (mathematics, physics, astronomy), this may be more like waste of time.

No rule is without exceptions, of course. If you spend a year or two at a research unit of some highly advanced and renown company -- then this may look good in the eyes of the people from academia. The general rule, however, is simple (at least in the West): if you are building an academic career, then stay in academia and don't leave.

I did my PhD in Europe, and then worked in the US, first in academia and then at a government lab. I never heard of industrial experience being of any value whatsoever for an academic career. On the contrary, by accepting a job in industry, one typically burns the bridges.

In hard sciences (mathematics, physics, astronomy), someone who leaves academia has an almost zero chance to return. In engineering, I know only one case of the kind.

Perhaps, in your country things are different (and I don't know in what area you are working). But in the West the general rule is simple: if you wish to build a career in academia -- stay there and don't leave.

I did my PhD in Europe, and then worked in the US, first in academia and then at a government lab. I never heard of industrial experience being of any value whatsoever for an academic career.

In applied areas like engineering, a year or two of industrial experience wouldn't hurt -- but it certainly wouldn't be of big importance.

In pure sciences (mathematics, physics, astronomy), this may be more like waste of time.

Perhaps, in your country things are different (and I don't know in what area you are working). But in the West the general rule is simple: if you wish to build a career in academia -- stay there and don't leave.