A serious career and financial setback in exchange for a name that no one cares about
Pros
There is an abundance of high technology and opportunities to work on cutting-edge projects.
Cons
1) Academic salaries are far below the range of academic peers when the cost of living is factored in. Postdoc salaries are traditionally lower than many unionized manual labor employees at Stanford. Postdoc and Junior faculty salaries are typically not sufficient to obtain affordable single housing whilst not being "rent-burdened" (>30% of gross salary going to rent). Postdocs are currently paid $63,700 ($5,308/month). In order to not be rent-burdened, one must obtain housing for less than $1592/month. 1 bedroom rentals in the bay area are $2,500-3,000/month. Stanfords own 1 bedroom apartments which are "below market" rent for $2,763-$3545 (as of May 2020). A Salary in excess of $110K is required to not be rent-burdened in below-market-rate housing. To work at Stanford is to lose $1,000-$1,500 a month compared to a similar position almost anywhere else. 2) People don't matter. The big theme I have noticed is that people and relationships are disposable commodities. The things that are important are resources, money, control, and prestige. People can be exploited, disposed of, used, and mistreated in pursuit of those priorities because people can always be replaced at Stanford. The general operating procedure is to exploit the innovative thinking of a wide base of disposable postdocs and non-tenure line, soft-money junior faculty members. This pattern leads to aspiring permanent faculty members jockeying to exploit each other and trainees for artificially scarce resources. Those that are the best at exploiting others rise to the top and vicious cycle. This exploitation dynamic often creates work situations that qualify as toxic workplaces. I estimate approximately 30% of my working time at Stanford is consumed by defending against political maneuvering aimed at seizing resources, labor, products, or credit for the things and ideas that I have generated. That is far too much. 3) Researchers (that do not also provide clinical services) do not achieve regular faculty positions. The have non-faculty titles like "instructor" which anywhere else would be an Assitant Professor level position. The funding levels required for a permanent position is the equivalent of 2.5 R01 level grants ( a total of $17M every 5 years), in perpetuity. The average age of a scientist receiving their first R01 is 43. So this standard is beyond extremely difficult. The medical school does not actually pay researchers' a salary. The researchers have to pay 100% of their own salary from the grants they receive (100% soft money). If you can not raise 100% of your salary you are fired or reduce your working hours to match the grant money you have. 56% of the funding from these grants goes to support institutional administrative costs. Administrators do not have to raise money for their own salaries. There are many many more administrators that researchers. 4) The Stanford name isn't that helpful. People that work at Stanford think that having the Stanford name on their resume/CV is a big bonus for obtaining their next job. From my experience so far it really isn't that helpful. People often recognize the name but the name will not be the thing that will determine if you get your next job. The name is certainly not worth what you give up in terms of money and speed of career advancement.
