No, they do actually want people with PhDs (or PharmDs, whatever)

Yeah, but having met a lot of PhDs...how many of them are actually good editors? I'm guessing vanishingly few.

I applied for a job at a library on the basis of my ten years in catalog upgrading, and I got a very nice personalized letter back saying they wished they could hire me but they were locked into getting someone with a masters of library science. Apparently there had been comments of "She would understand the computers! And know what we were talking about!"

I think there's a niche out there for interpreters between the computer people and the non-techies. I remember a nerd quiz like that.

I do appreciate the support, guys! I'm really NOT saying "I am the worst editor ever; no, I have no right to even call myself an editor because my communication skills are one step above an amoeba! Why, WHY am I even trying to get work in the field I've been in for 18 years? I am worthless!!!"

I'm just saying, "Wow, I didn't expect this level of clinical depth. This is the kind of manuscript I would give to my boss if I got one," because I *did.* Some articles were above my knowledge base, and I passed them on to my boss because she could edit them.

I'm probably not articulating well. The position isn't just a punctuation-and-grammar editing position; it's content-based as well, which is why they want PhDs.

The fact that I'm taken aback by the level of the content isn't a disparagement on my skills. They want more than a comma wrangler. And that's okay.

I find it very humbling to stumble on things that I think I should know but which might as well be a mystic art for all the sense it makes to me. I look at higher math, with all the squiggles and letters, and I feel like I'm back in grade school being told "diagram that sentence!"

I think there's a niche out there for interpreters between the computer people and the non-techies

That's pretty much my entire job, so I hope there continues to be one for twenty or so years (wow, that's depressing).

The position isn't just a punctuation-and-grammar editing position; it's content-based as well, which is why they want PhDs.

How big a niche is that? And obviously you are better at editing pharma content than, say, Amy, who's perfectly good at editing English--hmm, I don't even know what scale to use for the question, but how do you rate yourself in terms of how much you do get and how much pharmaceutical stuff specifically you can edit?

The position isn't just a punctuation-and-grammar editing position; it's content-based as well, which is why they want PhDs.

Yeah, that's not you.

But the skills you do have rock and will be put to use well somewhere. Just not in this place.

So Amazon will let you upload images for personalized gift carding.

And Jillian was fantastic on Huff Po.

It's nearly noon, I should have more than that to say. But everything else is "we want information on our secure site that we said you wouldn't have access to after you filled out earlier forms."

Yeah, but having met a lot of PhDs...how many of them are actually good editors? I'm guessing vanishingly few.

Working around PhDs all the time, (and being one myself), I can attest to this.

Tep, I understand where you are coming from. I think the proposed company is cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they don't look at the big picture, but what do I know?

The position isn't just a punctuation-and-grammar editing position; it's content-based as well, which is why they want PhDs.

How big a niche is that? And obviously you are better at editing pharma content than, say, Amy, who's perfectly good at editing English--hmm, I don't even know what scale to use for the question, but how do you rate yourself in terms of how much you do get and how much pharmaceutical stuff specifically you can edit?

I have no idea how big a niche it is. As for how I'd rate myself -- I can edit moderately complicated pharmaceutical stuff, but where I get hamstrung is with statistical analysis and pharmacokinetics and such. For example, I know what bioavailability is, and I know general concepts like bioavailability is affected by certain foods, other drugs, renal failure, etc. But I have difficulty with the actual statistics (or statistics in any other area of pharmacy, actually). Which is emphatically not the same as "tee hee, I'm so BAD at math!"

Total tangent here, but your "tee hee, I'm so BAD at math!" quote reminded me of something. My friend K was in a bad car accident years ago and she lost her memory. She has regained most of it, but there are still gaps. She just started taking some college courses and when called up to the board to do a math problem, she discovered she is going to have to relearn the times table. Having easy access to a calculator on her phone, she hadn't realized she can't automatically call up 7 x 7.

So odd that she has no problems with the algebraic logic, but the simple multiplication is another matter.

Memory loss is a weird thing -- like, why would your brain lose the times tables but be okay with algebra? Neurobiology fascinates me.

I accomplished a LOT in the last few hours -- went to the bank, went to the post office to return 2 pairs of potential wedding shoes to Zappos (bless their free returns), went to the mall to order favors for the wedding* (because my dad was unexpectedly generous, guests are getting the little 2-piece Godiva chocolate box), went to Staples for more printer ink, went to Barnes & Noble to get the kids' book that's one of the wedding readings, and went to Trader Joe's (who now has gluten-free beer, woot!).

It's 90 degrees, and I am spent. Geez. Gotta do dishes now and rustle up some dinner.

*(Okay, and a creme brulee truffle for me.)