<p>Hello there, I'm currently an international high school student about to start my IB course, and I was starting to have some doubts about science degrees.</p>
<p>I noticed that most science/engineering degrees seem to require a ridiculous amount of studying, but their salaries and potential seem to be pretty limited compared to Economics/Finanace/Business majors.</p>
<p>What makes a science degree worth it compared to other degrees? (especially for a student who doesn't lean heavily towards one area)</p>
<p>A degree, in any field, is what you make of it. If the only thing you care about is a job with a high salary, sure go in business/finance/econ, go to med school, or become a pro-athlete or pop idol. I’m putting the last two to show that financial success involves a lot of work, talent and luck. There’s no easy path, no one will hand you a job, and you’ll have to compete with people who work hard, care about what they do and have talent for it.</p>
<p>If you don’t care for science, then it’s not worth it. The jobs are hard to get in the first place, and, as you mentioned, the pay can be low compared to other fields. But if you do care, and don’t have unrealistic expectations, you can be quite happy. And that applies to any field.</p>
<p>The only way a science degree is worth it is if you get into professional school. Otherwise the degree is less than worthless. Science grads have nothing to look forward to except high unemployment and permatemp jobs earning $15 to $20 per hour never getting hired and never having benefits. That is even with a graduate degree. I have an MS and it was the biggest mistake of my life. Most of my colleagues with PhD’s end up doing endless post-docs for 35k and no benefits until their career dead ends and they end up starting again in the 40’s.</p>
<p>Steer clear of science and let exploited third world serfs do it.</p>
<p>Definitely major in science – that way if you live a miserable existence for the rest of your life, you have something to blame it on. It’s all the fault of that blasted science degree!</p>
<p>Here are some official stats for a chemistry degree. Biology is worse because there are more graduates, fewer jobs, and many of those fewer jobs prefer chemistry majors</p>
<p>19% flat out unemployment but in actuality only <40% are employed full time and of that 40% 1/2 are working some crap tech job in academia sometimes for as little as $10 per hour.</p>
<p>If that sounds like a wise investment on time and money go for it. Otherwise I suggest accounting/finance/economics, HR, nursing, engineering, computer science or applied math (actuary especially).</p>
<p>Also here is a recent letter to the editor from a mother of a chemistry graduate to Chemical and Engineering news that captures many people’s sentiments.</p>
<p>My point exactly – there are unemployed people with every major out there, but if you have a science degree, there’s nothing you can do about it but whine, whine, whine. If you major in something else and you don’t have a job you like, you’d probably get off your butt and go do something about it. But if you’ve got a science degree, it’s hopeless – you’re dooooomed! Waaaaah!</p>
<p>So you have a choice – you can major in something else and then put forth some effort to get a job you like, or major in science and whine for a living about the impossibility of ever improving your fortunes. Whining is SO much easier than working, the choice is obvious. For some, anyway.</p>
<p>The OP asked a wise question and I am answering it truthfully without happy face propaganda, and trite platitudes and spin.</p>
<p>There is unemployment in every major but chemistry at 19% flat out unemployment which is close to 3 times the national unemployment and that less than 40% have FT jobs is amongst the worst of the so called “practical” majors ranking right up there with the esoteric BA’s. </p>
<p>Also taking into account the constant push of initiatives to get more Americans into science, the complaining by company heads that there is a shortage and that they need more h1b’s and the simple fact that anyone with the intelligence to get a science degree is among the 10% in the nation in intellectual ability makes it all the more disgusting, insulting, and tragic.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind all these initiatives, scholarships, and grants going to subsidize science education is a waste of taxpayer funds.</p>
<p>I’m doing my part for the betterment of the nation as well, by encouraging all those who are able to get off their behinds and do something to make their lives better instead of wallowing in self-pity and trying to spread their own misery like a virus to anyone they can reach.</p>
<p>We’re just a couple of knights in shining armor, aren’t we!</p>
<p>The difference is I offer stats, observations, and examples that paint a pretty clear picture of what science grads can likely expect as a ROI for getting a science degree. </p>
<p>You seem to have little to offer today except snide comments. If you’re looking for a place where we say nothing but positive things about science and science careers or post a token negative comment and gang up on the person, I suggest you visit ACS Chemical and Engineering News. There they can post all day about the shortage of scientists, the fabulous opportunities for graduates, and take the ostrich approach to dealing with the real issues by burying their heads in the sand.</p>
<p>On this forum we talk about the potentials of various majors honestly and ideally without politically correct spin so that prospective students can make an informed decision before committing years of their lives and tens of thousands in tuition. Just because the truth is unsightly doesn’t mean it should be burred in the sand.</p>
<p>You have a narrow view and narrow experience, and you post it over and over again ad nauseam as if it’s representative of the entire industry, but it’s not. You do not offer an honest view of the field, you offer a distorted view through the lens of your own failure. My own experience is very different from yours. I’ve been turning down work in science for the past year, and every graduate student TA who worked for me left the university with a job. Most of them in industry, some in academia or in academic-related private sector jobs. Yes, the market is tough – it’s tough everywhere. It’s even tougher when you’ve got a self-defeating negative attitude, and nobody else really needs to share in yours. There are science jobs out there, but they’re going primarily to people who are smart, motivated, and not burdened with a toxic personality disorder. I think most of the posters here meet those criteria. You’re not doing anybody any favors by doomcasting their inevitable failure. That’s not the honest truth you claim you’re delivering, that’s just reflecting your own failures onto other people and using statistics to try and prop it up.</p>
<p>Here are some statistics for you: a Georgetown University study of unemployment by college major, looking at new graduates, prior undergraduate degree-holders, and people with graduate degrees. At the graduate level, employment of people with degrees in Physical/Life Sciences places 4th out of 15 fields. Looking at employment of experienced undergraduates, science places 5th out of 15 fields. For new science graduates, employment in science ranks 7th out of 15 fields. It’s not the rosiest picture for new science grads, but it’s not the scorched earth unemployment wasteland you keep harping about, either.</p>
<p>Maybe from now on when you bemoan the miserable future that awaits anyone who tragically decides to major in science, you can include that link. You know, to give them the accurate picture you keep saying you want.</p>
<p>A very high percentage of science majors, especially bio and chem, go to medical, dental, podiatry etc. school. Although it is not a science per se, math majors, to my knowledge, have lots of great career opportunities.</p>
<p>A lot of them weren’t voluntary. A lot of my colleagues at work who had no intention initially of going to med school went for a health profession because they couldn’t stand the carppy permatemp jobs or frequent layoffs. Many others went into teaching, business school, or other careers having nothing to do with their science training.</p>
<p>I looked at the study. Their numbers don’t really jive. If you look at the American Chemical Society’s survey and the career desination surveys from college, and the anecdotes from myself and others in the field they all match up. A large portion of graduates are either in further studies, crappy technician jobs in industry, or crappie tech jobs in academia. </p>
<p>BTW the numbers in the Georgetown study are from the American Community Survey who are apparently held in such high regard the house voted to cut funding for them.</p>
<p>First, the word you’re looking for is jibe, not jive. Jibe means agree or be in accord with. Jive is either a dance style or when used in a context like “jive talking,” means worthless, uninformed, or deceitful. For example, someone who uses personal experience and statistics to assert that a perfect stranger can never succeed in science is jive talking, and their words do not jibe with reality.</p>
<p>Second, you’re using this congress as a measure of quality? Really? What part of 14.6% approval rating do you not understand?</p>
<p>Take another look at the links you posted. An article from 2006, an article from 2007. The OP asked about economics versus chemistry, and you gave him a link comparing chemistry and chemical engineering. A more recent article that’s specific to the pharmaceutical industry. You’re cherry-picking to make things seems worse than they are. The more broad-based, general approach to jobs and the economy gives a realistic picture that disagrees with your carefully selected articles and anecdotes.</p>
<p>Personally, right now I’m turning down work in chemistry. Every grad student who TA’ed for me and left the university with a PhD in the past four years has gone directly into a real chemistry job, usually in industry, sometimes in academia, sometimes in private companies that develop educational products. Even if you want to claim there’s a 20% unemployment rate for new chemists, that means four out of five chem majors are getting jobs. The real world does not jibe with your jive.</p>
<p>Ah so you are in academia. Well no wonder you are serving the science shortage kool
aid. Where would Academia be without all the sucker grad students and jobless/desperate PhD post-docs to slave away in the lab and teach undergrad science. </p>
<p>As someone who actually working in industry I can tell you that science staff is the absolute lowest on the professional totem pole below even HR and many blue collar trades. They are paid like janitors, not given benefits, laid off frequently (I saw that several former Wyeth employees are selling I got Pfizered T-shirts) and I have seen excons have an easier job search than science grads.</p>
<p>As a scientist I have worked in industry, for a municipality, as a classroom lecturer at a major state university, in professional development for public school teachers for state and local agencies, and in an NSF study looking at science education in pre-school. I’ve also done medical research in a public hospital and I do occasional private tutoring of high school students. So while I appreciate your expert advice “as someone who actually working in industry,” I maintain that your narrow and unpleasant experience in science has given you a distorted view of the field that leaves you poorly qualified to predict the success of others who express an interest in science.</p>
<p>In industry there are typically two tracks – management and technical (scientific) – and the management track clearly outranks the technical track. Management is usually made up of science people who moved from the lab into administrative roles such as project management. But it’s a complete falsehood to say that scientists are the lowest on the totem pole. In your case maybe, but that’s certainly not true for everyone.</p>
<p>And as for me “serving the science shortage Kool-Aid,” please back up your claim by providing one single quote in which I claim there’s a shortage of scientists or science students. Just one. There must be one or else you wouldn’t be saying it, right?</p>
<p>I have maintained all along that job prospects in chemistry right now are not good, but that people are finding work in chemistry every day. My experience and the experience of those I’ve worked with supports this. The warped lens you see the world through is distorting everything, isn’t it? How very sad.</p>
<p>And as I’ve noted before, 20% unemployment is 80% employment. Not good, but not hopeless, either, unless the applicant himself has no hope.</p>
<p>No according to the survey only 40% of graduates are employed. Most of the rest are in “further studies” as in they could not get jobs and are looking to change fields.</p>
<p>People are going around the crossing gates and beating the train every day. That does not make it a wise idea. The throngs of horror stories pervading the net, the constant layoffs in the news from pharma, the graduate destination surveys from colleges, and the ACS survey showing 40% employment all seem to point to the same conclusion. Yes people are getting jobs every day with a chemistry degree but the high majority are not getting decent jobs and are working permatemp jobs or are going back to school to retrain for another career.</p>
<p>At the PhD level, if things are as rosy as you claim why are so many chemists settling for post-docs for long periods of time earning $35-55k with no benefits?</p>