<p>I am wondering whether it would be wiser for someone interested in going to graduate school, and eventually working for academia as a researcher and professor at a university, to major in Chemistry or Chemical engineering (or similarly Biology or Bioengineering) in undergraduate? My interests lie heavily in math, computer science, chemistry, and biology. Also what are your opinions on which type of major (Chemistry or Biology) is on the frontier on new breakthroughs and allows students to gain more knowledge? What kind of knowledge exactly? My main goal from an undergraduate education is to gain as much knowledge as I can in areas that interest me. :)</p>
<p>Whoa, cart wayyy before the horse. Its too early to consider academia without having a deep immersion and passion in a particular research area. You can’t choose academia as a career and then figure out which field it will be. The whole point- and the whole thing that would make one successful in academia is a love for the subject matter and answering questions pertaining to that area (it has nothing to do with where there are more places for breakthroughs or how much you can learn…every single area of study has active research pushing it forward). </p>
<p>I think you should figure out first if you want to major in chemistry, biology, or engineering-- based on what interests you most. Then after you immerse yourself in either science or engineering, continue to follow what excites you, develop a solid understanding of the subareas, focus on which courses and subject matter draw you in, and get research experience in areas that seem to intrigue you…and take it from there.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to get ahead of myself but I do know that I don’t want to work for a firm. My main problem is whether to apply to the School of Engineering at a College or the School of Science. Also, I was wondering what kinds of core courses each of theses different options consist of and how they differ from each other.</p>
<p>Well as I understand it, you can transfer from engineering over to science, but not very easy to do so from science to engineering; in engineering you will take science courses but in science you won’t take engineering courses. So if you are unsure, maybe starting in engineering would be wise. </p>
<p>Have you talked to the folks at Pitt, to compare programs, courses, faculty, get tours, talk to students in each? Have you gone on line to compare the different majors and course requirements for each? Learn how each area differs, what kinds of research are done, how the reserch is done in each area (each is sooo diverse, its difficult but it still might help you see whether you are more of a sciency person or more of an engineery person)? There have also been several good threads on CC about the difference between science and engineering. </p>
<p>On a practical note, the job market is much better, and pay much higher for academics in engineering than science. But you really foremost have to go with your interest (impossible to do this job without loving the research you are doing). </p>
<p>Nothing wrong with wanting to go into academia…I just don’t think its wise to plan your courses around a particular PhD just yet.</p>
<p>Biology today is a lot more like chemistry than biology was 20 years ago. Molecular biology is a booming field.</p>
<p>Chemistry and chemical engineering require two very different perspectives. First of all, chemical research is usually about discovering new knowledge, while chemical engineering is about putting existing knowledge to better use. But engineering of any kind is much more mathematical than the corresponding science is. In chemical engineering, chemistry problems are typically mapped onto mathematical models with the necessary boundary conditions, and the math is solved. Then the problem is mapped back into chemistry. If you are comfortable working in what for most people are abstract mathematical worlds, then you will enjoy engineering (and will be appropriately rewarded for your ability). If you prefer to stay grounded in the real world, you’ll probably be happier in chemistry.</p>
<p>I’m seriously thinking about going into chemical engineering (I like dealing with mathematics) for my undergraduate education. Yet, I think I would ultimately like to pursue doing research in Molecular Biology or genetics (or something similar) in graduate school. Is it possible to do this? Or should I just still with a biology major if this is my ultimate plan?</p>
<p>^From what I have read there are many connections between ChE and Biomed. Just make sure to take some biology courses, and you could also do research in biomedical stuff (if you’re passionate in it).</p>
<p>“Well as I understand it, you can transfer from engineering over to science, but not very easy to do so from science to engineering; in engineering you will take science courses but in science you won’t take engineering courses. So if you are unsure, maybe starting in engineering would be wise.”</p>
<p>I have to agree with this. I completely regret not applying as engineering. (but I got in one ; ] ) If I do it, I will be majoring in ChE =p</p>
<p>^^^
With respect to your question: “Is it possible to do this?” (and leaving aside for the moment the question: should you do this?)</p>
<p>Short answer: yes, it’s possible.</p>
<p>I was a mathematics major in college, and subsequently went to grad school in Biophysics and Biochemistry. I also won admission to two other Ph.D. programs in Biology (the only other ones I had applied to).</p>
<p>In the description of graduate admissions requirements, my alma mater says:
“Applicants are expected to have a solid background in the natural sciences, including courses in biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry, physical chemistry, physics and mathematics. However, course requirements are not fixed. Students with outstanding records in any of the natural sciences may qualify for admission.” I believe there are other schools that are also flexible in their exact requirements. </p>
<p>In most science Ph.D. programs, the emphasis is on admitting people who will be good researchers. While an applicant is expected to have sufficiently good background to be successful in their research, they aren’t necessarily expected to have zero gaps in their educational background. They are expected, however, to be able to backfill those gaps as needed.</p>
<p>To be honest, a lot of ChemE’s work in industry. Yeah there’s areas for improvement via academic research but usually scientific progress in chemical engineering is done by R&D departments of big pharma and oil companies…they have the most $$$.</p>
<p>In my personal experience the best researchers are the chemists/biochemists and biomedical engineers. Biology is good too, but there’s an entire institute at my school focusing on the fusion of biomed and biochemistry where almost every lab has a good mix of both. It honestly depends on the school’s curriculum for each major. Usually research is inderdisciplinary so if you’re a bio major then you don’t necessarily have to work in a bio lab…and vise versa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bumping an old post even though the OP is long gone because as I was searching for one thing for one kid, I came across this statement that I think has some relevance to a different kid. </p>
<p>Starbright, I don’t understand your statement, and I don’t think I agree with it, but maybe you can expand on it and I can learn something. </p>
<p>Why can’t one decide that one likes the academic life because one has many diverse interests and wants to be surrounded by diverse and interesting people, and THEN try to pursue expertise in an exciting area that is more likely to lead to a faculty position and a well funded research program to help the tenure process.</p>
<p>My PhD advisor had an unusually diverse set of interests and not all the people in my group had enough background to understand what others were doing. My advisor brilliant as he was, had a great gig for himself, but he wasn’t married to just one specific narrow area!</p>
<p>Just so you know, I hope you are aware that we currently have a massive over abundance of PhDs in the sciences, many of which are chasing after faculty positions at universities that never exist which ends up leading to years, and years, and years of terrible non-tenure faculty positions and low paying post-doc after post-doc position. Academia is NOT an ivory tower. </p>
<p>This article is an absolute MUST read for anyone considering academia before they decide to pursue such a career:</p>
<p>[Is</a> America’s Science Education Gap Caused By Career Planning Fears? - Miller-McCune](<a href=“miller-mccune.com”>miller-mccune.com)</p>
<p>And like a previous poster said, many private companies do R and D and publish tons of papers, even in highly respected periodicals like nature and science. Academia isn’t the only place for research.</p>
<p>To make it in academia nowadays you need to research and get PUBLISHED. The more papers your name is on the higher your chances of succeeding. There are way to many undergrads and phd candidates for anyone who isn’t published to find decent work. Yet many undergrads fail to see the significance of research and many grad students toil for years in labs that never amount to anything significant to publish. If you do follow the science track, make sure you find a faculty member who cranks out research papers.</p>
<p>Networking through your PI is also a good way to find legitimate positions.</p>
<p>Still doesn’t answer the question of why someone can’t first decide they want to be a professor and THEN look for areas that are both interesting and more likely to lead to faculty jobs. </p>
<p>Despite the long odds, there ARE people who are successfully landing great academic jobs now. I certainly wouldn’t discourage anyone from trying. </p>
<p>The OP was a HS kid who wanted to be a professor. Starbright made the claim that deciding that you want an academic career before deciding the particular area of specialization is putting the cart before the horse. I don’t see why it is. He’s a professor who probably has a great answer to my question. I hope he pipes in.</p>
<p>For some fields, I would say that you definitely need to have the goal in mind of becoming a professor before you dive right into it. However, with the sciences I do not see this to be the case. What Starbright was saying is that it is impossible to know if academia is right for you before you even step into your first college class. Research is not for everyone. It is a lot of times not as fulfilling as one would think it would be. So it is a bit more complicated than finding your field of specialization or what fields lead to better opportunities for good positions. And even still, just choosing a field based on better chance at tenure is not a good option if that field is not what you are absolutely strongest in. Essentially, too many factors for a senior in high school to comprehend.</p>
<p>aGGieENGiNeeR, there is nothing you say that isn’t true for any profession. </p>
<p>How can you know it’s right for you before diving in. Yet people start with goals as best they can form them and go down the road anyway, making adjustments as needed. </p>
<p>I still don’t see anything particularly special about thinking you might like being a professor, engineer, doctor, lawyer, accountant, or actor.</p>
<p>You are absolutely correct there is nothing special about thinking you might want to do something.</p>
<p>Thanks for asking ClassicRockerDad. I’ll try to explain my thoughts, or where I was coming from when I wrote that. </p>
<p>There are lots of reasons people think they want an academic career. Too often- and I’m not at all implying this is the case for the OP or any particular person! (as an aside, I also have a kid who thinks they’d like to be a professor one day)- are reasons such as they know about and can imagine teaching in a college setting, they like what looks like it is to be a scientist, they like the ‘getting the highest’ level of something, or because their parents like the idea (a status sort of thing, if you will), or because they can’t see an actual job related to their major other than this. These are not at all good reasons, IMHO.</p>
<p>The only reason you should pursue a PhD and an academic life in particular, is because you are passionate about a particular area and uncovering unanswered questions in that area through research (however defined by one’s field of interest). The reason this is a critical factor is because its a long, hard road that tends to not have a lot in the way of external rewards so you need to really value the internal ones. Because you almost have to be entirely self-motivated since there aren’t immediate rewards or external monitoring of your performance very often. Thus if you don’t have the internal ‘passion’ you have little fuel to finish, or as importantly, work hard enough to publish and survive (by survival I mean getting a job, getting tenure, etc).</p>
<p>Finally unless you’ve been exposed to research (again broadly defined becuas ethat means different things when you are in say English vs. Economics, vs. Mechanical engineering). Why? Because without that exposure you have no idea whether you will like it nor have a knack for it. Very hard to get a sense of what’s involved and the thinking required for the core aspect of an academic career- research- when looking on the outside in. </p>
<p>Let me clarify however: I see nothing wrong at all with thinking you want a PhD. Nor knowing exactly what PhD you will pursue when it is because you are already immersed in, or doing research in those areas. Indeed, in my field we have people coming in who do not actually know their topic (though they have chosen their general area of study and orientation). </p>
<p>But when I see someone in highschool who is trying to choose a major based upon which area would make best for a PhD (sort of like asking “which company shoud I work for?” or 'does chemE have more jobs than mechE?), it suggests to me the OP is interested in pursuing a PhD for possibly instrumental reasons, rather than a strong desire for a particular area (and doing research in that area). I think few scholars would be as excited about multiple fields of study: multiple topics, yes, but not multiple fields. And it would be a terrible mistake to choose a major with the ‘best odds’ for a PhD at this stage of the game. </p>
<p>I would suggest simply taking what interests you the most now, or is most broad, then getting to university and sinking into those areas and getting exposure to research in those areas…THEN deciding if a PhD is right for you (and your faculty mentors can help in that regard too). Within one’s area, sure if there is one avenue that is more promising than another and both excite you, by all means go down the path that might actually have jobs available. But that is quite different than trying to choose some big field in advance of even knowing what a PhD involves, what research looks like. </p>
<p>I’ve seen too too many crash and burn at the PhD level and in some cases the faculty level, because they simply went into it for the wrong reasons and the internal passion for the subject just wasn’t there. It is wayyyy hard to do this job without being super-duper into your field of study (quite different than just taking a major which you only have to sort of being into to do well). </p>
<p>Anyways I hope that helps a bit. And I’m not discouraging anyone…just don’t make decisions yet based upon it!</p>