<p>Do you agree with this professor? Am I better off not pursuing a graduate degree in biology in terms of good employment?</p>
<p>I'm a postdoc in astrophysics, having earned my PhD in 2004. I love studying and doing research... but job-wise, I have to say its NOT as a bad as this one professor says it is, but it's not great either... the job market is very cyclical, and right now is quite horrible... there are way too many PhDs graduating, and not nearly enough jobs IN ACADEMIA... most of my friends spend many years in limbo, taking temporary postdoc positions every few years, with the hope of someday becoming a professor... it can be VERY depressing, realizing that after all the time in graduate school, all the time working as a postdoc, that you still may never become a professor.</p>
<p>I'm not saying don't do it... just go in with eyes wide open... you MUST have a passion for your field of interest.... it is the only thing that will get you through.</p>
<p>Depending on the field, you may be very employable outside academia in industrial research, especially in biotech fields, engineering disciplines, etc.<br>
In the pure sciences, it is a little more difficult, but can be done...</p>
<p>For me, my back-up plan is teaching high school... I absolutely love teaching...
I haven't given up yet... I'm still trying to become a professor (it is how I found this site... I came looking for info on other colleges and universities to broaden my perspective)... but if I don't have a permanent job in about 5 years, then I will leave the field.</p>
<p>Ok. This guy doesn't have all of his information straight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps you are so talented that you can beat the postdoc trap; some university (there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences) will be so impressed with you that you will be hired into a tenure track position two years out of graduate school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There ARE many industrial jobs in the geosciences. Petroleum is the largest, but there are other opportunities out there without selling your soul to the oil companies (i.e. environmental, seismic hazards, geophysics firms, etc.).</p>
<p>Also, for PhD's in biology there are many options (yes not a physical science, but he also clumps biology into his rant) other than academia. My former roommate is a 4th year biology PhD candidate looking at post-docs right now with absolutely no intention of staying in academia. She wants to work in a pharmaceutical company doing heart-development research. It is common to find places in industry, specifically with drug companies, looking for top-rate PhD biologists. Of course, your dissertation work must go along with your future career. For example: I doubt many drug companies would hire someone who did their dissertation on the ecology of some small rainforest in Papua New Guinea.</p>
<p>Chemists are also highly sought after by pharmaceutical companies.</p>
<p>Physicists, well, if they are flexible there are always many, many job offereings in the field of geophysics!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do something else instead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or something else which appeals to you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These options may not interest many people and graduate studies in the sciences are more lucrative during the educational process than professional schools. Many if not most science graduate students are offered full tuition remission and stipends to pay their way through school. However, if you decide to pursue a professional school, be prepared to pay full freight for not guarentee for a high-paying job on the other end either.</p>
<p>This may strengthen his arguement that too many people are going into graduate school, but until professional students are as well funded as graduate students, I don't see this changing.</p>
<p>Yes in many areas of science, there is a over-production in PhD's. However, there are many areas of science that have been neglected by universities and students alike, such as the earth sciences. </p>
<p>I think he was just ranting about the field of physics and academia in general and then blanketing it over science as a whole. That is poor form by a tenured professor. He shoud know better than to get peoples spirits down when there are clearly alternatives in the other traditional sciences.</p>
<p>I just checked that professor's website... at the bottom are more articles on various subjects... my g*d... he is a raving NUTJOB!!!!!! VERY VERY SCARY!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am a homophobe, and proud.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A quote from "In Defense of Homophobia". Wow, he is a nutjob, but sure does he have balls to say something like that on a public site!</p>
<p>My impression, from interviewing at biology programs this winter, was that after graduating, you will get a job. It's almost certainly not going to be a professor position, so disabuse yourself of the notion that you'll go straight from graduate school to tenure, but it will be a job. </p>
<p>As ophiolite mentions above, there are a lot of opportunities for PhD-holding biologists in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Many people go to postdocs with the hope of becoming faculty members eventually. Most people don't make it. One of my undergrad professors gave the figure that 20% of biology PhDs end up as full professors; that's not a lot, but the other 80% certainly aren't starving on the streets.</p>
<p>If you just want to make money, you shouldn't go into research -- yes, if you become a full professor, you can make mad cash, but the odds are strongly against you getting there. You should go into a biology PhD program if you want to do science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do something else instead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or something else which appeals to you.
[/quote]
I personally find this funny... I mean, what if you don't find anything else appealing? There's nothing else in the world I'd rather do than be a researcher. I'm well aware of the unattractive aspects of the career path.</p>
<p>EDIT: from the homophobia article --
[quote]
The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet. It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic.
[/quote]
Haha, the human body wasn't "designed" to wear high-heeled shoes or ride in airplanes, and those are decisions which lead to well-defined negative consequences, but somehow those aren't moral choices. Point in fact, the human body wasn't even "designed" to walk upright.</p>
<p>I don't know about you, mollie, but I was sure designed to walk upright... Maybe I'm just odd, but I kind of just did it naturally, as if I had been designed to do it all along.</p>
<p>I have to agree with the sentiment expressed that Professor Katz seems to go way too far. He talks as if the only thing that physical science PhD's can do is become profs. As harvard<em>and</em>berkeley said, why not just teach high school? What's so bad about that? In fact, it's something that I have been asking myself for quite awhile - why don't all these disgruntled gypsy scholars (those with PhD's who can't get permanent academic positions and thus drift from lecturer position to lecturer position) just go become high school teachers instead? It's a pretty decent life. Granted, you're never going to become rich as a teacher, but you get the whole summer off, you get all the school breaks off, many school districts give you tenure after a few years which basically makes you unfireable, and the benefits are usually very good. Plus, if you have a Phd, you will be coming in at a relatively high pay level on the teaching payscale. Couple that with the fact that many school districts are actually paying bonuses to new teachers who have science backgrounds, because there exists a lack of qualified high school science teachers, and I think that's a pretty decent alternative career. </p>
<p>Granted, being a high school teacher is probably not somebody with a PhD really wants to do, as such a person obviously wants to be a researcher. But hey, lots of people don't get to do what they really want to do. I would rather be playing for the Red Sox, but that will obviously never happen. I know a girl who has decided to head off to Hollywood to try to make it as a movie actress, but she knows full well that the odds are tough. The truth is, the vast majority of people in the world do not get to do what they really want to do. </p>
<p>I think that's part of the real problem - that lots of PhD students simply expect too much. Or at least Katz seems to think this is the case. Other students don't seem to be burdened with so many expectations. Just because you get an MBA doesn't mean that you will get a management position. Just because you get a law degree doesn't mean that you will actually get a job as a lawyer (however, I do agree that getting a medical degree does probably guarantee that you will be able to work as a doctor). But the point is, plenty of graduate students pursuing other degrees don't get the job they want. So why should science PhD's expect to be any different? </p>
<p>And then of course there are the two flittering muses of investment banking and management consulting, 2 rather popular choices for science PhD's. Granted, these jobs aren't that easy to get, but they are available for those who have the right personality. And if you do manage to get them, then you basically managed to put yourself at the same level as the top MBA grads... but without having to pay for an MBA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My impression, from interviewing at biology programs this winter, was that after graduating, you will get a job. It's almost certainly not going to be a professor position, so disabuse yourself of the notion that you'll go straight from graduate school to tenure, but it will be a job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the case of mollieb, of whom it is no secret that she is going to Harvard, I think it is quite clear that she will get a job after she graduates, if for no other reason, for the Harvard name. There are countless little no-name consulting firms and professional services firms that will pay her handsomely just to be able to SAY that they have a Harvard PhD on staff. Granted, they won't be able to offer her a research job, but they will offer her a position just to be able to, in effect, rent the Harvard brand name from her. </p>
<p>I hope I didn't embarrass her by putting her on the spot. If I did, then I apologize.</p>
<p>Hmm, let's look at some statistics. Of the Duke grads with a PhD in biology earned in the last 10 years, 24% are tenure track faculty, 55% are non-tenured faculty, 19% work in non-academic settings, with 2% left over (consisting mostly of post-docs). Of the faculty produced, 44% work in research universities. Chemistry produced 9% tenured faculty, 27% non-tenured faculty, 59% in non-academic work, and 5% left over. Physics produced 12% tenured faculty, 30% non-tenured faculty, 55% in non-academic work, and 4% left over. These are pretty comforting numbers, in my opinion. </p>
<p>You'd be suprised at where a degree in biology can take you, I think. One of my favorite authors, Patricia Wrede, obtained a BS in biology from Carleton and an MBA from Minnesota...she's now a famous fantasy author (go figure).</p>
<p>ophiolite: could you explain to me what you mean by "top rate biologists?" Are you talking about those who graduate from top schools like MIT or Northwestern? How difficult is it for biology PhDs to obtain research positions from biotech or pharmaceutical companies, especially if one is from a mediocre school? How important is the grad school you go to in terms of getting a research job?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Typical postdoctoral salaries begin at $27,000 annually in the biological sciences and about $35,000 in the physical sciences (graduate student stipends are less than half these figures).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i'm confused. $27k for postdocs working in bio? and less than half of that for grad students? they seem low from what i've seen. for example, all the grad schools i'm applying to offer at least 21-23k a year in stipends with a max of $25k (i'm applying for cancer biology or molecular pathology phd programs). </p>
<p>or is he talking about masters programs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
could you explain to me what you mean by "top rate biologists?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'm not totally sure what the drug companies look for, maybe mollieb can shed light on that subject (she is the biologist, I'm a geologist). My old roommate is finishing her biology PhD at UNC - Chapel Hill. It's not a 'top' school to my knowledge, but surely a solid school in the biological sciences. I think what is more productive is looking into specific professors that are successful in placing students into your desired career track, rather than going to the highest rated school you can get into (unless it has the professor that closest matches your research interests).</p>
<p>What I meant by a "top rate biologist" is one that has completed the PhD with decent publications rather than someone with a BS or MS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UNC - Chapel Hill. It's not a 'top' school to my knowledge,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd say that outside of the coveted walls of good ol' CC.com, it is...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know about you, mollie, but I was sure designed to walk upright... Maybe I'm just odd, but I kind of just did it naturally, as if I had been designed to do it all along.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait until you get older and the back problems set in...</p>
<p>Haha, UCLAri, that's exactly what I was going to respond earlier! :D</p>
<p>Anyway, I have to admit I'm not terribly familiar with the biology job situation outside the top 20 schools in the field, but my understanding is that graduating with a solid publication history, particularly under a well-known PI, will help your case considerably. Of course, the reasoning behind attending a "top" school is that the well-known PI density is higher and the grant money floweth, et cetera.</p>
<p>ccmad, I agree those grad school stipend and postdoc salary figures are very low. I'm going to be making $28k next year, woot! ;) The article was written in 1999, so that's probably why the numbers he cites are so low. I believe the current postdoc salary in biology is between 40k and 50k.</p>