<p>Hi, I love the cognitive sciences. Indeed, for the last few years, what's been motivating me to work hard in school has been almost exclusively my dream to lead a life deeply mired in the mysteries of the mind/brain. I haven't gone a waking hour in an extremely long time when I haven't thought about human nature and thought.</p>
<p>There are, of course, a number of alternatives to pure science that constitute this sort of lifestyle, but none of them seem to fit me as well as a career in pure science, itself. It's a dream I'm willing to devote my whole being to pursuing.</p>
<p>But I'm still not quite sure what I'm getting myself into, just how improbable it is that I'll make it. Am I setting myself up for disappointment? Is my aspiration just as irrational as, say, the average kid's dream to get drafted into the NBA? </p>
<p>I have an edge at this point; I'm going to Princeton this fall and have already read lots of scientific literature, but there's no way for me to know where I stand compared to other aspiring scientists. I get mixed messages from the internet, am being biased by my own hopes and expectations, and just don't know.</p>
<p>Just how hard is it to succeed as a scientist?</p>
<p>It’s pretty difficult, but alas better chances than the NBA. Remember that schools will need those PhDs to teach classes. You seem pretty dedicated already and I feel you will shine amongst your peers as long as you strive to pursue any and all research opportunities, and it may be best to schmooze some of the administration for the science department (networking, duh.) Maybe schmooze isn’t the right term, but try your best to be on good standings with the professors. Better than good, perhaps friends.</p>
<p>The odds are very much stacked against you.</p>
<p>Undergrad. If you are above average inteligence, detail oriented, and have a good study ethic you can succeed.</p>
<p>Grad. Here is where it is more complicated. Completion of a PhD is about 50% average overall and runs 5-7 years. Success has more to do with your advisor and program. Is the PI coming up with feasible projects, does he provide mentorship, does he and the department have their crap together. Otherwise many programs are third world sweatshops with primarily student visa holders toiling long hours to teach undergrad labs and run experiments for a PI studying something on a grant that noone really cares about and has little relevance. Some good programs make you somewhat employable and most people that put in the effort graduate. Others like the latter the vast majority leave in disgust after being chewed up and spit out or graduate and find their topic has no relevance to anyone and they end up unemployed or in post doc limbo.</p>
<p>Employment with the BS/MS is generally poor, high unemployment and low paying. At the PhD there is still high unemployment about 35% are part of the full time labor force in the USA and the pay of PhD level scientists is better than the crap $15 an hour no benefits there are not as many jobs and they are very very specialized. Tenure track might as well stay home and buy lotto tickets or go NBA as the previous poster suggested as the odds are extremely long.</p>
<p>Pure science is the perfect choice if you have a philosophical bent, it matches so perfectly the kind of curiosity that is displayed precisely, when you notice that you’re thinking or wondering constantly about something that a particular scientific field has been investigating. The stuff you study and learn, feeds that curiosity that you already have.</p>
<p>Pure sciences, especially physics or math, are mentally demanding and may be exhausting. And they, especially physics and math, may be very esoteric at the research level. Lots of stuff has to be learned at quite a fast pace and because everything is precise and builds on other concepts, falling behind can be catastrophic, because the new stuff may make no sense either. But the driving force should be the curiosity to find out about things, to know what the equations or concepts or whatever really mean, why they exist and why they’re important. If reading or wondering about science e.g. around 6 hours a day doesn’t sound bad, then it should work out. You just have to get “into” the learning process or determine how you learn and how the material is meant to be absorbed (it’s logical and often logically ordered).</p>
<p>The difficulty of succeeding in a scientific career depends on many factors, but most importantly: what do you have to say about the field that you’re investigating and can you provide new insights or new information about something substantial. The point of research is to provide new insight, new concepts or theories or improvements to existing scientific theories. That and social relationships to your peers and the scientific community (e.g. your papers are referenced and you’re asked to hold lectures/seminars about your research). A scientist can hardly be passive, especially when your funding is based on how much papers can you produce. It helps if you’re also a good teacher.</p>
<p>The biggest difficulty is can you find someone to pay for your research either the govt, a company, or venture capitalists etc. For more and more scientists the anwser is no or not enough.</p>
<p>You’re going to Princeton, right? Do well there and get into an Ivy League grad school, and you shouldn’t have any trouble succeeding. Aren’t people with PhDs from Ivies top of list for tenure tracks?</p>
<p>Are they? That is something I wonder. What are placement rates for top graduate schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think scientists spend a bit more time than this. This is little more than a 40 hour work week.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this helps, but many biomedical researchers I’ve met had many different paths to their current positions. Some were science majors who stuck with it, a few were math/physics guys who got involved later on and loved it, and at least one was an english major who fell in love with the work after completing a required science course. The thing they all have in common is they worked their butts off for something that they truly loved doing.</p>
<p>Of the science PhDs I know, the most successful are either the oldest or the luckiest. </p>
<p>Some are old enough (around 50) to have received a tenure job back when the PhD program was more reasonable. They are about as successful as you’d expect an average professor to be. One of the younger PhD’s I know lucked out and got a very nice job in medical research doing the same work she did for her thesis. The rest either switched careers or became stay-at-home parents due to a sheer lack of reasonable job opportunities.</p>
<p>A few are currently in graduate school, with prospects that do not look all that bad. But that’s all too common a story nowadays, and it’s really not a good idea to count your eggs before they hatch, because everything looks nice and peachy up until graduation time. Overall, I’d say that unless you are really lucky, you won’t have much luck in finding a good job. </p>
<p>As an aside, most graduate students think that they are exceptional and that they will be able to land a job despite the bad market. Probability suggests that maybe 90% of them will be disappointed - there is about one good job for every 10 graduates.</p>