MS vs. Ph.D

Graduate School
1

<p>Which is better in terms of finding available jobs, having a good job, decent pay, living a respectable/professional life, especially for physical science. And outside of academia </p>

<p>The way I see it is:
Ph.D – highest education, don’t have to pay for school, only way to get a scientist position (otherwise its very hard to move up in industry), will get to research
BUT jobs aren’t available (some place won’t hire Ph.D because they have too much education and will require higher salary), might have to move around the country to find a place that deals with your Ph.D research, </p>

<p>MS- lower education then Ph.D, hence less money; do have to pay for study/class; will not have the same status (get to work on R&D) as Ph.d.. in pure science MS is though of as a degree for those who couldn’t make it to Ph.D
BUT in industry there are more positions that need strong science background but not a Ph.D, so jobs are more available; you can always move up though work (does take time and is harder) but eventually its feasible </p>

<p>I have BS in chemistry with minor in math. I have good GPA and have strong background in research. However, I didn’t go to very wellknown school and I am not very flexible in terms of moving for study/work. So job availability is very important to me. I took a year off after graduation to check out the world of work (which I am doing now but I need to apply to grad school soon). What I noticed during my job search is that, science jobs aren’t everywhere as business or management might be. Finding something good requires relocating, which isn’t something I can do later on in life (I am already having hard time with it now). I am definite going back to school, I am not happy with just a BS. The reason I choose chemistry is because I like learning thigns at the fundamental state, looking at the root of an issue. I have always found physical science easier then other field. so that’s what I will be pursuing. Now I have no clue what physical scientist do in work field. I think i will like to be in development end in some industry that deals with peoples basic need. I like the idea of social science (helping people) combined with chemistry (tiniest level to study an issue) combined with math related area (just like variables and solving them). Don't what happens when all three are combined. But I don’t want to get stuck with a degree that will leave me job less or force me to move across the country to middle of no where for one job. </p>

<p>So which one would I be better of doing and more important what can I do with say MS in physical chemistry or even with a Ph.D, outside of academia</p>

2

<p>I would seriously consider taking some classes in geology. Geologists are needed everywhere in the country and is an in demand field, regardless of educational level (most environmental consulting jobs only require a BS, a MS is the most they will accept in normal circumstances). If you can swing some classes, you could probably talk your way into a local environmental consulting firm. They will like your background in chemistry (for issues such as contamination) and once you get some geology under your belt you'd also be very desirable for groundwater contamination and modeling.</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
Ph.D – highest education, don’t have to pay for school, only way to get a scientist position (otherwise its very hard to move up in industry), will get to research
BUT jobs aren’t available (some place won’t hire Ph.D because they have too much education and will require higher salary), might have to move around the country to find a place that deals with your Ph.D research,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While the issue of being 'overqualified' does happen, I think its effects are overblown. After all, you can always just omit your PhD from your resume. Nobody says that you have to state on your resume every single thing you've ever done in your life. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that a resume is a marketing tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Think of it as similar to the marketing and advertising that all companies do. While you obviously shouldn't lie on your resume (i.e. you can't claim to have a PhD if you don't have one), you don't have to tell the whole truth either. Just like when Ford puts up a TV ad for its latest car, what the ad shows you isn't a lie, but it's not the whole truth about the car either. They are showing you what they want to show you. In the same sense, a resume should be a document that presents to a company whatever it is that you want to present. You are under no obligation to tell them everything. If they ask you whether you have a PhD, then you tell them the truth. But if they don't ask, you don't have to tell. </p>

<p>
[quote]
MS- lower education then Ph.D, hence less money; do have to pay for study/class;

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually, I think the best way to get an MS is not really to get an MS directly. Rather, it's to enter a PhD program and then GET PAID while picking up your MS, and then walk away. </p>

<p>And besides, the truth of the matter is that an MS in science doesn't provide that much benefit over having just a BS. An MS in engineering is highly useful, but a MS in science, not so much. A lot of people view an MS in sciences as (in many cases, rightfully as) somebody who washed out of a PhD program.</p>

4

<p>The groundwater and contaminant modeling sounds like a possible area of interest for you. Also take a look at soil chemistry and soil physics. You definitely sound like a good candidate for grad. programs in agricultural and environmental sciences.</p>

5

<p>I'm in chemistry also - a B.S. basically makes you a lab tech. When I was applying for jobs, a lot of companies had jobs for "B.S + 5 years industry experience OR Masters", but very few had anything for entry level B.S. degree's with research experience. I graduated at the top of my class with honors, 3 years of undergrad research & I couldn't even get an interview! So, I ended up in grad school just like you're planning on doing.</p>

<p>I think that a Ph.D. in chemistry is the best. There are a ton of industry related jobs for Ph.D. chemists in all fields - biotech, pharmicuticals, food flavor, cosmetics/personal care products, cleaning products, textiles, oil companies, intel, semicon companies.. even Kodak & HP hire chemists to develop ink. In addition to research & development there are also Quality Control type jobs. And, as a Ph.D. you aren't married to your dissertation project - the degree basically says that you are smart enough to learn a specific subject matter very well.</p>

<p>Also, Ph.D. isn't really the max level of education for chemists anymore.. don't forget about post-docs. A Ph.D chemist without a postdoc is considered lower than a chemist with one.</p>

6

<p>oh no</p>

<p>you guys are saying just B.S. in chemistry is not enough? I have BS in Chemistry. I was thinking to go to Grad school but dont have good GPA. SO i am not even gonna bother applying. </p>

<p>How much people for pay for BS in chemistry?? i was thinking may be like $40K in big cities???</p>

<p>BTW ...is it possible to do Pharmacy if you have degree in chemistry ?? how long does that take?</p>

7

<p>It is possible to do pharmacy if you have a degree in chemistry, but most pharmacy schools (all that I'm aware of) require some bio & biochem courses. So if you took some of those courses in your undergrad then you are fine.</p>

<p>I believe starting salary for an entry level B.S. chemist is ~32-35k/year</p>

8

<p>yeah i had three bio chem classes</p>

<p>does anybody know any easy to get to pharmacy schools??</p>

9

<p>Thanks for your replay</p>

<p>The groundwater and contaminant sound very interesting, i never though of that. I actually did my undergraduate research in chemical dynamic of atmospheric gas. the main reason i choice that research was due to its link to environment, but i found out i am not very interested in wat happens up in the sky. prefer thinking about the ground i am standing on or water. </p>

<p>LAGator and Ophiolite or anyone else, what sort of background will i need for groundwater contaminant? I am in Michigan now, so something nearby. I am interested in lab/research type of work in the long run. </p>

<p>sakky- u mentioned couple of the things I been thinking about
1) MS being looked down upon, is it worth doing this. i don't want to put myself in a situation where hard work doesn't pay off</p>

<p>but on the other hand
2) I do understand I can take off Ph.D from resume but no one wants to be in a situation where they year of study is hidden away, instead of showing it off proudly. I really wouldn't have had any problem with going all the way with Ph.D except I know i will be geographically restricted. Which means job availability is my top priority before money or anything else. But i still want to invest into further education and am looking for something that’s worth while and will give most effective result. Ground water sounds along the line of things I will like. I am also interested in recycle research (don’t know fi that exist). Sort of trying to see what else we can recycle? </p>

<p>Neena, it is hard to find jobs with only a BS. You can find lot of lab tech position which are designed for 2 year degree. but if u get lucky and are willing to move around you can find position in big companies who have fast advancement rate. I think going into pharmacy school is pretty competitive now.</p>

10

<p>Keya,</p>

<p>There are a lot of opportunities available to you in Michigan for groundwater study. Depending on your GPA UMichigan may be worth a look (they have a very well-known geology department, but it seems most students go on to the PhD there). However, I would advise you to apply to Michigan State. I know they have a pretty good groundwater group there <a href="http://geology.msu.edu/hydrogeology.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://geology.msu.edu/hydrogeology.html&lt;/a> and know someone who graduated with his MS in geology there and had no problems finding jobs in the Great Lakes area.</p>

<p>Another option, if you want to stray a little is Wisconsin. I'm in the geology department there and there is an excellent groundwater group here (great placement as well). </p>

<p>The MS in geology is NOT looked down upon. It is actually a great move, as getting the PhD can limit your opportunities for employment with many environmental consulting firms. </p>

<p>If you have any questions about pursuing graduate school in the geological sciences (which includes hydro), don't hesitate to PM me.</p>

11

<p>Good advice, Ophiolite! </p>

<p>Keya - I would contact the Geology program and the Crop and Soil program at MSU and let them know your interests and background. If things sound good on both ends, you'll probably have to take a few background undergrad. courses in either Geology or Soils during your Graduate program, depending on your choice. On the soils side, you could definitely do lab/research work after finishing a Graduate program. I don't have enough experience with Geology to give you an opinion on career prospects there. FWIW, my major professor got a B.S. degree in Chemistry and never made less than a A in a Math course. You sound like a good candidate for this line of work - please keep us updated on the process!</p>

12

<p>If you do a PhD and then do not include it in your CV this will cause a large hole in your life history. There will be like 5 to 6 years of your life missing. Employers may wonder what is up. Of course you could have had children, been sick and etc but I am sure that if you get to the interview stage they will be asking questions about the gap.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
1) MS being looked down upon, is it worth doing this. i don't want to put myself in a situation where hard work doesn't pay off

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, welcome to the real world. The truth is, there are a lot of instances in life where hard work doesn't pay off. </p>

<p>The major issue with any credential, not just the PhD or the MS, but any credential, is the signal that it sends to the market. Certain credentials may signal that you are simply overqualified for a certain job, which means that an employer is afraid to hire you for fear that you will get quickly get bored and quit to find another job. One way to mitigate that problem is, as I said, to simply omit certain credentials you have from your resume. A resume is a marketing tool, nothing more, nothing less. It has to be truthful, but it doesn't have to be the whole truth . </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you do a PhD and then do not include it in your CV this will cause a large hole in your life history. There will be like 5 to 6 years of your life missing. Employers may wonder what is up. Of course you could have had children, been sick and etc but I am sure that if you get to the interview stage they will be asking questions about the gap.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Personally, I think that far and away the easiest way to solve this problem is to just say that you ran your own small business, i.e. your own small consulting firm. Nobody can really challenge you when you say this, because it's your own small business, so you can say whatever you want about it. So if they want to run a background check on you, there is nothing to check out. You just have to file for a small-business license (which is generally no more than a few hundred dollars a year), and obtain a business tax ID number (also cheap), and you are legitimately a small-business entrepreneur, at least on paper. If they later find out that you were obtaining your PhD at the time, you can legitimately say that you weren't lying (because you never claimed that you DIDN'T have a PhD), but that you were also running your own small business on the side while you were in school, so what you listed on your resume was technically true. To make things even more legitimate, you can even garner some actual consulting gig, even if it's for only a few hundred dollars a year, because that means that your company is now legitimately generating revenue. Very little revenue, but it's still revenue.</p>

14

<p>Sakky, that seems a bit sleazy, honestly... I would definitely not recommend what you proposed. Don't stoop to lawyer talk and politician tactics to dupe your potential employers. C'mon, have some integrity. If they ask, tell them the truth.</p>

15

<p>I don't think it's particularly sleazy. Why not just do it for real? It's really not THAT hard to start your own small business and earn some consulting revenue on the side. Particularly if you're a PhD student - there is some company out there that will pay you to do some consulting of some kind, even if it's only for a few hundred dollars.</p>

<p>I don't even particularly view it as a matter of integrity. After all, do you honestly think your employer is telling you the whole truth? No, of course not. So you don't really owe the whole truth to your employer either. Hiring is a business transaction. Nothing more, nothing less. Employers are going to present whatever they need to make themselves look like desirable employers, and employees should present what they need to do present to look like desirable employees. That's how business works. It's no more sleazy than the advertising you see on TV, where companies aren't really telling you the whole truth in order to sell their products.</p>

<p>There is a fine line between integrity and naivete. It would be nice and idealistic to think that everybody in the world would tell each other the complete truth. We don't live in that world. Business transactions are fostered on each party telling the other party what they want to hear. That's business. Like it or not, that's the way that business works. I would be perfectly happy to tell the complete truth to my employer if I could be assured that my employer was telling the complete truth to me. But I know that's not going to happen, and I can't be naive about that.</p>

16

<p>yeah like when rejecting you, employer won't tell directly "sorry we can't accept you because you have a PhD" they will use a softer version of it.</p>

17

<p>


</p>

<p>There is a major difference between not giving the whole truth and simply lying. Even if you are sleazy enough to go through the trouble of obtaining a licence and tax ID number, that does not make you an entrepreneur. It gives you the <em>opportunity</em> to be one. Again, this is just low, and I hope no one takes your advice. Call me naive, but I am a strong supporter of being an honest person. I'm surprised to hear this from you, Sakky; I usually find your posts extremely helpful.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
There is a major difference between not giving the whole truth and simply lying. Even if you are sleazy enough to go through the trouble of obtaining a licence and tax ID number, that does not make you an entrepreneur. It gives you the <em>opportunity</em> to be one. Again, this is just low, and I hope no one takes your advice. Call me naive, but I am a strong supporter of being an honest person.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How is it a lie? You didn't say anything that was false. You were in fact running a small business. That is a factually true statement. </p>

<p>Look at it this way. Define the term 'small businessman'. It is simply somebody who runs a small business. Nowhere does it say that the business has to be profitable. In fact, plenty of small businesses aren't profitable. {Heck, many big businesses aren't profitable - i.e. Ford is posting losses in the billions of dollars right now}. </p>

<p>Again, I think it's a matter of naivete. The truth is, being hired is a pure BUSINESS arrangement. Nothing more, nothing less. Think about all of the business deals that happen every day. Do you think that when one company strikes a business deal with another company, that each company is completely honest with each other? No, of course not. THAT'S BUSINESS. That's the way business works in the real world, like it or not. For example, when Bill Gates struck a deal with IBM to license the DOS operating system for the first PC, Gates didn't tell IBM that he didn't even have an operating system ready at the time and was just going to buy it from Tim Paterson and then resell/relicense it to IBM. IBM had no idea what was going on, and Bill Gates deliberately did not tell them. THAT'S BUSINESS. We all celebrate that transaction as one of the greatest business deals in history, and put Gates on the road to becoming the richest man in the world, yet the deal would never have happened if IBM knew the whole truth. If IBM knew what was going on, IBM would have simply ignored Gates and gotten DOS directly from Paterson. Gates made a brilliant business deal PRECISELY because he was carefully selective with the truth. That's how business works. Similarly, the act of getting hired is a simple business transaction, nothing more, nothing less. Neither party (the employee or the employer) is telling the whole truth. Again, that's business.</p>

<p>Guys, keep the following in mind. A resume is an advertisement of your capabilities. It's a way to market yourself. Nothing more, nothing less. When companies advertise their products, do they tell you the whole truth? I don't think so. They don't lie in the sense that they deliberately tell you something that is false, but they don't exactly tell you the whole truth either. They tell you only a particular subset of the truth that they think will create a sale. Similarly, the act of getting hired is a business transaction, nothing more, nothing less. Don't be naive about what's really going on. Your employer isn't going to tell you the whole truth. So you need to be aware of what's going on and act accordingly. I never said that you should outright lie, but I am advocating that you be street-smart and street-savvy about what the reality of business is all about.</p>

19

<p>You phrased your initial response in such a way that you appeared to be saying, 'if they ask what you were doing, just say you ran a business. They can't prove you didn't, so you can make up anything you want about it. If you're not a fan of lying, just do these simple steps so you are an entrepreneur on paper...'. Is this not correct? If it is, you are saying it's ok to lie if they can't prove otherwise. </p>

<p>Of course one can withhold information that would work against them, but one should NOT lie if asked specifically about it. It's fine that Bill Gates did not tell IBM he did not have an operating system ready if IBM did not ask him. However, if they specifically asked Bill if he had an operating system ready, I hope you would not contend it would be fine if he said he did...</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Of course one can withhold information that would work against them, but one should NOT lie if asked specifically about it. It's fine that Bill Gates did not tell IBM he did not have an operating system ready if IBM did not ask him. However, if they specifically asked Bill if he had an operating system ready, I hope you would not contend it would be fine if he said he did...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, actually, in this specific scenario, Bill Gates would be perfectly within his rights to have lied in that meeting. After all, misdirection and bluffing is an accepted part of business negotiation. That's business. To think otherwise is to have a highly romanticized, idealistic, way of thinking about business. Let's not be naive. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You phrased your initial response in such a way that you appeared to be saying, 'if they ask what you were doing, just say you ran a business. They can't prove you didn't, so you can make up anything you want about it. If you're not a fan of lying, just do these simple steps so you are an entrepreneur on paper...'. Is this not correct? If it is, you are saying it's ok to lie if they can't prove otherwise.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am saying that if you need a cover story, you can generate one fairly easily. I am not even saying that you even need to 'lie'. You really can put some effort into getting some consulting work, and then legitimately call yourself an entrepreneur. Even if you don't actually get any work at all, if you actually put some effort into it (i.e. you actually call around for consulting gigs, you actually respond to requests, you actually create a website advertising your services, etc.), then I don't see what the issue is. </p>

<p>But, look, Addwit, you have to keep the context in mind here. In a perfect world, no company would ever ding you for being 'overqualified' because you have a PhD. We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where having a PhD really can send a mixed signal to the labor markets. I am therefore proposing an alternative to sending this mixed signal. What I would obviously prefer is for companies to stop dinging people for being "too" educated. But if we live in a world where companies are going to ding you for being overqualified, then I think you are well within your rights to market yourself in a manner such that you do not appear to be overqualified.</p>