<p>If I had it to do over I would have gone straight to pharm school. Now I can’t afford 5 years out of the work force (1 for missing prerequisites (economics, anatomy, and comm) and pcat then no guarantee of admissions then 4 years of school then the market for pharmacists is become saturated in many areas.</p>
<p>I am leaning towards getting an accounting degree. I just want science completely out of my life.</p>
<p>I have always heard that an MS in CS is much more useful than a PhD and that the PhD was only for those interested in academia. Similar to the engineering degree. Correct me if I’m wrong, but (anecdotally) the brightest CS students never get their PhD - it doesn’t add much value!!</p>
<p>^It’s apparently difficult to get a job in academia in CS so it’s often not worth it. The stipend isn’t nearly as good as you would get with a PhD in a natural science field. Even more than that, most CS majors stick with a Bachelor’s (all that’s necessary to go into industry).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not even representative of all of the Chemistry Department at Caltech. The professor in the letter has actually left to ETH Zurich. I will admit that there are some organic professors in the chemistry program that have been known to expect a good amount of time commitment from their students. That said, there are other professors in the department that do not have such requirements from their students.</p>
<p>Also a PhD in ‘science’ is a very general term. It matters which ‘science’ you are talking about. Chemistry PhDs have different prospects than Biology or Physics PhDs. </p>
<p>Also, people who major in these PhDs do not do it for the money. The first thing my professor told me when I was looking into getting a PhD was I shouldn’t do it for the money because the money just isn’t there. </p>
<p>One final thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet are how opportunities vary wildly depending on the school and department that you go to. Someone getting a PhD in Physics and Podunk U is in a very different position than someone getting it from Stanford or MIT. This matters in graduate school a lot more than it does in undergrad (note just because a university is known for having a good undergrad does not mean it necessarily has all good grad departments and vice versa).</p>
<p>I’m currently working with fruit fly tracking, MATLAB programming and image processing. </p>
<p>I will finish with a degree in Biochemistry (BS), Physics (BA) and Biology (minor). I’m debating about whether or not to apply for PhD programs. Does having an interdisciplinary undergraduate career make me more employable? I’m willing to be employed in a wide variety of fields. I figure a PhD half-completion (to get additional research experience) could be a stepping stone to other programs, like med school, Teach for America, etc.</p>
<p>The money is not there and neither are the jobs. Noone should be forced to take an oath of poverty to be a scientist. Scientists are entitles to a reasonable middle class salary and benefits the same as any other professional.</p>
<p>To the poster with the Biochem physics major forget the PhD if job is your goal. Science degrees nowadays are only useful as a stepping stone for Pharm, Med, Optometry or other professional programs. Otherwise you will enjoy 10 years of mixed unemployment and low paying temp jobs without benefits before ultimately ending up in an unskilled labor position.</p>
<p>A Ph.D. program is an apprenticeship to learn to do research in your field. The Ph.D. is your union card. If your field primarily does research in academia, then that is what you are stuck with if you want to stay in your field and use your training. However, academia is not the only place you can do research for a number of fields, and the training in itself is can provide entry into fields requiring similar skills. </p>
<p>Note that you can get into research without the Ph.D., but it is somewhat difficult to change employers as you do not have the expected “certification”. Publications, patents, other documentation, etc. can offset this. Managing Ph.D.s can require having a Ph.D. as well, but that varies with company and discipline.</p>
<p>Of course being a (successful) academic involves more than research - learning to teach and to guide research and to write research proposals typically involves both graduate and postgraduate work. </p>
<p>If you don’t want to do research, I’m not sure the point of getting a Ph.D., though even essentially non-research teaching positions (e.g. adjuncts) at the University level may require a Ph.D., but such positions are typically not the motivation for getting the Ph.D.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come on, sschoe2, even you must recognize that this is a ridiculous statement. Here’s a study done by the american chemical society to look at starting salaries for Chemists and Chemical Engineers: <a href=“American Chemical Society”>American Chemical Society; </p>
<p>Starting salary for Chemistry PhD’s? $70,000. Is that extraordinarily high? Of course not. A lot of my friends are making more out of undergrad than that. Should you go to graduate school for the money? Hell no. Will you be able to have a ‘reasonable middle class salary’ after you graduate? Yes. Stopping at a BS in some science majors like Chemistry is non ideal as well (my advice to people thinking about working after a BS is to do engineering).</p>
<p>sschoe2, I recognize that you had a bad experience and I appreciate your input on this topic. However, let us recognize that that is only one sample point and I know many others (including myself) who are happy with their decisions to get a PhD. It is also clear that it differs from situation to situation. In my department the average time to completion is~5.3 years (most graduate in 5, some in 6, almost no one in 4). My professor would never, ever stop someone from graduating because they were too good. In fact, my PI mostly leaves it up to you to decide when you want to graduate! </p>
<p>My point really ends up being: do your homework before getting a PhD in science. It’s not for everyone and it is by no means a means to untold riches but it is the right choice for some people.</p>
<p>[Chemjobber:</a> Well, that’s not good news](<a href=“http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-thats-not-good-news.html]Chemjobber:”>Chemjobber: Well, that's not good news)</p>
<p>Here is a better part of the survey. Of all Chemistry PhD graduates only 41% have full time jobs down from 44% listed in your older version of the survey, and only 28% work in industry. Of the 60% in industry I can guarantee you the vast majority are not tenured professors, most are post-docs, adjunct, and assistant professors. Does it really sound like a good indea to spend a decade or more in college for a 41% chance at a decent full time job. An accounting major takes 4-5 years has much better employment prospects and much higher salaries.</p>
<p>Here is a look at some #'s since 1999 and if you google it you will find the previous years ones as well.
[nsf.gov</a> - NCSES Numbers of Doctorates Awarded Continue to Grow in 2009; Indicators of Employment Outcomes Mixed - US National Science Foundation (NSF)](<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf11305/]nsf.gov”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf11305/)
Somewhere in the first paragraph it indicates the decrease in employment and how 2009 was the highest increase in a single year that doctorate recipients took post-docs positions. They blame it on the recession.</p>
<p>pg 10 of this document <a href=“http://ftp.iza.org/dp5367.pdf[/url]”>http://ftp.iza.org/dp5367.pdf</a> states how PhD’s were in “over-supply” by 1969 and it was predicted that their job market would suffer in the 80’s.</p>
<p>Research funding practices has a play in all this. As a high school teacher I am contiuously bombarded by STEM initiatives to encourage students to go into scince because we can’t fill some of our jobs in technical fields. Engineers are doing great but the pure sciences are not seeing an increase of security for their futures.</p>
<p>I also know of 2 students in 2 different institutions right now (one doing a Masters & other is doing PhD) and their supervisor is slowing their exit by all sorts of broken promises even though both students delivered required work. They both should have been done by April and now they are looking at October - a 2nd delay for both of them.</p>
<p>The US doesn’t appreciate the sciences. Until we stop using science to sell overpriced pharmaceutical drugs that are more harmful than good, science will always be at a dead end.</p>
<p>Look at other countries such as France, Canada, UK, and Switzerland. They are economically stable, appreciate the advancement of science, have UHC, and cheaper college education.</p>
<p>Our country is promised false hope by the 1% that things are going to be better. That’s a false statement because the 1% is doing all they can to get richer an make the poor even poorer. The middle class is going to vanish in the next couple of years.</p>
<p>Also our country is not interested in anything that makes life easier but doesn’t make money for the 1%. Watch “Who killed the electric car” and you will realize how the oil companies and car companies control us. This can be applied to pharmaceutical companies at well. They don’t care for the people or the advancement of science and overall benefit of society.</p>
<p>They only care about filling their pockets with the dough. Science has been morally corrupted and citizens are becoming more and more ignorant about the role science plas in our society.</p>
<p>Unfortunately it goes on in Canada too. Check out the Avro Arrow - amazing airplane that came out in 1950’s and all of a sudden in 1959 gov’t pulls it. A plane way ahead of its times and it was thought it was pulled because of pressure from American Gov’t and some political arrangement…don’t know.
It breaks my heart when pure advancements in science are buried.</p>
<p>I am a research track faculty and very happy. I teach one class a year because I want to, and the rest of the time, I do research. I am in the biomed field (epidemiology), and I think that I could get something elsewhere if I were to choose to do so. I can tell you, the public heath fields (especially Biostatistics and Epidemiology) give you skills that are widely sought after and useful in a variety of venues.</p>
<p>The thing about a Ph.D though is, I’ve seen it close a lot of doors in the private sector. Some companies in the private sector(energy companies) will recruit a Ph.D, but I see them hire more Engineers with a Bachelor’s or even a Masters. I think the truth is, in many areas in the Private sector, the Masters or in some cases, the Bachelors is the terminal degree. Anything beyond that can be considered overqualified. In most cases its about costs. Why should I pay you 70 or 80 grand a year for a entry position, when I can pay a fresh Bachelor’s graduate for less. Lower costs for an employer is better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you ever considered that your difficulty in finding rewarding work in science might be related to your tiresome drumbeat of negativity and not to the field of science itself?</p>
<p>Agh. What am I to do? To be a scientist no, to have the opportunity and resources to devote my whole being to answering those questions that torture me has basically become my sole mission in life. I can’t imagine doing anything else.</p>
<p>Am I doomed to failure already by choosing this goal? What are the odds these days of success, does anyone know? </p>
<p>And then they’ll be so much worse by the time I get a PhD. And of course there’s paying for all of this and so much time before my parents will see the low-salary results. How can I, in good faith, NOT just become a doctor? There’s no reason not to except for the dreams floating already in my head.</p>
<p>Can I be assured, at least, that my aptitude, developed with complete devotion, will get me somewhere? That ridiculously hard work won’t be rewarded with disappointment? That I won’t invest my whole being for years and years into something no better than a lottery ticket? </p>
<p>But if not, what then? Do I give up and settle for less? I just can’t imagine it.</p>
<p>…I have to still try. I have to make the bad decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No but that is my favorite cheap blow off. Everytime anyone expresses anger about their job search people chirp in and say that is why you can’t find a job. Just like this video.
[RSA</a> Animate - Smile or Die - YouTube](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo]RSA”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo)</p>
<p>Like everyone else I’ve learned to fake my way through interviews. Why do you want to work here? Duh you pay more than minimum wage and are near where I live and are hiring. What is your greatest weakness? Duh I like to come in late, drink on the job, sexual harass women. I’ve even learned to get through those ■■■■■■■■ preemployment psychological profile exams that are creeping into professional positions now.</p>
<p>sschoe2–you weren’t expressing anger about your job search, but about science itself. I think you should find your passion, as they say, and you will be happier.</p>
<p>Philovitist, you might want to look within engineering and try to approach science from that end. Once you get a PhD you’ll be doing a lot of the same work, except that you’ll be able to find a job in industry if you can’t/don’t want one in academia or a national lab.</p>
<p>I’m a Materials Scientist/Engineer and work daily with chemists, physicists, and all sorts of other engineers in my lab.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The two are coupled and can’t be treated separately. If someone spends 6 years busting their butt studying a difficult and time intensive subject in response to both their interests and society’s supposed need and ends up having companies treat and pay you like a HS dropout that person’s passion for the subject will suffer.</p>