<p>Philovitist: consider statistics too. To paraphrase John Tukey, you get to play in the backyard of all the sciences. And employment is not yet hard to find there. Of course, it still depends on knowing how to sell yourself.</p>
<p>Philovitist there comes a time in everyone’s life when they realize they have to shoot for an obtainable goal. People realize they are not going to be an astronaut, or a rock star, or a movie actor and start to look at what I can do that is obtainable, tolerable, and provides a reasonable living.</p>
<p>Science is not that anymore. I’d say engineering, doctor, pharmacist, economics, accounting, finance, HR, nursing, the trades are good choices.</p>
<p>In Game Theory you’re always balancing losses against gains, and seeing how best to minimize losses. sschoe2, you seem to have lost six years of your life pursuing a career that hasn’t worked out. Your response is to throw the rest of your life down that same chute rather than retool for another career. This is simply bad gaming, and is known colloquially as “throwing good money after bad.” If you’re 60 or older, this might be the best decision – there’s not a lot of upside left to be gained. If you’re under 60, then you’re making a career- and life-limiting decision by staying in a losing game. Whining about it here seems to be the only solace you get from this tragic decision. Is this really how you plan to spend the rest of your life? If so, then you deserve your unhappiness, but we don’t.</p>
<p>I am but that doesn’t mean I am going to stay silent when people are advising more people to enter this scam and trap that science has become. Advising people to persue a science career is a kin to offering to guide a blind person then sending them in from of an oncoming truck. There needz to be honest people out there like myself, graveneworld, and the others who are giving the cold hard truth. Science is not a viable career for Americans anymore. It is fine for third wolders who have worse prospects at home because for them it is a chance out of poverty but for Americans it has become a way into poverty.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, I need to chime in…</p>
<p>Science is still a great career choice for some, NOT ALL.</p>
<p>Those who are NOT meant for it, should or will be weeded out. </p>
<p>Those who love science will enjoy it, even if they aren’t paid much or have little benefits.</p>
<p>Those who are truly talented (ie not all scientists are created equal) will achieve more than their fair share of financial benefits.</p>
<p>Those who are not talented but are great at politics (ie they kiss bvtt) will also achieve financial rewards.</p>
<p>The rest will be weeded out into other career choices.</p>
<p>That’s just the way it it…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you equally beneficent toward the history, philosophy, and musical theater majors? Do you stalk the film major forum and warn them about the dismal job prospects of their chosen major? Surely you don’t sit back and allow these poor souls to become victims of their passions, do you?</p>
<p>Nobody has a crystal ball and can tell who will have a rewarding career and who won’t. It’s insulting when you assume that someone you don’t even know will not have a successful career in science, and make every effort to discourage them from trying. People are starting successful careers in science every day despite your unceasing proclamations of doom.</p>
<p>Sschoe,</p>
<p>I don’t see why you keep saying science is a one way ticket to poverty. That is absolutely absurd. A 30k-40k salary right out of college with a chemistry or biology degree is still higher than anything you would make with minimum wage. If a lab tech job is equivalent to poverty, then what about minimum wage jobs that pay far less?</p>
<p>Science will always be a secure field because we will always need scientists to solve problems.</p>
<p>First off noone is saying we have a shortage of philosophy, art, or history majors. There are no initiatives to push students into these majors (perhaps a few for art) and have philosophy majors come to schools and talk to and recruit students. The president doesn’t give speeches on how our country is falling behind on history and philosophy.</p>
<p>There is a huge push to steer people into science and I believe that to be a call for suckers that needs to be refuted.</p>
<p>$30-40k is if you are lucky. Most of the jobs are through temp agencies now so no benefits and a lot of them are centered in high cost of living areas such as Boston, California, and NY/NJ. Also one is lucky to get them as a large amount of especially biology majors are just plain unemployed or working min wage jobs. Finally, these are dead end jobs so this is no just a “starting salary” It is what you can expect for the long term. Most of the people I graduated and worked these jobs got nowhere until they finally wrote off their science years and went back to school for a new career.</p>
<p>@spdf-</p>
<p>I totally agree with this:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree with the OP in that it is tougher to get into a science career nowadays. However, those who really want to pursue it should get their Ph.Ds. The fact that the OP stopped short of getting a Ph.D tells me that he didn’t want to be a scientist “bad enough”. IMO, he will get weeded out of the entire field altogether in due time. That’s the way it should be…</p>
<p>Those who love discovery will weather the post doc years. Many will fall by the wayside during “this” time, but those who are truly talented will get their opportunities. Each person will have to do an honest self-assessment to determine if he/she has a good shot. I know of several people who were postdocs for years, but are now faculty members, staff scientists at universities or companies, or biotech founders.</p>
<p>In fact, my own brother was a postdoc for many years, then he became a staff scientist, co-founded a biotech company, and teaches part-time at a university on the side. He knew he could do it all along, so nothing stopped him from getting a Ph.D.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Refuted on CC? Why not take your campaign to the source? I haven’t seen any evidence that anybody posting here is going into science because they’re being pushed into it by the president. By and large they’re doing it because they love science – the same motivation those history and philosophy and film majors have for choosing their majors. They have passion.</p>
<p>Do you have a passion for ANYTHING? Why do you wallow in a field you hate? You think you’re doing other people a favor with your advice, but I say physician heal thyself. You can’t even fix your own predicament but you’re determined to sit here and tell everyone else what path to take. That’s not wisdom, it’s just a kind of sad, helpless whining. If you want to be helpful, get yourself into a job you love, then come back and tell others how to do it. Nobody needs instruction in whining.</p>
<p>This forum is the perfect place for this. It is designed for prospective students to explore different options for colleges, majors, and careers. If they are wisely looking into whether forking over tens of thousands of dollars for a science degree is a wise investment of their time, effort, and resources they should be aware that for the majority of people who do there is nothing in return except high unemployment and terrible jobs without benefits nor career development.</p>
<p>When you buy stock or other investments there is all kinds of information available as to the companies’ business plans, profitability, liquidity so that someone can get at least an idea as to whether it is a good investment.</p>
<p>When someone buys a house, there are inspections, public records, and all kinds of disclosures to protect the buyer and ensure that they will not put 6 figures into a house that will fall apart.</p>
<p>There is Yelp and Angie’s List for businesses that warn consumers when businesses provide inferior products or are ripping people off.</p>
<p>As for science improving in the future, I’ve seen articles from the 90’s including some rather pithy reviews from a poster who went by Uncle AL about how terrible the field of chemistry was even then. It has gotten steadily worse since that time. I feel very secure in telling people that the field will continue on the same path for the foreseeable future with the situation with big pharma, the chemical industry, government, and academia and grants.</p>
<p>I continue to work in science because I need a paycheck while I commence a career change. I can’t just pull myself out of the labor force and go back to college full time for another degree with no chance for financial aid.</p>
<p>I suspect a trained genetics or biochem graduate can probably open a small shop on the corner of any inner city and do paternity and other genetic testing.</p>
<p>My suggestion to anyone considering a PhD in a science or engineering field is to get in touch with some actual PhDs in your field of choice and find out how they are doing, rather than reading about averages or secondhand gossip from people who don’t have a PhD.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with discussing averages is the failure to consider regional differences.</p>
<p>My data point: in the first full calendar year after my PhD, I made $150k. The median <em>household</em> income in my zip code is $33k. </p>
<p>There are a ton of factors that depress PhD average salaries. A few:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Many are in startups. My friends who are now millionaires were paying themselves $40-50k/yr before they were bought out.</p></li>
<li><p>More than half are foreigners. They have limited places they can work, so they have to take what they can get. Even with that, the lowest paid foreign PhD I know makes more than the average <em>household</em> income in his area.</p></li>
<li><p>Many are naive about their value in the marketplace. The ones with little real-world exposure only have student stipends and postdoc offers to compare to.</p></li>
<li><p>Some actually got the PhD for the right reason - because it’s what they love - and they are doing a postdoc at Podunk U. making $40k. Which, by the way, is a decent salary in the sticks where Podunk U is located.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The suggestion that any PhDs are living in poverty is farcical, let alone technical PhDs.</p>
<p>Then I suggest you check out chemjobber. Quit a few of those mythical unemployed and impoverished PhD chemists hang out around there. I also know from my graduate program everyone who graduated with a PhD got stuck doing post-docs because there was nothing else for them and 5 years later they are still there. Most of the BS/MS people went into teaching secondary schools or for career changes because that was a better option than working as a chemist. The person from my research group who did the best got kicked out by the PI with his MS then got an MBA and is an analyst for a investment group for Biotech and Pharma.</p>
<p>@sschoe2-</p>
<p>Talking to Ph.Ds will give you some information, but be aware it will come from a biased standpoint. For example, if you talk to a Ph.D in a plush academic or corporate position, he/she will likely give you a very positive viewpoint. If you talk to Ph.Ds that are working in retail, they’re probably going to tell you that science opportunities svck. So that’s something to keep in mind.</p>
<p>The reality is that to make it, one needs to have either “real talent”, luck, and/or can play politics better than the politicians. </p>
<p>Now just because it’s not working out for you, doesn’t mean it won’t work out for the fella next to you. My understanding is that you don’t have a Ph.D, so obviously YOU are not going to have opportunities afforded to those with Ph.Ds. I’m not trying to offend you. But it’s like someone telling folks not to ride a bike because his tricycle experience svcks. Then going on about how lots of folks fall off their bikes and get hurt, so it’s not worth taking a risk.</p>
<p>My advice is for you to take some night/part-time classes in a different field. Obviously you weren’t meant for science.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>Imagine someone who once wanted to be a professional musician, but who lost his passion, dropped out of a graduate program, and was now stuck in a low-paying music-related job that he hated, so now he hangs out on the Music Majors forum of CC, urinating all over the passion of anyone who expresses an interest in a music major.</p>
<p>Would anybody take this guy seriously?</p>
<p>My point is that when a survey conducted by the American Chemical Society shows 40% of Chemists working full time and 1/2 of those are in lousy academic jobs persuing a career in this field is ludicrous. Also giving anyone a rosy picture of this profession given the above stats is very dishonest and morally reprehensible. </p>
<p>The field has degenerated to the point that the stats are mirroring those of journalists, architects, and people with BA’s in subjects with no business relevance.</p>
<p>People go into art, acting, and music fully aware of the appallingly low chances for being able to make a viable living at it. They simply have so much passion for the subject they are willing to risk living in poverty.</p>
<p>Most people going into science are more practical and expect the degree to have utility. It is also a tragic waste of our nations intellectually gifted to lure them into science and have them get excluded from the middle class or the labor market entirely. Anyone who can pass quantum mechanics, organic chemistry, and other such courses is clearly among the top 10% of this country in intellectual ability. Heck only 30% of the US populace has a Bachelors degree at all.</p>
<p>Guys, sschoe2 is painting a very ugly picture for the sciences, and for the most part he is pretty accurate. It goes against what a lot of the media tells us, but chemistry is absolutely a terrible field to be in right now - public funding for academia is getting squeezed, the pharmaceutical industry is the #2 sector for layoffs (right after government), basic science + manufacturing is being outsourced to china/india. A lot of the same can be said about biology majors. </p>
<p>And, again, sschoe2 is correct in saying that it is a shame that our nation’s brightest are spending 8 years in school (+ x yrs post doc) to make as much as a business major coming out of your local state school in 4 years. The liberal arts sciences are not doing well, it would behoove for those interested in science to go a preprofessional route.</p>
<p>The “STEM” picture that the government and media paints is not reality - you will be faced with a long + rigorous education with below average employment prospects (compared to business, engineering, healthcare). </p>
<p>Let me repeat - below average. That is not to say that majoring in a science will mean you will not get a great job, but the odds are stacked heavily against you.</p>
<p>Source: PharmD candidate with experience in the pharmaceutical industry and many friends who majored in the liberal arts sciences.</p>
<p>Interesting how providing positive comments is always welcome but hard truths is considered as urinating over people’s passions. If a person has passion to pursue science, bad prospects in their future may/may not discourage them but at least they should be allowed to make an informed decision.</p>
<p>If you decide not to pursue any major because of its poor future promises, that does not mean you have lost your passion for the subject - it just means you have been hit with reality and are making alternate choices. To blindly pursue a passion without researching into it doesn’t seem like an intelligent choice - that would be like buying a car you love right off the lot without looking at the specs or test driving it or just listening to the sales person tell you how great it is.</p>
<p>The only way to make the situation better is to start bringing attention to the matter in hopes that someone in the powers to be becomes aware and attempts to fix it.</p>