What is it with Science Majors?

College Majors Science Majors
41

<p>I don’t think people on this site have something against science. In my first and only thread, I mentioned how on this site, every major/degree is criticized by a lot of people. That was just my observation from simply lurking the site before signing up. Though I admit I changed my major from Criminal Justice to Accounting because of this site and another forum, with some research of my own as well. You will read a thread about how a Business major is terrible and worthless, and that a degree in Economics is the way to go. Then you look for Economics threads, and you see people criticizing an Economics degree, and telling you to go with Finance, and guess what, you look up Finance and then it’s also deemed worthless. It’s just an example, this didn’t really happened.</p>

<p>In the end, the majority of members on this site, have a problem against almost every major, you would think college is worthless as a whole, reading through this site. Not just science majors. Read the opinions, conduct your own research, and don’t just go by what you read here. With that said, this is a very helpful site despite the amount of critique many majors get. I guess it’s a good site if you want to read about the negatives of every major?</p>

42

<p>After going through some of the posts, I thought it would be helpful to post some statistics from some sources. Knowing that people generally do not get good information from anecdotal stories, blog posts, or second party sources. For fun, I included statistics for chemistry specific majors as well.</p>

<p>Sources:
<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10318/pdf/nsf10318.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10318/pdf/nsf10318.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf09317/pdf/nsf09317.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf09317/pdf/nsf09317.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Data comes from 2006 (Most Current)</p>

<p>----Employment Data for B.S. Degree Holders----
Percentage of science graduates employed within science field who are not pursuing more schooling: 25%
Chemistry Specific: 48%</p>

<p>Percentage of science graduates employed, but not in a science field, who are not pursuing more schooling: 67%
Chemistry Specific: 40%</p>

<p>Science Graduates who are still full time students: 26%
Chemistry Specific: 44%</p>

<p>Unemployment Rate for science graduates: 9%
Chemistry Specific: 11%</p>

<p>Median salary of all employed: 35k</p>

<h2>Chemistry Specific: 35k</h2>

<p>----Employment Data for Master Degree Holders-----
Percentage of science graduates employed within science field who are not pursuing more schooling: 49%
Chemistry Specific: 69%</p>

<p>Percentage of science graduates employed, but not in a science field, who are not pursuing more schooling: 43%
Chemistry Specific: n/a</p>

<p>Science Graduates who are still full time students: 23%
Chemistry Specific: 30%</p>

<p>Unemployment Rate: 8%
Chemistry Specific: n/a</p>

<p>Median salary of all employed: 50k</p>

<h2>Chemistry Specific: 50k</h2>

<p>----Employment Data for Science Related PhD Degree Holders----
Employed Full Time: 86%
Chemistry Specific: 88%</p>

<p>Employed Part Time: 11%
Chemistry Specific: 8%</p>

<p>Unemployed/Not-Seeking Work: 3%
Chemistry Specific: 4%</p>

<p>Involuntary out of Field Work: 3.1%
Chemistry Specific: 4%</p>

<p>Salary of Full-Time Workers: 85k</p>

<h2>Chemistry Specific: 96k</h2>

<p>Here is another good statistical survey with data from 2009: <a href=“http://www.ascb.org/newsfiles/ASCBSalarySurveyReport_08.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ascb.org/newsfiles/ASCBSalarySurveyReport_08.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This source does not contain unemployment info though</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>And there will be hundreds of persons saying that majoring in French Lit is a huge mistake. It’s all relative. :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Given the economy, (nearly) ALL traditional liberal arts majors find job opportunities to be scarce. (Econ still does relatively well, as many in applied math/stats.) The difference is that it has finally caught up to sciences. Bio has always had a glut of students do the fact that it is chock-full of unsuccessful premeds.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Beats driving a cab like some Lit majors. :D</p>

44

<p>dheldreth - yes, that’s me. I am almost done with my certification process to teach high school chemsitry - thanks for your good wishes! I am really looking forward to teaching (despite all the naysayers and their horror stories about teaching.) As much as I loved my old lab job, I think I will enjoy this new career just as much. Here’s hoping!!</p>

45

<p>I’m sorry but “roller coaster designer” and “oyster wrangler” had me laughing out loud.</p>

<p>There is nothing is worse than those “what can you do with our major?” brochures…</p>

46

<p>Berkeley answers the “What can I do with a major in…?” question with career surveys:
<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

47

<p>

</p>

<p>I prefer the truth realism over the see no evil speak no evil blind optimism that you and most of corporate america engage in. Hence the video.</p>

<p>[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>All day I hear politicians, professors, and the media give a ridiculously false positive spin on the career prospects for science and frankly it ticks me off. It is a huge lie that causes severe damage to anyone bright enough the get a science degree yet naive enough not to see that call for suckers for what it really is. The personally tragedy and lives ruined I have witnessed among myself and almost everyone I graduated with and worked with makes me very angry when people just dismiss them as exceptions, hacks who couldn’t cut it in the field, not meant for science and blindly keep encouraging others to enter the field. That to me is the moral equivalent of offering to guide a blind person and leading them in front of an oncoming truck. I believe that video I posted sums up how I feel about the false optimism and speak no evil politically correct party line nonsense that pervades science career advice in most mainstream outlets. </p>

<p>I see nothing but more outsourcing, more chemical plant shutdowns, more offshoring by big pharma, more government research cuts in the future.</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>Let’s be clear, working in a micro lab doing routine testing or teaching is not what most students think they will be doing when they go into science. It seems like teaching in particular is touted as an option for bio/chem majors. Is this what students really want to do? Teaching may be fine for some but it’s not what many students going into science are interesting in doing. If you want to teach, why not go to a teaching college?</p>

49

<p>Pharma chemistry and biology jobs have been cut and will not be coming back - this doesn’t effect BS grads as much but this makes for a lot of unemployed or underemployed PhD’s. In its heyday, a PhD was the “green card” into the pharmaceutical industry and employed swaths of them … but R&D did not pan out and it has all been outsourced to other countries.</p>

50

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How does this effect the value of getting a PhD? Pharma/biotech was one of the large drivers of demand for these degrees. Without these jobs, they’ll many more highly education cab drivers.</p>

51

<p>It is difficult to find a job in all fields. I think that the people who “hijack” threads saying that it is difficult to find a good job in the sciences are saying: Don’t go into the sciences just because you think that it’s a golden ticket to a good paycheck. If you are truly passionate, you will put in the time and resources necessary to succeed. </p>

<p>I am a molecular biology major at a top university. I hate it. I am majoring in it because my parents, who are convinced that a natural science education is the only way to go, will not pay for my school unless I major in biology. I am pursuing graduate school in the social science field that I love, even though I know that job prospects for social science PhD’s are rough. I was a top biology student in high school - at one point, top 8 in the US (Biology Olympiad)</p>

<p>In the end, the only thing you can do is try. If you try to do what you love and fail, well, that’s better than settling for something you’re mediocre at because you think you’ll earn more.</p>

52

<p>Yes it is difficult getting a job in most fields now a days but the extent to which businesses single out their science staff is appalling. The insanely specific requirement coupled with equally insanely low salaries and permatemp jobs with no benefits. I have not seen any other professional group so mistreated, not HR people, not IT, not accountants, not marketing, and not even most blue collar trades.</p>

<p>[U.S&lt;/a&gt;. pushes for more scientists, but the jobs aren’t there - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.wpost.com/national/health-science/us-pushes-for-more-scientists-but-the-jobs-arent-there/2012/07/07/gJQAZJpQUW_story.html?tid=pm_pop]U.S”>http://www.wpost.com/national/health-science/us-pushes-for-more-scientists-but-the-jobs-arent-there/2012/07/07/gJQAZJpQUW_story.html?tid=pm_pop)</p>

53

<p>Wow. I would say a little strongly worded. Some of the real problem is that the pure sciences, particularly astronomy and physics, are at this point highly specialized fields that advance relatively slowly. The laws of physics have hardly been revised since the 1930s. Astronomy continues to make headway, but cosmology, notwithstanding all the rage, remains somewhat elusive to experimental testing. To really make a contribution to either subject, you need to be pretty damn bright and pretty well educated. And by the latter I mean you need to know about as much math as a mathematician, know how to apply it to physics (which mathematicians don’t know how to do), know a variety of programming languages, instrumentation, etc. This in all likelyhood means a PhD, and even with that you only can fit so many people at the top of the pyramid. You might well ask why many people in the military do not aspire to become fighter pilots. It isn’t that fighter pilots are underpaid, or that their job lacks glory, or even that they have been outsourced, it is that the position is highly elitist and there is a high probability of washing out. You have to weigh your passion against your chances of truly ending up where you want to be and where you might end up if not in that position. The scale is going to tip differently for different people.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Why do they want you to major in biology (as opposed to a different science, or a non-science subject)?</p>

55

<p>So wait, I thought we were all supposed to be STEM majors. :)</p>

56

<p>I’m attending WVU in the fall, and I’ve actually noticed the opposite. I would say 70% of the students (incoming and current) I’ve talked to thus far are in some sort of science major. Maybe it’s because WVU is known for its engineering, forensics, nursing, and speech pathology/audiology programs. I will say I haven’t met one mathematics major, and the amount of pure science majors such as chemistry, physics, or biology has been low.</p>

57

<p>

It’s pretty verifiable that the core lab sciences are doing quite poorly and doesn’t require anecdotal evidence. Those that are posting poor prospects may very well be giving legitimately accurate advice, same as any other poster who is offering their experience as advice.
Tragic as it may be, it seems like science is really spiraling downward. It’s foolish to think it’s getting better on its own.
Notable chemists have talked about the decline of chemistry since the 1990s, and nothing has been done about it since. Bio is in a similar state.</p>

58

<p>The point deervalley makes about physics majors is something I worry about all the time. Regardless of how good or bad the job opportunities are and the general respect and acclaim that physicists receive, you need to be pretty darn bright to make it through and I’m not sure if I’m just plain smart enough from birth to be one.</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Here’s a question to which I still have yet to have heard a satisfactory answer: exactly why don’t more of those science grads from top-ranked schools such as Berkeley become high school science teachers? Science teaching is apparently one subject enjoying relatively burgeoning demand, relative to most other high school subjects, in stark contrast to, say, the avalanche of English grads who want to teach high school English. Numerous high school science classes are currently taught by teachers who never majored in science themselves, and those schools would like to replace those teachers with ones actually trained in science. Indeed, the South Dakota state legislature is [url=<a href=“http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail6375.cfm/Education_Committee_To_Discuss_Teacher_Bonus_Plan/?Id=127427]proposing[/url”>http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail6375.cfm/Education_Committee_To_Discuss_Teacher_Bonus_Plan/?Id=127427]proposing[/url</a>] to offer an $8000 incentive bonus to newly hired science teachers. </p>

<p>Such a career would seem to be especially amenable to the graduates of a top-ranked school such as Berkeley. I don’t know what kind of high school anybody else here attended, but I can certainly tell you that mine was staffed by teachers who graduated almost exclusively from local 2nd or 3rd tier colleges at best. Yet my high school was nevertheless considered to be one of the better high schools in the state. If the college graduates from the local low-tier colleges can become high school teachers, surely a Berkeley graduate can do the same. </p>

<p>To be sure, a career as a high school teacher isn’t for everybody. You’ll never be rich, and you’ll have to expend significant effort simply in maintaining control of the classroom. On the other hand, you enjoy summer vacations off, you usually enjoy a strong benefits package, and most school districts offer the possibility of tenure after a few years upon which you effectively become unfireable. Frankly, that’s not a bad career - surely far better than $15 an hour with no benefits. </p>

<p>So why don’t more of them do just that? Perhaps more importantly, why don’t more universities help their graduates do that - particularly those universities (again, such as Berkeley) that have a top-ranked School of Education and could presumably easily design an (optional) program that allowed students to graduate with a science degree combined with a teaching credential?</p>

60

<p>Plenty of people simply are not interested in the low pay of teaching. Not to mention teachers are quite unionized in many states, creating new barriers to entry for new teachers such as expensive education degrees.
In addition, it really isn’t for everyone. Only some actually would enjoy the job of a teacher. Given any other reasonable choice, many would rather not teach low-level material to children who, for the most part, act like children.</p>