Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science in this country is just a scam that exploits intelligent but naive Americans and causes them years of suffering and regret. I am the first and last person in my family to study it. I think the best thing we can do is keep warning others not to fall into the same miserable trap.
I can't blame yass, though I am sorry that you can't pursue what you seem to be very good at, because of things out of your control. How many untold engineers/scientists are hawking insurance or stocks or other such things who could be working on things that are really needed. I was a CPA prior to studying Physics and that may be discouraging for you as well. But keep at it, I hope that it turns out much better for you than it did for me...
only <40% of grads are employed full time. Of those <40%, 50%+ are in Academia where unless you are a tenured professor you are likely a very low-paid post doc or worse technician earning close to minimum wage. So let's estimate ~20% of Chem grads have decent full time jobs. I'd definitely characterize chemistry and biology (which from my observations is even worse more biology majors fewer jobs) as a scam if you work your butt off for 8 years and have an 80% chance of nothing but poverty.
Last edited by MSchemist80; 05-02-2011 at 12:49 PM..
Though I have heard arguments that biology is a life science not a hard nor physical science, I have never seen it claimed Chemistry was not a hard science.
Just because you failed does not mean others will.
Maybe you should have studied a hard science field instead of something as easy as chemistry.
Clearly you're not serious since chemistry is a hard science (as is bio, physics, and CS) as opposed to the "soft" social sciences (psych, sociology, anthropology, economics). Chem is by no means an easy major; many pre-med students choose it since it is probably the most useful for med school. We could all agree social science majors shouldn't complain about not getting a decent job since they are a dime a dozen and were not promised good jobs to begin with. We always hear educators and politicians (including the president) say we need more Americans going into science and that there will always be a demand for people with math and science backgrounds. It turns out science and social science degrees are equally worthless. People will continue drinking the Kool-Aid that college = success.
Chem is probably the most useful of the 3 main sciences in terms of employment but employers are becoming much more strict with their requirements. They all want years of experience but few of them let you actually get that experience. Physics requires a PhD to do anything related to science and even for those few jobs there is extreme competition. That's why I just cut my losses quickly and left the graduate program so these colleges don't pull the same scam on me again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I was told how physics would open so many doors for me even if I choose a career not related to science since people will be impressed with my background. Not true. I implore everyone to not go to college unless the program is for a specific skill (nursing, physical therapy) in which case you can just go to your local community college.
If you can do physics you should consider engineering or studying and taking actuarial exams. There are some pretty good paths for people that can handle very high level math.
It is a pretty tough job market for chemists right now. That being said, a smart person with a chemistry degree and some 'soft' skills should be in a very strong position to find gainful employment. Ultimately, money is made in science, as in business, by interacting with people, not mixing chemicals at a lab bench. While college and/or graduate school train you to stand at a bench and push buttons or mix solutions, only a small percent of chemistry jobs mimic this. The highest paying science jobs are all in management.
One problem with science jobs in particular is that scientists know that grades and degrees are not necessarily a good judge of competence, so most positions are filled by colleagues without ever being publicly posted. In my career I have worked in industry, academia, and for a government lab, and in each instance I was well acquainted with at least one of the individuals responsible for hiring me. I have not been at this professor thing that long so things may change in the future, but so far I have been able to help all of my research students find science jobs. It really helps if they get an internship, but even students with no work experience have been able to find something. I will say that it helps immeasurably if a job seeker has an experienced person a level or two 'above' them helping them search. I know that many doors were opened for me because my PhD advisor is internationally known and went to graduate school with at least two chemists that are now presidents of large companies.
If you can do physics you should consider engineering or studying and taking actuarial exams. There are some pretty good paths for people that can handle very high level math.
Along with that, anyone who has a background in Physics/Math should also consider taking the Praxis exam for both subjects. The tests are tough but they show that you have a very good knowledge of the subject matter if you want to teach either subject. IMO too much emphasis is placed on getting an MS in Education, when in fact taking/passing the Praxis should be all that one needs in order to teach math/physics at the jr/hs level. Too bad teaching is one of those fields that diminishing as well....
Along with that, anyone who has a background in Physics/Math should also consider taking the Praxis exam for both subjects. The tests are tough but they show that you have a very good knowledge of the subject matter if you want to teach either subject. IMO too much emphasis is placed on getting an MS in Education, when in fact taking/passing the Praxis should be all that one needs in order to teach math/physics at the jr/hs level. Too bad teaching is one of those fields that diminishing as well....
I'm in NYC so the requirements are stricter. We don't take the Praxis but instead we take the NYSTCE, which are 3 certification exams. I already passed 2 and have 1 more to take. An MS in Education is required before one can begin teaching in NY. So even though I may be more qualified to teach math, as most math teachers I know were business majors, I still need the MS which is $30,000+ more. I'm finishing my first semester of the education master's and it is the most mind-numbing program, especially for us science people who have no interest in social science. It's almost so easy that I don't even bother trying. You spend 2 years learning about all these educational theories, none of which actually work in the real world. I already applied to Catholic schools but haven't gotten any response yet. Even with teaching unless you know someone, you probably won't be getting a job regardless of how qualified you are. I believe NJ does not require a master's so I may look into that, but for now I'd like to stay where I am.
Moreover, even if you do become a teacher, 50% of them quit within 5 years. And these teachers have a lot more patience for high school kids than I do. Teaching high school is 99% social skills and only 1% knowing your content. I don't think it's a coincidence that I have not met one HS teacher with a math degree. Math majors in general are not known for their people skills which makes it difficult for us to meet the emotional needs of students. While I don't mind being in small groups, I know that having 30 or more students a class to look after will be extremely challenging if not impossible. My interest is math not managing students' behavior. Even though I know teaching is the wrong path for me I have no other options at this point.
If you can do physics you should consider engineering or studying and taking actuarial exams. There are some pretty good paths for people that can handle very high level math.
Engineering requires more schooling and those jobs too are hard to come by. I knew someone with a 3.8 GPA from MIT in civil engineering and it took him over a year to get his job which he hates. Electrical engineering seems cool but I don't feel like starting all over again. It's probably not worth the money. Engineering professors are notorious for being harsh graders failing entire classes.
You are correct about becoming an actuary as a path but those exams are brutally difficult and few pass them. Even my probability professor who was genius struggled on actuary exam practice questions we did in class. It took him 10 minutes to solve some problems. You'd need to move a lot quicker than that on the actuary exams. I'm not the best at standardized tests either.
I'm in NYC so the requirements are stricter. We don't take the Praxis but instead we take the NYSTCE, which are 3 certification exams. I already passed 2 and have 1 more to take. An MS in Education is required before one can begin teaching in NY. So even though I may be more qualified to teach math, as most math teachers I know were business majors, I still need the MS which is $30,000+ more. I'm finishing my first semester of the education master's and it is the most mind-numbing program, especially for us science people who have no interest in social science. It's almost so easy that I don't even bother trying. You spend 2 years learning about all these educational theories, none of which actually work in the real world. I already applied to Catholic schools but haven't gotten any response yet. Even with teaching unless you know someone, you probably won't be getting a job regardless of how qualified you are. I believe NJ does not require a master's so I may look into that, but for now I'd like to stay where I am.
Moreover, even if you do become a teacher, 50% of them quit within 5 years. And these teachers have a lot more patience for high school kids than I do. Teaching high school is 99% social skills and only 1% knowing your content. I don't think it's a coincidence that I have not met one HS teacher with a math degree. Math majors in general are not known for their people skills which makes it difficult for us to meet the emotional needs of students. While I don't mind being in small groups, I know that having 30 or more students a class to look after will be extremely challenging if not impossible. My interest is math not managing students' behavior. Even though I know teaching is the wrong path for me I have no other options at this point.
I teach hs, as a long term sub, even without a MS.ED. As you said very few math teachers have a degree in math and not a lot of physics majors end up teaching either. My SD was in such a bad way for math/physics people with degrees with any experience ( I had taught in a private school in Socal) that they hired me. They also extended the time that's allotted to subs for a school year because of the lack of people to throw in the classroom.
What I've seen of the Praxis exams is for the most part a test of your first two years of Physics, including the class they washed a lot of folks out of, E&M. So NY tests would be pretty challenging if they are beyond that.
I audited some MS.ED night classes, and if this is what they teach at the grad level, what were they teaching undergrads in Education? They had one class which had something to do with learning how to play instruments, like a recorder and a small drum, and another having to do with managing resources of some kind. I have a very hard time justifying going into debt to attend classes such as these, but one needs to if they intend on teaching.
Being a hs teacher has opened my eyes to how I must have been back in those years. I keep catching myself asking if I was as big an ahole as some of these kids have turned out to be. I've gone into classrooms where groups of kids have formed circles with their desks and ignore what I'm lecturing. Had other kids interrupt class by getting up and walking over to talk to someone else. One kid slapped a girl on her ass and then when I threw him out couldn't believe that I was making a big deal out of it, crap like that. The only thing that kept me going was when I taught electives such as Physics/Calculus. Small class and kids that at least had some reason to be attending.
But more importantly teaching has taught me that school/universities have created an industrial method of education. The only way to teach a population of millions of kids is by creating factories and a production design in order to get the product out as cost effectively as possible. This is true of both public and private schools. To say that isn't being pejorative. it means that no nation has the ability to deliver custom made education to most of the people, it would be crazy to think so. Everything, from the books, class/school design, curriculum, is all designed to be deliver the eduction product cost effectively. But many times the student's critical thinking ability is sublimated to the machine. For instance I was teaching an algebra class and we were talking about the equation of a line and how the slope works, that being if you have any point on a line, and if you know the slope, it'll lead you to another point, and two points make a line, so bada boom bada bing, you have your line and equation. Well the book took an extra step and said in order to solve these problems, you had to take the mid point between end points and then solve the problem. One of my kids made the very cogent observation as to why the extra step, why did we need that particular point rather than any other point on that line, including the ones given, in order to solve the problem. It stopped me in my tracks because he was right, this added step wasn't needed if you conceptually knew lines and slopes.
When I was forced to think about it the answer became clear. That added step was created to make one uniform correct answer, but not the only correct answer. The reason was to make it easy for a teacher to grade 40 papers by just looking at one answer, rather than having to look at each one of my students answers to see if they were correct. And for the students they were trained to do the problem and look in the back to see if it their answer matched with the book. The text couldn't accommodate my students insight, not because the editors were evil, but they were limited as to the size and cost of their text. But that's a factory for you, do it this way, not your way, even if it works.
Upshot is I don't know if I can teach this way, if the demand to conform overwhelms a person's inclination to think for themselves. Teachers are limited in time and resources, we say we want to have our students become critical thinkers, but everything in a factory style educational system works against that. That doesn't mean anyone is evil, it simply means with as big a population as we have, you can't do it any other way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
