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.
the odds of landing a good research job are modest
10 years banging your head against an equation-filled blackboard in hopes of landing a $35,000/year post-doc job," with the prospect, in a couple of years, of getting that rare $70,000-a-year as a tenure-track professor or a somewhat-less-rare position at a pharmaceutical company
Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States
That's the exact same thing I've been saying for the past year, except when I say that I'm called jaded, basing everything on my own experience without other bases, not qualified to comment on the matter, and mistaken.
Most scientists aren't really doing it for the money, or that's the impression I have based on the researchers I've met.
I agree I was always more than willing to pass up on more lucritive careers to do something I enjoy. However, there is a line beyond which a career is not viable no matter how much you enjoy it. Science seems to have crossed that line and then some, particularly with rising tuition.
LOL! One particular field being over rated makes the whole realm of science over rated? Thats like saying tax lawyers make lots of money therefore public defenders must.
Based on that reasoning then science is back for the win again because according to your own source, genetics is where its at for awesome jobs.
LOL! One particular field being over rated makes the whole realm of science over rated? Thats like saying tax lawyers make lots of money therefore public defenders must.
Based on that reasoning then science is back for the win again because according to your own source, genetics is where its at for awesome jobs.
So four science fields, are in the top 50 careers and ONE is in the worst.
Every one of the criteria in the original article is completely valid for chemistry, biology, physics (a bit of a special case in that physics majors have an easier time getting jobs that have nothing to do with science due to their advanced math and programming skills).
Law, Medicine, pharmacy, physical therapy, optometry, occupational therapy are are professional programs and a separate category from a straight science degree occupation. My contention has always been science degree are mainly useful as a stepping stone to a professional school. Besides, you can make the same argument about BA's. A history degree is very lucrative because many lawyers and even some doctors have one.
Meteorology ha have you any idea the chances of getting a job in that.
Atmospheric scientists held about 9,400 jobs in 2008 and the #1 employer is the federal govt(from BLS) so of course the career stats are good. There are 215 job ads for meteorologists in the entire country and fewer still that would consider an entry level candidate. There are 61+ programs for meteorology putting out multiple graduates every year.
Same for hydrologists 8,100 were employed as hydrologists. There are 104 job ads as of today for hydrologists also most of which are looking for significant experience.
Last edited by MSchemist80; 01-05-2011 at 06:32 PM..
Every one of the criteria in the original article is completely valid for chemistry, biology, physics (a bit of a special case in that physics majors have an easier time getting jobs that have nothing to do with science due to their advanced math and programming skills).
Law, Medicine, pharmacy, physical therapy, optometry, occupational therapy are are professional programs and a separate category from a straight science degree occupation. My contention has always been science degree are mainly useful as a stepping stone to a professional school. Besides, you can make the same argument about BA's. A history degree is very lucrative because many lawyers and even some doctors have one.
Meteorology ha have you any idea the chances of getting a job in that.
Atmospheric scientists held about 9,400 jobs in 2008 and the #1 employer is the federal govt(from BLS) so of course the career stats are good. There are 215 job ads for meteorologists in the entire country and fewer still that would consider an entry level candidate.
Same for hydrologists 8,100 were employed as hydrologists. There are 104 job ads as of today for hydrologists also most of which are looking for significant experience.
So basically Lou's source is only valid if it is making the point you want it to and if it makes the point that science can be a rewarding career it is wrong. LOL!
So basically Lou's source is only valid if it is making the point you want it to and if it makes the point that science can be a rewarding career it is wrong. LOL!
Mod cut- removed insult
The point is that a science BSc. degree by itself is a really bad investment and a Ph. D is even worse without a more useful (professional degree) to complement it and provide hard skills for a bonafide career.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 01-05-2011 at 08:53 PM..
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.
