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.
These statistics were published by the American Chemical Society. They are right there.
38% of MS chemists are employed full time and 55% of those are in academia where they are working crap low-paying techie jobs. The only thing coming out of your head is complete denial on the utter decay of the profession and collapse of pharma in the US.
My gfs dad was a chemist. If you can't find a job where you are as a chemist, you need to check out NJ. Pharmaceutical capital. People here are easily impressed by peer reviewed publishing, science journals, etc.
These statistics were published by the American Chemical Society. They are right there.
38% of MS chemists are employed full time and 55% of those are in academia where they are working crap low-paying techie jobs. The only thing coming out of your head is complete denial on the utter decay of the profession and collapse of pharma in the US.
So, now you want to use the ACS as a source? What a joke. You really need to think about that MS. Think about the data coming out of the ACS and what it means to you. Lets see if critical thinking can be employed here.
So, now you want to use the ACS as a source? What a joke. You really need to think about that MS. Think about the data coming out of the ACS and what it means to you. Lets see if critical thinking can be employed here.
Okay then show us. Not here to defend anyone, but my experiences with physics majors are somewhat similar. A PH.d is the only real way to be able to do physics, going through and getting one at this time is plain crap. Having spoken to several patent lawyers who had grad degrees in physics, the reason they ventured into law was due to the lack of any appointments in the field. And things have only gotten worse.
I'm not sure what you want me to show you. MS has long complained about the ACS being a piece of crud for a source, but now he brings it out for his argument. I've never disagreed with him on that end. I pay no attention to the ACS. To be clear, the ACS emails me at work almost every day. I never respond. Who responds? I figure those who have something to gain, squeaky wheels, and folk who are maybe bored. With all that said, MS also thinks the BLS is as poor of a source. Here we disagree. While the BLS doesn't get everything right, it manages trends pretty well.
Quote:
Not here to defend anyone, but my experiences with physics majors are somewhat similar. A PH.d is the only real way to be able to do physics, going through and getting one at this time is plain crap. Having spoken to several patent lawyers who had grad degrees in physics, the reason they ventured into law was due to the lack of any appointments in the field. And things have only gotten worse.
Your experiences with the major, if we're only considering anecdotes, is just that. Experience with a major. You are obviously unfamiliar with industry, and that's fine, but it's pointless to extrapolate from that point of reference. I'm not sure what happens with physics majors in general, but I have three friends with the degrees. 1 with a BS, 1 with an MS, and one with a PhD. The BS was working for NASA. He wanted to leave the region for MA. He came up here, got married, and is working as a HS physics teacher. It fits him. The MS, who worked with the BS at NASA is now at Raytheon or a similar company. My husband is better friends with her. The PhD is some sort of cancer research scientist.
As I've said before, getting a degree does not mean you're a scientist or that you will have a career in research. There's a different mind set between studying/testing and having a personality and mind for research (both for academia and industry). Further, going from a science to patent law is such a clear and direct path to take. My ex is in patent law and has a BS/MS in computer science. He left a job at Lincoln Labs of all places to start his own business involving science patents. I don't know one science patent law attorney or folk in the business that do not have technical backgrounds.
With that said, only having a BS will generally be tough for most, especially in this economy. I know several successful BS/MS folk, but they are special. One woman I work with only has a BS and is a senior scientist in my department. Most of the scientists do not have PhDs, where a majority of lab heads do. Except for my current lab head, who only has an MS...in marine science. That's why I usually say that in Pharma, at least, it doesn't seem to matter what you're degree is in.
Any how, if you want a general idea of what's going on with employment in the various branches of sciences, the BLS is the place to start. Just because the material sciences for chem is going down the tube doesn't mean that chem or any science grads cannot venture into medical sciences, environmental sciences, science sales and law, instrumentation, clinical, etc.
It does beg the question why the government and ACS are trying so hard to push science on young Americans. If it was as good a career as you imply shouldn't people be tripping over each other to get science degrees and get in on it? When was the last time they called for more lawyers and mutual fund managers?
Most of the figures are BS based on paying members of the ACS or a few fortunate highly-specialized or well-connected scientists who managed to land a good gig and as RM said does not include people who are un or under employed or who left the field. It is difficult for an undergrad to see through the spin.
Well the last ACS survey indicated less than 40% of grads are employed full time and of those 50% are working some crap job in academia. So we are talking ~20% employment.
The Most recent ACS survey indicated of the only 40% of Chem grads that are employed full time half were working a crappy low paying dead end job in academia.
That kind of reasoning, and finding nothing wrong with it, highlights an approach that is clearly biased. Out of one side of the mouth is denigration of the ACS, out of the other side of the mouth is using it as a source because it fits a particular argument. And without caveats to boot. There should always be a caveat if you don't like some aspect of a source.
Passion smassion. Passion is applicable for maybe 1 in 6900. The rest of us have to draw a paycheck.
If you have to draw a paycheck doing something, it might as well be something you don't hate, to the extent that the job that you do now can affect the jobs you are considered for in the future. Choosing a degree program that plays to your interests and talents is a good step toward not despising your job.
Majors matter for various reasons, but they're not necessarily the be-all and end-all of career trajectory. They're more important when you're just starting out, in terms of foot-in-the-door quality. The longer you are in the workforce, the more your practical experience is going to count for.
If you have to draw a paycheck doing something, it might as well be something you don't hate, to the extent that the job that you do now can affect the jobs you are considered for in the future. Choosing a degree program that plays to your interests and talents is a good step toward not despising your job.
Majors matter for various reasons, but they're not necessarily the be-all and end-all of career trajectory. They're more important when you're just starting out, in terms of foot-in-the-door quality. The longer you are in the workforce, the more your practical experience is going to count for.
Which is exactly why I pointed this little fact out to the OP. Choosing a major for the wrong reasons can have a long-term negative impact on one's enjoyment in life and his career.
I'm not sure how much more clear that I can be. You claimed that his stats are wrong, and I'm asking you to in fact show us how wrong he is.
I'm saying that I will not rely on a source that MS denigrates himself. The ACS is not a source worth considering.
Quote:
You mention the BLS, then in fact, I would have to say that you just gave us source that verifies his points not yours. The BLS does projections of employment trends which points out that the job creation trends are NOT for jobs which need a science education/degree.
According to the BLS for careers in my field...
"Medical scientists are expected to grow much faster than average over the coming decade. Those with both a Ph.D. and M.D. are likely to experience the best opportunities." Source.
"Employment of biological scientists is expected to increase much faster than the average for all occupations although there will continue to be competition for some basic research positions." Source.
OTOH, from the BLS regarding Chemists and Materials Scientists...
"Job growth is expected to be slower than the average for all occupations. New chemists at all levels may experience competition for jobs, particularly in declining chemical manufacturing industries" Source.
The BLS is on target with chemists, but has other things to say about other fields in science. Now, if a person doesn't have the wherewithal to choose a better fairing field in science over material science, then that's a personal problem.
Quote:
Paul Craig Roberts, a former economic functionary in the Reagan administration, has done quite a bit of work with BLS data and has written extensively regarding the myth of the need for college education for the jobs of the future. He has much of his work archived with the Vdare site.
Hey, I'm not saying there is a need for a college education. The serving industries will always be needed and providing the economy doesn't completely tank, there will always be jobs. I'm definitely not on the side of the college for all mantra. A segment of our population needs to be educated professionally. For the majority a better high school education should suffice, a high school education that will produce a generally educated well rounded individual.
Quote:
And shove your condescending crap up your ass, I'm very familiar with what's been taking place regarding NIH/NSF grants and how they've be drying up, across the board. Having talked and listened to too many academic scientists regarding just much harder it is to get research money, it only underscores his points and certainly not yours. Those two granting organizations are the biggest in the country and are among the biggest in the world. The grant money which those two gave out wasn't just for research, it was also to create the next generation of scientist, technicians, engineers, and administrators. If in fact there is less grant money, and since you've made a plea for common sense, then logically, it tells us that less money means less demand for any of those careers as well.
Oh please with what you hear and who you talk to. The reality is that you don't publish, you aren't publishing, nor are you engaging in any kind of research. I don't need you to tell me about the reality I happen to live every day. You had a dream that you could not actualize. I get that it sucks. I get that there is no shortage of scientists and the bulk of you were sold on something beyond your grasp. Further, it's a ridiculous argument to clammer on about government funding while this country is knee deep in debt and we're on the verge of financial collapse. As if any industry is immune.
And lets be clear about something, until the US becomes depressed, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, etc will not stop producing scientists. Those are the folk doing well. The rest of "youse", or however you phrase it, will take a back seat.
Quote:
Now I'll ask you one more time, please tell us where in the BLS data, or any other source, that there is going to a growing demand for scientists or careers that need a college education. That's it. You've made the point that the other guy is wrong. Good, now show us the data that shows us that he is wrong. TIA....
See above. And again, I don't think there is a growing need. There is no need for po-dunk colleges to be pumping out science degrees. It's clearly more than covered.
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.
