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.
Major and research experience are different things. As I've mentioned in the past the people I work with have varied academic backgrounds. No thanks to the food industry or paint. Come to think of it, it may be a life sciences thing.
Almost all the jobs in both biology and chemistry want a specialized graduate degree. They will not just hire any old science major. The jobs that will to some extent are the typical contract crap jobs and even they often want very specialized degrees or experience.
A lot of the pharm jobs as well want a degree in toxicology or pharmaceutics. It has definately not been my experience that science degrees are interchangeable or that any research experience is considered good. IT has to be very specific to what the hiring manager wants or you will be stuck with basic lab/temp jobs.
There are pretty much two types of science jobs: lousy paying lab jobs and insanely specific jobs that occasionally pay a decent wage (60-80k). However, the insanely specific jobs like 10 years of paint formulations or themosetting resins are nearly impossible to get. Also few/no people meet their hiring criteria which is why they are forced to pay decent wages and give benefits.
Almost all the jobs in both biology and chemistry want a specialized graduate degree. They will not just hire any old science major. The jobs that will to some extent are the typical contract crap jobs and even they often want very specialized degrees or experience.
A lot of the pharm jobs as well want a degree in toxicology or pharmaceutics. It has definately not been my experience that science degrees are interchangeable or that any research experience is considered good. IT has to be very specific to what the hiring manager wants or you will be stuck with basic lab/temp jobs.
There are pretty much two types of science jobs: lousy paying lab jobs and insanely specific jobs that occasionally pay a decent wage (60-80k). However, the insanely specific jobs like 10 years of paint formulations or themosetting resins are nearly impossible to get. Also few people meet their hiring ciriteria which is why they are forced to pay decent wages and give benefits.
In your experience, which is really experience in nothing pharma. Further, there is no experience regionally either. My experience in pharma, which is real with a large co for the past 4-5 year in a biotech hub does not agree with yours.
In your experience, which is really experience in nothing pharma. Further, there is no experience regionally either. My experience in pharma, which is real with a large co for the past 4-5 year in a biotech hub does not agree with yours.
Well you seem to be living in a bubble as everyone else has seen the same thing. 90% of the jobs are permatemp and the remaining 10% aren't because they are so insanely specialized that they can't get away with it.
I can tell you I have applied for quite a few pharma jobs. Without pharma experience they absolutely will not hire you. You can have every lab skill, research experience, specific instrument they want but if you don't have that FDA regulated experience specific to pharma you have no chance. Frankly, I don't have much interest in pharma anymore. Even their perm jobs are so short now a days with layoffs they might as well be temp.
Well you seem to be living in a bubble as everyone else has seen the same thing. 90% of the jobs are permatemp and the remaining 10% aren't because they are so insanely specialized that they can't get away with it.
Everyone else. Yes, all the people who are seeking out a space to complain. Those with no need to complain typically do not discuss for their lack of need to complain. It amazes me that this never seems to dawn on you- squeaky wheel and all.
Quote:
I can tell you I have applied for quite a few pharma jobs. Without pharma experience they absolutely will not hire you. You can have every lab skill, research experience, specific instrument they want but if you don't have that FDA regulated experience specific to pharma you have no chance. Frankly, I don't have much interest in pharma anymore. Even their perm jobs are so short now a days with layoffs they might as well be temp.
Given that you're in the mid-west that's probably one of your better ideas. Hopefully, you'll have more luck with the accounting path.
In your experience, which is really experience in nothing pharma. Further, there is no experience regionally either. My experience in pharma, which is real with a large co for the past 4-5 year in a biotech hub does not agree with yours.
Well my experience with a fortune 500 pharma in NJ agrees with MSchemist. Most of these jobs are permatemp contract bs. I'm going to school now but when I inquired from coworkers that had actually gone permanent they said years ago they used to be hired directly. Now people are kept as temps for 1-3 years, and if they hold out till then there is a "chance" (less than 50%) they'll get hired. My dept. was littered with people who had been there 1 year + still on as temps for 18 an hour or whatever without benefits. Plenty complained, and there were open cubicles everywhere from temps that quit, were fired etc everywhere. Worse, all the other big pharmas also play this game.
That said the federal government (assuming you're not a temp there, I was a contractor for the gov. as well) does give a modicum of job stability and provides great bennies to their scientists.
Maybe Boston is awesome though? NJ certainly isn't a hotbed like it was 20 years ago. If I wasn't working on moving into healthcare now I'd think about moving there.
Well my experience with a fortune 500 pharma in NJ agrees with MSchemist. Most of these jobs are permatemp contract bs. I'm going to school now but when I inquired from coworkers that had actually gone permanent they said years ago they used to be hired directly. Now people are kept as temps for 1-3 years, and if they hold out till then there is a "chance" (less than 50%) they'll get hired. My dept. was littered with people who had been there 1 year + still on as temps for 18 an hour or whatever without benefits. Plenty complained, and there were open cubicles everywhere from temps that quit, were fired etc everywhere. Worse, all the other big pharmas also play this game.
Do you think I'm fibbing that my department is comprised of academic backgrounds from marine science to environmental sci to chem? It is the case. I worked in a clinical laboratory for some of my grad work, and my boss didn't even know what that was about. I don't know what to tell either of you, especially when it comes to non-PhDs.
As far as temps go, I work for one of the biggest international pharma's out there and I just have not experienced what perma-temps have. I don't doubt the existence of perma-temps, it's just not all there is here. I've know two thus far in my 4-5 years, so I really can't come to conclusions, tho, I have my opinions. For that matter, my platform just let go of all of our temps. I started out as a temp, too. I worked for 8-9 months and got hired perm. My former lab head set me up, but we really jived. I got along with the people in that lab and I think that made a difference.
Quote:
That said the federal government (assuming you're not a temp there, I was a contractor for the gov. as well) does give a modicum of job stability and provides great bennies to their scientists.
Maybe Boston is awesome though? NJ certainly isn't a hotbed like it was 20 years ago. If I wasn't working on moving into healthcare now I'd think about moving there.
As I mentioned in a previous post, we have a lot of NJ transplants. And I also mentioned that my dh just graduated last here (only with a BS) and landed a job within a month (perm F/T). He's been doing pretty well there given what it is. Clearly, it's way easier in the Boston area. And while expensive, not as bad as Cali. As far as government jobs go, it will be interesting to see who wins the elections. If Obama doesn't get it the government may shrink.
Abbott in my Area is especially notorious for permatemps. Every time they have a layoff I start getting calls from indian recruiters. Baxter does most of the same. Most of the other large companies as well Kraft foods, PepsiCo, Conagra, UOP Honeywell. Every company that hires direct gets flooded with resumes every time they have an opening.
When ACS conducts a survey that shows only 40% working full time and 1/2 of those are in crapo academic jobs you know a field is dead and no longer viable for a living. I really do not see any future in this country for scientists. It also jives with BLS that chemistry will grow at 3% and that approximately 2000 new jobs will be created in 10 years for the over 200,000 new chemistry graduates produced. Even taking into account career changers and retirements it is safe to say that there will be jobs for less than 10%.
In your experience, which is really experience in nothing pharma. Further, there is no experience regionally either. My experience in pharma, which is real with a large co for the past 4-5 year in a biotech hub does not agree with yours.
His experience however does coincide with mine. We aren't talking about just small specific scenarios here, but a whole chunk of chemistry and science graduates in general who get absolutely shafted in terms of finding a job that they can sustain themselves with. Especially in the New York City metropolitan area. The market is simply inundated with staffing companies just jerking new grads and even those with 5+ years of experience around. The final Schering-Plough site closes down relatively soon, and many of my former colleagues have very little to look forward to. Compared to the rest of the market, they are grossly overcompensated.
On the flip side, I've actually heard good things about companies in the Bay Area. One of my friends moved out there, plus I have contacts in the industry still working there, and the salaries are good and jobs are stable. It is more biotech oriented, but they still enjoy what they do. Boston, I can admit I haven't heard much about athough I know it's a hotbed for biotech and pharma as well. In North Carolina, I've actually heard a mix of the two stories from various sources.
I appreciate your defense of the sciences, Braunwyn, but according to the stats published by the ACS and everything that I've seen in the industry now as an outside investor, things are not looking good for scientists in the US.
His experience however does coincide with mine. We aren't talking about just small specific scenarios here, but a whole chunk of chemistry and science graduates in general who get absolutely shafted in terms of finding a job that they can sustain themselves with. Especially in the New York City metropolitan area. The market is simply inundated with staffing companies just jerking new grads and even those with 5+ years of experience around. The final Schering-Plough site closes down relatively soon, and many of my former colleagues have very little to look forward to. Compared to the rest of the market, they are grossly overcompensated.
On the flip side, I've actually heard good things about companies in the Bay Area. One of my friends moved out there, plus I have contacts in the industry still working there, and the salaries are good and jobs are stable. It is more biotech oriented, but they still enjoy what they do. Boston, I can admit I haven't heard much about athough I know it's a hotbed for biotech and pharma as well. In North Carolina, I've actually heard a mix of the two stories from various sources.
I appreciate your defense of the sciences, Braunwyn, but according to the stats published by the ACS and everything that I've seen in the industry now as an outside investor, things are not looking good for scientists in the US.
I don't think things are really looking good for anyone en masse outside physicians. I don't deny that the sciences are a challenge and I've always said in the past that it's definitely not a field that should be taken on by most people. Success depends on a lot of variables. With that said, I cannot ignore my own experiences as an F/T perm employed scientist in industry for that of a person who has never been hired in pharma. He hasn't and his arguments are often irrational. A couple of years ago he was telling everyone that he was going into accounting. That he was advising his family to go into accounting and I believe nursing as well. Now he's quiet as a mouse about it. I'm guessing it has something to do with the many threads popping up from recent, floundering accounting grads. Look up any profession and you'll find people complaining.
You, OTOH, are a balanced, well thought poster. I like reading what you have to say and I'm paying attention.
Regarding the ACS, they spam me constantly and I ignore them. And as you note, certain regions are hotbeds. It's just the way it is. I don't think I would be having the same success in the mid-west or Jersey.
Finally, I don't post as an attempt to convince people to go into the sciences. I post because I read stuff here and it contradicts what I live everyday. It's hard for me to ignore it when I run across it.
I disagree with that statement. That is like driving from Washington D.C. to Baltimore by going through Richmond, VA, Columbus, OH, and Pittsburgh, PA. You may eventually reach your destination but how much time and energy have you wasted along the way.
Or that is like buying a computer off ebay and using it as a flower pot because it doesn't work. Well at least you got some use out of it, sure, but if you knew it wasn't going to work would you have spent $400 on it to use as a flower pot?
There are many degrees that teach analytical and critical thinking skills that provide relevant hard skills as well and don't involve learning tons of material that at the end of the day will be useless to you. If you want to go into business major in economics with business and applied math classes. Don't spend years in a lab learning lab techniques and molecular orbitals. In the end you will come out behind.
Your analogies are a bit strange and out of context considering that the poster I was responding was able to use the skill set that she used from her undergraduate chemistry degree to ace a grad entrance exam. Your first analogy actually seems more adept at explaining what it takes to make it in almost any field nowadays. I grew up in Chicago, went down 57 to go to college and have lived in three states since all to progress my career. I wouldn't change a thing if I could do it over.
And while there are alternative routes to business those may, or may not, be the best for each individual. There are a lot of people in very important business roles of international corps that have backgrounds in STEM. Like the poster I was responding to they took their skill set and used it to take charge of their careers. Those lab techniques and esoteric subjects like MO diagrams are not what puts people at a disadvantage, I'd argue the converse. The biggest hurdle for anyone with any college background tends to be an adversity to taking big risks and/or expecting that their training is over and they deserve something just because they have their piece of paper.
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.
Plenty complained, and there were open cubicles everywhere from temps that quit, were fired etc everywhere. Worse, all the other big pharmas also play this game.
