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.
Based on five years of rejections, poor offers, no benefits, no career advancement, only the latest of which were in a recession. It seems like some of you guys are living in an alternate reality. In the one I am living in the only thing I have to look forward to is either leaving the field or continuing to eek by on low paying, unstable, mostly contract jobs. This in not the life I want nor what I was sold when I worked so hard through college perusing this so called-career .
Well, since you won't or can't move, you're limited. Again, whatever you decide to do, hopefully you'll make sure there's a niche where you are.
What hope can new scientists possibly have If they are rejected for any decent position because they do not happen to belong to a narrow and specific niche? I think part of the problem is chemistry has devolved into a fragmented mess of specializations where if you don't belong to a narrow and specific niche, noone will hire you because they assume everyone is stupid and can't possibly learn or adapt.
added
I was willing to move when I first graduated up until about two years ago It didn't help. Companies only want local candidates nowadays. They don't want to fly you in for an interview or pay relocation.
Based on five years of rejections, poor offers, no benefits, no career advancement, only the latest of which were in a recession.
The recession is in no sense recent, the economy started to have clear problems in 2007. From the sound of it you really have not been doing the right sort of things and I don't see how getting another degree, etc is going to solve that issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
This in not the life I want nor what I was sold when I worked so hard through college perusing this so called-career .
Sold by who exactly? It seems like you have some major misconceptions about how the labor market works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
How does an entry level scientist have 3 years of thermoset resin formulations experience.
By working on projects as a student, by interning, etc. The sciences are general degree programs, they do not prepare one for a particular career. Positioning yourself for a career is something you need to do above and beyond the degree requirements. Just because there was perhaps poor planning on your part while in school does not mean others are leaving in an alternate reality. Now, you can't go back in time but there are a number of things you can do now. You don't want to hear those things though, you want a meal ticket.
Anyhow, I think trying to change careers is a huge mistake until you first address your job hunting abilities. You will confront the same issues in any thing you pick. Your search for a meal ticket is unlikely to succeed.
What hope can new scientists possibly have If they are rejected for any decent position because they do not happen to belong to a narrow and specific niche?
They can actually do career planning when they are in school. Most industries are filled with niches that require specific skills. Companies don't hire people with general knowledge/skills, they hire people to do specific things. How many jobs do you see for generic Computer Scientists, Mathematicians, Economists and so on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
Companies only want local candidates nowadays. They don't want to fly you in for an interview or pay relocation.
Whether you are local or not should not matter so long as you aren't demanding relocation costs. An entry level employee demanding relocation costs seems pretty silly to me though...
They can actually do career planning when they are in school. Most industries are filled with niches that require specific skills. Companies don't hire people with general knowledge/skills, they hire people to do specific things. How many jobs do you see for generic Computer Scientists, Mathematicians, Economists and so on?
Whether you are local or not should not matter so long as you aren't demanding relocation costs. An entry level employee demanding relocation costs seems pretty silly to me though...
So what I should have done is through clairvoyance at the time decided to seek out and find a lab or internship working on thermosetting resins because there might be one or two companies hiring for it in the future. That seems a bit ridiculous and impractical.
The point of getting a chemistry degree is if someone hires me to work on thermosetting resins I can read up and understand the current literature and be able to do whatever they need to have done with some minimal amount of training and guidance the first week or so.
Even If I got into a small niche like that what would happen if I got laid off? There are maybe less than a dozen companies in the country working on it so better hope one of them hires you otherwise it is $15 hour temp jobs for you.
So what I should have done is through clairvoyance at the time decided to seek out and find a lab or internship working on thermosetting resins because there might be one or two companies hiring for it in the future.
No, what you should have done is researched which skills employers are hiring. There is no way to guarantee yourself a good job after school though, but gaining employable skills while in school will go a long way in helping you secure employment. There is a big difference in having read about something for a week and having years of experience working with something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
The point of getting a chemistry degree is if someone hires me to work on thermosetting resins I can read up and understand the current literature and be able to do whatever they need to have done with some minimal amount of training and guidance the first week or so.
If it was actually something you can learn in a meaningful sense in a week or so they would not demand people have previous experience in it. What reason would there be to insist on prior experience in something that is easily learned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
Even If I got into a small niche like that what would happen if I got laid off?
I find your thinking on this rather amusing. You seriously believe that there should be meal tickets, that you should be able to go to college get a degree and than be guaranteed a good job without ever having to worry about retraining, etc. This is not how the world works, even if you went into a hot area of Chemistry and easily got a good job today you may have to retrain in 1-2 decades. From what I understand chemistry is not as bad in this area as some other industries. Those in the computer industry have to deal with the landscape changing every 5~10 years.
You have to keep up with changes in your industry and continuously learn new things to keep your skill-set fresh. This is true more or less in every industry.
Anyhow, what you are whining about is reality. You will not escape reality by getting a different degree.
So what I should have done is through clairvoyance at the time decided to seek out and find a lab or internship working on thermosetting resins because there might be one or two companies hiring for it in the future. That seems a bit ridiculous and impractical.
The point of getting a chemistry degree is if someone hires me to work on thermosetting resins I can read up and understand the current literature and be able to do whatever they need to have done with some minimal amount of training and guidance the first week or so.
Even If I got into a small niche like that what would happen if I got laid off? There are maybe less than a dozen companies in the country working on it so better hope one of them hires you otherwise it is $15 hour temp jobs for you.
I'm currently considering switching departments because my boss has become a real pain the arse. I realize it can be problematic to become specialized in a dying field, so that's something to take into consideration. Right now I work in small molecules, but I've been looking around, talking with scientists, and I'm learning that proteins (large molecules) is where I should be looking. I don't know if this is really the case, but it's on the table. I only have experience with small molecules in formulation and physiochemistry. If I decide to go the analytical chem route with heavy MS and large molecules I'm going to have to figure something out.
As I mentioned earlier, there is plenty of information on the net, so that's a good place to start with becoming familiar with what's hot right now. Next, free seminars and hell, why not email someone from ACS and tell them you're interested in a training? What's to lose? Go to one of these trainings and it's solid on your CV. Also, as mentioned, seek out a colleague at work and tell him/her you want to get on board with a project and money isn't an issue. There are so many things you can do without spending cash on school.
If it was actually something you can learn in a meaningful sense in a week or so they would not demand people have previous experience in it. What reason would there be to insist on prior experience in something that is easily learned?
It happens frequently. Prior to my first job, I had never touched an HPLC before. I was very lucky I got that job. I had a working understanding of the instrument within an hour, an understanding of the advanced functions within a week, and 1 year later I can do a PM, take it apart, replace all the seals and put it back together again. That would likely never happen again. Now they demand years experience working with HPLC. In fact, they even reject you if you used a different manufacturer.
A lot of employers just assume everyone is stupid, Especially people with science degrees since we all know a science degree is a mickey mouse degree that shows one is incredibly stupid and incapable of learning [insert sarcasm]
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I find your thinking on this rather amusing. You seriously believe that there should be meal tickets.
No I think if one has a chemistry degree there should be entry level positions and not those BS ones that require 5 years experience. I would understand if an entry level position did not pay too well to begin with, but it should at least have a ladder for advancement one you prove yourself. I would expect employers to realize that although you may not have done exactly what is in the job description, chemistry is a vast area and no one can know everything, that the degree indicates you have a certain understanding of the underlying principles and can be brought up to speed in a very reasonable time frame, I've never needed more than a few days to a week at most.
Ironically, the government has exactly that. They have career ladders that start out at say 35k at gs7 with a probationary period, then jump to 47k then 55k as you gain experience and prove yourself. Despite all the criticism lobbed at the public sector by the private sector this is a very reasonable, and practical system. Unfortunately, everyone wants to work for the govt for this reason so competition is very fierce.
However, as we are increasingly finding out employers are not reasonable, only interested in the short term even if they destroy the company and hurt the entire country in the process.
Last edited by MSchemist80; 04-09-2010 at 06:51 PM..
I'm currently considering switching departments because my boss has become a real pain the arse. I realize it can be problematic to become specialized in a dying field, so that's something to take into consideration. Right now I work in small molecules, but I've been looking around, talking with scientists, and I'm learning that proteins (large molecules) is where I should be looking. I don't know if this is really the case, but it's on the table. I only have experience with small molecules in formulation and physiochemistry. If I decide to go the analytical chem route with heavy MS and large molecules I'm going to have to figure something out.
My MS work was in the area of protein biochemistry. Mass Spec is definitely in demand for proteomics. When I was in grad school everyone always wanted to collaborate with a lab with Mass spec. A lot of pharma companies are looking into protein therapeutics. However, I understand, the market is full of cell and molecular biologists so just plain old protein research is not to competitive. However, with mass spec experience you could do quite well. I ended up drifting away from it because I could find no work in my field as no pharma company would hire me without pharma experience so I wound up drifting into food analytical chem.
It happens frequently. Prior to my first job, I had never touched an HPLC before. I was very lucky I got that job. I had a working understanding of the instrument within an hour, an understanding of the advanced functions within a week, and 1 year later I can do a PM, take it apart, replace all the seals and put it back together again.
So it took you up to a year to become truly proficient and that is just my point. Employers often want someone that can be proficient right from the start, it just depends on their particular goals for the position.
Generally an employer is going to either hire someone to perform some specific skill or they are going to hire someone because they think they would make a valuable member of their team. Usually it is only the larger companies that can afford to do the latter, but still there needs to be concrete reasons to believe the person is indeed brilliant.
The issue also depends on the particular management style of the business. For example Microsoft has a general policy of hiring and training promising students right out of college, where as other companies prefer to hire established members of the industry. I would suggest trying to figure out which companies are more likely to hire people without much experience (I have no idea in the case of chemistry).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
A lot of employers just assume everyone is stupid, Especially people with science degrees since we all know a science degree is a mickey mouse degree that shows one is incredibly stupid and incapable of learning
Well, in a sense this is true. The majority of people are simply not rock-star employees, some can learn new things very easily where others can not. How does an employer recognize which sort of person you are?
And in terms of the actual degree, well a science degree can be pretty mickey mouse (like any degree). It depends where the degree is from, degrees are not created equally. This is just appears to be a common myth in today's society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
No I think if one has a chemistry degree there should be entry level positions and not those BS ones that require 5 years experience.
Why is that? So you believe that no matter how many people decide to study chemistry there "should" be an entry level job waiting from them after they graduate? How would an economy function in this fashion?
But regardless, reality does not care about what you think should happen. We don't have a planned communist economy, we have a free market economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
Despite all the criticism lobbed at the public sector by the private sector this is a very reasonable, and practical system.
If its such a reasonable and practical system why does the private sector not copy it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
However, as we are increasingly finding out employers are not reasonable, only interested in the short term even if they destroy the company and hurt the entire country in the process.
Yes, 3M who has been around for 108 years only cares about the short term.
Stop thinking you are entitled to something because you went to college.
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.