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.
Get any kind of science degree. Declare yourself as a 'climate change' believer, apply for government grants [at least a million dollars] to prove your point. Instant yearly high income.
This is just patently ridiculous, and a common lie told by climate change opponents. Scientists working on grant money are not getting rich, believe me. The majority of the grant money goes to buying equipment and paying for research assistant salaries. The government, and the university, put a cap on how much of a grant can be applied to salaries.
But you are right to "follow the money". And who has the most at stake in the global warming debate? Why, the gas and oil companies, of course. They have billions to lose if burning of fossil fuels is discouraged. Don't you suppose BP and Exxon are funneling $millions to researchers to try and debunk global warming theory? And still they are losing the argument.
This is just patently ridiculous, and a common lie told by climate change opponents. Scientists working on grant money are not getting rich, believe me. The majority of the grant money goes to buying equipment and paying for research assistant salaries. The government, and the university, put a cap on how much of a grant can be applied to salaries.
But you are right to "follow the money". And who has the most at stake in the global warming debate? Why, the gas and oil companies, of course. They have billions to lose if burning of fossil fuels is discouraged. Don't you suppose BP and Exxon are funneling $millions to researchers to try and debunk global warming theory? And still they are losing the argument.
Yep, the best way to make money is to shill for Exxon on Fox News. The Misinformation Machine run by Rupert Murdoch and the Saudi prince pays very well.
This whole thread is full of nonsense, and this one just this adds insult to injury. First, it suggests that the most probable scientific career path is academia, which is certainly not the case. Industry employs many 10's of thousands more scientists.
Then there are the reasons to study science in the first place. As VP for R&D at a huge multinational chemical (ret.), I knew hundreds of scientists all over the US and the world. And I can tell you that nobody goes into science or R&D that doesn't love it for its own sake. It takes too much work. No, you're not necessarily going to make 6 figures (though many will), but you're using your mind. How many people can say that?
And despite layoffs, restructuring, foreign slave labor, yada yada, I'm hard pressed to think any colleague in the industry that has not been able to make a good career of it IF they're willing to move. It's not even remotely in the same category as english lit or philosophy majors. But I'll say this - anybody that's a serious contender for a career in science requiring more than a B.S. (i.e., more than a lab technician) isn't reading CD for career advice.
Guess it depends on how much money you want to make, Scientists dont make mega monies but their jobs can be very interesting and rewarding. my daughter is doing a degree in Geology and can look forward to a very adequate salary once she finishes university and gets a job. Geologist Salary (Canada)
Do they hire people who study theoretical physics?
Yes. A Ph.D. From a good school should get get your foot in the door. You'll probably have more luck with consulting or finance/Wall Street. For technical fields you'll usually be a step or two behind someone who has direct knowledge or experience in that field.
Scientific American current issue has an article discussing how to recruit and educate interested and smart kids into studying science. They seem to recognize that the current teaching methods discourage creative and independent thinking. That aside, I wonder how a student, after a decade or more of studying and incurring substantial debt unless they have really wealthy parents, manages to earn enough to actually make a living as a scientist? Where are the 100k starting jobs? Where are the 250k jobs after a few years? Without these readily available no wonder the kids train to be business managers.
Please comment.
The sad thing is that you're correct. It seems that most scientist have to either work off of research grants, for universities/colleges, or for the government. And there are only a few positions that actually pay well. I worked with a guy in Seattle that used to be a physicists but the government cut funding and the company he worked for laid him off. He wasn't able to find another comparable position and he had to switch to RF engineering instead.
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.
