Biochemistry OSU vs UO

Originally Posted by karlsch

Here is an interesting essay about that by a PhD professor of physics:

"Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the world works? Forget it! "

The whole thing here: Don't Become a Scientist!

That was a fun little piece of work, but it's not really supported by the data.

It really comes down to what you choose to do. If you want to be a particle physicist, then yeah, you're doomed to postdocs and near-poverty. If you do something more applied like semiconductor physics, there are countless companies willing to hire you and pay you decent sums of money. Yes, it pays less than being a medical doctor, but you also don't graduate with student loan debt the size of a house in the suburbs. And it's certainly better than being a lawyer, where you have to pay back that mortgage-sized debt and are unlikely to make more than a lower middle class income unless you went to a top tier law school (that danged bimodal income distribution!). Incidentally, the middle 50% starting salaries for a PhD physicist are 40-50 for a university postdoc, 50-70 for a government postdoc, ~45-55 for a permanent university position, and ~70-95 for a private sector permanent position. And the fraction of PhDs (in physics, at least) who go straight into permanent positions right out of grad school has actually been trending upward over the last few years.

The same goes for chemistry or biology or whatever. If you pick something that is useful in industry, then you're set. If you don't, then you'll get lower pay and have a much rougher time. You have to choose wisely and pick a path that's going to get you where you want to be. Sometimes that means you accept lower incomes and less stability. Sometimes that means you pick something more applied, and sometimes that means you switch fields altogether. I wouldn't say someone shouldn't be a scientist, but people should take a moment to peruse the employment statistics when deciding what path to go down.

[loloroj]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Eh. PhD physicists tend to make quite a bit and enjoy very, very low unemployment. Sure, it's possible to choose wrong (high energy, bio, astro) and find yourself in postdoc hell for the next twenty years, but it doesn't have to be that way.

But back to the point of this thread, it's simply not true that OSU and UO are "not even close." Academic rankings overall are a pretty worthless metric, IMO. It's much more important to know how a specific department performs, and by that metric, OSU and UO are close enough in biochem that there isn't a clear winner and things like potential professors to work with take on a bigger weight.

Uh no,I honestly don't know where your claim that physics profs make quite a bit is valid, unless you're speaking of guys/gals who have received BIG research money in order to do what they do. In that case yeah but that certainly is NOT the norm, not at all. Seen too many postdoc stuck where they can't make a living wage to validate what your saying. And the money goes to those unis which are in fact considered the best at what they do. A pecking order does exist as to who gets what in terms of money, and not all unis are created equal, unfortunately.

And I'm not sure where you get the idea that academic rankings are pretty worthless, unless you may be talking about the more popular forms of stacking up unis, which in that case I can agree. And I can agree with the part that individual profs take on a bigger weight, as far as it goes. But to put it into context, all profs are trying to do the same thing, and that's to run their labs with as little cost to them as possible. It aint any different than management/labour conflicts, with the grads students being the low cost labour which has to deal with all the other issues that any other worker has to deal with...

As far as OSU vs U of O, my comment was based on what other pros have told me about both schools. Sorry but it aint close at least in their minds. Is that scientific, no not really. But having attended both schools and having a cross over in a couple of fields of study, I can ,at least in the case for undergrad teaching, say that OSU >>> U of O....

[loloroj]

Originally Posted by JasonF

That was a fun little piece of work, but it's not really supported by the data.

It really comes down to what you choose to do. If you want to be a particle physicist, then yeah, you're doomed to postdocs and near-poverty. If you do something more applied like semiconductor physics, there are countless companies willing to hire you and pay you decent sums of money. Yes, it pays less than being a medical doctor, but you also don't graduate with student loan debt the size of a house in the suburbs. And it's certainly better than being a lawyer, where you have to pay back that mortgage-sized debt and are unlikely to make more than a lower middle class income unless you went to a top tier law school (that danged bimodal income distribution!). Incidentally, the middle 50% starting salaries for a PhD physicist are 40-50 for a university postdoc, 50-70 for a government postdoc, ~45-55 for a permanent university position, and ~70-95 for a private sector permanent position. And the fraction of PhDs (in physics, at least) who go straight into permanent positions right out of grad school has actually been trending upward over the last few years.

The same goes for chemistry or biology or whatever. If you pick something that is useful in industry, then you're set. If you don't, then you'll get lower pay and have a much rougher time. You have to choose wisely and pick a path that's going to get you where you want to be. Sometimes that means you accept lower incomes and less stability. Sometimes that means you pick something more applied, and sometimes that means you switch fields altogether. I wouldn't say someone shouldn't be a scientist, but people should take a moment to peruse the employment statistics when deciding what path to go down.

Seriously where are you getting your data? I come from the Bay Area and many of the tech companies that grew like crazy back in the day have collapsed, so much so that commercial property vacancies have increased greatly in Silicon Valley. The only way to explain it is that there exists an over supply in chips and technology companies and most don't have the kind of margins to expand much less hire on all the scientist being churned out by the unis all over the world. If they could there wouldn't be any industrial vacancy in the South Bay as what we're seeing currently.

And I REALLY want to know which schools are offering postdocs that kind of money. It would be instructive if you could list the unis which have that kind of wage schedule....

The physics stats come from AIP, and they pretty closely reflect my observations from friends/acquaintances who've already graduated.

I honestly don't know where your claim that physics profs make quite a bit is valid

I never said that. I said PhD physicists (most of whom don't end up in academia) make a quite a bit. Of course, physics profs who actually do research and publish and get funding do tend to make a decent living (remember, professor's are generally only paid for 9 months - if you want to get paid over summer, you have to have grant money). But yes, choosing to work in academia means a significant decrease in pay over private industry. I don't think anyone denies that.

And I'm not sure where you get the idea that academic rankings are pretty worthless

Overall they are pretty worthless (especially at the graduate level). Departmental rankings are another matter entirely.

Just because you like OSU better and find the teaching style better (personally I find it to be an unmitigated disaster at the graduate level, but maybe profs are still working out the kinks in the new format) doesn't actually mean that OSU and UO are not even close in biochem, when the reality is that they're generally considered fairly comparable (and both are considered fairly strong programs).

[loloroj]

Originally Posted by JasonF

The physics stats come from AIP, and they pretty closely reflect my observations from friends/acquaintances who've already graduated.
I never said that. I said PhD physicists (most of whom don't end up in academia) make a quite a bit. Of course, physics profs who actually do research and publish and get funding do tend to make a decent living (remember, professor's are generally only paid for 9 months - if you want to get paid over summer, you have to have grant money). But yes, choosing to work in academia means a significant decrease in pay over private industry. I don't think anyone denies that.
Overall they are pretty worthless (especially at the graduate level). Departmental rankings are another matter entirely.

Just because you like OSU better and find the teaching style better (personally I find it to be an unmitigated disaster at the graduate level, but maybe profs are still working out the kinks in the new format) doesn't actually mean that OSU and UO are not even close in biochem, when the reality is that they're generally considered fairly comparable (and both are considered fairly strong programs).

Again I don't see how your claim that PHD physicists make quite a bit is valid. The industries that would have the greatest demand for any PHd are shrinking, at least in the Bay Area they sure as hell are. If they weren't then commercial/industrial vacancies wouldn't be increasing, in the very heart of the industrial sector that would have the greatest demand for physicists. I'm not simply basing my opinion of OSU on my subjective view of the matter, it also came from other scientists who as much as said so.

And I'm not sure what your point is when you claim that OSU's graduate program is an unmitigated disaster and then claim that the reality is that both OSU and U of O's graduate programs are fairly comparable. Well if they are both unmitigated disasters, or fairly strong programs, then it's one or the other. Sorry your post makes no sense at all, which tells me that you're not sure what you're talkin bout there Willis....

[davemess10]

Does U of O even have a graduate program? It doesn't look like it on their website. This alone would give the nod to OSU. Most Biology-based grad programs are at OHSU not in Eugene (due to the UO med school being in Pdx back in the day). (EDIT, I found that UO does have a chemistry/biochemistry graduate program, although this is definitely not a biochemistry/mol. biology program, and would lean much more towards chemistry than biology)
(for disclosure I go to OHSU and think it has the best program in the state hands down, but it is a graduate-only program).

Biology and Physics are two totally different fields, comparing the two is really not that helpful.

Portland State would be another school to consider in Biochemistry.

OP, what was your first degree in? Sometimes you can just go to graduate school with a little bit of a weird degree.

Again I don't see how your claim that PHD physicists make quite a bit is valid.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer. The statistics are out there and they show that PhD physicists have consistently enjoyed fairly good (firmly middle class, sometimes closer to upper middle in private industry) wages and remarkably low unemployment.

The industries that would have the greatest demand for any PHd are shrinking, at least in the Bay Area they sure as hell are.

I could just as easily point to Portland where Intel has been expanding like crazy and assert that everyone should be a physicist.

And I'm not sure what your point is when you claim that OSU's graduate program is an unmitigated disaster and then claim that the reality is that both OSU and U of O's graduate programs are fairly comparable.

Sorry, I was referring to OSU's physics graduate program being a disaster. The basics are good (as long as a certain couple of professors aren't "teaching" them), but the modules are way too short and rushed - profs never manage to get beyond the basics (although maybe it's not such a big deal - OSU and UO perform similarly in physics too).

[davemess10]

Originally Posted by karlsch

Here is an interesting essay about that by a PhD professor of physics:

"Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the world works? Forget it! "

The whole thing here: Don't Become a Scientist!

Good read. Although his monetary values are a little dated. Most of what he says is true (as far as my year of grad school has shown me). Usually only about 15% of PhD's will ever get a professorship, and many people have found themselves in the "perma-postdoc" position.

On the plus side: at least you get your degree paid for and a decent stipend. You're looking at 4-7 years of job security (granted it's not a huge salary), but at least you are not graduating with $100,000's of debt like many other degree programs.

Usually only about 15% of PhD's will ever get a professorship

That sounds like an alarming statistic at first, but you have to consider how many PhDs actually want to be professors. Just about everyone I know has no desire whatsoever to be a professor. There's much better money to be made in private industry and much more interesting research to be done in government labs (where one can concentrate on research instead of spending half the time teaching or preparing lectures and the other half begging various funding agencies for money).