5 reasons why science sucks (as a career choice)

[Admiral Valdemar]

While doctorates are useful and have their place, not everyone need have one. A lot of the R&D positions I have looked at, such as working for Cancer Research UK doing oncology, requires only that you do a masters if you haven't already got one, since the masters usually specifies a particular topic of work, while a degree is really more broad, even in the third year. You could go on to do a Ph.D, but as far as they're concerned, it simply gains you more letters after your name and not much else. Very few companies will pay for a doctorate, because typically, a doctorate isn't needed. A masters tends to have the requisite skills needed, even in research.

That's not to say doctorates aren't needed, it's just that many don't want nor need to go that far, even doing research. Many corporate and gov't institutions don't require that, just a one step over a bachelor's if you intend to specialise in a research field of their choice.

The way I'm playing it at least is to go with a reputable company and have them pay for my masters, rather than forking out for it myself like some friends have and then apply for jobs. I've had four shots of vodka just now, so I hope that makes some sort of sense.

[ClaysGhost]

I thought the initial article had some truth in it for certain fields; I recognised the complaints, and I understand how a grad student in astronomy would definitely recognise most of them. I think it was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek though, going by the comments on the blog page.

[Darth Servo]

You're forgetting that not every science major gets a doctorate.

Do you not regard people with Masters or Bachelors' degrees in science as "scientists"?

I would define 'scientist' as someone who is carrying out scientific research or some other form of R&D. And most people who do this for a living tend to have doctorates.

People with a Bachelors' in a science do research all the time. They aren't the principle investigator but the the PI actually does LESS research. The PIs usually spends the bulk of their time writing grant proposals. Its the people with bachelors' degrees that do most of the lab work (usually trying to get INTO grad school).

[kheegster]

I would define 'scientist' as someone who is carrying out scientific research or some other form of R&D. And most people who do this for a living tend to have doctorates.

People with a Bachelors' in a science do research all the time. They aren't the principle investigator but the the PI actually does LESS research. The PIs usually spends the bulk of their time writing grant proposals. Its the people with bachelors' degrees that do most of the lab work (usually trying to get INTO grad school).

Actually, those students you refer to don't actually have Bachelors' yet if they're in school.

I specified that I was referring to people who carry out scientific research for a living . Remember that this line of discussion started off on whether it's worth doing a scientific career 'just to pay the bills'.

I don't have a PhD (yet) and as an undergrad (which only ended in May but feels like an eternity ago) I did do research, but I wouldn't have described that as 'doing it for a living'.

[Ravencrow]

I would define 'scientist' as someone who is carrying out scientific research or some other form of R&D. And most people who do this for a living tend to have doctorates.

People with a Bachelors' in a science do research all the time. They aren't the principle investigator but the the PI actually does LESS research. The PIs usually spends the bulk of their time writing grant proposals. Its the people with bachelors' degrees that do most of the lab work (usually trying to get INTO grad school).

Actually, those students you refer to don't actually have Bachelors' yet if they're in school.

I specified that I was referring to people who carry out scientific research for a living . Remember that this line of discussion started off on whether it's worth doing a scientific career 'just to pay the bills'.

I don't have a PhD (yet) and as an undergrad (which only ended in May but feels like an eternity ago) I did do research, but I wouldn't have described that as 'doing it for a living'.

I don't have a PhD, don't intend to get one. It's true that projects are usually headed by PhD or Masters holders, but I do carry out scientific research for a living and am doing quite well. Most of the researchers working in my lab do not have PhDs, most of them are BSc with honors. I find what Darth Servo said is true -- PIs do more project admin planning and writing than the actual bench experiments.

[kheegster]

I don't have a PhD, don't intend to get one. It's true that projects are usually headed by PhD or Masters holders, but I do carry out scientific research for a living and am doing quite well. Most of the researchers working in my lab do not have PhDs, most of them are BSc with honors. I find what Darth Servo said is true -- PIs do more project admin planning and writing than the actual bench experiments.

OK, point conceded. I was talking from experience, and I guess in the fields I'm familiar with there are more doctorates than on average.

[Darth Servo]

People with a Bachelors' in a science do research all the time. They aren't the principle investigator but the the PI actually does LESS research. The PIs usually spends the bulk of their time writing grant proposals. Its the people with bachelors' degrees that do most of the lab work (usually trying to get INTO grad school).

Actually, those students you refer to don't actually have Bachelors' yet if they're in school.

And if they're trying to GET INTO grad school...

I specified that I was referring to people who carry out scientific research for a living . Remember that this line of discussion started off on whether it's worth doing a scientific career 'just to pay the bills'.

I worked in a bio lab for 6 years after getting my Bachelors, "just to pay the bills"

[kheegster]

I worked in a bio lab for 6 years after getting my Bachelors, "just to pay the bills"

As in you'd rather be doing something else?

I guess I've been living in an ivory tower for too long then. Even the bottom-end students in my physics could get banking jobs after graduation, so virtually all physicists are in the profession out of love for the subject.

[Admiral Valdemar]

To be honest, a lot of physics today is really trying to find new answers to decades (or even centuries) old questions with very little movement compared to even last century. There's little advancement in physics compared to biology, for instance. In biology, the past decade alone has seen more breakthroughs than probably any other field of science. Those breakthroughs typically translate to money as well, hence the massive and ever growing biotech industry.

So while R&D is a big thing there, they also cater for just having scientists work on what is already raking in the cash (since we don't let Joe Bloggs work on nuke reactors, we don't let them play with GM cultures), which is a sizeable percentage of those in the field now.

[kheegster]

To be honest, a lot of physics today is really trying to find new answers to decades (or even centuries) old questions with very little movement compared to even last century. There's little advancement in physics compared to biology, for instance. In biology, the past decade alone has seen more breakthroughs than probably any other field of science. Those breakthroughs typically translate to money as well, hence the massive and ever growing biotech industry.

So while R&D is a big thing there, they also cater for just having scientists work on what is already raking in the cash (since we don't let Joe Bloggs work on nuke reactors, we don't let them play with GM cultures), which is a sizeable percentage of those in the field now.

It's true that biology has developed enormously over the past decade, but it's unfair to say that physics isn't making much progress. Physics tends to develop in spurts, in what Thomas Kuhn calls 'paradigm changes'. For example, in 1906 you'd probably have said the same thing, yet stuff like relativity and quantum mech was just in the near future.

Also, physics discoveries don't often have immediate practical use, and it can take decades to technologise discoveries if ever. When that happens, it moves out of the hands of physicists and into the hands of engineer, whereas biology doesn't have this dichotomy yet.