Truth bombs for Chem majors

Yeah, well...I'm sorry to break the bad news to ya pal, but basically your new BS Chem degree is pretty damn near worthless. Oh I'm sure you'll eventually put it to good use, but it's probably gonna take some
more effort on your part.
So, wassup? Why ain't da Chemists in da house? The reasons, (as I see 'em) are myriad. Read on:

The value of Chem degrees (at all levels) has become so diluted in recent years that in most cases they're not worth the trouble. With your BS, if you go out and get a lab job, you will probably go nowhere in your career. You'll be a permanent technician, with low pay and little hope for career advancement. If you go into an industry like pharmaceuticals, they'll probably start you out as a 'Technician', making about $28k/yr. QA/QC is particularly bad choice, since the science is very well established and the work is repetitive/boring. Your brain will wither and die. Whatever the position, after awhile, if you're good, you'll get promoted to an 'Associate' scientist position, where you'll rot for as long as you remain in the lab. You'll top out after a few (10+) years at about $ 60-65k/yr. (which is about where you'd start with many MS Engineering degrees), and you'll still have little say about the direction of your project, dept., or company as a whole. By that time, you'll either have to rot until retirement, or bail out completely and switch careers - a move which may necessitate additional education and entail financial hardship. If you've got 2.2.kids and a big suburban mortgage payment by this time, completely switching gears might be real tough. Plus, if you don't do it before you're 40, you'll face rampant age discrimination - you may find yourself about as employable as a plate of cold tripe.

The situation will be worse if you go into environmental labs, etc. They'll pay you hourly (you'll probably be punching a time clock. Humiliating after spending 4-5 years seeking professional respect) @ at rate of about $12/hr. or so....Pathetic. You'll be running tests on contaminated soil and water samples: PCB's, oils, heavy metals, chlorinated pesticides, coliform, etc...the established EPA methods. Pretty much cookbook after you learn how to push the buttons on the AA or GC/MS. Borrrrrring as can be. Again, you'll rot unless you get into management; you'll get better pay and no time clock, but your brain will most likely still atrophy. Take my advice: AVOID ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LABS AT ALL COSTS!!! They Suck big time. I know this from experience, and I've had this opinion corroborated by the expressed opinions of many others.

And don't even be thinkin' about graduate school in Chemistry. If you go for an MS, you'll be lumped together with the BS chemists by the PhD's and hiring people-there is little distinction between the degrees in their minds. Oh sure, your starting salary will be a little higher, but you'll still hit the same vocational glass ceiling, especially in big pharma. The MS Chem is widely considered to be a 'consolation prize' for someone who couldn't hack grad school. Of course, this is not necessarily the case, but that's the prejudice out there. Anyway, just look at the (few) job listings: most companies are looking for BS/MS 'Technicians' and 'Associate Scientists'. When was the last time you heard an Engineer (BS or higher) referred to as a technician or 'Associate Engineer'? There is little respect for chemists out there, and unless you're a brain dead idiot that likes the predictability of being a glorified peon, avoid this pitfall.

If you go for a PhD., the road is fraught with land mines that no one will tell you about. Don't expect objective advice from ANY academic, as in many cases there is a serious conflict of interest between what is best for them vs. what is best for you. The undergraduate professors will love to see you go on to grad school, because then they can brag about all the 'successful' undergrads they've sent to grad school. Their big Ego's, as well as their promotions and dept. funding depend largely on their student head count. If they can boast about placing their graduates in jobs (any jobs) or grad schools, it makes them look good to the administratium, as well as prospective suckers...err.. I mean new students.

As for the graduate schools, they'll beg anyone with a 3.0 or better G.P.A to come (of course, some are more selective, but this is about the GPA where they start). You see, they have a dirty little secret that they don't like to share with naïve prospective grad students: They DESPERATELY need English-speaking TA's and RA's (teaching and research assistants). For safety's sake and other reasons, teaching Chemistry is very labor intensive. For one, most of the cattle-herding big schools have really big undergraduate classes: 300-600 students is commonplace in freshman and sophomore courses. Moreover, almost all technical disciplines require their students to take at least a year's worth of chemistry-it really is the 'central' science. Consequently, there are a lot of big classes, and those students need individual attention that most professors cannot give. Therefore, they have TA's to hold smaller discussion sections, office hours, and proctored exam sessions. In the labs, unlike many other fields, safety is a primary concern (mostly due to fear of being sued by the starving armies of amoral, low-life lawyers out there.. oops, I digress.). Anyway, they need warm-bodied Anglophones to be TA's for the undergrads in the laboratory classes. These babysitters don't necessarily have to be brilliant or anything, just knowledgeable and attentive enough to keep the little meal tickets from blowing themselves up, etc. Just rubber stamp their plagiarized lab reports and send 'em on their way. Keep their tuition paying Rah!-Rah! parents happy by boosting the perceived value of the school with a kick-ass football team (with a coach that makes 2-3X what the highest paid faculty member makes). Etc. etc.

As for RA's, remember that the graduate school level professors' reputations, promotions and ability to get grants funded largely depend on publishing. The more the better. Oh, it's nice if they can crank out some interesting work, but quantity is key. Never mind that the preparation of that obscure molecule of dubious value gleaned from some slime mold coating a barnacle took 30 steps and left you with a few barely characterizable milligrams of product at the end of the process - publish it and add to the long list on your C.V. It's ok if you all you did was get an X-ray crystal structure of some bizarre and novel actinide compound, it's worth at least a communication. Don't worry if the work you're publishing is mostly just a rehash of some work published in another journal a year earlier. So what if most of this stuff ends up collecting dust on the library shelves. Publish it, and once in a rare while some enlightened soul will put it to good use. Bottom line: these folks do a lot of basic research, and they need a lot of people to do it for them, because they're usually too busy and/or disinclined to go into the lab and do it themselves. Hence the need for warm-bodied grad students. They'll keep on takin' em, even though there may not be room for all of them in the job market.

Contrast this with professional schools, where enrollments are often limited based on the projected degree of marketplace demand for their graduates. Chemistry programs will take all they can afford. Preferably, these new students speak English and are domestic citizens. However, as word gets around about the lousy job market, the homegrown people move into more lucrative majors, causing a grad student labor shortage. But that's OK, don't fix the problem. Instead, just import what you need from overseas: the cream of the crops from Asia, Europe, Africa, Middle East, Mars, Andromeda, Cygnus X- 1....wherever. Of course, most of 'em stay after graduation to play vocational musical chairs with other chemists, but even crappy job prospects and exploitation at the hands of greedy, myopic industrial employers in the U.S beats going home to poverty. I can't blame 'em...I would do the same. And in many regards this incoming talent is a big plus for our economy (U.S.)...the rising tide floats all boats and all that. But, on an individual basis, as a PhD chemist, your competition for jobs will be very, very stiff indeed.

Also, assuming you don't sour out and you make it through the academic gauntlet, you'll be expected to stay on the academic hamster wheel for 1-3 more years as an underpaid 'postdoc'. Whereas most people can expect to just go out and get a real job while they continue to gain experience chemists, after spending a good 1/4 to 1/3 of their expected lifetimes preparing to go to work, still are not 'ready' yet...they need more training. This is Bullshit, but that is the way it is right now, and the crummy job market for PhD chemists allows the exploitive academic-ACS-industrial complex (henceforth referred to as 'The Man') to get away with it. Particularly ludicrous are the 'Industrial postdoctoral' jobs. Now, companies could hire permanent chemists and pay a little more to get ambitious and devoted chemists to come in and give their all for the common good. Instead, many (esp. pharmaceuticals) have these stupid industrial PhD temp. jobs. If you're really good and you really bust your butt (as you should at any job, in my opinion) and play your political cards properly, they might keep you. Then again, maybe they won't. You get mediocre pay for 2-3 years of being stressed out about your fate. Don't even think about starting a family and buying a house, etc., unless you've already got money in the family or something. Again, this situation thoroughly Sucks, and you and other prospective students need to get the unvarnished truth on the matter.

If you do go for a PhD, you need to:
A) Be honest with yourself about why you are going and what you hope to accomplish. You need to be very sharp, motivated, and focused. You need to have clear direction. If you hope to go into academia, competition is very stiff - you need to be a very focused hot-shot and you need to let lots of people know it by publishing and presenting papers at conferences as much as possible. Try to avoid distractions like hobbies, girlfriends, etc., at least until you've got your reputation somewhat established. The same is true if you want a good industrial R&D career most of the time. If you are just going to grad school because you're smarter than the average bear and you don't know what to do next, than don't go, at least not right away. Go work for 2-3 years in one of those crappy jobs I mentioned earlier and collect your thoughts. It'll most likely suck, but you'll be much better off in the long run. At the PhD level, when you fall, you fall hard.

B) Get into the very best school you can go to...snob- appeal is everything in this field. I'm talking Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, etc. You might be great at other schools, too., but, like it or not, most hiring mgrs. are inflexible, uncreative dopes, and they play it safe by hiring what they know. Pedigree helps, even if you suck. Plus, the Lion's share of the grant money goes to a select few schools. Some Prof. at Podunk State Univ. might have really good ideas/proposals, but he/she will probably have more trouble getting funding to do the work, thus making your hardscrabble life as a graduate student much harder as a consequence of having to teach more, forage for shoddy equipment to do your work, etc. It ain't fair sometimes, but that's the way it is.

C) Study under a well-known Prof. that publishes furiously. Again, quantity (but not necessarily quality) of publications is key on your resume. Get your name on papers in any way possible. In some research groups merely running a few NMR's or checking some melting points for some busy postdoc will get you on the list; in others you'd better do independent, Nobel-winning original work. It varies, and you must research this thoroughly before you decide. For better or worse, regardless of your innate abilities and ambition, a lengthy publication list is one of the key litmus tests that will be used to decide on whether you get interviews/jobs. Without an established record, in many cases you won't get through the door in the first place to prove yourself.

So, umm....back to your questions. I don't have any advice from experience, but I understand that at BS Chem/MBA combination can be a good way to go, especially if you want to get into marketing, pharmaceutical sales, etc. Not the right job for many introverted science geek types with malformed social skills, but your career can potentially go much further than if you stay in the lab. If you do get an MBA go to a well known school. No mail order degrees from diploma mills advertising in the back of the Enquirer, etc. Stanford, Sloan, Wharton, Hahhhvard, etc. if you can (and can afford it). Like chemists, overall, MBA's are dime-a-dozen these days. The BS/Law combo is also good from what I here. Especially patent law. I've known a few people that have gone this route, and last I heard they were doing well. Of course, the last thing we need is more lawyers, but I'll save that issue for another day.

The other thing you can do with a BS degree is go into paper pushing regulatory work. Get to know GMP/GLP, validation, FDA regulations etc. Couple this with a good MBA or management certificate or something and you'll be pushing those arrogant, expendable PhD's around and making the big bucks. Never mind the slashed tires, egg on your windshield, snide remarks, death threats, etc. Get good at this field and you'll be a corporate darling. Ya know, I really hate those anally retentive regulatory morons....heheheh.

Man-O-man...was that a rant or what. I won't even bother going back to proofread that mess. Time to let the keyboard cool down. Anyway, sorry to be cynical, but I guess I'm feeling a little sour on Chem. careers. It's disappointing, and I know that many people out there are disenchanted as well. Keep in mind that 'The Man' has a vested (though not overtly malicious) interest in maintaining the status quo, so as long as there are low-paid, under appreciated suckers to fill the schools and industry labs, they'll be eating cake.

It's time for the system to change, and I feel I need to say something about it. For one, I think the graduate schools should hire professional, salaried teaching assistants with BS Chem degrees to help teach the labs and manage the exams, etc. This would provide more jobs for chemists, and it would wean them from their need to enroll new domestic and foreign students without much regard to present and projected future job market demand. Also, academics at all levels should be required to forge research and pedantic alliances with their industrial counterparts.

Professors need to stay abreast of exactly what skills are being sought by prospective employers, rather than continuing to teach the same stale stuff in the manner by which they were taught many years earlier. Too many bright-eyed and bushy-tailed chemists are graduating with skills mismatched with the job market. Meanwhile, employers (especially in so-called 'high' tech) are screaming that they can't find enough technically trained workers, and they need to import more. Go figure. Lots of *under*employed or unemployed chemists, and industry leaders screaming to raise the visa limits to allow import of more high-skill workers. What is wrong with this picture!? Professors should be encouraged or required to take industrial periodic industrial sabbaticals. Most academics in Chemistry nowadays are hired straight out of their post-docs or other academic positions. Many have never had real jobs beyond the Ivory Tower and thus (although they don't realize it and/or won't admit it) don't have a clue about what is going on out there. Also, except for a few very dynamic renaissance men and women (Prof. Carl Djerassi comes to mind), most Profs. succeed as a consequence of being extremely focused on very specialized areas. Thus, they are by their very nature disinclined to pay much attention to peripheral 'distractions' outside their immediate work or departments. Unfortunately, most chemists at all levels go into industry, so we need mentoring from people who are a little more in touch with the big picture. I might add that many technical 'breakthroughs' are the direct result of paradigm shifting insights made by persons who bring together disparate information from a variety of fields. Great hybrids could result from more industry-academic cross-pollination, in my opinion.

The Engineering fields are much, much better achieving this balance, and I think we the results in the job market. Just pick up the Sunday want ads of any major metropolitan newspaper: Many, many ads for Engineers (and computer Scientists), and very few for chemists. Industry wants engineers that can do a variety of tasks. Chemists are dross. Besides, those chemist dudes are the people responsible for the supposedly carcinogenic PCB's in our corn flakes, benzene in our Perrier and Tris in our pajamas, right? The situation is untenable.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I guess it's just economics, but 'The Man' needs to quit exploiting foreign students desperate for green cards. I've run into many Chinese, Indians, and other foreign-born chemists
who must work for abusive bosses for low pay just because they need to have a job to avoid getting deported. A few elite SOB's are getting rich on their backs, and this ain't OK in my book. Look, either give 'em permanent residency and a decent job with benefits, or encourage them to go back home to the countries that probably need their skills more than we do. Easier said than done, but that is what needs to be done.

There is a good book out: Survival Strategies for New Scientists. I forget the author's name, but do a keyword search on Amazon.com or something. I used to have a copy, but I lost it somewhere while moving around and chasing jobs. Read it BEFORE going on to industry or more schooling. Knowledge is power. Don't get screwed.

Chemist's Uber Alles!!

Ok

More truth bombs pls, for every field

I was thinking on studying chemistry... still a better option than biology?

Pretty much everything you said about grad school PhD tells me you were either with a fucking awful PI or you have no idea what you are talking about.

I go to a top 50 school for PhD chem and one of our lab members just graduated with a 6 figure starting job 2 months later.

As for your other talking points, they sound typical of a jaded grad student who has been demoralized by a dickhead prof. I'm having more fun than I ever have doing chem and half the work I do is in engineering. I think I'll be just fine for jobs.

You also seem to have some weird image in your mind that we all do total synthesis. Total synthesis and organic in general is dying/over saturated respectively and is why you get so many people complaining.

Anything is better than Biology. I was a Bio major with intents on medical school. Unless you get a 4.0 and blow the MCAT out of the water, you cannot do a single fucking thing with a BS in Biology.

I could pass all of my Bio classes without even opening a book, so I partied pretty good. Once I got to be a sophomore, my advisor told me that I needed to change my major. I asked her why, and she said, "We graduate 300 Bio majors per semester. There's two things you can do with that degree: you can go to Med School, but you have a 2.5, or you can wait tables."

I changed my major to Chemistry, graduated with only 25 other students. Since then, I've never not had a decent job.

Now, that said, once I did get out of school and into the real world, I soon realized that I should have been an engineer instead. They make way more money than a chemist out of the gate, and Engineering job prospects are even better than Chemistry.

Do yourself a favor: go for Petroleum or Chemical engineering.

Holy FUCK what is going on itt

Thanks for the advice, user!

(Cont.)
If you want serious advice from me, I would say everything said above should culminate in a few ideas. Do NOT go into chemistry for big money jobs outside of undergrad. Go to grad school if you want to be a legitimate scientist. I have known too many people who have gone into industry only to say it's unbearable, then end up graduating grad school in their early 30s.

If you do end up in grad school expecting the fat job at the end of the line, think smart. Pretend you have the PhD already. Go on indeed or Glassdoor and do mock job searches with that degree. Are there opportunities for you? No? Don't spend 5 years or more of your life doing it with false promises. When you do narrow your search down to a few fields or projects that you feel will make you successful, you've found a lab, you are starting school, love your project. Don't be fooled by what I'm saying. You won't make it through grad school on just a pragmatic decision to get a good job. You have to love what you do.

>biology is easy
>2.5
Get your story straight, anyone can pass a class. Doesn't make it easy or mean you learned anything. I am very glad you never became a doctor.

Biology is easy. Retard level easy. That's how I was able to pass all my classes without ever studying while basically being constantly shitfaced and a borderline alcoholic for an entire school year.

Once I switched to chemistry, I quickly learned that I actually had to clean myself up and actually hit the books. The P-Chems are two MOTHERFUCKERS of classes, but I got through them. Fact is, it's said that Thermo and Quant are the two hardest undergraduate classes you can take. I graduated with a 3.5 in my Chem classes, and a 3.0 overall. Because of P-Chem, I'm proud as fuck of that 3.5.

I'm glad I got such close advice. I am very grateful for this.

That doesnt mean hes lying you autist.

Intro bio,classes were so stupid that I got a C because i was,literally bored out of my mind and did not feel motovated to learn the subject. Sure, if you have the motivation from the beginning, anyone can ace a bio class. Bio is fucking gay

>tfw too smart to do well in easy courses

So what STEM degrees are valuable? Engineering (and which type)? Computer Science?

math, physics, CS

Most engineering fields are fine I think

>earn a degree to wait tables

What even is the point of american education anyway? It's just a bad idea in general. Can't believe I'm only now realizing this.

If I'd started working early on I'd be making mad dosh by now, without sinking time into useless bullshit just to please some clenched-ass professor on his "exams". My quality of life would've been 300% better

Biology is easy as fuck you cuck. He'd have turned into a good doc even with just passing grade. You think you need to max out school to practice medicine properly? Think again. That's only true because of the endless competition to get into med school and lifestyle residencies. Docs are literally battling it out over a 0.05 point difference since that's what decides who goes into radiology while the chumps are stuck with something shitty like ob/gyn.

It has nothing to do with properly caring for you

BS in Biology is even more worthless than a BS in Chemistry.

Fite me.

Why would you stop after a Bachelor in a science topic in the first place? I thought you need a Phd before you even start doing any real science.

As a bio major I am inclined to agree from a science perspective, if you go for bio you have to get amazing grades and have lots or work/volunteer experience to be competitive in medicine. Outside medicine the jobs just arent there.

I feel like I should have done engineering every single day, especially since I started doing more math.

>math
>degree in mental masturbation
>valuable

OP sounds like somebody who shouldve just gotten a BS in engineering and gotten paid.