PhD in the STEM field

[Quantum Buckyball]

before you fill out your applications you should definitely watch this video clip first. This applies to postdoc position in both academia and industry

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyd0yxpw8aI

 

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i20/Postdoc-Pains-Gains.html

 

[Quantum Buckyball]

Today, two women in their late 30s stopped by the lab trying to sell lab supplies to us. At first, I didn't want to talk to them, but then I quickly changed my mind.

 

Long story short, I found out both women have a PhD in Molecular Biology and Genetics and have done postdoc. One of them worked as a postdoc for 5 years because she had enough, and the second one only did it for a year and a half. They graduated from UNC Chapel Hill and VA Tech.

 

It broke my heart to see talented Scientists being forced to change their career just in order to survive. It is extremely hard to start a family or buy a house on a postdoc salary.

[Jungshin]

You do understand that those sales representatives make shit load of money right? 60-80K+ with base and commission. 

 

And these jobs are really hard to obtain as they are usually reserved for females with PhD and postdoc experience. I say female, not because I'm sexist, but because it's almost fact that female sales representatives have higher potential.

 

I wouldn't feel too bad for them. They made a choice to pursue money instead of research. 

[Quantum Buckyball]

You do understand that those sales representatives make shit load of money right? 60-80K+ with base and commission. 

 

And these jobs are really hard to obtain as they are usually reserved for females with PhD and postdoc experience. I say female, not because I'm sexist, but because it's almost fact that female sales representatives have higher potential.

 

I wouldn't feel too bad for them. They made a choice to pursue money instead of research. 

 

Their base salary is the same as a postdoc pay. I  think you meant pharmaceutical representatives and not the "lab supplies" sale representatives.

 

I don't think they made the choice to "pursue" money instead of research. It's easier for you to say that right now because you're not in a program yet, nor have to comfort your colleagues because they couldn't get an interview after applying to 30+ different places. 

Edited December 19, 2013 by Quantum Buckyball

[Jungshin]

That's rather an assumptive comment. 

 

You should explore all possibilities after your PhD. You might be surprised by where you end up.

[TakeruK]

Here is another interesting piece (just read the executive summary unless you have a ton of time). It is a survey of postdocs in Canada and part of it addresses the same issue--postdocs are getting longer and the instability of the job is driving people away! http://www.mitacs.ca/sites/default/files/caps-mitacs_postdoc_report-full_oct22013-final.pdf

 

I don't think it's fair to say that "they chose to leave academia/research so don't feel bad for them". I think the system is set up so that many talented people don't really have a choice. In some cases, the opportunities are not there / too much competition. Or, there may be other personal/health constraints, such as geographic ones. Sure, you can argue that these are one's "choice" and that if you were "dedicated" you would be willing to work in middle of nowhere to continue doing science. I don't agree though and I think it is sad that instead of getting the best people getting jobs in academia, it becomes more of a matter of who is willing to work more hours or put up with crappy postdoc conditions etc. It seems to me that I might have to choose between a non-academic career where I can have a stable income to support a new family near my parents, or an academic career without the right economic and social support to start a family the way I want. So, I feel that for many people who want other things in their life besides research work, we/they may have no choice but to leave academia.

 

On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to feel sorry for those who leave either. Even if they didn't want to leave, they may be happier in their new careers. Also, that attitude implies that if you are PhD not working in research in your field, you are automatically a failure. I do think that one main goal of the PhD is to train a person to do independent, original research, but that training can also impart a lot of other useful skills that you can use in other careers too. I believe that PhD programs should encourage and support their students who might want to pursue other careers after graduation. Departments that truly believe all of their PhD graduates will get tenure tracked positions are either deluded or buying into the "Ponzi scheme". It is a reality that the tenure track position "market" can't support all the PhD generated each year, so I think graduate programs should try to help their students succeed in whatever career path they choose after graduation!

[Icydubloon]

I'd rather get paid $130K as an entry level data scientist (computer science/statistics) than get paid $120K as a tenured professor...

 

If you have the opportunity to do what you love AND get the money, why not?

Edited December 19, 2013 by Icydubloon

[Quantum Buckyball]

I'd rather get paid $130K as an entry level data scientist (computer science/statistics) than get paid $120K as a tenured professor...

 

If you have the opportunity to do what you love AND get the money, why not?

 

I actually know a few people from my program switched from Computational Chemistry to Computer Science this year..

[Quantum Buckyball]

Here is another interesting piece (just read the executive summary unless you have a ton of time). It is a survey of postdocs in Canada and part of it addresses the same issue--postdocs are getting longer and the instability of the job is driving people away! http://www.mitacs.ca/sites/default/files/caps-mitacs_postdoc_report-full_oct22013-final.pdf

 

I don't think it's fair to say that "they chose to leave academia/research so don't feel bad for them". I think the system is set up so that many talented people don't really have a choice. In some cases, the opportunities are not there / too much competition. Or, there may be other personal/health constraints, such as geographic ones. Sure, you can argue that these are one's "choice" and that if you were "dedicated" you would be willing to work in middle of nowhere to continue doing science. I don't agree though and I think it is sad that instead of getting the best people getting jobs in academia, it becomes more of a matter of who is willing to work more hours or put up with crappy postdoc conditions etc. It seems to me that I might have to choose between a non-academic career where I can have a stable income to support a new family near my parents, or an academic career without the right economic and social support to start a family the way I want. So, I feel that for many people who want other things in their life besides research work, we/they may have no choice but to leave academia.

 

On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to feel sorry for those who leave either. Even if they didn't want to leave, they may be happier in their new careers. Also, that attitude implies that if you are PhD not working in research in your field, you are automatically a failure. I do think that one main goal of the PhD is to train a person to do independent, original research, but that training can also impart a lot of other useful skills that you can use in other careers too. I believe that PhD programs should encourage and support their students who might want to pursue other careers after graduation. Departments that truly believe all of their PhD graduates will get tenure tracked positions are either deluded or buying into the "Ponzi scheme". It is a reality that the tenure track position "market" can't support all the PhD generated each year, so I think graduate programs should try to help their students succeed in whatever career path they choose after graduation!

 

Personally, I would settle with a stable job that pays 50K/yr salary, I think it's enough to get by for a family of 4.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Quantum Buckyball

[Chai_latte]

@TakerUK- I have to disagree with portions of your last paragraph. 

*I have no desire for academia, so I definitely don't believe that nontraditional careers are inferior or a person pursuing one is a failure*.

I don't think Quantum's attitude implies "automatic failure".  In the case of the 5yr. post-doc, we know that she had "had enough".  Typically, someone with 2-3 post-docs under his/her belt, had an eye towards R&D in industry or a tenure-track job.  I think it's unfortunate that someone who is smart/driven (having devoted ~10yrs to science after college) has to bolt before getting the chance to reach his/her goals.  Failure?  No.  But, it's not an enviable position to be in.  

[TakeruK]

@TakerUK- I have to disagree with portions of your last paragraph. 

*I have no desire for academia, so I definitely don't believe that nontraditional careers are inferior or a person pursuing one is a failure*.

I don't think Quantum's attitude implies "automatic failure".  In the case of the 5yr. post-doc, we know that she had "had enough".  Typically, someone with 2-3 post-docs under his/her belt, had an eye towards R&D in industry or a tenure-track job.  I think it's unfortunate that someone who is smart/driven (having devoted ~10yrs to science after college) has to bolt before getting the chance to reach his/her goals.  Failure?  No.  But, it's not an enviable position to be in.  

 

You're right--upon re-reading the post, I realise now that Quantum was speaking specifically about the two women that visited the lab, not every science grad student when they said "It broke my heart to see talented Scientists being forced to change their career just in order to survive." I guess I was too quick to react to any statement that might mean a non-academic post-PhD career is a failure! Oops. Thanks for pointing this out

[juilletmercredi]

Personally, I would settle with a stable job that pays 50K/yr salary, I think it's enough to get by for a family of 4.

 

But you said that you think postdoc salaries aren't enough to raise a family on - most postdoc salaries in the STEM fields are about $40-60K per year.  The NIH levels are around $39,000 to start, and once you have 3 years of experience you're at $46,000.  I'm not saying this is a great salary - especially with 9-11 years of postsecondary education - but they're not that much lower than what you say you want.

[Quantum Buckyball]

But you said that you think postdoc salaries aren't enough to raise a family on - most postdoc salaries in the STEM fields are about $40-60K per year.  The NIH levels are around $39,000 to start, and once you have 3 years of experience you're at $46,000.  I'm not saying this is a great salary - especially with 9-11 years of postsecondary education - but they're not that much lower than what you say you want.

 

Most postdocs are contract-based and with no benefits. Some schools might give you health insurance and that's about it. I supposed it depends where you go, the postdoc here are getting paid around 35~40k/yr and they have to mentor PhD students and teach general chemistry lecture/labs.

[Loric]

*throws up hands in exasperation*

 

STEM is not a "field." It's a buzzword which is currently the flavor of the week. It nonsensically covers many fields that already had entirely apt ways of refering to them.

[Eatin' Biscuits]

Fine arts is not a field. It is a buzzword that nonsensically covers many fields.

[Loric]

Actually, fine arts is a division of the "arts" part of the arts and sciences. I, nor anyone else, would ever claim to be in the "fine arts field."

 

So you're right, that's a totally nonsensical use of the term.

[Loric]

And for the record..

 

Buzzword: a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context.

 

The term "fine arts" in its contemporary usage has been around since 1500.

[Quantum Buckyball]

My colleagues and I have decided to be frank about the job market for PhD in Chemistry to the prospective students during Visitation Weekend next semester.

[TakeruK]

*throws up hands in exasperation*

 

STEM is not a "field." It's a buzzword which is currently the flavor of the week. It nonsensically covers many fields that already had entirely apt ways of refering to them.

 

I agree that STEM is not a "field", it's a phrase used to refer to a collection of loosely connected fields. So if you wanted to be correct, you could say e.g. "Physics is a STEM field" or "Physics is one of the many fields in STEM" etc. Right?

I also agree that STEM is a buzzword because it does fit the definition below. However, "buzzword" generally has negative connotations as "meaningless". This part isn't in the definition you gave and I don't think STEM is meaningless. It's a quick way to refer to this collection of fields and just because it may only currently have meaning in today's vocabulary does not mean that it does not have use. I think STEM is very meaningful to people who use it to communicate today. 

 

For example, how else would you refer to the fields that uses the principles of science, mathematics, engineering and technology together? One might argue that "math" is part of science and "technology" is part of engineering, so really, we could convey the same idea with the phrase "science and engineering". I agree that STEM is one of those manufactured acronyms where words are added just to make a nice snappy short phrase. But STEM is still easier to say that "science and engineering" and when we use it, people know what it means. In another thread you had suggested "not Arts and Humanities", I think? But fields such as accounting, or cosmetology are also "not Arts and Humanities" but we don't mean these when we say STEM. Also, STEM is still more convenient than "not Arts & Humanities"! 

 

Those reasons aside, there are other practical reasons to use buzzwords like STEM. When scientists/academics want to communicate to politicians, it's important to be "on message" and have the scientific community present a single, coherent message to the government. It would be terrible for us to be fighting amongst ourselves during a meeting with senators and other policy makers. Sometimes, it's useful for e.g. astronomers to work with chemists to achieve some political goal. Between all scientists and engineers, if we agree to portray the message "STEM fields needs funding" or "STEM fields needs more trainees--we should rethink our high school programs to get young Americans excited about STEM fields", we can all deliver the same message that will benefit us all. It would make us appear disjointed if I said the above but said "astronomy" instead of "STEM" and Quantum Buckyball, for example, said "chemistry" instead of "STEM". 

 

So, I hope you will agree that it is useful to have a phrase to mean "science and engineering related fields" that we can repeat over and over again to people who need to hear the same words over and over again (e.g. politicians, donors, etc.). But since the words do have meaning, as long as everyone who uses it knows what they mean by it, it doesn't matter if it's a manufactured buzzword! Whether or not you want to say STEM or another phrase to mean the same thing is just a matter of semantics. 

[Loric]

Why exactly should we get young Americans excited about STEM...?

 

Do you realize how many applicants the programs have and how much more funding they get compared to the arts..? It's far from underserved and yet that's where the term STEM "stems" from. I think knowing that it's mostly the construct of a particular aerospace engineering/weapons consultancy company in order to assure their ability to fullfill government contracts requiring US citizens for the sake of security clearances.. I'm not much of a fan.

[TakeruK]

Why exactly should we get young Americans excited about STEM...?

 

Do you realize how many applicants the programs have and how much more funding they get compared to the arts..? It's far from underserved and yet that's where the term STEM "stems" from. I think knowing that it's mostly the construct of a particular aerospace engineering/weapons consultancy company in order to assure their ability to fullfill government contracts requiring US citizens for the sake of security clearances.. I'm not much of a fan.

 

You make a good point but I think we might be derailing this thread, so why don't we move this discussion to a different one? I'll start one shortly and PM you the link? (Edit: It's now here: )

 

My colleagues and I have decided to be frank about the job market for PhD in Chemistry to the prospective students during Visitation Weekend next semester.

 

I agree that we should always be frank to visiting prospective students. I don't give the whole "Don't get a PhD!!!" speech, because I obviously don't believe that (or why am I in such a program) but if they ask about my future plans or future prospects, I will honestly share all of my concerns. If they ask about what I think about certain professors or courses or any aspect of the department, I will truthfully share them. I think the goal of these visitation weekends is to provide the prospective students with as much truth and useful information as possible for them to make their own decision. I think the truth should include the caveat that we are not actually minted PhDs yet and what we say is only from the limited perspective of our positions as grad students and from talking to other people who have succeeded or failed at whatever career attempts post-graduation.

 

Ultimately, even though the department may be trying to "recruit"/"convince"/"woo" the visiting students, and even though I might really think Visiting Student X is an awesome person and would be a great colleague, I think about what I would want to hear when I was in their position and I give them the truth! 

Edited December 22, 2013 by TakeruK