So here is what I have observed in the past 6 or 7 years interviewing BS chemists. Precious few of them had any demonstrable interest in organic chemistry or synthesis. It is not because they were lacking ability- they had not had the opportunity to practice the art. They might have been involved in some kind of research in their senior year, but very often it is involved in some highly specialized work with a very narrow scope. OK. That is the nature of research. It’s specialized. I believe the college chemistry curriculum and the shifting interests of faculty to ultra specialized research are failing students.Well, let's think about this from a practical perspective: how much time could an enthusiastic undergraduate devote to the study of chemical synthesis? Let's say that our undergraduate decides that she wants to do an REU right away, after taking sophomore organic. So that's one summer, maybe two during her college career; it's safe to say that's about 16 weeks of hard-core research. Let's say that she wants to do research during the school year, too. That's probably a reaction or two per week (average) for 2 academic years; maybe 80 weeks overall, probably 100+ reactions. Total, 96 weeks of research, ~150 reactions.
[snip] This graduate that I interviewed had experience in some kind of nanoscience, but couldn’t say much at all about basic synthesis. When asked about Grignard reagents, he could not recall having heard of it. What the hell good did the professor do for this kid?? The kid burned up his senior year doing deep-niche chemistry with skills of questionable transferability. He should have been doing distillations and crystallizations until he could coax pure subtsances out of a mixture that he/she made. That is what an undergrad should be doing. An undergrad should be refining basic manipulation skills and accumulation experience in running diverse reactions. Experience is proportional to the number of experiments run.
I have no reason to believe other than undergraduate chemistry education is failing to prepare bachelors students for the practice of the synthetic arts. It has been my experience- perhaps yours is different- that students with an interest in synthesis go to grad school. The problem with that is that it immediately doubles the cost of doing synthetic chemistry per unit chemist in society at large.
That would produce a pretty darn good B.S. organic chemist. It'd also produce someone who would be primed to totally kick butt in graduate school, which is probably where most of the people who have that enthusiasm would end up.
I've just described the right end of the bell curve for organic-oriented undergraduates; at the same time, the left end exists as well. When I did a campus interview for a B.S. position, they asked me to describe my research and I drew them my little organic molecule that I was working on. They looked at it, they looked at me and they said, "You're the first student we've met today that could describe the research that they've been working on." Sigh.
I think undergraduates can do the cost/benefit math as well as anyone. If you wish to get a bench-level job, it's probably a lot better for you to get a M.S. degree. It won't cost you any money, just a little time (2 years, right? right?) and the salary bump is fairly significant. (63k for an associate scientist at PFE versus 70k for a senior associate scientist.)
Readers, what do you think? (And welcome back, I hope! There's a new poll over there on your left.)
Couple thoughts.
ReplyDeleteHere at American U (and at my undergrad institution U of Dayton) you can pretty much get a masters in under (or just at) 2 years if you've done your undergrad there.
As a faculty member, we have to prepare the students for everything. Keep in mind that most majors have no concrete idea of what a chemist actually does when they start school. So expecting the average student to know right away that they need to be in lab is a difficult thing to swing. (It's something that I do try to impress upon them, though).
CJ describes doing an REU and getting lots of synthetic experience. I see that person as going directly to graduate school. It's just what the most "driven" do. The undergrad has to see all of the market-values before they can make that decision to forgo GS. I am pretty sure that they really do not.
I think Lamentation's biggest issue is that his search was keeping to higher profile research universities. In my experience, the best and brightest at those schools WILL undoubtedly go to grad school or med school. Had the search been done at a "lower-tier" university, Lamentation would have interviewed candidates with much different sensibilities. Also, I'm sure Lamentation would have found candidates with excellent laboratory skills in the precise areas in which the search was conducted. Students at schools like the one I attended (U of Dayton) surely weren't playing around with ps lasers or SEMs (as a norm) but we were certainly doing synthetic and analytical techniques that would have served us well as a BS going into industry.
Having worked with many undergrads I can safely say that I am thoroughly unimpressed by that line in a resume. Most have no interest in being in a chemistry lab, they only want to have some research experience to add to their medical/dental/pharmacy school application. They couldn't care less what the purpose or broader application of their project is.
ReplyDeleteAs stated above, I also believe that those who are truly interested in it go to graduate school. Unfortunately, I also believe that there are lots of undergrads who are fooled by their professors into believing that they NEED to get a Ph.D before they can have a prosperous career in synthesis, that could be another reason for the dearth of qualified applicants. I advised several undergrads not to go to grad school and to simply start working, but they insisted on going. These undergrads all watched me scratch and claw for many months just to secure a postdoc. The current university system is not helping hiring managers find good BS level talent.
"63k for an associate scientist at PFE versus 70k for a senior associate scientist."
ReplyDeleteIf you are talking base entry salary your numbers are high. I think your analysis of who gets the best deal is also faulty. Associate scientists are quickly promoted, and do not have opportunity costs of going to grad school.
MS chemists definetly get the short end of the stick everywhere. No PhD so you have a crippled career. There is an endless supply of PhDs, therefore the glass ceiling is very real and solid. Companies will tell you about examples of people who made it through the glass ceiling, but those examples all happened when chemistry job market was much better. Opportunity costs are high for going to grad school, especially if you consider MS bench chemists have a shorter expiration (layoff) date than PhDs. And if you put a MS chemist with 10-15 years industry experience against a BS chemist with no industry experience, the BS chemist will get the job every time. Everyone wants (initially) cheap labor they can mold to their exact specifications.
"I had the experience of interviewing a fresh BS chemist from a good- dare I say “elite”- school this week...This fellow fared poorly on our application chemistry test, but was undeterred."
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of "elite" school is Gaussling talking about? Having been a chemistry undergrad at a, dare I say, prestigious R1-university, I am dismayed by the scoffing tone of Gaussling's description of the hapless BS-level candidate. My graduating cohort was small (saw the same students in my core classes), so I can vouch that we all had sufficient PEDANTIC exposure to synthetic chemistry. PRACTICAL exposure was another issue, but even my classmates who were doing P-Chem research knew that Grignard reagents contained Mg and Suzuki couplings required Pd! Although we took different advanced/grad-level courses suited to our interests, our core chemistry curriculum was definitely uniform.
"He did have a trifle of inorganic synthesis experience- he made ferrocene once. That being said, his interpretation of the NMR spectrum on the test was wrong, his understanding of carbocation stability trends was wrong, and he couldn’t calculate his way out of a paper bag."
Did HR even look at the dude's transcript? If the candidate demonstrated such as tenuous grasp of fundamental chemistry, why the hell did Gaussling's company even proceed with the interview process? Sounds like this kid just coasted his way through college without retaining any chemistry knowledge!
Anyway, I agree with Matt that Gaussling's company fell into the trap of being dazzled by nominal prestige. Employers claim that they always want to hire the best from any school, regardless of whether it's Ivy League or public. It's a shame though that a having a big-name school or big-name professor on a resume can trump good laboratory skills and a sincere interest in research.
Hehe I like the "some kind of nanoscience" line. My whole Ph.D is in "some kind of nanoscience." You can imagine how attractive this is to employers! (hint: not a lot).
ReplyDeleteI think that Gaussling seems to have the expectation that a BS chemist would come straight out of school pre-prepared with exactly the skills Gaussling believes to be most significant. I don't think this is realistic. This is a classic problem, one not limited to chemists. Software engineers, for example are sometimes hired because they have credentials for language or package X rather than because of their intrinsic programming skills.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that nanotechnology sounds like a perfectly legitimate area for an undergraduate chemists research topic (with specifics, of course). I agree with some commenters above that this particular BS candidate would seem to be lacking a broad comprehension of traditional chemistry.
I'm an MS analytical chemist, who got one of my early laboratory positions in industry partially because (well before) I had had a summer position where I did operate a SEM. Some background playing around with lasers probably helped also. There, I expanded into Auger electron spectroscopy. Should all BS chemists then be expected to come with SEM and laser experience?
One of the important roles of PI's or lab supervisors is to provide guidance, inspiration and instruction to those under them. Obviously, one needs to start with a candidate that has strong indicators of underlying abilities. If Gaussling doesn’t want to provide training, then chemists with previous, precise area, industrial or academic research lab experience would need to be hired.
A6:31a: I picked the averages, so you know what, you're righter than I am. I blame early morning blogging.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right on the opportunity cost. At the same time, I challenge your assertion that the B.S./0 experience is more "hireable", though, but that's more "gut feeling" than anything else.
CJ: I guess it would vary company by company. In my experience, it seems new hires with no experience start more often than new hires with considerable experience. Maybe smaller companies are different. I certainly hope so.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the boss, how much money he has to spend and what kind of results he expects, and how secure he is with hands-off managing people in his group: an experienced MS can cost a lot more and be less malleable than a fresh BS. It is probably is a good idea to hire someone with more experience if you need help with setting up the lab or if you need to make a lot of progress quickly. But if, as a boss, are looking for someone to manage closely, someone who follows the orders and and never questions your chemistry wisdom and if you care less about short term results than a headcount, then you would go with hiring someone who is bright and pleasant and unexperienced.
ReplyDeleteHow about taking the initiative and molding us inexperienced baccalaureate chemists into the machines you want us to be? Did that ever cross an employer's mind? No. They would much rather higher the Post Doc or Master's degree holder to come in, setup shop, get things going, instruct the owner on the basics of maintenance, let them go, then hire associate degreed idiots to maintain the gravy train for as long as possible. I am personally sick and tired of the games, and wish things were different. But, alas, they are not.
ReplyDelete