Monday, April 4, 2011

Interview: PQ, materials scientist


I've long held that materials science is "the wave of the future" and something that younger chemists should consider. I recently conducted an interview with a material scientist we'll call "PQ" who strongly disagrees with my relatively positive assessment of the chances for employment in the field. What follows is our interview by e-mail; it was formatted by CJ and checked for accuracy by PQ.

Chemjobber: Can you tell me a little about your background?

PQ: I received both my bachelor’s and Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from some well-regarded research universities in the Midwest.  While an undergrad, I had the misfortune of interning at an automobile parts factory.  Spending my summer next to a carburizing furnace while surrounded by UAW-induced apathy convinced me to consider options outside B.S.-level jobs.  A second internship with an R&D-focused company was very positive and convinced me that I should go to grad school.

My graduate research involved chemical vapor deposition of electronic materials.  (It’s the sort of thing that the microelectronics and photovoltaic industries find interesting.)  Nonetheless, I got a lot of interviews but no offers upon graduating.  After some contemplation, I decided to take matters into my own hands and to write an NRC RAP proposal, which was ultimately selected.  I never wanted to postdoc, but working at a federal lab turned out to be a great experience.  I was hired there after my postdoc ended, and that’s where I am today.

CJ: What is "materials science" to you? What misconceptions do typical chemists have?

PQ: Well, with a Ph.D. in the subject, you’d think I’d have a pat answer to your first answer.  I don’t.

A functional definition is that materials science deals with the study, improvement, and invention of useful materials and their processing. Materials engineering is sort of the same thing but without the research component.  The distinction is pretty vague, and most of us have degrees in “materials science and engineering.”  The vast majority of the MSE Ph.D.s I know from grad school would be classified as engineers, so you really can’t base the demarcation on education.  Additionally, many people have degrees specifically in metallurgy, ceramics engineering, and polymer science, which are all subfields of materials science/engineering.

Of course, you don’t need to have a degree in materials science to be a materials scientist.  Lots of solid state physicists, chemists, and engineers have made their way over.  It’s a big tent with lots of room.  Civil engineers working on concrete composites.  Solid state physicists playing with graphene.  Chemists making up nanowhatevers. Chemical engineers working on thin film processes.  All one big, interdisciplinary family.

The thing chemists may not understand about materials science is that, while it covers a lot of ground – steel (yawn) to nanoparticles (sexy!) – it’s actually a pretty small field.  In 2006, American universities produced a lot of chemistry grads:  11,000 bachelors, 2,100 masters, and 2,400 Ph.D.s.  Chemical engineering produced 4,900; 1,400; and 900, respectively.  That same year yielded around 1,000 bachelors, 800 masters, and 600 Ph.D.s in materials science/engineering.  That’s probably not a great measure, but it gives you some idea.

Let’s look at membership in professional organizations.  Chemists, of course, have ACS, which has 160,000 members.  AIChE has 40,000. Materials science/engineering has a few organizations.  ASM International, which is engineering-focused and mostly metallurgy, has 36,000 members.  MRS, which is oriented toward the science end of things, has 16,000 members.  TMS, another engineering-oriented group, has 10,000 members.  You’re talking about a fraction of ACS in each case, but ASM is a fair match for AIChE.

I really think that pinning the hopes of chemistry on such a relatively small endeavor as materials science isn’t realistic.  The unemployment rate among newly-minted B.S. chemists is 15%. Based on the 2006 data above, you could eliminate every B.S. in MSE and replace him with an unemployed chemist, and you’d still have a 6% unemployment rate in your new graduates.  (I unfortunately have no idea what the unemployment rate is for MSE graduates.)

CJ: Where do materials scientists get employed? Do they end up in industrial positions like I hope?

PQ: It’s funny.  I often read about an attitude in academic chemistry that holds a career in industry is somehow inferior to one in academia.  I can honestly say that I’ve never heard that attitude expressed in materials science.  There may be a personal preference towards working in one or the other, but I think there’s generally a mutual respect.  In a lot of ways, the spirit of materials science is much closer to engineering than to science.  That’s one explanation for the industry-friendliness, anyway.  (Another is that there aren’t a lot of academic jobs out there since you need a big school with an engineering college to have a stand-alone MSE department.)

Yes, the vast majority of materials scientists and engineers are employed by industry.  Aerospace, microelectronics, energy, chemicals…just about every industry imaginable.  Most of those jobs are based more in engineering than R&D, and they aren’t necessarily called “materials engineers” or “materials scientists” by the employer.

CJ: What are the trends that you see in materials science employment? Growing, shrinking or going sideways?

PQ: Either directly or indirectly, most materials scientists/engineers are connected to manufacturing, which was declining in the U.S. even before the recession.  In general, it’s not a great time to be in materials…or engineering, for that matter.  However, the job situation depends mostly on the industry/subarea you work in.  If you’re a metallurgist, well, my condolences.  If you’re in the semiconductor industry, I hope you’re planning to get out before you turn 40.  If you’re a polymer scientist, things are pretty good from what I understand.  If you’re working on electrode materials for batteries, then you’ve won the lottery.  (If you’re working for the government like I do, then you’re just hoping not to be furloughed.)

CJ: The Bureau of Labor Statistics foresees 12% growth in MatSci positions from 2008-2018 -- are they wrong?

PQ: Well, if they’re right, it’s nothing to crow about.  According to their numbers, job growth for accountants is supposed to be 21%.  I don’t know about you, but given those numbers, I’d be strongly encouraging my nieces and nephews to become CPAs over Ph.D.s in materials science.

Nonetheless, I still think it’s an unrealistic number given the decline of manufacturing and the profession’s strong connection to it.  If the “making stuff into other stuff” business goes away, then what’s the point of being an expert on “stuff?”

CJ: What threats do you see to materials science employment?  Does international competition and/or outsourcing play a role?

PQ: Of course they do.  The thing is, it’s irrelevant at this point.  The battle was lost a long time ago, and we can’t turn back the clock.

About half our materials science Ph.D.s are foreign-born.  If we have a comparative advantage in materials-related R&D or manufacturing, it’s not apparent what it is.  (Maybe materials education is our niche, but that will eventually end, too.)  We’ll continue to lose jobs in manufacturing, and eventually we’ll have just a supplemental role in manufacturing instead of the lead we once had.  We’ll certainly have less need for materials experts than we do now.  About half of 3M’s R&D personnel are overseas.  UTC and GE are also offshoring their R&D like mad.  Startups aren’t scaling up anymore…they’re starting production in China.

It’s not a pretty picture, but I think it’s better to acknowledge reality and plan your life accordingly.

CJ here again. Thanks to PQ for a frank and very interesting response; it's good to be confronted with reality as often as you can stand it. Good luck to us all.

11 comments:

  1. Very sobering. PQ is right - chemistry is no longer protected from the larger outsourcing trend. Even these new high tech fields are moving their manufacturing to China or other lower cost labor countries. Pretty soon they'll look for local experts, too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've seen the outsourcing manufacturing link to outsourcing the R&D... I'm pretty new to Material Science (one of the interdisciplinary types who crossed over), and am very concerned by the trends I've observed thus far. If this continues Materials Science in the US will be limited to purchasing materials from others, and testing them in company specific products. This too, perhaps has a short shelf life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In this materialistic world, there is always demand for "stuff." I'm staying optimistic, because ideas that haven't even been invented yet will require considerable expertise in this "stuff."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have a Ph.D in polymer chemistry, and I second all that PQ has said. I got my degree in 1989, worked for a large chemical company for 12 years, and now do regulatory work for a small contractor company. Though there is still the usual low-to-moderate demand for people who work with polymers, there have been plenty of times that chemical companies have had hiring freezes or layoffs over the past 20 years, along with a low (but constant) shifting of work overseas. The division at the chemical company that I used to work in now has about 60% of the number of R & D people it had 20 years ago. It is hard to view this as growth.

    I don't see polymer science/material science being in some sort of renaissance. I don't know what is fueling this perception. Yes, there will always been demand for 'stuff', but some of that 'stuff' can also be researched/developed/manufactured overseas, as well as here.

    I want to add that from my perspective, the major difference I see between polymer/material science and the traditional areas of chemistry is the emphasis in the latter on the study of solids - not only their molecular behavior, but also their macro properties, such as impact strength, flexibility, processibility, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Question for those in Materials Science...

    Do you view materials science as a more promising field then pharmaceuticals or biotech?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous(7:33 PM) - Some areas are better than others for materials science. What I wanted to get across, however, is that the discipline is tied to the hip of the manufacturing sector. Some portions of that sector are doing well and growing, but most are not. I'm not a financial analyst, so I can't tell you where to put your money or your career. However, I can tell you that generally speaking, manufacturing--in particular, the large-scale variety that employs a lot of materials scientists--is on the decline in the U.S.

    Anonymous(1:42 PM) - I'm not saying you should abandon your optimism, but please temper it with some realism. Along with manufacturing, the demand for new materials is headed elsewhere. It's not the end of the world, but you should get used to the disappointing idea that the "next new thing" may not originate from the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I appreciate your post.

    This is whiny, and not particularly useful, but what kind of jobs and industry do you think will exist here? You highlight that manufacturing has left, for the most part, and with it its research. You said that we should get used to the idea that "the 'next new thing' may not originate from the U.S." If we don't make things and don't generate new things, then what exactly will we be doing? (I am assuming that after a while, we won't have the money to invest in other people's new things, because we won't make them and eventually other countries will have money and figure out they don't need us. If we don't have the money, all the unoutsourceable trades won't be able to find anyone to pay them, because no one else makes any money, either.)

    I can't really fault your logic, but it doesn't seem to leave much hope for us to be around, despite the unquenchable spirit and hopeful statements (grumble, grumble, grumble) in the Republicans' fiscal blueprint.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hap,
    When the dust settles after the most recent burst of globalization, I expect we'll still have manufacturing and R&D jobs here in the U.S. However, most of them will be some place else.

    The service sector has been the fastest growing portion of the economy: Healthcare, education, financial services, banking, insurance, retail, tourism, consulting. There are good jobs in all these areas that require creativity and quantitative thinking. Many of them are off-shoreable to be sure, so our job, as a society, is to figure out how to do them better than anyone else can. This involves intangibles like stability, ethics, openness, and rule-of-law; these aren't China and India's strong suits and probably won't be for generations to come.

    (Yes, I realize the irony of a materials scientist suggesting that our hope lies in the immaterial.)

    Like I said, manufacturing will never leave completely. However, its role is going to diminish just as agriculture's did before it. We still need farmers, and we'll still need scientists and engineers--just not nearly as many as a percentage of population as we do today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I respect your authority on matters of Chemistry and Materials Science, PQ. But, you should really look into what many Austrian economists are forecasting will happen to the US and global economy within the next 15-20 years (collapse of current US treasury bubble, loss of USD international reserve and petrodollar status, dramatic rise in value of Yuan, a significant bite out of Americans' standard of living, but with all these corrections will come a rebalancing of our trade deficits and a return of goods-production in the US again). Service sector jobs are growing and have been growing as a long-term trend correlated with our long-term decline in goods-production, but it is a bloated industry. This trend you speak of like its a permanent fixture of reality. Comparative advantage is one of the laws of Economics, but debt-financed consumption of wealth is not an indefinite means to prosperity as a country. You would do well to keep these basic economic precepts in my mind within your analysis.

      Delete
  9. Hi,
    I just came across this thread and am tempted to ask a few questions. But first, something about myself. I am pursuing my PhD from India and have observed a lot of collaboration with the US in the past few years. Strictly speaking, the quality and the resources are still out there, but the money is not; and this could be the reason why the collaborations have been increasing. My question is, how feasible is it to do a post-doc or a job in the US after a PhD from here?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi all!
    Firstly a great thread and kudos to PQ on his clarity. I am a PhD Candidate in Polymer/Materials Science from a land grant university in the southeast. I am expecting to finish in this academic year (hopefully calendar year). A little more about my experience: my interest is in nanocomposites, I am eagerly waiting for CNTs to enter the commercial market. I also work with block copolymers with a lot of theory and experimental data.
    One place that is rarely recognized for its immense innovation potential is Japan. Study and work wise US is still the best place for materials development except for a few European 'research islands' like Netherlands, Germany and Eurozone for composite materials. China and India have a LOT of people working on these areas but very rarely something novel is developed from Asia.
    So I think the material balance will still remain in US, Japan and some parts of Europe for atleast our career spans. Coming to US for a post doc is still a good bet if there is no high paying offer in India after PhD. IISC Bangalore is the next best thing to do(if your phd is not from there already).

    ReplyDelete

looks like Blogger doesn't work with anonymous comments from Chrome browsers at the moment - works in Microsoft Edge, or from Chrome with a Blogger account - sorry! CJ 3/21/20