While working toward a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, I noticed that many Ph.D.s in industry eventually moved out of the lab and into management (and perhaps picked up an M.B.A. along the way), hoping never to soil their hands with research again. Also, conversations with industry recruiters usually got around to the career ladder, with implications that after a few years one would move up and out of the lab.
My love for the lab bench was the reason I chose a chemistry career to begin with, so this trend of moving from Ph.D. to off the lab bench was not for me. I decided to finish my studies with an M.S. degree. After five years, I still wound up managing a quality-control lab as chief chemist at an industrial plant, but I made sure to always have some bench time.
Sure, it would have been nice to have a Dr. in front of my name when sending out Christmas cards, but if that meant not being able to train young chemical technicians in the lab and solve those chemical mysteries, then it would not be worth it. After a few downsizings, I wound up again running a small lab with one or two young chem techs, solving problems and enjoying getting my hands dirty at the lab bench. Too many Ph.D.s? Maybe, maybe not. I think one should have an idea of what they want to do with the degree that they are pursuing and not just get the degree and see what happens.
Peter DoorleyWith all due respect to Mr. Doorley, some of this thinking is quite unfair. I don't know about other Ph.D. chemists, but I completed my degree because I wanted to finish something (for once in my life) and contribute to the chemical sciences, as opposed to finishing my degree so that I could someday sit in front of a computer (which seems to be the fate of the desk-bound chemist these days.)* Mr. Doorley also does not allow for the "up-or-out" mechanism at work for many Ph.D. chemists where they are expected to slowly move into leadership positions (whether they deserve them or not.)
Memphis
It is also worth noting that training young chemists and solving chemical problems is the best part of being a senior chemist (of any education level.) While I am sure that there are those chemists who enjoy their time sitting in meetings and plotting the fates of many, I believe that there are many, many Ph.D. chemists who far prefer to influence younger generations and to solve key chemistry issues.
All of this to say that Mr. Doorley paints with a broad brush, and I feel unfairly besplattered.
I figured you'd be more irritated by the letter two up from that one.
ReplyDelete"If we were to produce Ph.D.s who were rigorous thinkers instead of masters of vanishingly small fields, with comprehensive training and skill sets, they would be far better prepared for academia, industry, and any other career options."
Yeah, that was irritating, too. I guess the above letter was a new-and-improved irritant.
ReplyDeleteGiven that in my industry if you don't have a PhD one gets painted with a pretty broad brush of 'hands', I didn't see something in the above post that was that irritating. Maybe I'm just sensitized to it after so long.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I've seen plenty of fresh young PhD's whose main purpose in life was to move past the chemistry and get into management. Can usually see those guys from day one.
I suppose you're right. Perhaps I believe in the golden rule for stereotypes, too.
ReplyDeleteAs I like to say,
ReplyDeleteThe plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
I love this part:
ReplyDelete"Too many Ph.D.s? Maybe, maybe not."
Well, that clears things up! Flip a coin and there's your answer.
So what. Only complete nuts are writing letters to the editor. And contribute into blog comment section.
ReplyDeleteOK, OK, I'll come right out - some day, I'd like to be in management. However, it isn't so I can have a huge office (don't care) or hold meetings (ugh)...it's for the reasons CJ outlines: I'd like to help younger chemists to produce quality science. Also, I still love bench work, even after 10 years at it.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe the brush paints me, anyway.
Good thing I had my aluminum foil helmet on to deflect milkshaken's comment.
ReplyDeleteIn my next life I will re-incarnate as a manager and have my way with hapless re-incarnations of my Ph.D bosses. They will be no karma joking when I am done and finished.
ReplyDeleteHey! The "sitting at a computer all day" comment is uncalled for. I also run around to ask other people at their computers questions.
ReplyDeleteIf thinkers rather than people with narrow and deep technical knowledge were desired, then hiring people for those skills and then discarding them once someone higher up gets bored with that line of research or they've been used up (the "Use once and discard" philosophy of technical employment) might not be the best way to get them.
More likely, the thinkers are reading the tea leaves and moving on to solve problems for people that might value their contributions, or have decided that the only problems we care about solving anymore are how to separate people from their money and acting accordingly.
Why one would assume that the logic that applies to everyone else in the value chain (go where the money or the value is) doesn't apply to Ph.Ds might explain why we are where we are.
Who puts Dr. on their Christmas cards? Tool much?
ReplyDeleteThe only person who calls me "Dr." is my mom.
ReplyDeleteMy grandmother still addresses cards and letters to my parents as Dr. and Mrs. [Father's Name]. But she is 90.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, is it only PhDs that are expected to move out of the lab and into management at some point or do chemists with a master's also move that track (possibly at a slightly lower rate)?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA6:29p:
ReplyDeleteDifficult to say. I think PhDs are naturally offered those positions, while MS chemists have to seek them out somewhat. (Also, I think there are situations where the personalities are such that it is obvious as to who the better leader might be, regardless of educational level.)