In a recent issue of Chemical and Engineering News, this very enjoyable profile of Dr. Kate Biberdorf, popularly known as Kate the Chemist (article by Dalmeet Singh Chawla):
...That hustle has paid off for Biberdorf. After 16 years studying and working in Texas, she recently moved to the University of Notre Dame to become the institution’s first-ever professor for the public understanding of science.
The role will be significantly different from what Biberdorf did at UT Austin, where her whole job was to teach chemistry. Alongside that day job, every week she would visit up to four schools, engaging with more than 20,000 students a year. “My best year was 29,000 students, and that was a really good year, but I was very tired,” she says. “When I’m breathing fire, and I often do it in Louboutin heels, people just take notice.”
It sounds like it's reasonably lucrative for her:
...In 2020, she handed over the unpaid school outreach work to someone else at the university. Now Biberdorf has two literary agents, a social media agent, a podcast agent, and a sponsor agent. She is a client of the United Talent Agency, which represents artists, athletes, entertainers, and more. Twenty percent of all the fees she earns for any show usually go to the agency, and 10% to Schwartz, who is still her manager.
Biberdorf declines to share any monetary figures, citing confidentiality agreements, but says her Kate the Chemist gig makes “so much more money” than her professor role at UT Austin did. “It’s an extreme amount of money you can make with these sponsorships.”
It also sounds like she will be doing a fair bit of work for the University of Notre Dame, her new employer:
...She has officially moved to Notre Dame, where she says her role will be a more natural fit with her science entertainer work. It will be business as usual under the Kate the Chemist brand. But with more freedom from her institution and no chemistry classes to teach, she says she can focus on her science communication work and ultimately bring more attention to the scientific research taking place at Notre Dame. “It’s a win-win,” she says.
“They’re building me an entire studio,” she says. It’s a camera-friendly laboratory, a makerspace, and it’s going to be open on Feb. 1, Biberdorf notes. “Notre Dame is invested in this.”
In her new position, Biberdorf hopes to launch the university’s first major in science communication, with the aim of creating an “army of science communicators.” For now, she will start off with a science communication minor.
I have long been skeptical of the labor economics of science communication, especially as a stand-alone career. I've thought about this for years, especially since I know that so many people would like to do 'science communication'* as a job, and I have watched what seems like hundreds (but is probably more like 10 or 20 professional freelance science communicators) struggle over the years as I've watched on the sidelines on social media since 2010 or so.
I can't help but note that my skepticism has long been rooted in Derek Lowe's skepticism about his prospects as a professional science communicator. I can't find the quote but (like so many quotes from Derek), it's eminently memorable - if living solely on the checks from his writing, he and his family would soon be reduced to eating the grass in his backyard. Derek's a much, much better writer than I, so what chance do I have, or anyone else for that matter? I have a family to support, so I'm not a writer, I work for a living in chemical manufacturing.**
But this isn't really about me and my inadequacies - it's actually about the core of this blog's mission over the years, which is to attempt to quantify the quality of job markets. The latest Occupational Outlook Handbook (updated in August 2024) indicates that there are something like 87,000 chemists, and their median pay is ~$85,000 a year. While we can debate whether this is a good salary or a bad one, I think you can argue that you can live on your own (probably not very well, depending on where you live) and with luck, finding an appropriate spouse or a partner with a similar annual salary would be a great way to extend your dollar and increase your standard of living to something approaching the great American dream of affluence.
I'm not so sure about professional science communicators of any sort. As I've said before, professional science communication (especially the kind that makes money) seems to be mostly part of the entertainment industry, and entertainment seems to be a labor tournament market, where there are many entrants, but one true winner (and just a few people who make a median income competing.) Kate is winning that tournament (and seems to have won another one, in her (I presume) tenured position at Notre Dame.) That is great for her, but this is not a reproducible path. I genuinely do not understand what a long-term, high-quality employment market for science communicators looks like. I posit that I've never seen one, and more's the pity.
*What the hell is 'science communication' anyway? I know it when I see it, as do you.
**I note that I am STILL very proud to be a member of NAICS 325.
***One more CJ-esque note: I cannot help but note Dr. Biberdorf is moving from a classically large public university to a private university. This too is the correct move in Our Modern Times.
Derek (whose writing I have read and enjoyed for about 20 years) is absolutely correct, but he also works in the realm of the written word. He provides a valuable service, but his audience is a technically oriented, self-selected group of people with the attention span to make it through his articles. YouTube and TikTok are dopamine-hit-machines, and a whole other ballgame.
ReplyDeletePostdoc on the job market here, thank you so much CJ for your efforts. Curious about your comment on public vs private - what exactly do you mean? Sounds like something I should be aware of as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm not CJ, but my 50 cents has to do with funding. State schools are really dying in that state funding isn't what it once was. This is particularly true given the political standstill that the US faces due to hyper partisanship. It used to be something like 50% funding came from states (at least true of the school I am a postdoc at). Now it's hovering ~15%. Because the mission of state schools is to provide "cheaper" education, tuition doesn't rake in as much as a private (where they can charge faaaar more). These things combined means that state schools really only survive based on generous donations, which are hit or miss. Additionally, there is so much administrative bloat that drives up the operating costs of states schools, and to a lesser extend privates. Not all privates actually do that much better than state schools -- really depends on the tuition and donation rates. Schools with BIG endowments (I'm looking at you Ivy leagues and tech. schools) are the future more than just "privates", at least using funding as the only metric to judge. State schools are also far more beholden to the politics of the state (I'm looking at you Florida) and whether tenure is potentially on the chopping block. This can cause good faculty, students, PDs, etc. to flee or otherwise avoid said schools. Would love for others to chime in a friendly discussion (or fact-check me if I'm outrageously wrong), but this is at least my perception.
DeleteI should also note that on the academic market, you probably don't have the luxury of choice. SOmething to be aware of yes, but not necessarily something that you have control over, for what it is worth.
DeleteYes, the funding differences between public universities and private ones is exactly what I was referencing. I don't see UT-Austin building a chemistry professor a video studio (but I'll bet their football team has one.)
DeleteIt's been a long time (20 years? - I thought from an article by James Surowicz?) so I don't know if the generalization is still true, but tuition increases at public U's were driven by decreases in state funding and tuition increases at private U's were driven by increases in administration (both formation of administratium and increases in service levels?). It seems (here in the land of Big State U and its pseudoprofessional sports) that state U's are trying to increase administration and monetize whatever they can.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of public goods in the US has taken a severe beating in the past 50 years so the idea of funding education for the good of citizens and society is not well-regarded (particularly if education costs people money and votes (because it tells you what you don't want to hear)). - Hap