tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post2073648933968426845..comments2024-03-27T21:23:40.339-04:00Comments on Chemjobber: Why choose a Ph.D. in chemistry? A response to @DocFreerideChemjobberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-1090735783755146982012-05-17T04:16:59.888-04:002012-05-17T04:16:59.888-04:00Yes, chemistry is not philosophy since you're ...Yes, chemistry is not philosophy since you're taught a practical skill of how to work with chemicals. Philosophy is easier to do an 'alternative career' in, in that sense. Chemistry is a professional craft degree where you learn something new and how to work with your hands. If you're being taught how to work with your hands, normal people would expect some sort of industry for all that at the end of the day where you actually use what you learn, like a research job in a company. If I wanted an alternative career to start off with, I would go into Philosophy since that is way more flexible if you're going to end up as manager/paper pusher.uncle samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-41882344984073615772012-05-16T18:53:59.120-04:002012-05-16T18:53:59.120-04:00Other reasons universities may want to really star...Other reasons universities may want to really start thinking about changing their ways:<br /><br />"It’s just a matter o time until we see the same meltdown in traditional college education. Like the real estate industry, prices will rise until the market revolts. Then it will be too late. STudents will stop taking out the loans traditional Universities expect them to. And when they do tuition will come down. And when prices come down Universities will have to cut costs beyond what they are able to. They will have so many legacy costs, from tenured professors to construction projects to research they will be saddled with legacy costs and debt in much the same way the newspaper industry was. Which will all lead to a de-levering and a de-stabilization of the University system as we know it."<br /><br />http://blogmaverick.com/2012/05/13/the-coming-meltdown-in-college-education-why-the-economy-wont-get-better-any-time-soon/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-84166008619411560622012-05-16T11:06:22.018-04:002012-05-16T11:06:22.018-04:00The issue that makes chemistry different from, say...The issue that makes chemistry different from, say, philosophy is that it's impossible to just "love" it without having access to the infrastructure required to pursue knowledge in chemistry. If you are not working in an actual chemistry lab, you have no access to journal subscriptions, chemicals and instruments required to do your experiments, etc. How would one pursue their love for chemistry as a hobby? Perhaps having a home lab? I think that's something that really makes lab-based science careers distinct from other disciplines of study.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-29589345160527492152012-05-16T11:05:12.793-04:002012-05-16T11:05:12.793-04:00I think the welfare of graduated Ph.D.s is quite i...I think the welfare of graduated Ph.D.s is quite important. However, I think they maybe have a better shot at evaluating how their educational plans will affect their life prospects (and whether they want to be risk-seeking or risk averse), and then owning those decisions <i>because they are basically adults</i>.<br /><br />(In other words, I don't buy that an undergraduate is like a zygote in the relevant respects.)<br /><br />I do think that people who might choose a Ph.D. program should be given <i>all</i> the relevant information about the job market, the rigors of getting through the grad program, etc., up front, rather than having these useful facts hidden from them.<br /><br />I also think, more broadly, that we could all benefit from a job landscape where people could use their skills to make a living wage and still maintain something like a "life" (family, free-time, some choice about their geographical region). <br /><br />And, as important as the generation of a reliable body of scientific knowledge is, I suspect that this project probably goes better when conducted by scientists not wracked with angst about the horrors of the job market, or of the jobs they may have managed to secure.Janet D. Stemwedelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07139109459337012160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-37361480109117744862012-05-16T10:53:16.191-04:002012-05-16T10:53:16.191-04:00A quick correction to one of your assumptions: Ph....A quick correction to one of your assumptions: Ph.D. students in philosophy don't pay their own tuition, either. It's pretty much just the same deal as Ph.D. programs in chemistry, except the TAing probably involves less contact with pre-meds, and the number of years of guaranteed support is usually lower (4-5 years), which means that if you go beyond that (which many do), you need to find a job, or a stop-gap grant, or take out loans.<br /><br />(Another difference is that the support is tied to your program, rather than your advisor's research grants, because the nature of research in philosophy is so different -- at least in terms of required apparatus -- than in chemistry.)Janet D. Stemwedelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07139109459337012160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-21294119297675736522012-05-16T09:12:39.586-04:002012-05-16T09:12:39.586-04:00It's really a dynamic Venn diagram with a shri...It's really a dynamic Venn diagram with a shrinking "Money" circle. The overlap with the other two domains is becoming smaller and smaller. Perhaps one day it won't overlap with the other two at all, which is what I imagine philosophy's three-domain Venn diagram looks like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-38553344549709187562012-05-16T02:01:18.648-04:002012-05-16T02:01:18.648-04:00I'm not going to bother with the original (is...I'm not going to bother with the original (is it behind a paywall btw?) but from you description it looks like good Dr. S. takes a pro-life approach of life beginning at conception complete with an utter disregard for well-being of newborn. She is, of course, correct that getting a PhD in the sciences is about more than money - it is about the science. Not the love for science, or bettering yourself through science, or anything else of the sort. It is about science-science, the progress, the discoveries that advance the humanity, and I simply don't see how science benefits from the number of PhD programs we have. In fact I submit that if all PhD programs ranked below 20, and yes, I know that USN&WR rivals ACS when it comes to quality of their stuff, anyway, I submit that if all PhD programs ranked below 20 were terminated today, it would not significantly lessen the quality of scientific results. It would take a few years for things to rearrange but if we were left with 20-25 programs the quality of scientific results would not decrease. I even think that the more or less exact number could be quantified: # students published in top 5 journals/avg # of student authors/avg manuscript productivity.<br />Worse yet, we would still make more Ph.D. than we need. Look at the numbers, - Massachusetts, Illinois, California - each of this states could take care of nation's needs single-handedly at their present rates. Progress would just roll along happily. What would be threatened though is current model of chemistry education, where universities save money by dumping grunt work on grad students. I should probably correct myself - they think they save money. Last time I talked to my old boss he said that a grad student there costs 90+k a year. For that kind of money you can get two permanent lab supervisors, or a lecturer and a lab tech, who would do a much better job running those orgo labs for pre-meds.<br /><br />PS. I forgot, there's one more entity that would face bleak future in the new system - Elsevier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-62497621034069197882012-05-16T00:26:48.018-04:002012-05-16T00:26:48.018-04:00I think Greenspun still offers the best advice whe...I think Greenspun still offers the best advice when it comes to choosing a good job/career (for a person of above average intelligence):<br /><br />"A good career is one that pays well, in which you have a broad choice of full-time and part-time jobs, in which there is some sort of barrier to entry so that you won't have to compete with a lot of other applicants, in which there are good jobs in every part of the country and internationally, and in which you can enjoy job security in middle age and not be driven out by young people willing to work 100 hours per week."<br /><br />http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science<br /><br />Science (especially industrial science) basically matches none of these criteria, yet careers in science are still advertised as practical careers that can fit well around most people's lives. A person of above average intelligence in the U.S. is just not getting much intellectually, materially or socially from a career in science compared to their other options. <br /><br />If the science field does not make some big changes, not only will future graduates face a worse job market, the graduates will no longer consist of America's best and brightest, since they will have moved on to fields that adequately reward their abilities and effort. I already hear the higher ups complaining today's grads just are not what they used to be...neither are the rewards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com