Unstructured interviews are probably not worth much

Via the New York Times, Jason Dana, a Yale School of Management professor, writes on interviews: 

...This is a widespread problem. Employers like to use free-form, unstructured interviews in an attempt to “get to know” a job candidate. Such interviews are also increasingly popular with admissions officers at universities looking to move away from test scores and other standardized measures of student quality. But as in my friend’s case, interviewers typically form strong but unwarranted impressions about interviewees, often revealing more about themselves than the candidates. 

People who study personnel psychology have long understood this. In 1979, for example, the Texas Legislature required the University of Texas Medical School at Houston to increase its incoming class size by 50 students late in the season. The additional 50 students that the school admitted had reached the interview phase of the application process but initially, following their interviews, were rejected. A team of researchers later found that these students did just as well as their other classmates in terms of attrition, academic performance, clinical performance (which involves rapport with patients and supervisors) and honors earned. The judgment of the interviewers, in other words, added nothing of relevance to the admissions process. 

Research that my colleagues and I have conducted shows that the problem with interviews is worse than irrelevance: They can be harmful, undercutting the impact of other, more valuable information about interviewees....

Professor Dana suggests that, while interviews are not a very good tool, asking all the candidates the same questions is probably a good way of getting better comparisons. I could believe this, but I'm never quite sure.

(Personally, I have always thought that the "new" (probably 20 years old?) style of "behavior-based interviews" ("tell me about a time you've solved a problem") is will someday engender "Reservoir Dogs"-style fake anecdotes  where you make up a story where you are the hero. That's probably because I am a bad person or something.) 

Lock your doors when you're having a Skype interview

If you've been hiding under a rock for a week or so, click on the video above for a very funny treat. (Here is a WSJ interview with Professor Kelly and his family.) Also, it is also worth noting that the Skype interview is growing in popularity - make sure your children, pets and other technological issues do not get in the way of making sure you put your best foot forward.

(Also, is the increase in Skype interviews of potential candidates a good thing? I think the answer is "no" - I think it puts much more emphasis on non-verbal cues from the interviewee, activates all sorts of personal prejudices and provides no more information than a phone interview. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe Skype interviews are another way that the balance between employer and potential employee is tipped to favor the employer.) 

What is it like to interview in the UK in industry?

So I know what it's like to do an industrial interview in the US in person. It's something like this:

• You show up the day of, in your finest rumpled suit. 
• You meet your host and maybe take a short tour of the facility. 
• You give a talk of some kind. 
• You answer some questions from your audience. 
• You go to lunch with a slightly new group of people on the company dime.
• You go back to the place and talk to various people for the rest of the day, usually in 30 minute portions. 
• You might have dinner with a new set of people. 

There might be some differences in order or length, but this is the general structure. 

What's an industrial interview like in the UK? I've never been on one, so I couldn't tell you. I've heard rumors of examinations at the board, but nothing concrete. Readers, please, enlighten me. 

Interview: Edwin Villhauer, medicinal chemist, process chemist and high school teacher

Via friend of the blog James Ashenhurst, I am pleased to have been introduced to Dr. Edwin Villhauer, a former Novartis medicinal chemist who has started his second career as a high school teacher of chemistry. This post has been lightly edited for grammar, and checked by Dr. Villhauer for accuracy.

Can you tell us a little about your educational background? 

I obtained a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the University of Rochester and immediately jumped into the pharmaceutical world on July 1st, 1985.  Up until that time, life was macaroni and cheese, 17 hour days working in the lab, and wearing blue jeans with many holes due to acid burns.  Who knew that my jean style back then would become today's fashion!

When I entered Sandoz (merged with Ciba-Geigy to become Novartis in 1996), I started on a fantastic metamorphosis to becoming a medicinal chemist which is critical if you expect any possible chance of championing your little molecule from idea to market.  The transformation from bench chemist to a fully functional medicinal chemist with confidence to maneuver through the foreign lands of pharmacology, toxicology, drug metabolism, patent law, regulatory, formulation, and process development took about 10 years.

Ask CJ: How should a candidate answer "Why don't you want to do a postdoc?"

From the inbox, a darn good question (lightly edited for grammar, redacted for privacy) from a senior graduate student we'll call EBZ:

During the onsite interviews I've had, I always get asked: Why don't you want to do a post-doc? I feel like my answers for this are never well received (I usually say that during my PhD, I've worked on a variety of different types of chemistry and I'm excited to work in the fast-paced world of drug discovery). Do you know what kinds of answers they are looking for? 

To be frank, I have no idea how to answer this question. My answer, if I were EBZ, would be something like "My understanding is that a postdoc is more training, and demonstrating that I can get started on a new project, and make an impact quickly, and I feel that I have already done that blah blah buzzword synergy disruption BOOM." (To the literal-minded: this would not be a good answer.)

Readers, do you have a good answer to this question? Help EBZ out!

*I would personally never ask such a question, because I wouldn't ask "Why don't you want to saw off your pinky toe?" or "Does this striped shirt make me look fat?" either. (Yes, CJ, it does. -ed. Thanks for the honesty! Anytime. -ed.)

Interview: Joseph Payack, former process chemist and current cannabis chemistry consultant

I recently spoke with Joseph Payack. Readers may know him from his articles in Organic Process Research and Development when he was working at Merck. He is now the secretary of the nascent Cannabis Chemistry Committee, part of the Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the ACS. He graciously spoke with me over the phone while he was at the fall ACS conference in Boston last month.

He has recently been working in the medical cannabis field, mostly as an independent consultant. His assessment is that the industry is "desperate for analytical talent."

He strongly believes that experienced chemists would find themselves employed quickly as consultants in almost all areas where the medicinal cannabis industry and chemistry intersect: extractions, analytical chemistry, formulations and safety/EH&S. Synthetic chemists who had experience at the liter scale and above would be able to find themselves work as consultants relatively quickly, he believes. He also feels that there is room for new graduates in chemistry in the cannabis industry, especially for those who have proven themselves to have GC/HPLC skills (and the ability to maintain and fix them.)

He acknowledges that working in the cannabis chemical industry is indeed "taking a risk" with one's career. It is towards that end that he has joined the Cannabis Chemistry Committee, in order to help make the field a little more legitimate and lay the groundwork for the future of this nascent field. 

Interview: Ezra Pryor, chair, Cannabis Chemistry Committee

I contacted Ezra Pryor and conducted a brief e-mail interview. It has been formatted for clarity, but is otherwise unedited:

CJ: What led you to get interested in starting a ACS committee? 

The committee was formed for the purpose of creating a cannabis chemistry Division of the ACS.  it gives us access to resources, demonstrates progress and makes official the work we had already been doing.  another advantage is that we get a chance to learn more about the three technical divisions that are interested in hosting us as a sub-division before moving forward. 

Divisions are almost exclusively formed in this way, giving the group a chance to grow under the wing of an existing technical division and then striking it out on our own when the time is right. 

CJ: How difficult has it been to do so? Have you faced opposition from within ACS? 

It would have been practically impossible except for the fact that this project has been a magnet for some amazing people.  We have all become great friends and worked hard together to move this forward. 

Everyone knows Ezra Pryor, the Chair and founding member and there have been some unsung heroes championing the cause as well. 

Joseph Payack was the first to join the effort and has taken on the role of Secretary, Melissa Wilcox was next and has since become our Treasurer, lastly Dr. Jahan Marcu who has risen to the position of Vice-Chair. 

We did not receive serious opposition from anyone at the ACS.  Those who can see the landscape understand that this is not a flash in the pan but a trend that will carry on into the future.  We did have some people snicker as they walked past the booth, but far fewer than those that enthusiastically signed out petition of volunteered to help. 

Most characteristic of our experience at the national meeting in Denver, in fact, would be the show of enthusiastic support and heartfelt glee for the opportunities that lay ahead. 

CJ: Which cannabis businesses have you found to be most in need of guidance from chemists?  

The entirety of the cannabis industry seems to be in need of qualified chemists.  There are of course the dozens of analytical labs dotted across the country that need technicians and there are also countless extraction laboratories that need full-time staff or just a little help overcoming challenges.  This will come with time as people learn that there are zero legal risk job opportunities for chemists that pay well and present a delightfully low key work environment.  It was easy to see the transition in progress when you see the enthusiasm of college students who see these jobs that didn't exist quite recently. 

What was most surprising to me was the great interest showed by several large companies to access and serve the cannabis industry.  Many companies that offer very useful tools for cannabis purification and analysis are hungry to show how their equipment can be useful and are unsure how to go about exploring this taboo application.  The CCC has already been facilitating these kinds of method development projects.

Thanks to Ezra Pryor for the interview! It will be interesting to see how things develop. Interesting to note that Joseph Payack has quite a few publications during his tenure as a process chemist in industry.

The Cannabis Chemistry committee of the American Chemical Society does not yet have a website, but it does have a Twitter account and a Facebook page. A LinkedIn page is in the works. 

ACS Presidential candidate Bryan Balazs on #chemjobs issues

Last week, I contacted the 3 ACS presidential candidates, Bryan Balazs, Charles Kolb, Jr. and Diane Grob Schmidt and asked them if they would like to comment on jobs related to chemistry employment and unemployment. The first to respond was Dr. Bryan Balazs. His comments are below:

CJ: Which ACS program do you think best helps the job-seeking ACS member? How would you improve it?

Dr. Balazs: There is no doubt that chemists are in a competitive job market in the current challenging economic times.  In my opinion, applicants need three things to land a job: A) they need to find out about job openings (this goes without saying), B) they need to have the required skills for the job, and C) they need to outshine the competition when it comes to the application and interview process.  The ACS needs to focus its efforts on all three of these requirements:

A)  Quite frankly, the ACS does not do a very good job at identifying for its members where the jobs are and who IS hiring.  This can be improved by coming up with a database of websites that ACS members can use to locate the jobs that they might be qualified for, including companies that are "non-traditional" employers of chemists.

B)  In the fast changing competition for talent around the world, we need to constantly encourage our students and workforce to keep learning new skills, even while in a job.  One of the latest trends in our education system is the onset of online courses, and I will explore collaborations between ACS and institutions offering such courses to benefit our members.

C)  The ACS has good resources to help members polish their resume, work through the application process, etc., but surprisingly few members take advantage of these resources.  We need to find out why, and we need to improve this.  One of the areas we can improve is to offer online services for those seeking help in this area.

CJ: Is it ACS policy to get more students to study in STEM fields, specifically chemistry? If so, how do we reconcile the fact that wages for chemists are stagnant or falling? Does this argue against the idea of a STEM shortage and the need for more STEM students?

Dr. Balazs: The need for students to pursue education in STEM fields is a priority for our nation, but at the same time, the ACS has had a longstanding discussion about whether we have too many chemists or not enough chemists, with both sides making good arguments.  After reading countless articles on the employment of chemists, my reconciliation of the apparent discrepancy between the number of chemists and available jobs is:  There are sufficient jobs in the U.S. for the supply of chemists, BUT (and this is the critical point) these jobs come with depressed salaries due to a global labor market and these jobs stipulate exacting (and thus hard to satisfy) qualifications that the employers need at that point in time and without regard to building a long-term workforce.

In short, it's an employer's market currently, and employers are more picky about who and when they hire.  However, history shows that this balance eventually reverses itself, although often at an agonizingly slow pace. One thing that I am perfectly clear on is that we should not discourage people from pursuing chemistry if that is their passion.  At the same time, we should not gloss over the low spots of the job market and make promises that are out of alignment with employment trends.

We also need to remember that the borders between the traditional scientific fields are fading and with that, the need for interdisciplinary training has become imperative.  So, we need to extend our attention towards encouraging interdisciplinary training across the STEM fields.  There needs to be a serious conversation within the ACS about this issue, and I believe that we need to be reaching out to other scientific societies and work together to advance our common mission.

CJ: Each ACS president candidate, for at least the past decade, knows the challenging job market facing ACS members and inevitably speaks of "growing jobs" in the US. Specifically, what tangible steps would you take to increase the number of chemistry jobs in the US, and is this something you think is really achievable?

Dr. Balazs: The ACS cannot create jobs nor can it mandate that employers hire more chemists, but it can nurture the conditions that bring about the creation of jobs for chemists.  What the ACS also can do is to publicize with companies that are hiring the various skills that a chemist has that they are looking for, skills such as: analytical thinking, creative problem solving, and being able to work as a team (after all, science is a team sport).  The ACS can also continue to advocate for innovation, entrepreneurship, and small businesses at all levels, something which is only slowing growing in terms of priority within the ACS but that I believe will be where the jobs and careers of the future are.  The ACS must not become an organization for solely large employers, whether in industry or academia.

4. How would you describe ACS' response to the Great Recession and the increase in unemployment amongst its members? How should ACS respond to similar situations in the future?


Dr. Balazs: The recent recession was unprecedented in many ways, and we have been through some tough transitions in the past 5 years.  I believe that we at the ACS were caught off guard like almost every other sector in our country.  At the same time, the industry and academic fields have changed enormously in the past decade or so, but the good news is that we have learned a lot and can carry this forward should such a crisis arise again in the future.  The ACS' Department of Career Management and Development now provides a wealth of services (click here for an example), and many of these have been added or otherwise strengthened in response to the Great Recession.

These have helped deal with the effects of the recession, but rather than continue to add more and more of these, the ACS should look at some of the areas I've noted above, such as educating "non-traditional" companies on the value of chemists, helping chemists find these non-traditional jobs, and ensuring that chemists outshine the competition when it comes to the application and interview process.  We should also do much more to encourage entrepreneurs and small businesses, as this is where many of the jobs of the future will be.

Thank you for taking the time to read my viewpoints and please visit my website, see my statement in Chemical and Engineering News, or view my short video.

Sincerely,
Bryan Balazs

Note: The 2 other candidates will have their responses published 24 to 48 hours after they are received by Chemjobber. 

Dear companies, please feel free to pay for interview costs

I've heard a couple of reports recently of small-ish companies deciding to invite people for on-site interviews, but not being willing to pay for the travel costs.

First, interviewees, be careful about this. Carefully weigh your ability to pay for these travel costs against the likelihood (or not) of being hired. Go into this with your eyes open.

• Get in writing that they will reimburse you for your travel expenses. 
• Better yet, get them to arrange your travel. 

Second, interviewers/potential employers, what the hell are you thinking? If you're inviting people from out of town (i.e. more than 120 miles (or two hours of driving) away), are you really not going to pay for the extra $500? At least be upfront about your unwillingness to pay.

Love, CJ

Interview: Mary Beth Mulcahy, CSB investigator

Mary Beth Mulcahy is a Ph.D. chemist and a Chemical Safety Board investigator. She was kind enough to offer me some of her time for an e-mail interview. What follows is an e-mail interview; it has been formatted for the blog and is basically unedited.

Can you tell us a little about your background? 

Dr. Mulcahy: Public school education mixed with a paper route, fast food jobs, and Science Olympiad in high school eventually led me to a major in chemistry at a private liberal arts school called Colorado College in Colorado Springs. By a chance meeting with someone at a party the last month of my senior year in college, I landed a high school teaching job in a small mountain town that eventually lead me to a teaching job in New York City. After three years of teaching, I went back to tackle a PhD in physical chemistry at the University of Colorado in Boulder. The National Science Foundation provided the funding for a post-doc in Bariloche, Argentina at the Centro Atómico. After returning from my post-doc, I taught high school again for one year before working for a biotech company and then ultimately the CSB.

How did you end up working at CSB? 

Dr. Mulcahy: When I started graduate school at 25 I suppose I thought I would get a PhD and be a professor, but somewhere along the way I realized that I did not want that career path. When I came back from my post-doc, I took a job at the high school where my husband was teaching because they really needed someone and I thought it would be fun to teach again. If anyone out there ever forgets why they got into science in the first place, I highly recommend he or she get a part-time job teaching high school science and then spend the entire year doing interesting demos and experiments with the students that get at real-life problems. (I say part-time because teaching is an incredibly time-consuming job and I do not think one could get the full enjoyment from it if he or she had a full teaching load.)

While I thoroughly enjoy teaching and definitely see myself doing it again toward the end of my career, I really wanted to see what I could do with a PhD. I took full advantage of ACS's help for the unemployed chemist and attended a national meeting for free (I think ACS still lets unemployed members attend for free) where I listened to a seminar on how to use the web to find a job (this was an amazing seminar put on by someone from Google I believe), participated in a kind of speed-dating type round table session to get exposure to other career options for a chemist, and communicated with a mentor that the ACS connected me to. Then, I started searching for a job using two methods I repeatedly read would not work--I cold called companies and answered Craigslist job posts. I was able to secure three interviews and two jobs using the methods.

I originally saw a CSB job posted on Craigslist and the description intrigued me. The CSB at that point was clearly looking for a chemical engineer who had worked in a chemical plant or refinery, but the CSB was also looking for interns. Never one to pass up an interesting opportunity, I applied for the internship and ultimately obtained the position almost a full year after I originally applied. So that year I believe the CSB had two 22 year-old interns, one 23 year-old intern, and me who was over thirty and had a PhD. Still amuses me to think that is how I got here.

What do you do from day-to-day at CSB? 

Dr. Mulcahy: To explain what I do day-to-day I need to give a little background on what the Chemical Safety Board does. At the CSB we conduct root cause investigations of chemical accidents. At first glance, you might think a root cause would be technical in nature such as identifying the corrosion mechanism that lead to the failure of a pipe or storage vessel. More often than not, the corrosion mechanism (or hazard) is well known and awareness of its existence was not enough to preclude the accident. As a result, we focus on finding a correctable failure in the underlying management system that enabled the conditions to develop which ultimately lead to the accident.

During the life cycle of an investigation, my day-to-day activities change depending on whether I am in the office or deployed. Typically we deploy to an accident scene within the first days after the incident has occurred. The early focus is securing the scene to preserve evidence and interviewing eye witnesses.

Once this initial phase passes, we enter into a reiterative process both in the field and the office of reviewing documents, testing equipment/samples, and conducting interviews to understand the equipment/system that failed and the management system it operated in. In the office I spend a lot of time reading through company provided documents, researching technical issues, and coordinating testing. It is much like a down day in the lab when you spend time doing literature searches, plot your data, and maybe contact other scientists about papers they have written. What I like most about office work is every case presents new learning opportunities in science, law/policy, and safety.

Our goal is not to simply fix a single company, but to effect change in an industry so advocacy work is important. This means attending meetings with regulators and  professional organizations that generate best practice guidance to begin a dialogue about the recommendations that the CSB is considering submitting and presenting initial (or final) findings to help promote the safety change we are advocating. After a report is released, outreach remains important and so I give many presentations around the country as well.

What I don’t do on a daily basis is any bench chemistry because the CSB does not have its own laboratories, though I use my chemistry skills often to interface with contractors and in all of the analysis that I do.

What level of experience or expertise do typical CSB investigators have, before they join? 

Dr. Mulcahy: This is extremely varied. The CSB investigators range from just out of college to over 25 years industry experience. In addition to myself, the CSB recruits employees with backgrounds in engineering(chemical, safety, mechanical), human factors, environmental science/policy, occupational health/safety, public policy, chemical accident investigations, and lawyers. Safety and PSM experience at refineries and/or chemical process facilities would help you succeed at the CSB.

If someone wanted a job like yours at CSB, what would you recommend that they do? 

Dr. Mulcahy: If you are still in college I would suggest you pursue internships in the oil and chemical industries or at the CSB (we have internships).  Also enroll in classes that will give you exposure to safety issues in the oil and chemical industries.  If you are working in the industry volunteer for safety investigations and for assignments that take you out of your comfort zone such as researching codes/regulations or writing sections of the final safety investigation report.  Finally, speaking of writing - it is so important for our jobs –no matter where you are in your career take technical writing classes and learn how to communicate technical information to non technical audiences.

What do you think is most misunderstood about the TTU/Preston Brown case? I confess that I am tempted by the 'it was a guy being dumb' answer, and I understand that, safety culture-wise, that's insufficient.  

Dr. Mulcahy: That accidents happen because of “rogue” researchers and if you take the researcher out of the system, an accident will not happen. Look at the TTU report and take the student out of the equation, all the other system deficiencies still existed. Perhaps the exact accident wouldn’t occur if the researcher were removed, but the deficiencies leave the door open for a different accident.

If you were to talk to a group of young graduate students about academic lab safety, what 3 things would you recommend? 

Dr. Mulcahy: I have a full-time job investigating worst-case scenarios and major accidents, they are not as rare as you think.

Learn how to conduct a hazard analysis. This will absolutely require you to talk to more senior researchers since it is difficult to identify hazards in a process you are unfamiliar with.

There is no perfect safety barrier, which means any barrier could fail at any time. Look for inherently safer methods to accomplish your goals, but if you can’t be sure to design your experiments with multiple safety barriers to minimize the risk to you.

If you were to talk to a group of experienced laboratory chemists about chemical lab safety (or chemical plant safety, for that matter), what 3 things would you recommend?

Dr. Mulcahy: Really, I would say the same things I did above.

There is a great quote on safety culture that says it is “…how the organization behaves when no one is watching.”  (American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICHE), Safety Culture: What is at Stake?,  on 6/16/2011.) I would tell them this quote and then ask if they put on their goggles (even if they were normal eyeglasses) every time they walked into their laboratories.

What gets measured gets paid attention to, and so I would recommend they find ways to actively measure safety in their laboratories. (I just published something about this in a joint paper with other authors for the Journal of Chemical Health and Safety that might be useful to a reader wanted more of an explanation )

CJ here again. Thanks to Dr. Mulcahy for a great interview!

What's it like to do a chemistry postdoc in Israel?

A couple weeks back, I mentioned a postdoc opportunity in Israel. GG wrote in with a long and detailed description of life in Israel as a chemist and a postdoc. I've put the bulk of it under the jump -- hope you enjoy. 

"Since the discussion of doing a postdoc in Israel started up from cost, I want to assure you that Israel in not as expensive as you think. The most expensive place is the central Tel Aviv area and just a few kilometers outside the official Tel Aviv limits an apartment will cost less. That said, there are quite a few foreign postdocs from the Technion or Weizmann who prefer to live in Tel Aviv for the 'scene' and will pay a lot more for the apartment and the commute for it. 35-40K is more than enough for a single person to enjoy themselves. The average apartment will run you 400-1000 dollars a month depending on where you are and maybe a bit more for a good apartment in Tel Aviv. Food is more expensive than in the USA, which is frustrating. 

Restaurants are twice as expensive and everything in the supermarket seems to be just a bit more. Fresh fruit however, is a lot cheaper when it is in season. A car is much more expensive, and gas as well. But don't worry about the gas because the country is small and the only reason you'll need a car is if you like hiking or travelling, but chances are another foreign postdoc will have one and you can bum rides is you go to places together. Some universities and institutes have housing for foreign students and postdocs so you can save a lot of money that way.

Beginning the Endgame: a midcareer chemist's musings

From the inbox, a really interesting comment from NJ on a long career as a chemist:

I am a 50-year old industrial chemist. I am blessed with an excellent resume. I went to great schools, had pretty good grades, got a Ph.D. and have worked for desirable companies. I've been awarded patents, published papers, given presentations, etc. I'm a member of multiple professional societies. In short, I have a great resume. I also keep up on the literature. I'm a new employee’s worse nightmare: I know everything they do and more. Plus I have experience. Interviewers, recruiters and HR people all have told me that I have a great resume. While that is important, I've had a trump card in my pocket for getting a job. I kill at interviews. Whenever I’ve gotten an onsite interview, I always received the offer. Always.

Then something happened recently that changed this. It started innocently enough when after an onsite interview, I didn't get the offer. OK., all streaks must end. I really wasn't concerned until it happened a second time, and then a third time. It's happened so many times now that I have to stop and think about what the exact number is.

I'm sure CJ has younger readers who think that at 50, I am getting ready to retire. No. I'm old enough that I can't collect full social security until I am 67. That means that I am working for at least 17 more years. 17 years! Think about it. I've only worked for 23 years. I'm barely halfway done with my career. Retirement is not in the picture at all. I also doubt that any employer looking at hiring a younger person expects them to stick around 17 years.

I started becoming concerned with the difficulty of find my next job, but another thought has arisen that has totally scared the living-daylights out of me: I now realize that there are very few moves left on the chessboard for me.

If you're not familiar with the game of Chess, let me explain. People who study the game generally break it into three different phases. First there is the opening. This is usually the first dozen or so moves that each side makes. It is usually as tightly choreographed as a Broadway musical number. White does this, then black does this. There is very little thought involved since the opening are usually memorized from books. Next comes the middle game. This is the exciting part plans are laid and put into action, traps are set and most of the pieces are captured. Books can provide guidance, but the options are many and it is often difficult to see what the correct move is except with hindsight.

Finally there is the endgame. This is when there are few pieces left on the board. It is impossible to predict at the opening of the game what pieces will be left in the endgame and where they will be, but that doesn’t prevent people from putting intense effort into studying endgames. What’s ironic is that the endgame is usually just as tightly limited in choices as the opening is even as it appears otherwise. The board is wide open so that a lot of moves CAN be made, but most of them are bad moves. There are very few correct moves in any given situation. Very good chess players will never finish a game entirely. Once the endgame is presented, it is pretty academic as to how it will turn out. The players acknowledge this outcome and end the game.

I now see that my career has been like a chess game.

In the beginning, I did what everyone else did. I applied for jobs in my field, hoping to get an entry level position. Every newly degreed person does the same thing using more or less the same procedures. This was the opening. Then I got to the middle of my career where after having gained some experience, I started to move around through promotions, lateral transfers within a company and leaving for another company entirely. There were lots of options to consider. While the moves I made usually seemed like good ones at the time, it is only with hindsight that I can see which ones were truly good and which ones were awful.

And now I am at the endgame. I am sure that I will eventually find another job, but I can see already that that's going to be it. Wherever I end up will most likely be my last job. The next employer will keep me until I retire or am laid off. That's what scares me. Not only do I now have to hope to get an offer, but I have to decide if that employer and I are going to want each other for another 17 years. Because if it doesn’t work out, if I get laid off before my 17 years is up, I may never be able to recover, and that’s what really scares me.

My search goes on, but it is a far more serious venture than ever before. These additional worries are now hanging over me, and they will never go away.

So this is my situation. I’ve always heard that finding a job is more difficult for older workers and I find that to be true, but I’ve never really heard others describe this phase of my life, at this young age of 50, as the endgame: that there are few moves left, that every move now is critical, and how scary the recognition of that is.

Thanks to NJ for an excellent essay.

Interview: XE, an organic chemist turned medical doctor

XE is a former Ph.D. organic chemist and chemistry professor who became a physician; XE contacted me after reading about my thoughts about becoming a physician. This e-mail interview was formatted only.

Chemjobber: How much education did you need to get "current grades" for medical school applications?

XE: Luckily most of the requirements to get admitted to med school had been accomplished obtaining my B.S. in Chemistry (obtained over ten years before I applied).  Different med schools have different specific prerequisite course requirements.  I took a few biology courses in my spare time to fulfill them after I had been admitted.  I needed to take the MCAT exam as well for my application.

From your first day as a med student to your first day as a non-trainee (i.e. attending physician), how long was the process? 

XE: 8 years (4 med school plus 4 residency in dermatology).  Residency varies from three years after graduation (internal med, pediatrics, family medicine) up to seven (neurological surgery).  I did not do a fellowship, which would have added to that total.

What advantages/disadvantages do you see about a chemist attempting to become a physician? 

XE: I would separate this question into 1.  Advantages getting admitted to med school; and 2. Advantages practicing medicine.

• The Ph.D. degree is an advantage gaining admittance, in my opinion.  Admission committees interpret the Ph.D. as a sign the applicant is intelligent, hard working, persistent, and unlikely to be entering medicine solely to make money.  I also found that being a chemist was helpful in preparing my memory.  Much of med school is memorization and recall of large volumes of facts, a skill at which organic chemists in particular seem adept (e.g. named reactions, structures, etc.)

• My chemistry background finds daily application in practice as well.  Being familiar with chemicals helps understand poisoning, acid-base chemistry and partial pressures of blood gases, and solubility of uric acid (e.g. gout), for example.  Knowing natural product chemistry comes in handy reassuring chemophobic patients that many of the feared pharmaceuticals I prescribe are actually “natural” in origin (e.g. antibiotics, cardiac medicines, etc)

Do you see the future of medicine in the US as a positive or a negative one? 

XE: I assume you mean the future of a career in medicine in the US.  In general US medicine has to restrain cost, whose current rate of growth is unsustainable.  Different disciplines will be impacted differently over the next 10 years (specialists negatively, and primary care positively, in my opinion).  The outlook for physicians is still fairly positive, because physicians see the patient and have the most control over utilization, i.e. prescribe drugs and order tests.  And the supply of new physicians, determined by the total number of residency slots per year, has not changed in over 20 years, and is unlikely to change much in the future.

Switching from chemistry to medicine after the Ph.D. and postdoc is somewhat of a career gamble, due to the long period of training and opportunity cost.  It has worked out for me, as well as others (e.g. www.zewertmd.com).  It is critical that someone contemplating this move be sure they can be happy interacting with a wide range of people on a regular basis (less so if you become a pathologist or radiologist).

[Chemjobber here again] Thank you to XE for the very educational interview!

Interview: Pierre Morieux, ChemDraw wizard

Pierre Morieux’s name may not be well-known to you, but he’s the ChemDraw wizard that showed up on Derek Lowe’s blog a couple of months ago. In a truly weird and wonderful series of events, he’s now been hired by Perkin Elmer Informatics as a Chemistry Field Marketing Manager (Perkin Elmer is the company that produces ChemDraw and the ChemBioOffice software suite). His story was neat enough that Philip Skinner (a Perkin Elmer employee) contacted me to tell this story -- it’s really cool.

Pierre has a lot to say in his story, so I’m going to bring it to you under the jump. I hope you enjoy; I certainly did.

What follows is an e-mail exchange between Pierre and Chemjobber; it has been lightly edited for clarity.

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

(Hmmm... “ChemDraw wizard”, I wonder if I can get that written on my business card)

I am 30 years old, heavily trained in Chemistry and I come from a French educational background. I did a 2-year undergrad technician training in chemistry at the IUT of Orsay, France. I then went on to a so-called Engineering School of Chemistry, called Chimie ParisTech (formerly known as ENSCP in Paris, France) from which I graduated in 2006. The French Engineer degree would be equivalent to an American Master's degree.

Interview: Michelle M., analytical chemist

Michelle M. is a M.S. chemist; she recently obtained a job as an analytical chemist and I talked with her via e-mail about her interview experience.

This e-mail interview was written by Ms. M. and lightly edited for formatting by Chemjobber

Can you talk about your background? 

I have been into chemistry since doing it at school, though it wasn’t until 2nd year in college I knew that it was my true love, and not physics! I have a first class honours degree in Chemistry, and a Master’s degree in chemistry by research. My Master’s degree came out of what was originally a PhD program, but that is a whole other story. Suffice to stay that during this time, I realized that the work I really enjoyed and was good at was analytical/physical type chemistry, which meant my organic synthesis focused group was a poor fit. Deciding to leave wasn’t easy, but ultimately I wouldn’t change anything about the whole experience, as it taught me a lot about the work I enjoy doing, about not jumping into things feet first (oh, reckless youth….),
while the research and writing up my thesis made me a much better scientist in my opinion.

Interview: HV, bioanalytical chemist (was organometallic chemist)

When I recently made skeptical comments about job growth in the biosciences sector, HV suggested that things may be a little bit better. He's transitioned from synthetic organometallic chemistry to more bioanalytical-oriented work. I think his story may be interesting to Chemjobber readers, so I thought I would interview him.

This e-mail interview has been lightly edited by Chemjobber, and checked for accuracy by HV.

CJ: Can you talk about your background and how you found your current position?

HV: I have a PhD from [large Midwestern state university] in inorganic and organometallic chemistry. I graduated in Sept 2007. I did a 3 year post doc at [another Midwestern state university]. My wife is also a PhD and Post doc biochemist and she found a job in St Louis. I moved with her hoping to find a position in St Louis. Boy, was I in trouble.

Around the same time I moved to St Louis, Pfizer was closing their St Louis site and the market here was flooded with chemists with 10 to 20 years of experience. I could not find a teaching position either. I met a scientific director of a biosciences company at a social event and he offered to help. He knew another company's scientific director who was looking for chemists who were interested in jumping to CRO work in biology. He made a couple of calls and I had an on site interview for a position.

CJ: Was it painful to you to transition out of chemistry?

HV: I dont think it was painful at all. Chemistry is a basic science. If you have the interest and the passion to adapt to something new and pursue it, a PhD enables you to make the transition and apply the critical thinking needed.

What would you recommend to people who want to follow in your path?

I highly recommend synthetic organic/organometallic chemists to start looking towards CRO jobs or at least make an attempt towards mass spectrometry or analytical positions. Start attending webinars in biology in basic glycoprotein analysis and get accustomed to GMP and GLP practices.

CJ: Can you talk about some of the personal struggles that you overcame during your job hunt?

HV: Personal struggles... seeing other chemists get jobs while you are struggling to get one, especially the ones I trained in graduate school. I battled depression, got diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and it was a constant struggle to get by everyday. Luckily, I had a very supportive wife. I joined the local American Diabetes Association chapter and I live a very active lifestyle. I run 3 miles a day now!

CJ: What do you think is the current situation in the biotechnology world -- are things looking up or looking down?

HV: Biotechnology is looking up. Think about this: Abbott's Humira is the # 1 selling drug in terms of sales. A TNF blocker... who would have thought that 15 years ago? The traditional way of making drugs using exclusively chemistry has almost disappeared and there is more emphasis on biology-based drugs. Plus, there are a number of biosimilars hitting the market pretty soon.

Chemists need to adapt and it is not very difficult. We already know the basic instruments/analysis. We need to keep an open mind. Comfortable jobs in Big Pharma doing synthetic chemistry in an R&D lab is almost a pipe dream -- unless your advisor really knows someone.

This might be a cliche, but networking really helps. Get involved socially -- I was hesitant and hated to say that I was looking for employment every time someone asked me. This is one of toughest recessions to hit the USA and chemists are just at the wrong place and the wrong time to graduate.

Hope everyone out there gets a job soon!

CJ here again -- thanks to HV for a great interview and thought-provoking comments.

Interview: Curt Fischer, chemical engineer

Curt Fischer is a longtime chemblogosphere commenter and a chemical engineer. I thought it would be interesting to get perspective on the chemical engineering world from a recent graduate. Here is our e-mail conversation.

This e-mail exchange has been lightly edited by CJ and checked for accuracy by Dr. Fischer. 

Chemjobber: Can you talk a little about your background?

CF: My favorite teachers in high school were my Latin teacher and my chemistry teacher.  I always liked science, and so I thought to study chemistry in college.  Everyone started telling me that chemical engineering gave you more career options straight out of college.  “You’d have to go to graduate school to have after college if you majored in chemistry,” I remember hearing.  Thus I decided to become an engineer.  I wound up studying Chemical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

During my junior year, I got my first taste of scientific research when the opportunity arose to spend a few hours per week in a surface science lab.  Even though I made no meaningful contributions to my first lab (it once took me an entire afternoon to make up a one molar NaOH solution) I got hooked on science and I decided I wanted to get a Ph.D., thus negating the whole reason I’d chosen chemical engineering to begin with.  During my last few years of school, I spent my summers and other time off working at Athersys, Inc., which at that time was probably the only pharmaceutical or biotech company in the Cleveland area.  It was my first exposure to the alphabet soup of acronyms that is molecular and cell biology.  To me it was amazing that people seemed like they were beginning to understand how cells worked.  In retrospect, I was naively optimistic about understanding how living cells worked but the field had hooked me nonetheless.

After graduating in 2001, I spent two years in Tokyo (making up for a failure to take advantage of any junior-year abroad programs when I’d been in college), and then I started my Ph.D. program in chemical engineering at MIT.  My thesis research was on the metabolic engineering of bacteria for the production of commodity chemicals and fuels. Six years later, I graduated.  By then, I was ready for a change, so I took a post-doc in environmental microbiology on the other side of the country in California.

How did you end up working for a startup? What have your classmates ended up doing?

CF: A lot of my classmates knew they wanted non-academic careers.  Some of them even became management consultants or “quants” that worked for hedge funds.  Another group wound up going into more “traditional” industry jobs – into fields like pharmaceutical manufacturing, or into the technical staff of large chemical companies.  A fraction of our class stayed focused on an academic career, and some of those have now landed tenure-track academic positions.

Some of my classmates founded their own startups, and a few joined existing startups as an early employee.  I dabbled with starting a company while in graduate school.  My two co-founders participated some business plan competitions and other “entrepreneurship” events while we were in grad school.  Our team enjoyed some success in those competitions.  We considered leaving graduate school to work on our nascent company but ultimately, I decided I didn’t want to jeopardize a potential academic career, and that I needed to finish my Ph.D.  One of my partners decided he needed to finish grad school too.  Thus our would-be company folded before it ever got off the ground.  The post-doc I took after graduating was in a lab focused more on fundamental science than on applied research. I thought I was leaving any entrepreneurial opportunities I had behind to pursue basic research.

A year or so into my post-doc, I got an email.  It was from a grad-school acquaintance.  He’d gone on to found a company, it was doing well, and they were looking for someone to lead a new research program they were starting.  I flew back to Boston, and really fell in love with the founding team, their vision, and   It helped that the research program they wanted to start was in an area that had been a personal fascination of mine (the microbial metabolism of one-carbon compounds).  It also helped that they had lots of liquid-handling robots to play with, and that the founding team were all folks that I knew I could learn a lot from.  I’ve been at Ginkgo Bioworks since early 2011 and have really enjoyed it so far.  It’s not as different from the academic environment I left as I first expected it to be.

What should chemists know about what chemical engineers do? What misconceptions do chemists have? 

CF: Chemical engineers, contrary to what the name may seem to indicate, aren’t trained to know very much chemistry.  For many chem e’s, words like “nucleophile” and “electrophile” get forgotten as soon as the sophomore year of organic chemistry is passed.  Instead, the undergraduate curriculum focuses on applied math and on “systems-level” analysis (i.e. mass and energy balances) instead of molecular-level analysis.

At the Ph.D. level, the differences between chemistry and chemical engineering seem more blurred.  Everyone is so specialized.  For example, when I finished grad school, I had a lot more in common with chemists studying the microbial metabolism than I did with chemical engineers who had gone off to construct computational reaction-diffusion models of stratospheric photochemistry.

The main thing that chemists hopefully realize is that chemical engineers wind up working in all sorts of different fields, just like chemists.  (And, btw, a chemical engineer won the Priestley Medal last year.)

Do chemical engineers face the same job difficulties that chemists do? What's the job market been like for you and your classmates? 

CF: At the B.S. and M.S. levels, my understanding is that chemical engineers probably do have more opportunities than chemists do.  Look at the ACS’s 2010 “ChemCensus” – it reported that reported salaries for B.S. or M.S. chemical engineers were 20% higher than for chemists.  I don’t know why the difference is there.  My best guess is that the applied math skills at the core of the undergraduate engineering curriculum are useful in a very broad set of contexts.  Getting an engineering degree is a fairly reliable signal that you have those math skills.  I’m sure there are many chemists whose math skills outshine the median chemical engineer’s, but prospective employers would have to do a lot more work than just glancing at your resume to be convinced.  The ChemCensus data shows that moving to the doctoral level narrows the gap between chemists and chemical engineers.

Some of my grad-school friends and classmates definitely seemed to have a harder time finding positions since the 2007-2008 “crisis”, especially if they were looking for work in management consulting or in the pharmaceutical industry.  As for academic positions, I haven’t seen any hard data, but my sense is that many chemical engineering departments in the US have in the last 5 years decided to expand their presence in areas like energy.  That trend has boded well for my classmates with the right specialties.

Many thanks to Curt for a great interview.

Interview: @LCMSMS, analytical chemist

Kerri Smith is a graduate student and a job seeker; she tweets as @LCMSMS. Since I don't get to chat with very many analytical chemists, I thought I would ask her a few questions. (This e-mail interview was formatted by Chemjobber and checked by Kerri for accuracy.)

CJ: Can you tell us a little about yourself? 

 

KS: I am a senior graduate student in analytical chemistry with Ph.D. focus on small molecule quantitation and protein-ligand interaction characterization by mass spectrometry. My work has been applied to preclinical studies of anticancer compounds, forensics detection of illicit drugs, as well as investigation of new combination antibiotic therapies. Besides chemistry, I make my own jewelry as well as enjoy a night out dancing to melodic house music.

 

CJ: What kind of position are you looking for in your job search? 

 

KS: I would like to join a company that values and fosters creativity. I really enjoy troubleshooting in method development and mass spec in general, but have a passion for experimentation and trying new things in any application. I am a hands-on learner, so I really enjoy working in the lab.

 

CJ: What do you wish people knew about analytical chemistry and the instruments you work with? 

 

KS: I wish that people realized that with a little determination, they too could run and get meaningful data from a mass spectrometer.  Electricity, ionization, and liquid chromatographic separation may be the stuff of magic at first, but after some critical thinking and experimentation, one realizes that they are somewhat predictable.  I have had undergraduate students that were so baffled by how a gas chromatography – mass spectrometer instrument worked, that they couldn’t get past the mental block of ‘how’ so they could ‘do.’ I always tell people that you can’t you can’t learn to cook by wondering about it, so how do you expect to truly understand mass spectrometry without touching a mass spectrometer? I’ve actually told people that they were thinking too much; they needed to get away from the computer and get to work on the bench.  Mass spectrometry is a “doing” science. Yes you use your brain, but you have to eventually get up and ‘do’ to know what question to ask about your analysis next.

CJ: What do you wish synthetic chemists knew about mass spec?

KS: Not all organic solvents are electrospray ionization-compatible. If we can get the sample in a rather "benign" alcohol or even add ethyl acetate, the analyte might just ionize perfectly. Regardless, there is always a way to get the analysis done.  

CJ: What are you hearing from your friends and colleagues about the job market that you're interested in? 

 

KS: Unfortunately, I am hearing that the job market is somewhat volatile and unpredictable at the moment. I have a friend who was laid-off three times, but fortunately found a new position within the same company, in the last two years.  I originally considered this friend’s field first, but now I am having second thoughts. I want a career, not just a job. As I am graduating soon, I find myself searching harder and harder for a permanent-type position.

CJ here again. Best of luck to Kerri and thanks for a great interview!

Interview: MQ, pharma veteran

MQ is a long-time commenter of the chemistry blogosphere; I'm terribly pleased to have to have obtained an interview with them. This e-mail Q&A was formatted by Chemjobber and checked for accuracy by MQ.

Chemjobber: Can you describe your background a little?

MQ: I have a MS degree in organic chemistry from a very reputable Midwest school, and have been in the pharmaceutical industry as a medicinal chemist for over 16 years, primarily at one research house in the Midwest. I was laid off from this company several years ago, but managed to land back here. I have experience in a variety of therapeutic areas and I am currently at an entry-level PhD equivalent position, and have been so for several years.

CJ: How has the industry changed since you've been working?

MQ: How hasn't it should be the question. It always seemed as if ‘times were tough’, as management told us in our yearly all-employee meetings. Merger rumors circulated yearly. A variety of fads have come and gone Natural Products research vanished right as I entered the business, infamously replaced by combinatorial chemistry (Bohdan Blocks and Quests, anyone?). Now instead of parallel synthesis or on-bead based mix-and-split library work, we're simply replacing those fads with the more hands-on-deck approach thanks to cheaper labor at the CRO du jour. The mega-mergers over the last 10 years have, in my opinion, destroyed this industry. The Midwest used to have a vibrant and successful pharma community until Pfizer single-handedly laid waste to it.

Also, good BS/MS scientists used to be worth their weight in gold. With the advent of more and more outsourcing, I fear that the days of associate level scientists are numbered, just like those old Quests.

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.