Science is a poor career choice - Covid effect on CAO applications

JustAThought

Yet you look around and what businesses are constantly busy
- retail - clothing/sportswear/shoes
- food and fast food in particular
-selling booze preciously and bookies thriving
- never seen a small butchers go bust
- hairdrrssers/day spas/ manacurists etc

All the jobs that are sole trader types and rely mainly on the average skillset and basic entrepeuneruship

- good painters and decoraters
- plumbers and electricians
-tilers/ kitchen fittters

None of these ‘careers’ bar plumbers/LX actually NEED a 3 ye training/degree and there are thousands of owners of these small businesses successfully buying houses and feeding families and having holidays twice a year & driving nice cars.

Our career advice system is still based on a middle class 1960’s basis where a degree
guaranteed a junior management role and ajob or career for life - not the constant running treadmill of disposable degrees and repositioning yourself after more university learning as something else.

We need to be looking at a model where schoolgoers are not making decisions on subjects that will define their lifes options and career choices at age 14 - and adopt a model where companies are compelled to list and advertise their core salaries for every job. That will not only stop the downward bidding war between candidates but will allow people to see the tradeoff between salary and cost of qualifications . As many have said here - its eyewatering the assumption that postdocs can expect to earn less than a assistant manager in mcdonalds and have less job stability, or that a programme manager recruited in 1990 with no degree can be earning 25% more than a new recruit with degrees, specialised postgrads and all the latest software training - or that a PA in a bank can expect to work a cosy 9-5 for 45-50k while a person with a PHD in maths after 8 or 9 years training will earn less than a mechanic in a garage down a laneway or than a hairdresser in a high net worth suburb or successful botique owner.

It’s small wonder that half America is now consumed with the student debt scandal where people in their 40’s and 50’s are atill paying off debt and student loans for jobs that would never give a solid return on their investment or allow them to become debt free enough to buy a decent home.

Its also small wonder that Irelands ‘free education’ system is being totally abused and exploited by people coming & declaring that they never studied before aNd getting a second career degree paid for by the taxpayer. Some colleges are relying on this to fund their lucrative business models and many universities are actively ensuring that ‘starter jobs’ in niche industries will always remain unavailable and worked for free by 3rd level university students desperate to get ‘experience’ while paying full fees and it being treated as a qualifying year to complete their degrees. Journalism and Communication and the briefly fashionable Sports Science Degrees being some of the high level culprits.

dfx-

Augeo wrote: »

No doubt, I was more referring to folk who think a 4 year degree in anything will set them up for life without further endeavour and advancement.

Pursueing science to or past pHd won't line too many pockets, that's not a surprise to anyone though or at least it shouldn't be.

Not at all, I'm a science undergraduate myself, working in STEM.
Plenty folk with a degree in business end up on p1ss poor money also, it's not what qualification you have IMO, it's what you do with it. Opportunity doesn't usually knock, you need to go looking for it.

Doing a PhD for any other reason than you're interested in the topic and have ideas is deeply misguided and it will break you.

You certainly shouldn't do it if you've no other option or 'caught in the hype'. It certainly is not retraining either, you have no chance of doing a PhD in a field you're not qualified in already.

Lots of people complaining that it's not as lucrative or being hard work or tough work...well yes it is. But if you're interested in it and good at it, it's a good career choice. Lab work is never going to be threatened by robots either

If it's an easy job or lucrative job you're looking for, look elsewhere but that is nothing to do with being 'good' career choice

JustAThought

And if our government keeps propping up the 3rd level educational sector by allowing them to sell degrees at 20 or 30k a term to countries like China, Pakistan, India and the rest of the world (America) and charge them almost as much in rent for ‘on-campus’ all inclusive experiences ANd throw in a 2 year visa for after their qualification . We can now expect all our Irish CEO students who competed so hard to get into courses now also competing in those courses with people who would not otherwise be eligible to move, rent houses or be in the country for resources and more importantly for those few key door opening relevant jobs once they qualify and leave college.

So long as the government allows campuses such as UCD use as a business model to accept and invite up to 30,000 annual fee paying ‘international’ students (read fees of 20-30k a year) - per year to come and study here - the ever more badly paid jobs market and relevant career specific opportunities here will continue to diminish and be even more difficult to obtain for people wanting a fair salary and a chance in their chosen career.

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

Yet you look around and what businesses are constantly busy
- retail - clothing/sportswear/shoes
- food and fast food in particular
-selling booze preciously and bookies thriving
- never seen a small butchers go bust
- hairdrrssers/day spas/ manacurists etc

.............there are thousands of owners of these small businesses successfully buying houses and feeding families and having holidays twice a year & driving nice cars....................

Plenty small butchers have gone bust, there was fnck loads of them decades ago compared to now, butcher counters in Dunnes, Tesco etc obviously has taken loads of the business.

Independent bookies are a thing of the past.

Retail - clothing/sportswear/shoes ............. small business wise this is a dead duck also, the large ones now struggle with all the online competition, rents, rates etc etc etc.

Independent off licences are also impacted by the larger stores, it's not the game it used to be.

Everyone being self employed in retail type ventures isn't the answer, for every owner buying a house and enjoying their holidays you've the fairly sh1t rewards their workforce enjoy.

onrail

Best just get a trade?

• The housing shortage is going nowhere and investment in housing will be prioritised for the foreseeable.
  
• Chances of technology taking over are slim.
  
• The misguided idea that 'college = a lucrative career' has contributed towards a massive shortage in young people entering a trade.

Sunny Disposition

onrail wrote: »

Best just get a trade?

• The housing shortage is going nowhere and investment in housing will be prioritised for the foreseeable.
  
• Chances of technology taking over are slim.
  
• The misguided idea that 'college = a lucrative career' has contributed towards a massive shortage in young people entering a trade.

Have been involved in construction for many years and I’d say only get into it if you think k you’ll be suited. Irish construction tends to be very boom/bust. It’s hard work too and maybe a little harder to transition out of if you want to.
15 years ago a lot of young fellas were getting into it because they were looking at it as a guarantee of very good money. Two years later they knew better.

Sunny Disposition

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

..........
15 years ago a lot of young fellas were getting into it because they were looking at it as a guarantee of very good money. Two years later they knew better.

Indeed folk have very short memories.

There are more opportunities than the best case scenario described in the OP for science grads.......... I never knew admin staff were so well payed in the pharma industry........... actually there isn't many admin staff in them. The well paid desk based jobs he's referring to are often filled by science grads.

BrianD3 wrote: »

...............

If we define science as the fields of chemistry, biology and physics, it is a poor career choice. If someone has one of the more practical degrees aimed at the pharma industry, maybe they'll get a job as a QC analyst in a factory earning less than the admin staff and production operatives. ...........

onrail

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Have been involved in construction for many years and I’d say only get into it if you think k you’ll be suited. Irish construction tends to be very boom/bust. It’s hard work too and maybe a little harder to transition out of if you want to.
15 years ago a lot of young fellas were getting into it because they were looking at it as a guarantee of very good money. Two years later they knew better.

Yeah all those points are valid tbf. Although most I know in a trade have done something like this over the last 15 years:

• made a fortune during the Celtic Tiger,
• went to Australia, made a fortune,
• returned home, house built/bought for cash, currently making a fortune

Obviously, emigration isn't possible for everyone, but arguably, that has been a far better life than someone slaving away at a desk for 25-40k ever since.

Plus its worth bearing in mind that more than trades experience boom/bust cycles.

floorpie

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed folk have very short memories.

There are more opportunities than the best case scenario described in the OP for science grads.......... I never knew admin staff were so well payed in the pharma industry........... actually there isn't many admin staff in them. The well paid desk based jobs he's referring to are often filled by science grads.

I don't know about private industry, but in my public sector organisation, the lowest point on the lowest admin payscale, is higher than the first few points on the payscale for professors, and will likely remain higher throughout ones career.

In other words, people coming in for their first job after school or college are paid more than those in the same org who've gotten a degree (4 years), masters (1 year), PhD (4-8 years), held a postdoc position (3-10 years). And on top of that, are essentially an elite international academic who's capable of taking one of the very few professorships available (i.e. less than 5% of people who have a PhD).

I doubt that this is an aberration and I'd be surprised if science grads are valued in private industry such that they're paid more than admin and ops but maybe people in the thread have experienced different...?

The well paid desk based jobs he's referring to are often filled by science grads

That's the point of the thread.

But they aren't admin jobs, they are science gigs.
Admin in private sector is €10/12 per hour.
The opening post in this thread is IMO misinformed rubbish that groups all science courses together.

In biopharma loads of science grads take an ops job as a stsrting point and progress. Without the degree they'd not progress they'd remain in the ops gig. Their degree gets complemented with experience and they develop their career... Some don't develop their career but many do.

This seen across most industries.

The public sector paying admin folk more than specialists is just old fashioned bureaucracy backed up by unions.

floorpie

Augeo wrote: »

But they aren't admin jobs, they are science gigs.
Admin in private sector is €10/12 per hour.
The opening post in this thread is IMO misinformed rubbish that groups all science courses together.

Perhaps entry level admin is minimum wage.

"Admin" - broad term but ignoring that - in all orgs goes up to executive levels. You don't stay at minimum wage throughout your admin career. E.g. it's not like they bring in HR grads for entry level HR roles in pharma, and then scientists take over at managerial, senior, executive levels. Or at least I'd be very surprised if this is the case.

2011

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We should absolutely be encouraging more people to choose careers in STEM.

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

I work in the "E" of that. Assuming civil/structural engineering is included.

So do I, but in a different discipline.

I will NOT be encouraging any child of mine to go that way. It's really not an enjoyable career path. It's difficult work for mediocre pay in high stress conditions. And I've worked in many companies at this point. It's not a good career path.

I would and did.

I agree with you in terms of civil/structural, anecdotally I believe that the pay can be poor. However pay is substantially better in other engineering disciplines such as process, electrical, automation, EHS as well as project management.

Yes, it can be stressful. However, I find engineering to be a very rewarding, well paid profession that has presented me with lots of opportunities. Also engineers have lots of transferable skills, for example quite a number work in the financial sector.

Ash.J.Williams

BrianD3 wrote: »

There has been a 21% increase in CAO applications for biological science courses and this is being attributed to the Covid pandemic. The likes of Luke O'Neill appearing in the media very regularly will probably be spiking interest.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/covid-effect-spikes-interest-in-some-courses-as-college-demand-surges-40175171.html

If we define science as the fields of chemistry, biology and physics, it is a poor career choice. If someone has one of the more practical degrees aimed at the pharma industry, maybe they'll get a job as a QC analyst in a factory earning less than the admin staff and production operatives.

If they major in any biological science, they're likely to end up not getting a job at all and being forced down the route of a PhD. Once they finish that, they might get a postdoc contract but it will short. Emigration may be necessary for the next contract. Suddenly, they find themselves 40 years old with a very uncertain career, earning less than lads working on building sites and being laughed at when they ask about getting a mortgage. They are highly unlikely to be the next Luke O'Neill.

I've been hearing nonsense promoting science careers for 25 years, industry is crying out for scientists, there are great and interesting careers etc. A common tactic is to mention NASA or developing cures for cancer. Covid vaccines can now be used in a similar manner, isn't it just AMAZING how science has saved us from this catastrophe. Professors and academics will promote the whole thing seemingly unaware of their survivorship bias.

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but it often sounds as though vested interests are trying to flood the market with graduates in order to drive down wages. Maybe this is also why we "need more women in STEM".

Environmental science would seem to be another poor choice of career while being portrayed as a good one due to climate change etc. Who is going to make money from actions to mitigate climate change - environmental scientists or engineers, surely the latter.

There are loads of jobs in Ireland in science, if you can’t get a job with a science degree you need to Learn how to use it

Sunny Disposition

onrail wrote: »

Yeah all those points are valid tbf. Although most I know in a trade have done something like this over the last 15 years:

• made a fortune during the Celtic Tiger,
• went to Australia, made a fortune,
• returned home, house built/bought for cash, currently making a fortune

Obviously, emigration isn't possible for everyone, but arguably, that has been a far better life than someone slaving away at a desk for 25-40k ever since.

Plus its worth bearing in mind that more than trades experience boom/bust cycles.

Construction has given me a life my father couldn’t have dreamed of, it has been extremely good to me. But don’t get into it for bad reasons. In Ireland right now it is a very boom bust sector, don’t start an apprenticeship on the belief that this is inevitably going to make you wealthy, it’s very unlikely it will.

griffin100

IMO it's pointless in many respects trying to predict what the future jobs market will look like when it comes to deciding what to do after you leave School. People increasingly have multiple careers and career changes and the same job / career for life is increasingly becoming rarer.

Many of the jobs current school kids will move into don't exist now, and some jobs that are well paid now will cease to exist in the future. I have a GDPR specialist who reports to me and is on over €100k a year, and that's a job didn't exist a few years ago.....whereas the front of house 'porter' type staff I used to manage years ago have in the main been replaced by smart screens.

I tell my teenagers to decide what they want to do when they leave school on the basis of what they like and enjoy, not what they think they'll get a job in. Go to College, do an apprenticeship or whatever. The way I look at it their working life is going to very, very very long, probably until they are 70. I tell them that when they leave school they have a chance to spend a few years studying and having a good time after which they will have to work for 50 years. They might as well take the opportunity to do the College thing if they can. Unless you want to enter a profession I don't think the nature of your degree matters all that much after you have spent a few years working and have had time to build up a CV.

Coming back to the usefulness of a science degree or indeed any degree, the two richest friends I have didn't go to College. One was an electrician who moved into sales and then set up his own company and sold it for a few million and is now doing the same with another new company. The other got into retail at an early age and opened a few shops over the years and became very successful, although he did have to start again after the bust in 2011. My wife who did a 2 year diploma in college was always very business minded and has owned her own very successful business for almost 20 years now and makes more than I do with my PhD. Point is, a degree will only get you so far, attitude and luck covers the rest.

If I had my time again I'd probably still do the science thing, even though I now know that there's more money to be made elsewhere, I loved my time as a research scientist.

floorpie

griffin100 wrote: »

Point is, a degree will only get you so far, attitude and luck covers the rest.

Is this made worse for certain degrees, and in-turn careers, is the question?

For example, must accountants have the same level of attitude+luck as computer scientists? E.g. as a minimum requirement to getting an interview for an entry level job in a decent company, are they expected to: work on accountancy outside of hours for fun, contribute to public projects for free, go to hackathons at weekends, learn new systems every year or two on their own time (analogous to becoming an expert in a new paradigm of software, Sage or Excel or something), compete against experienced hires from India/China, have multiple technical assessments and 3-8 interview stages, etc?

It's no doubt true that personal attributes are very important, exemplified by scenarios you outlined with your wealthy friends. I think many posters are assuming that it ALL comes down to personal attributes when there are obvious systemic differences across careers that simply make some more difficult. As a PhD holder you no doubt know this. It doesn't matter how good your attitude/luck was, this choice of career was a difficult one, and requires FAR more attitude/luck to succeed in than many others imo.

griffin100

floorpie wrote: »

Is this made worse for certain degrees, and in-turn careers, is the question?

For example, must accountants have the same level of attitude+luck as computer scientists? E.g. as a minimum requirement to getting an interview for an entry level job in a decent company, are they expected to: work on accountancy outside of hours for fun, contribute to public projects for free, go to hackathons at weekends, learn new systems every year or two on their own time (analogous to becoming an expert in a new paradigm of software, Sage or Excel or something), compete against experienced hires from India/China, have multiple technical assessments and 3-8 interview stages, etc?

It's no doubt true that personal attributes are very important, exemplified by scenarios you outlined with your wealthy friends. I think many posters are assuming that it ALL comes down to personal attributes when there are obvious systemic differences across careers that simply make some more difficult. As a PhD holder you no doubt know this. It doesn't matter how good your attitude/luck was, this choice of career was a difficult one, and requires FAR more attitude/luck to succeed in than many others imo.

I don't know enough about IT to comment on the career structure and the roles but you make a good point that different careers require different approaches to being successful. Certainly if you want to succeed in one of the big legal or audit firms early in your career you are expected to work ridiculous hours. I remember once a junior in a well known legal firm asking me for feedback on a contract that she sent me at midnight by 8am the next morning! But if that same lawyer worked in a local firm in a small town they probably have the same chance of becoming well off as the lawyer in the large company, it might just take longer and require a different approach.

It's complex, you need to be in the right place at the right time with the right skill set, and very often this seems to occur randomly (based on my own experiences). One person I used to work with entered a mid size public sector organisation as a HR specialist at middle management level, soon after he joined there was a big exodus of senior staff due to retirements, etc and he found himself being promoted up the organisation very quickly, he's now the No. 2 in the organisation. In my own career some of the big jumps or changes have been random, for example one of my big career jumps was when a contractor I was using for a small project headhunted me into a senior role. If I hadn't had used that contractor I don't know where I'd be now.

But all of that comes later after College. A degree, whether it's in science or not, does help open doors that would otherwise have been shut. Is that right? I don't know but that's the system and for most of us it isn't going to change soon.

AlphabetCards

griffin100 wrote: »

But all of that comes later after College. A degree, whether it's in science or not, does help open doors that would otherwise have been shut. Is that right? I don't know but that's the system and for most of us it isn't going to change soon.

No no no. You are not getting this.

The people who seem to misunderstand the situation here are the folk who are a decade or so out of touch. You have no idea what the job scene is like for recent grads, it's the pits. A lot of the former big graduate hirers now do things interally, they run 'apprenticeships' where they teach you through a local uni/college/in-house and train you on what they need. They don't need to offer to pay off the student loan, or pay you more to do your industry specific quals. You are good to go. After four years, they have a perfect specimen who knows the ropes and is ready for management. The degree is becoming useless as the quality has dropped across the board - even Cambridge and Oxford are getting complaints about 'degree inflation'.

There's no 'open doors' with a degree, I can tell you I did this during the tiger years, and now I'm doing it again, and let me tell you, we didn't know we were born during 1999-2007. No one gives a **** about your degree unless you've done something amazing. Graduates are ten a penny.

AlphabetCards

floorpie wrote: »

Is this made worse for certain degrees, and in-turn careers, is the question?

As a PhD holder you no doubt know this. It doesn't matter how good your attitude/luck was, this choice of career was a difficult one, and requires FAR more attitude/luck to succeed in than many others imo.

The main thrust of this thread is that the supply exceeds demand. There is no reason for employers to even bother pay PhD-qualified scientists much. £29k-£35k for a post-doctorate job here in the UK. Average salary of McDonalds workers in the UK last year was £29K... STEM employers know this - they know that you've done a PhD, that you are trapped in this area of research, and that you'll take the job, because you are not gonna find better remuneration elsewhere.

zom

Sales! Only sales!! You may have degree in business or psychology if you like but if you can sell shades to blind person you get well paid job in no time even if you cant count to 10.

floorpie

AlphabetCards wrote: »

The main thrust of this thread is that the supply exceeds demand. There is no reason for employers to even bother pay PhD-qualified scientists much. £29k-£35k for a post-doctorate job here in the UK. Average salary of McDonalds workers in the UK last year was £29K... STEM employers know this - they know that you've done a PhD, that you are trapped in this area of research, and that you'll take the job, because you are not gonna find better remuneration elsewhere.

Right, I agree with you. However it seems like most people in the thread don't agree that supply exceeds demand.

They don't seem to notice that every practicing scientist past PhD in the thread is saying science as a career is only good if you love it and don't mind poor pay/conditions, and that most every science degree holder in the thread is saying they changed career, or are working in a sister field. They're talking about sideways career moves as if it's a good thing - that science somehow unlocked it - but I don't see why relying on luck and circumstance because of a lack of direct demand is better than training directly in an area you expect to work in and that can absorb supply (e.g. accountancy, teaching)

cantwbr1

The assumption of the OP and some posters seems to be that a career is linear and you continue in the same role until you retire with your pay increasing over time.

The reality is that, no matter what discipline you studied, continuous development is required and that development often changes your career path. This may be within your original field or a different area. This is the same everywhere.
I have a STEM degree and other qualifications earned while working. I work in the pharma industry but not in the area of my degree. Similarly, I work with people with business/finance degrees who have roles that are not business/finance related but ones that they grew into.
The bottom line is that your degree only gets you a start, what you do after that is entirely up to the individual.

Squeeonline

In comparison with other areas like Law, when you have a degree in science, that science is the same all over the world.

I have a PhD in a biochemistry/cell biology field but I now work in a pharma company doing something completely different. No lab work, at a desk 40 h/week. And I'm so much happier than during the PhD.

Advanced scientific degrees give you transferable skills that employers love. I don't use one iota of my PhD research in my work, but the transferable skills of problem solving/trouble shooting, project organisation, as well as some technical with Excel/statistics are far more important.

Probably doesnt hurt that my bosses know I am used to more stress than this job gives so it's no problem for me.

onrail

Getting a little away from the topic of science, but in the industry I'm familiar with (Civil Engineering), a PhD does make a CV stand out and provides some assurance of the suitablility of the applicant in terms of intelligence, competence and work ethic.

Having said that. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that a PhD provides any advantage over an equivalent period of work experience in terms of salary or progression. Ultimately you're limited by industry rates regardless of your qualification, unless the role is highly niche.

joe40

cantwbr1 wrote: »

The assumption of the OP and some posters seems to be that a career is linear and you continue in the same role until you retire with your pay increasing over time.

The reality is that, no matter what discipline you studied, continuous development is required and that development often changes your career path. This may be within your original field or a different area. This is the same everywhere.
I have a STEM degree and other qualifications earned while working. I work in the pharma industry but not in the area of my degree. Similarly, I work with people with business/finance degrees who have roles that are not business/finance related but ones that they grew into.
The bottom line is that your degree only gets you a start, what you do after that is entirely up to the individual.

This an interesting thread folks. I have 2 teens and obviously they'll make their own career choices but I would like to be able to give accurate advice also.

I do think that many people would understand that an arts degree is very general and subsequent careers may have very little to do with degree subjects. Everyone knows there aren't many professional historians position available.

But I think the general perception is that if you do a STEM degree then the expectation is that you will be able to secure good employment in that field of you wish. I'm including management roles in STEM fields eventually.

From this thread it would appear that a science degree is now more like an arts degree. A general qualification but not necessarily an indication of what career you will work in.
I hadn't realised the situation was so bad for professional scientist who want to work as scientists.

I'm a Science teacher and I'm not sure I would encourage pure Science degrees. At least students need to fully research the job market which isn't easy to do.

There is still an awful lot of innovation and scientific advances been made. What is driving that now? Where do those jobs exist.

Jim2007

AlphabetCards wrote: »

The people who seem to misunderstand the situation here are the folk who are a decade or so out of touch.

You seem to have no idea of what went before you! When I came out of college unemployment and inflation were in double digits and the graduate intake in the large accounting and law firms were down in the single figures. The one I joined took on 6 graduates that year.

So stop claiming that we don’t understand and you’re the first one to have it hard. When you have lived a bit you’ll have experienced a few financial crisis.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

This an interesting thread folks. I have 2 teens and obviously they'll make their own career choices but I would like to be able to give accurate advice also.

I do think that many people would understand that an arts degree is very general and subsequent careers may have very little to do with degree subjects. Everyone knows there aren't many professional historians position available.

But I think the general perception is that if you do a STEM degree then the expectation is that you will be able to secure good employment in that field of you wish. I'm including management roles in STEM fields eventually.

From this thread it would appear that a science degree is now more like an arts degree. A general qualification but not necessarily an indication of what career you will work in.
I hadn't realised the situation was so bad for professional scientist who want to work as scientists.

I'm a Science teacher and I'm not sure I would encourage pure Science degrees. At least students need to fully research the job market which isn't easy to do.

There is still an awful lot of innovation and scientific advances been made. What is driving that now? Where do those jobs exist.

If you want to work as a scientist now you need a PhD. If you are more of a problem solving type do IT or engineering of some sort. It's hard work so you better enjoy it. For software dev, if you haven't been writing programs and messing with computers since you were a kid I would say look elsewhere. If you have, happy days! Get some sort of qualification and off you go.

The big difference with a science and an arts degree is problem solving skills and analytical scientific thinking - as the recent COVID debacle has shown us is in very short supply in Ireland. Very valuable for many areas of life. If you want to get into technical sales, become the next Elon Musk or other areas of business it's a great foundation.

My daughter has a BSc in a biotech science. She has an outstanding academic record - and I'm not just saying that because she's my daughter - she has straight firsts and won numerous awards. She is currently doing an MSc which involves work experience. She applied for an internship which pays minimum wage. Did 4 interviews, and had to prepare a 30 minute research presentation over 3 days on a very complex topic, all while still doing her masters work.

They left her hanging for two weeks and now tell her that they aren't filling that role anymore. That's what you are up against.

I suspect the biological sciences are the worst of the lot.

floorpie

Deleted User wrote: »

If you want to work as a scientist now you need a PhD

Don't fall in to this trap! It seems like you're describing what I said above is a logical assumption, based on your daughters experience, i.e. "I can't get a science job with my science degree, what should I do? A masters in a science niche. Ok now I can't get a job with my niche masters, what should I do? A PhD".

PhD is not a super-degree that opens doors to careers, it's a career in itself, and an extremely competitive one. If you're young and energetic and know what you're letting yourself in for then it may be a great choice. But unless you're a world class academic, all it may help you get are entry level positions that you'd start alongside BSc holders, or, an academic career.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

From this thread it would appear that a science degree is now more like an arts degree. A general qualification but not necessarily an indication of what career you will work in.
I hadn't realised the situation was so bad for professional scientist who want to work as scientists.

It's not just arts and science degrees, it's across the board. The degrees where it's the norm to go directly into a particular career are in the minority (medicine, nursing, teaching come to mind). Even once you start a career, it's very normal now to change career or retrain completely. Staying in the same career used to mean one company for 45 odd years, whereas now, even with one stable career, most people make a number of moves to new companies along the way.

Based on what I've seen during my few career changes, I think the idea that 18 year olds should pick a degree with a specific career in mind is outdated. The idea that your degree options depend on the leaving cert subjects you pick at 15 years old borders on absurd. Professions are so much more complex these days, it's impossible to anticipate the right career at so young an age.

I did a science degree, never worked in science, but I wouldn't change a thing.

floorpie

true-or-false wrote: »

It's not just arts and science degrees, it's across the board. The degrees where it's the norm to go directly into a particular career are in the minority (medicine, nursing, teaching come to mind). Even once you start a career, it's very normal now to change career or retrain completely. Staying in the same career used to mean one company for 45 odd years, whereas now, even with one stable career, most people make a number of moves to new companies along the way.

Based on what I've seen during my few career changes, I think the idea that 18 year olds should pick a degree with a specific career in mind is outdated. The idea that your degree options depend on the leaving cert subjects you pick at 15 years old borders on absurd. Professions are so much more complex these days, it's impossible to anticipate the right career at so young an age.

I did a science degree, never worked in science, but I wouldn't change a thing.

You think that career changes are the norm perhaps because you did science and it was therefore the norm for you/your colleagues. You reckon lawyers, teachers, nurses, doctors, accountants, mechanics, engineers, sales people, marketers, chefs, etc need to consider retraining via another degree or masters, and a move into another field, in order to get a job?

And if it is becoming the norm then there's no reason to make it worse for yourself by choosing an area in which retraining is common, imo

Jim2007

floorpie wrote: »

You think that career changes are the norm perhaps because you did science and it was therefore the norm for you/your colleagues. You reckon lawyers, teachers, nurses, doctors, accountants, mechanics, engineers, sales people, marketers, chefs, etc need to consider retraining via another degree or masters, and a move into another field, in order to get a job?

Look at history, there was one generation where people learned a trade/profession and retired out of it. But before that it was common for people to do a few things in their working life. The pace of change was quick back then, as it is now.

floorpie wrote: »

And if it is becoming the norm then there's no reason to make it worse for yourself by choosing an area in which retraining is common, imo

Why would you choose to do or continue to do something that makes you unhappy if you have the options and ability to change it?

floorpie

Jim2007 wrote: »

Look at history, there was one generation where people learned a trade/profession and retired out of it. But before that it was common for people to do a few things in their working life. The pace of change was quick back then, as it is now.

Well I agree of course.

If I go to the law sub-forum right now and do a survey on careers, I imagine 95% of law degree holders will work in law. The medicine forum, same thing. Teaching, same thing. Many, most, areas you'll see the same thing. Where you wont see the same thing are with any degrees for which there isn't enough demand. History, music, English lit, etc.

So I think the thread has largely proved OPs point correct. Science degree holders in the thread can defend their choice of degree as much as they like, and no doubt they're very difficult and represent a big achievement. But if most every science degree holder here needed to change field, or thinks it's normal to keep changing fields throughout ones career, something isn't right, because this is not currently an attribute of every industry.

Why would you choose to do or continue to do something that makes you unhappy if you have the options and ability to change it?

I'd encourage anybody to do science if they enjoy it and know what they want to do with it. If your plan for your science degree is to get a generic business role via a generic intake to a grad programme then so be it.

onrail

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why would you choose to do or continue to do something that makes you unhappy if you have the options and ability to change it?

Such a poor argument and similar to something you'll see in teacher's forums 'Sure if it's so easy, why don't you become a teacher'

Because people end up trapped. Often it takes a few years, maybe 5-10, to fully appreciate a career path,pay potential etc. Unfortunately for many people, that realisation coincides with them settling down, starting a family etc. where financial commitments doesn't allow then to go back to study full time and time commitments won't allow part time study.

I remember a post a while back where someone worked out it would cost about 100k to go back and retrain as a teacher.

Not impossible, but far more difficult than people let on.

AlphabetCards

Jim2007 wrote: »

You seem to have no idea of what went before you! When I came out of college unemployment and inflation were in double digits and the graduate intake in the large accounting and law firms were down in the single figures. The one I joined took on 6 graduates that year.

So stop claiming that we don’t understand and you’re the first one to have it hard. When you have lived a bit you’ll have experienced a few financial crisis.

I'm on my second crises, thanks, I'm a lot closer to 40 than 20 these days. And believe me, I don't have it hard. I have it great! Amazing PhD, great start-up, I get tons of exposure for networking and I have broken ground on a new area. My heart goes out to the students who pay registration fee (3000 euro a year, 6000-10000 euro for a masters) or tuition fees in the UK (£9000 a year!) who are being tricked into it by greedy universities who then go on to charge an arm and a leg for on-campus accommodation, with promises of a good job. They can't even guarantee the latter these days.

Yes, employment was **** for you guys in previous generations. You needed to emigrate, that was ****e too. But you didn't have the debt that the current young ones get.

Advanced scientific degrees give you transferable skills that employers love. I don't use one iota of my PhD research in my work, but the transferable skills of problem solving/trouble shooting, project organisation, as well as some technical with Excel/statistics are far more important.

Transferable skills, the great folly of the job-hunting lexicon. People develop 'problem solving' in most jobs they work in - I'd actually argue that I saw better problem-solving skills amongst the enlisted men I served with than in a postgraduate cohort. Excel courses online are free, and don't require you to suffer for it.

Jim2007

onrail wrote: »

Such a poor argument and similar to something you'll see in teacher's forums 'Sure if it's so easy, why don't you become a teacher' .

Ah yes, of course it’s much easier to to continue doing something you hate and belly to everyone about it, making everyone around you, including your family, miserable in the process, than to put in the hard work needed to make the change.

There are plenty of part-time and remote options for education and if you can find the time to watch a soap, a film, a match, go drinking etc... you can find the four of five hours a week to do a module of say the OU if you really wanted to. But for many it’s easier to be miserable than do something about it.

I got up an hour earlier five days a week for six years to get a masters at a cost of 4.5k. So there is no way it’s going to cost you 100k and full time education to make the kind of switch most people consider. But of course it’s easier to pretend it would.

floorpie

Jim2007 wrote: »

Ah yes, of course it’s much easier to to continue doing something you hate and belly to everyone about it, making everyone around you, including your family, miserable in the process, than to put in the hard work needed to make the change.

There are plenty of part-time and remote options for education and if you can find the time to watch a soap, a film, a match, go drinking etc... you can find the four of five hours a week to do a module of say the OU if you really wanted to. But for many it’s easier to be miserable than do something about it.

I got up an hour earlier five days a week for six years to get a masters at a cost of 4.5k. So there is no way it’s going to cost you 100k and full time education to make the kind of switch most people consider. But of course it’s easier to pretend it would.

We're talking about scientists in the thread, who are either stuck in academic roles or can't get a job relevant to their degree. I don't think they're sitting around watching soaps and being miserable! In fact I can't think of many careers more demanding than being an actual scientist/academic, despite the terrible pay.

It sounds like your interpretation of retraining includes having a career in the first place, and retraining on the side for many years. This isn't really an appropriate option for a 22 year old coming out of their degree who need to build a career asap. Either there's an obvious career to go into, or else if immediate retraining is necessary, then as OP says, the career/degree was a bad choice.

Perhaps we're all interpreting "retraining" differently here

floorpie

floorpie wrote: »

You think that career changes are the norm perhaps because you did science and it was therefore the norm for you/your colleagues.

But as per my post, I didn't work in science so my experience/my colleagues aren't in a science field. I do know a lot of people that did science and now work in it, either by becoming post-grads, joining research projects, going into public sector, non-profits, consulting, or pharma. But most of my experience is outside the science sector (I've done a little bit in tech, but nothing in natural sciences).

I fully admit that I'm only talking about personal experience, but I also reckon my personal experience is fairly broad given the fact that I've accumulated colleagues in so many different fields. To me it seems to be normal for people to change jobs or careers along the way.

You reckon lawyers, teachers, nurses, doctors, accountants, mechanics, engineers, sales people, marketers, chefs, etc need to consider retraining via another degree or masters, and a move into another field, in order to get a job?

I literally said in my post "The degrees where it's the norm to go directly into a particular career are in the minority (medicine, nursing, teaching come to mind)." So no I don't think those graduates are likely to move around as much as others, but I specifically called them out as being in the minority. They're degrees where there's a keen sense of the career attached to the role, a clear vision of how you move into that role, what to expect from it, and most of those degrees involve a significant component of work experience. So I'm not sure what you think my original point was, I had literally called out three of the degrees on your list as notable exceptions.

And if it is becoming the norm then there's no reason to make it worse for yourself by choosing an area in which retraining is common, imo

What do you mean by 'worse for yourself'? If someone is an ambitious teen who just wants to get to as senior a role as possible in as short a time as possible, and live out their days with as much career progression and money as possible, then yeah doing an unrelated degree would have you 'worse' off. But that's not everyone.

For someone like me, I want to learn and grow and enjoy my life, while also making my mortgage payments. So I loved doing a science degree. I loved getting qualified in a new non-science area for my first professional role, and I loved getting qualified again after my career change. I was kept engaged and enthusiastic and I was usually recognised as a high performer because I had a broad experience base and more years of experience that others in the same role - that gave me an ongoing sense of challenge and achievement that I personally just wouldn't get from obtaining incrementally more senior versions of the same job title and lots of responsibility. The money wasn't always great but I was never in any trouble, I've always been a saver. I was never forced into making those moves either, it was my choice to move into something I was more interested in. Getting here a little later than if I'd been on one career track since age 15 doesn't bother me at all.

And god, if I had been on one career track, I would have had to do a business degree to be where I am now! Not for me, thank you.

onrail

Jim2007 wrote: »

Ah yes, of course it’s much easier to to continue doing something you hate and belly to everyone about it, making everyone around you, including your family, miserable in the process, than to put in the hard work needed to make the change.

There are plenty of part-time and remote options for education and if you can find the time to watch a soap, a film, a match, go drinking etc... you can find the four of five hours a week to do a module of say the OU if you really wanted to. But for many it’s easier to be miserable than do something about it.

I got up an hour earlier five days a week for six years to get a masters at a cost of 4.5k. So there is no way it’s going to cost you 100k and full time education to make the kind of switch most people consider. But of course it’s easier to pretend it would.

Fair play to you, it wasn't easy I'm sure.

- You got up an hour earlier... Presumably youre not usually up at 05:45 to commute, because the only decent house you can afford is 1hr 40 drive away from work. Because the work is so niche, there are no opportunities outside Dublin?

- Did the masters allow a 'sideways' move career wise or was it more of a reset as is required by many?

- Did the paycut you took when switching career make your mortgage and childcare unaffordable?

But nope, someone can't change career because they're sitting down all evening watching Coronation Street while knocking back a couple of cans of stella.

Squeeonline

floorpie wrote: »

Don't fall in to this trap! It seems like you're describing what I said above is a logical assumption, based on your daughters experience, i.e. "I can't get a science job with my science degree, what should I do? A masters in a science niche. Ok now I can't get a job with my niche masters, what should I do? A PhD".

PhD is not a super-degree that opens doors to careers, it's a career in itself, and an extremely competitive one. If you're young and energetic and know what you're letting yourself in for then it may be a great choice. But unless you're a world class academic, all it may help you get are entry level positions that you'd start alongside BSc holders, or, an academic career.

Totally agree. A PhD is necessary only for a career in academia, and perhaps helpful for industrial R&D.

Beyond that, you are basically on equal terms with someone who has a MSc or a BSc+experience. My department (Production support for a mid-sized pharma company in austria) is staffed about 40% of people with PhDs all of whom are glad to get the F out of academia. The rest have BSc or MSc but you couldn't tell the difference.

They are all very intelligent and driven, just none of us wanted to buy into the pyramid scheme that is academia. The idea of going back to university is like asking a college student to go back to secondary school.

The main advantage of a PhD for me is that it gave me the opportunity to learn transferable skills that helped my application to this job. Also being a world-wide recognised degree might help if I want to up sticks to somewhere else, but I'd like to think that my experience since then will be more important.

floorpie

true-or-false wrote: »

I literally said in my post "The degrees where it's the norm to go directly into a particular career are in the minority (medicine, nursing, teaching come to mind)." So no I don't think those graduates are likely to move around as much as others, but I specifically called them out as being in the minority. They're degrees where there's a keen sense of the career attached to the role, a clear vision of how you move into that role, what to expect from it, and most of those degrees involve a significant component of work experience. So I'm not sure what you think my original point was, I had literally called out three of the degrees on your list as notable exceptions.

Sorry, what I was trying to imply is that I don't believe it's a majority of jobs for which major shifts changes are necessary. The biggest sectors in order are retail, manufacturing, accommodation/food. If you do a degree in any of these areas, there will be a direct route to a career in the area and you can stay in the sector for life. You'll no doubt have to change employers and so on.

And god, if I had been on one career track, I would have had to do a business degree to be where I am now! Not for me, thank you.

Well this is the crux of the thread imo. How many science degree holders here are saying they don't work in science? Most. Some of them got several masters in order to take a scenic route into, as you say, a job for a which a business degree would get them straight in. Ok so maybe you couldn't hack 3-4 years of a business degree, and it's great that you loved your science degree, fine. But I think it'd be nice if the rest of the science degree holders would admit that there are more direct/efficient routes to their current position.

joe40

I think there are degrees which are vocational in nature, Medicine, nursing, physio, pharmacy etc which line up a very determined career path. If you wish.
I think most realize that a science degree does not give that narrow focus in terms of employment.
However I believe the general perception is that a Science degree will enable you to secure good employment in a Science related field if you wish.
It is well known that the transferable skills can also open doors for other career paths if a person so wishes.

It would appear from reading this thread that re training for an alternative career path is less of a choice and more of a necessity for science graduates due to the job market for secure, reasonably well paid jobs in Science.

I have no direct experience but that seems to be the message coming through here. Would that be an accurate view of the situation.

Ash.J.Williams

Add IT to your science portfolio and you’ll earn 70 80 90 +

floorpie

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Add IT to your science portfolio and you’ll earn 70 80 90 +

As a graduate in Ireland? I doubt it

floorpie

floorpie wrote: »

But I think it'd be nice if the rest of the science degree holders would admit that there are more direct/efficient routes to their current position.

Is directness always a good thing though?

Graduates these days have much higher expectations when it comes to job satisfaction, and similarly most large companies talk a bigger game when it comes to quality of work life. The old daily plod where you find a job and stick at it, and you accept that you're not meant to enjoy it and your employer doesn't expect you to, is dying out. Graduates want to do things that feel genuinely fulfilling, they want to make an impact and feel good about what they do. It's incredibly unlikely you'll hit on the right choice from age 15.

If anything, I'd be advising young people to hedge their bets as much as possible, to leave their options open. You basically need to be picking science at junior cert stage if you want a science career. Whereas if you pick it and don't end up doing a science degree, you've still loads of other options open.

With something like business, yeah your chances of going directly into a career are stronger, there are lots of options there, but it's incredibly easy to move into that space without a relevant qualification, and most companies run training programs if you want to specialise in anything that requires a qualification (e.g. tax, actuarial, accounting).

Thargor

All the people crapping on Biotech, you do realise the vast majority of the production facilities in this country are shift based? So you get 33-40% shift bonus on top of your wages, plus a performance bonus every year for another couple of grand, plus a raise every year and near guaranteed promotions if you do your job in any way well, or just move jobs for a 4-5k bump or more, or get a bit of experience and work contracts 7-8 months a year and travel for the rest. Its usually a free ticket to the US in normal times if you feel like a change of scene aswell.

As for work life balance you only work 15 days a month, Id say I could count on one hand the amount of times Ive had to answer an out of work email / call / text, thats the whole point of the shift system, if I was in there outside of my designated hours people Id barely ever met before doing my job would be looking at me like I had 2 heads it would be so out of the ordinary. There are plenty of times a year you can invest 4 holiday days and go to Europe for 2 weeks if you want. You're basically off for 2 days every 2-3 days worked with 2 three day weekends a month, you wont even use all your holidays in a year like this. You can easily use that fee time to upskill or specialise aswell, throw in a bit of IT as someone said and you can start applying for the big money roles.

Im in my thirties with no pHD just 6 years experience in the industry and going for a mortgage on my own, except Ill be paying 50% cash from savings, or I could just buy an apartment now for cash, 25k a year technician roles lol?

floorpie

Thargor wrote: »

All the people crapping on Biotech, you do realise the vast majority of the production facilities in this country are shift based?

What degree can get you into production?

Ash.J.Williams

floorpie wrote: »

What degree can get you into production?

Any degree will get you into production, or a trade .

Thargor

floorpie wrote: »

What degree can get you into production?

Ideally Biotechnology or Biochemistry or Biopharma etc but they'll take literally any science degree or even an unrelated degree if you can explain yourself in the interview, you just might have to do a 12 month contract before being made permanent or do a 32k a year role for your first years experience then move companies or apply for a promotion to get to 40k+. Starting wage where I am is 37.5k for straight out of college, plus 33% shift bonus on that.

I have Biotech qualifications but work with people in the same role that have sports nutrition or forensics or that kind of random thing where there are very few roles to be had in their chosen area, my team lead was a qualified primary school teacher but she got sick of the crappy money and no permanent roles in that field and fired off a CV.

Production is just the bottom rung in your career anyway. Worst case scenario do a one year Springboard course in Pharmaceutical science or something, they're free if you're unemployed or dirt cheap otherwise.

onrail

Thargor wrote: »

Ideally Biotechnology or Biochemistry or Biopharma etc but they'll take literally any science degree or even an unrelated degree if you can explain yourself in the interview, you just might have to do a 12 month contract before being made permanent or do a 32k a year role for your first years experience then move companies or apply for a promotion to get to 40k+. Starting wage where I am is 37.5k for straight out of college, plus 33% shift bonus on that.

I have Biotech qualifications but work with people in the same role that have sports nutrition or forensics or that kind of random thing where there are very few roles to be had in their chosen area, my team lead was a qualified primary school teacher but she got sick of the crappy money and no permanent roles in that field and fired off a CV.

Production is just the bottom rung in your career anyway. Worst case scenario do a one year Springboard course in Pharmaceutical science or something, they're free if you're unemployed or dirt cheap otherwise.

Where do I sign up!!?