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

dazberry

irishrepeat2 wrote: »

and compsci seems to have good opportunities.

Compsci having the highest drop out rate apparently - https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2021/0329/1206688-third-level/

Sunny Disposition

Very often jobs that seem prestigious have relatively low salaries. I hadn't realised this until my kids go to college age. Its very hard to pick a career, and things tend to change a lot every decade. There's something to be said for just going with the field that you like. Also, and some people won't want to hear this, there's a lot to be said for going with the security of almost any public sector job, they all give you security and an opportunity to progress.

floorpie

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Also, and some people won't want to hear this, there's a lot to be said for going with the security of almost any public sector job, they all give you security and an opportunity to progress.

Any public sector except for universities :P Any experiences I relate in this thread (poor pay, contracts, progression) relate to unis.

onrail

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Its very hard to pick a career, and things tend to change a lot every decade.

To a certain degree. I don't think many would have predicted the tech boom to plan out the way it has, but there are always certain 'old reliables'

I'd say professions within the corporate world (e.g. Chartered Accountants, corporate solicitors, finance professionals) have always been well paid and will continue to be so.

Medical professions (e.g. Doctors, Radiologists) will always be relatively well paid.

There could be an argument for trades always being a lucrative route

griffin100

Science is a great degree to do if the subject interests you. I did a degree in Natural Sciences in TCD almost 30 years ago and loved it. I had a real interest in science as a kid growing up, especially in nature (thanks David Attenborough) and did my final degree in Zoology, worked as a biologist for a couple of years, and then did a PhD in the area. Again I loved my time as a PhD student spending 3 years doing fieldwork off the west coast.

However for most people a science degree is the foundation for another more career specific qualification like a business postgrad, teaching qualification or similar. Salaries for research scientists are poor compared to comparable graduates with the same level of experience. Postdoctoral salaries in Universities are akin to the entry level admin grades in the same institution.

When I finished my PhD I had a choice to stay in science or change career, and I choose the latter. I'm better paid and more senior than I ever would have been if I had stayed as a scientist, but I would not have been able to progress in my current field without a background in science.

griffin100

griffin100 wrote: »

.........but I would not have been able to progress in my current field without a background in science.

This is key, there's still alot of the job for life attitude about IMO, get a degree get a job/career and that's that. Lifelong learning is now almost expected in many gigs and progression won't happen without it for many.

So many folk apply the ole teacher, public servant attitude to the private sector, it doesn't work like that.

floorpie

Augeo wrote: »

This is key, there's still alot of the job for life attitude about IMO, get a degree get a job/career and that's that. Lifelong learning is now almost expected in many gigs and progression won't happen without it for many.

So many folk apply the ole teacher, public servant attitude to the private sector, it doesn't work like that.

People who pursue science past PhD are not stupid or lazy people, they work VERY hard, and in no way expect to coast without lifelong learning. In essence that's the career they chose: an extreme version of lifelong learning that most people are not cut out for, that society depends on, and for which they're very poorly rewarded.

The poster you replied to changed career out of science after their PhD because e.g. salaries are terrible, and also said that most scientists move into business and so on. So are you agreeing with OP that science is a poor career choice? Wouldn't it be more sensible to do a degree in business etc. in the first place?

floorpie

floorpie wrote: »

People who pursue science past PhD are not stupid or lazy people,...........

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.

floorpie wrote: »

...........So are you agreeing with OP that science is a poor career choice? Wouldn't it be more sensible to do a degree in business etc. in the first place?

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.

onrail

Augeo wrote: »

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.

I honestly think it is a surprise to a lot of people!!

Sunny Disposition

onrail wrote: »

To a certain degree. I don't think many would have predicted the tech boom to plan out the way it has, but there are always certain 'old reliables'

I'd say professions within the corporate world (e.g. Chartered Accountants, corporate solicitors, finance professionals) have always been well paid and will continue to be so.

Medical professions (e.g. Doctors, Radiologists) will always be relatively well paid.

There could be an argument for trades always being a lucrative route

A lot of jobs are going to be put under more pressure than ever before as technology has come on. A lot of financial work can be done far better by tech than by people, unfortunately. Law and to some extent medicine will see similar issues between now and 2041. Many jobs will themselves be made obsolete. There’s going to be a huge need for people to retrain.

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.