Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
12357

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭floorpie


    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)


  • Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,556 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    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.


  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭floorpie


    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.


  • Posts: 3,505 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭floorpie


    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


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭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


  • Posts: 3,505 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,556 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭floorpie


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,997 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭floorpie


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

    As a graduate in Ireland? I doubt it


  • Posts: 3,505 [Deleted User]


    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).


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,933 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,997 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    floorpie wrote: »
    What degree can get you into production?

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,933 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭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!!?


Advertisement