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

ongarite · 11-03-2021 12:06am

salonfire wrote: »

If it's Intel, maybe the fact there are whole threads discussing the nonsense that workers there put up with might explain why people stay clear.

No, not Intel but the suppliers.
The power/knowledge & better pay/conditions are with the suppliers.
ASML, KLA, Lam, Nikon or AMAT present far better career opportunities than working as a tech for Intel IMO.

onrail · 12-03-2021 8:43am

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Well said, as are your other contributions here such an unfettered bias in this thread :eek:
The OP should edit the title to say Work is a poor career choice, just draw the scratch and live in a house where 4 or 5 generations have done the same.

Ach I don't think that's fair. Satisfaction at your job/career should be a balance of how lucrative, 'cushy'/secure or enjoyable it is.

A career that offers none of the three can justifiably be criticised.

floorpie · 12-03-2021 12:17pm

mariaalice wrote: »

Dont do anything is the message dont do science, don't do engineering or civil engineering, don't do IT, don't do teaching, don't do nursing, don't become a hairstylist, in fact, any career you can think of someone will come on here and say its a terrible career.

mariaalice wrote: »

I have a relative who is a career guidance teacher and the biggest influence on teens are parents and fashion, there are careers that are fashionable for a while it could be architecture or being a vet or biomedical science whatever is fashionable that year.

mariaalice wrote: »

I did know someone who did some sort of science food tech degree and was retraining to be a nurse as she could no get a job after her degree, shd did say I know how to make cheese and beer so maybe it wasn't a complete waste of time.

Don't know how you and other posters can hold all of these views at the same time. Your friend lost out on 4-8 years of earnings in her life - more if she spent some time looking for food science work, did an MSc in food science, did unpaid internships as many did in the 2010's, i.e., she lost out on 120-400k that she will never ever make up for with a career in nursing. Even ignoring potential earnings, just between capitation/registration/tuition fees, retraining in this way costs 25-40k out of pocket. Everyone in this thread know many people who had the same experience.

I posted above that in the US only 20% of people who do food science get a job in food science (this was 8 years ago so perhaps things are different in this field now). When you consider the cost, stress, loss of earnings, and general waste of time that come from an unsuitable degree choice, I think it's sensible for people to say "consider not doing x", it's sad that kids are encouraged to choose degrees because of a fad, and it's bad that industry spokespeople are given free reign in media to hype up areas (as described by OP).

The article in OP says CAO first choices for environmental science have gone up 70% in a single year, and journalism up 60%. Colleges will stuff some % of this increase into classes, but this increase in environmental scientists and journalists is likely not needed by industry. So some of these 17 year old kids will likely be in the same position as your friend in a few years. This is bad, no? Letting adults make their own mistakes is perhaps acceptable in this instance, but it's kids we're talking about here.

mariaalice · 12-03-2021 1:59pm

There are no guarantees in life just because someone did a science degree does not mean they will work in science, and how would anyone stop teenagers from taking a science degree or any degree for that matter.

The thing about food science is that it is an applied science degree the person will come out with some skills, they might start a microbrewery or some other food business who knows.

riffmongous · 12-03-2021 2:05pm

onrail wrote: »

Excellent point. I've yet to hear of any accountant, solicitor or teacher who has retrained as a scientist or engineer.

As said above, most of them couldn't. They simply wouldn't have the maths capabilities a few years after the leaving cert.

floorpie · 12-03-2021 2:18pm

mariaalice wrote: »

There are no guarantees in life just because someone did a science degree does not mean they will work in science, and how would anyone stop teenagers from taking a science degree or any degree for that matter.

There are no guarantees of course, but if you train as a plumber you're probably not going to need to go back and become a vet. On the other hand, everyone I know who did science had to retrain in some way or another, either by doing masters degrees to specialise or another degree like your friend, or else they doubled-down by going into academia which is an even bigger disaster.

The thing about food science is that it is an applied science degree the person will come out with some skills, they might start a microbrewery or some other food business who knows.

Na. Sorry.

riffmongous wrote: »

As said above, most of them couldn't. They simply wouldn't have the maths capabilities a few years after the leaving cert.

The reason accountants and solicitors don't retrain as scientists is because 1) they don't need to, 2) they're far too smart to, not because they're incapable. The reason science grads retrain as nurses etc (as in the thread above), or else go sideways into arbitrary careers (consultancy grad programmes etc) is out of necessity.

mariaalice · 12-03-2021 2:21pm

floorpie wrote: »

There are no guarantees of course, but if you train as a plumber you're probably not going to need to go back and become a vet. On the other hand, everyone I know who did science had to retrain in some way or another, either by doing masters degrees to specialise or another degree like your friend, or else they doubled-down by going into academia which is an even bigger disaster.

Na. Sorry.

The reason accountants and solicitors don't retrain as scientists is because 1) they don't need to, 2) they're far too smart to, not because they're incapable. The reason science grads retrain as nurses etc (as in the thread above) is out of necessity.

You are still not explaining how you would change the system and how you would encourage young adults not to do science or any degree its all well complaining but you need some solutions as well.

onrail · 12-03-2021 2:29pm

riffmongous wrote: »

As said above, most of them couldn't. They simply wouldn't have the maths capabilities a few years after the leaving cert.

Doesn't stop people attempting to enter more lucrative, but similarly Maths-ey fields of Data Analysis say? Pretty tough to get a place on the Springboard courses with those because of demand.

floorpie · 12-03-2021 2:56pm

mariaalice wrote: »

You are still not explaining how you would change the system and how you would encourage young adults not to do science or any degree its all well complaining but you need some solutions as well.

I don't think kids should be discouraged from doing any degree.

But industry/gov should be required to be transparent about graduate hiring, i.e. show how many graduate from each degree each year, how many are hired, and into what positions.

Also, spokespeople for industry x should be scrutinised when they say how big the demand is for graduates in x, i.e., does their grad hiring reflect what they're saying in media.

Example: I remember a VP in PayPal saying that the Irish government need to do more to improve student's language skills, because their company can't find enough Scandinavian language speakers, specifically Icelandic and Norwegian. I cite this example because it's the most absurd one I recall. That is, it's absurd to suggest that if Irish students take up a niche Scandinavian languages in Uni, they'll be hired for a role that requires a native speaker, because they 100% will not. But this is the type of BS that spokespeople put out there, that the media push, that influences gov policy, and kids take as evidence for demand.

Here are two articles lamenting the lack of Nordic language skills in Irish teens, making it difficult for an MNC to fill their minimum wage customer service positions:
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/jobs/irish-workers-dont-have-the-language-skills-to-fill-half-of-paypal-jobs-in-dundalk

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-20184920.html

The key point direct from the MNCs mouth here, and why it's funny to see people commenting about "conspiracy theories" in this thread, is that they say: "Employees hired from oversees come at a higher cost for PayPal, an expense that wouldn’t be necessary if Ireland’s education system had sufficiently prepared workers with these skills."

I see this same thing in media with science as described in OP; absurd hyping of areas of science that don't have the demand to meet the hype. Imo it's clearly a mechanism to reduce costs. BrianD3's characterisation of scientists - due to a lack of industry demand - being 40, earning less in postdoc positions than 18 year olds on building sites, with year to year contracts, is really quite accurate.

The_Captain · 12-03-2021 5:01pm

riffmongous wrote: »

As said above, most of them couldn't. They simply wouldn't have the maths capabilities a few years after the leaving cert.

If your accountant doesn't have maths capabilities, I'd suggest you need a better accountant

12-03-2021 6:27pm

The_Captain wrote: »

If your accountant doesn't have maths capabilities, I'd suggest you need a better accountant

There's a biiiiggggg difference between accounting maths and engineering maths (and I know this is a joke!).

riffmongous · 12-03-2021 8:28pm

floorpie wrote: »

The reason accountants and solicitors don't retrain as scientists is because 1) they don't need to, 2) they're far too smart to, not because they're incapable. The reason science grads retrain as nurses etc (as in the thread above), or else go sideways into arbitrary careers (consultancy grad programmes etc) is out of necessity.

I'm afraid that's just plain wrong and probably shows a bit of uninformed bias on your side as to what is required to study engineering, how many accountants and solicitors are going to be able to handle differential equations after only a year of study.. not many.

riffmongous · 12-03-2021 8:31pm

The_Captain wrote: »

If your accountant doesn't have maths capabilities, I'd suggest you need a better accountant

There's more to maths than adding and subtracting

floorpie · 12-03-2021 8:38pm

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm afraid that's just plain wrong and probably shows a bit of uninformed bias on your side as to what is required to study engineering, how many accountants and solicitors are going to be able to handle differential equations after only a year of study.. not many.

The points requirements for law and business are higher than those for engineering in the universities I'm familiar with. This means that students going into those courses are highly studious and capable, and likely also did honours/applied maths. In my opinion, a person who is capable of doing well in law is likely more capable of excelling in engineering, than the average engineering student, they just happened to not choose it. It's not like 1st year engineering students chose it because they're already engineers..

If I'm biased, it's at least an informed bias because I've taught engineering students in university. Of course some proportion are excellent and some small proportion are perhaps geniuses, like in any course. Some proportion are also just about getting through, with help from their friends, grinds, extensions, and may struggle with differential equations after 4 years of study, nevermind 1.

Padre_Pio · 12-03-2021 8:43pm

mariaalice wrote: »

I did know someone who did some sort of science food tech degree and was retraining to be a nurse as she could no get a job after her degree, shd did say I know how to make cheese and beer so maybe it wasn't a complete waste of time.

Whats the job market for food science in Ireland? Not great I'd imagine. One of the dairies is probably your best bet.

Mech and elec engineering is a very safe choice, especially electronics. Lots of high tech companies in Ireland hiring right now.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well I know a lot of accountants the retrained as Software Engineers....

Good choice. Accounting is ripe for automation.

riffmongous · 12-03-2021 8:47pm

floorpie wrote: »

The points requirements for law and business are higher than those for engineering in the universities I'm familiar with. This means that students going into those courses are highly studious and capable, and likely also did honours/applied maths. In my opinion, a person who is capable of doing well in law is likely more capable of excelling in engineering, than the average engineering student, they just happened to not choose it. It's not like 1st year engineering students chose it because they're already engineers..

If I'm biased, it's at least an informed bias because I've taught engineering students in university. Of course some proportion are excellent and some small proportion are perhaps geniuses, like in any course. Some proportion are also just about getting through, with help from their friends, grinds, extensions, and may struggle with differential equations after 4 years of study, nevermind 1.

We are discussing people retraining, it doesn't matter how good you were at higher level maths back during the leaving, 5+ years later and you're going to struggle, badly.

12-03-2021 8:49pm

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.

I work in financial services. I hire physics grads all the time. Plenty of former physics grads doing really well in FS.

floorpie · 12-03-2021 8:56pm

riffmongous wrote: »

We are discussing people retraining, it doesn't matter how good you were at higher level maths back during the leaving, 5+ years later and you're going to struggle, badly.

What, you think neuroplasticity is such that a 23-30 year old who got 600 points in the leaving cert and a 1st honours degree in law, can't outperform an 18 year old who scraped into engineering? People who have diligent/effective study habits and can absorb massive amounts of info?

You're greatly overestimating how good an average student is in Ireland imo. This isn't to take away from the difficulty of modules in engineering, or the overall workload. I know it takes a monumental effort to succeed in it. Anyway this is besides the point, I still believe solicitors and accountants will not retrain as engineers because there's simply no need for them to.

Mollydog123 · 12-03-2021 9:08pm

I think it depends what people's priorities are. I loved science in school and did it when I went to college. Worked as a microbiologist for 6 years but lost interest as most of the days I was doing the same testing with no variety, in the food industry. Got the chance to move to operations, and 24 years later have moved through food to pharma to medical devices and have a much better job now in operations than I ever would if I had stayed with micro. Currently in medical devices in the west of Ireland and the operators who joined straight from school are much better paid than the analysts who did 3-4 years in college. A lot of this is to do with shiftwork/overtime etc. Still, a lot of the operators strive to get analyst jobs even though they will be paid less, because there is more variety. Operations can be a very boring job as well depending on what level you are at.

BrianD3 · 13-03-2021 6:42pm

Re: people not wanting to switch careers because they wouldn't (or think they wouldn't) cope with the maths. IMO there is some truth to this for engineering but much less for science. Before this thread, I don't recall ever hearing someone expressing this sentiment about studying chemistry or biology but I have heard it on plenty of occasions about engineering.

This was reflected in the entry requirements for engineering courses in universities - back in my day you needed at least a C in higher level for engineering but much less than that for science.

At this time, the teaching of maths in many schools was woeful and there was a general feeling that "honours maths is terribly difficult" rather than the truth which was that it was made more difficult than it should have been by a lot of barely qualified, useless teachers.

In my school, only about 15% of students sat the higher level maths paper and most of us got Cs. There were probably another 10% who took the ordinary level paper but would likely (notwithstanding the poor teaching) have gotten a C at higher level.

The 10% didn't do maths at higher level because of "maths fear" or perhaps because they were smart enough to know what career they wanted and were focusing on the subjects that they needed.

I'm digressing now so to get back on topic - I don't believe that adults in other careers would love to go back to college to study science for a lucrative career and that the main thing stopping them is "Maths fear" or "Chemistry fear". No, it's much more likely to be because they don't have to and are smart enough to know that it would be far from a lucrative career.

FHFM50 · 13-03-2021 6:48pm

BrianD3 wrote: »

Re: people not wanting to switch careers because they wouldn't (or think they wouldn't) cope with the maths. IMO there is some truth to this for engineering but much less for science. Before this thread, I don't recall ever hearing someone expressing this sentiment about studying chemistry or biology but I have heard it on plenty of occasions about engineering.

This was reflected in the entry requirements for engineering courses in universities - back in my day you needed at least a C in higher level for engineering but much less than that for science.

At this time, the teaching of maths in many schools was woeful and there was a general feeling that "honours maths is terribly difficult" rather than the truth which was that it was made more difficult than it should have been by a lot of barely qualified, useless teachers.

In my school, only about 15% of students sat the higher level maths paper and most of us got Cs. There were probably another 10% who took the ordinary level paper but would likely (notwithstanding the poor teaching) have gotten a C at higher level.

The 10% didn't do maths at higher level because of "maths fear" or perhaps because they were smart enough to know what career they wanted and were focusing on the subjects that they needed.

I'm digressing now so to get back on topic - I don't believe that adults in other careers would love to go back to college to study science for a lucrative career and that the main thing stopping them is "Maths fear" or "Chemistry fear". No, it's much more likely to be because they don't have to and are smart enough to know that it would be far from a lucrative career.

It's been nearly 10 years since project maths was rolled out and I'm not sure if it has made much difference in students approach to higher level maths. I always thought the course was too long and now there is no choice, at least with the old course you could leave out a couple of chapters.

I think the rise in honours numbers is due solely to the bonus points.

mariaalice · 13-03-2021 8:10pm

Two other points.

The difference between training and education is a student going to university for an education or to get training for a job.

Restricted entry in the past even in the relatively recent past going to university and third-level, in general, was a big deal, today almost everyone goes if they want to.

Which means

In total 56.2 percent of people aged 15 to 39 possessed a third level qualification,

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp10esil/p10esil/le/#:~:text=Age%20and%20level%20of%20education&text=In%20total%2056.2%20per%20cent,plus%20was%2039.7%

OMM 0000 · 14-03-2021 7:04am

FHFM50 wrote: »

It's been nearly 10 years since project maths was rolled out and I'm not sure if it has made much difference in students approach to higher level maths. I always thought the course was too long and now there is no choice, at least with the old course you could leave out a couple of chapters.

I think the rise in honours numbers is due solely to the bonus points.

Maths is easy if it's taught correctly.

But to teach it correctly you have to truly understand what you're teaching.

Most school level maths teacher clearly don't understand what they're teaching (they're not mathematicians).

I have a maths degree and in college we were taught maths like this:

Start from a blank board, slowly build up the theory, and then apply that theory to the problem.

So there was no memorisation or unknowns - we understood how we got from nothing to the final result, so we understood what we were doing and why we were doing it.

Maths isn't taught like this in school. There's too much memorisation, lots of concepts are skipped over or you're told to just accept it exists and don't worry about the details. The problem with this is maths can't work if you're taught like this. Maths requires you understand everything. So if you skipped some concepts you can get lost quickly, and once lost it's difficult to understand later concepts.

I've never really had to use any real maths (beyond the basics) in my many years as an accountant and software engineer, so a science related career is probably fine if you weren't good at maths in school.

caviardreams · 14-03-2021 9:04am

College really isn't just about training for a specific profession. And now more and more, people are working in one sector for 15 years or whatever and wanting to change direction completely.

Studying something you have no interest in just because it is a ticket to a salary is a recipe for heartache imo - both in college and in your career

Any degree will teach you critical thinking skills, analysis skills, problem solving, working with other people, comms and presentation skills etc. which are transferable to lots of jobs.

If an 18 year old wants to study journalism, and this is the vehicle that will help them grown and develop as people in the world, as well as intellectually. Let them, once they go into it knowing the job market might be tough, and they may need to have fall back options in other sectors. Journalism would be useful for lots of things like PR, Comms roles etc. not just broadcasting or media for example

GimmeAHouse · 25-03-2021 3:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I work in financial services. I hire physics grads all the time. Plenty of former physics grads doing really well in FS.

I can vouch for this.

I have a BSc and MSc in Physics. After I finished college, I was hired as a software developer in a Fintech company.

While I did take some comp sci modules in college, my hiring manager at the time told me that they were mainly looking for people with a strong maths background, such as physics/maths/engineering degrees, and that they preferred such backgrounds in my role above people with pure computer science degrees.

About half-way through my degree when I was about 20/21, I went through a bit of a crisis of depression because I very worried about not being able to find a proper job after college. It was mainly triggered by spending too much time online reading negative posts like the OP's with very black and white outlooks of the world. I nearly dropped because of this so I could take a different degree, but I stayed with it.

Fast forward to today and I am 30 next month and about to buy a house, so at least I know the path I went down was worth something. The jobs market is far more nuanced than what people tell you when you're in school or college. I would say though that most of the people I knew who graduated with me with the same degree are not working in physics or science, but are rather working in other fields like finance and software. They're all on good salaries now. Having a degree with a strong maths background will get you places, no doubt.

joe40 · 25-03-2021 4:10pm

GimmeAHouse wrote: »

I can vouch for this.

I have a BSc and MSc in Physics. After I finished college, I was hired as a software developer in a Fintech company.

While I did take some comp sci modules in college, my hiring manager at the time told me that they were mainly looking for people with a strong maths background, such as physics/maths/engineering degrees, and that they preferred such backgrounds in my role above people with pure computer science degrees.

About half-way through my degree when I was about 20/21, I went through a bit of a crisis of depression because I very worried about not being able to find a proper job after college. It was mainly triggered by spending too much time online reading negative posts like the OP's with very black and white outlooks of the world. I nearly dropped because of this so I could take a different degree, but I stayed with it.

Fast forward to today and I am 30 next month and about to buy a house, so at least I know the path I went down was worth something. The jobs market is far more nuanced than what people tell you when you're in school or college. I would say though that most of the people I knew who graduated with me with the same degree are not working in physics or science, but are rather working in other fields like finance and software. They're all on good salaries now. Having a degree with a strong maths background will get you places, no doubt.

That is the problem, I'm a 50 year old teacher and father to teenagers and do not have near enough information or knowledge on what the job market is like.

I understand degrees teach plenty of transferable skills and your particular degree does not mean you will be employed in that particular field.

The problem is where to access accurate information.
University prospectuses have some information but Universities promote themselves and their courses.
An abundance of real life experiences, such as you described, is what is needed. Good and bad aspects.

If my youngster asks me what would it be like to be a software engineer or to work in finance, I have no real idea.

floorpie · 27-03-2021 2:03pm

GimmeAHouse wrote: »

I would say though that most of the people I knew who graduated with me with the same degree are not working in physics or science, but are rather working in other fields like finance and software.

Your post and this specific point is the reason for the OP/thread, i.e. that people come out of a degree expecting to be x but instead must move into y, but are not made aware of this market nuance, as you correctly put it. I suppose you know that not all degree holders can seamlessly move into dev/finance - or any such well paying areas - as physicists can. I assume this is quite worrying for these people also.

27-03-2021 3:52pm

joe40 wrote: »

That is the problem, I'm a 50 year old teacher and father to teenagers and do not have near enough information or knowledge on what the job market is like.

I understand degrees teach plenty of transferable skills and your particular degree does not mean you will be employed in that particular field.

The problem is where to access accurate information.
University prospectuses have some information but Universities promote themselves and their courses.
An abundance of real life experiences, such as you described, is what is needed. Good and bad aspects.

If my youngster asks me what would it be like to be a software engineer or to work in finance, I have no real idea.

I don't know if there necessarily is accurate information that "if you study X you can be Y or Z". Just getting through college can be tough enough so I think your kids doing something they will engage with is important in the first instance, from my experience and from what a lot of people are saying in this thread, your career is what you make of it from there. I guess I'd bucket things broadly - if they want to be a software engineer then studying law probably isn't the way to go.

Jim2007 · 27-03-2021 8:26pm

Noah Flabby Instep wrote: »

The problem is where to access accurate information.
University prospectuses have some information but Universities promote themselves and their courses.
An abundance of real life experiences, such as you described, is what is needed. Good and bad aspects.

The reality is that no one can give you that kind of information, because we have no idea what the work life will be in 5, 10, 15 years time. Many of the jobs that existed 20 years ago are gone and many new ones have appeared. This idea that you can go to school, college, etc, get a job and build a career in it was a one generation thing. In terms of change in the work place we're back to the more traditional situation, where things are evolving.

Noah Flabby Instep wrote: »

If my youngster asks me what would it be like to be a software engineer or to work in finance, I have no real idea.

You will never have an idea of what it means, nor to be say a Mediamatiker or any of the other new roles that are starting to appear nor will appear in the coming years.

All you can do is give them the best education you can, encourage them to follow their dreams, be flexible and open to the possibilities that come along.

AlphabetCards · 28-03-2021 3:39am

The push for STEM and chemistry graduates around 1999-2007 was a nightmare for many of us who did chemistry - I did well out of it but most of my friends ended up working as technicians on 25,000 a year. As others have alluded to, the whole reason the pharma and STEM industry pumped out communications across all the media saying "we need chemists" was to ensure a good supply in the labour force, causing wages to stagnate forever. Most chemists are out-earned by brickies, and those of us salaried work late hours... Late late hours, frequently under **** managers.

If I was to go back and do it all again, it would be arts. A good arts degree, where I'd have time to do sports, hiking, travelling and debating. Then get a good MBA or grad scheme. It's ****ing embarrassing to see PhD chemist jobs advertised here in the UK for 30,000 a year, yet the administrators, bottom-rung managers and other non-technical, non-skilled jobs in the same companies are out-earning us. I fell for it hook, line and sinker, based on bad advice from people who had the best of intentions.

GalwayGrrrrrl · 28-03-2021 9:22am

onrail wrote: »

And for every one of those drop outs, I'll happily wager that it's matched by someone following their dream, only to find out their 'dream' wasn't based in reality. A 17 year old knows very little about real life while making their CAO choice.

Ask any Vet up to their hole in ****e at 3am calving a cow thinking they'd spend their career nursing Lassie back to health

This is where work experience is so important. I know some schools do a short period of work experience in TY but any young person who is interested in X career should be making an effort to meet adults doing that career and asks them what their job is really like. I had a young lady doing work experience with me who wanted to do a different degree to my own. Through my own contacts I knew that she needed chemistry at leaving cert to do that degree but she wasn’t aware of that and wasn’t studying chemistry. So she was walking around saying she wanted to do this particular career without speaking to anyone doing that job or even finding out the basic requirements to study that degree at university. A dream is a good start but should be followed immediately by some serious fact finding!

shesty · 28-03-2021 9:30am

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

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

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 can't comment on the STM.

I actually disagree because I think it is what you make of it.My qualification is the same and if I had stuck to that civil/structural world, I would be shoe horned alright.But if you view it as a good basic degree that can be used to open doors to you in different careers, it suddenly becomes much more valuable.

The thing about any degree is that it is what you make of it.You can stick to your chosen field and progress fairly slowly, all fields have stages where you plateau.I mean only a small percentage of people can be in the top paying positions, and in any job, big money comes with big responsibility.

I would view the career as a whole....I chose it because I wanted a job where I wouldn't always be chained to a desk in an office, where I could maybe get out and about some days, where I could have some flexibility, a degree that would travel well, and if needed, could form a good basis to transfer to other industries.And also, because it held interest for me.Engineering ticks a lot of those boxes.I spent a year unemployed as a result of the recession in 2010 but I don't think I ever regretted doing engineering.

Jim2007 · 28-03-2021 10:14am

AlphabetCards wrote: »

The push for STEM and chemistry graduates around 1999-2007 was a nightmare for many of us who did chemistry - I did well out of it but most of my friends ended up working as technicians on 25,000 a year. As others have alluded to, the whole reason the pharma and STEM industry pumped out communications across all the media saying "we need chemists" was to ensure a good supply in the labour force, causing wages to stagnate forever. Most chemists are out-earned by brickies, and those of us salaried work late hours... Late late hours, frequently under **** managers.

If I was to go back and do it all again, it would be arts. A good arts degree, where I'd have time to do sports, hiking, travelling and debating. Then get a good MBA or grad scheme. It's ****ing embarrassing to see PhD chemist jobs advertised here in the UK for 30,000 a year, yet the administrators, bottom-rung managers and other non-technical, non-skilled jobs in the same companies are out-earning us. I fell for it hook, line and sinker, based on bad advice from people who had the best of intentions.

So why didn’t you change? There was and still is no reason a person with a since degree could not switch and do an MBA and go off in a different direction.

As for these ‘non-technical, non-skilled jobs’, well they do require skills, a lot of soft skills that are not so common and far more valuable to a company. Good teams don’t just happen, they have to be built, motivated and given leadership and that requires skills too. I’ve held various management positions over the past 35 years, I never liked it and I was not particularly go at it, I was always the stop gap solution until the company found someone better to take over. Don’t belittle the people with the soft skills their contribution is just as valuable and often more so than us techies. And there are just as many poor techies as there are managers.

As for the work life balance, well Ireland has a pretty bad reputation in that respect, but the UK is even worse. So moving to the UK, if the work life balance is important to you, is not going to work out well. In fact any where in Western Europe would probably be a better choice. Here in Switzerland it’s unusual to find anyone in the after say 19:00. But the work pace is faster, there is none of this chatting around the water cooler, going for coffee or socializing, you are there to do a job, nothing else. When regularly working later or at the weekend is considered sign of incompetence, people’s approach to work changes.

Some people can justifiably blame their environment, but I don’t accept it from graduates. If you’ve got the ability to get a degree, you’ve got the ability to take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. I you choose not to do so, the a large portion of the blame is on you.

floorpie · 28-03-2021 11:53am

Jim2007 wrote: »

So why didn’t you change? There was and still is no reason a person with a since degree could not switch and do an MBA and go off in a different direction.
...
Some people can justifiably blame their environment, but I don’t accept it from graduates. If you’ve got the ability to get a degree, you’ve got the ability to take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. I you choose not to do so, the a large portion of the blame is on you.

Why should they change? They got a degree in chemistry and moved into one of the few roles available for scientists, i.e., they were successful with respect to the degree they chose. OP says that this poster's story is common, and I believe it's common also, so are you agreeing with OP or not? Is it bad for people to do "in demand" degrees if they're actually not needed? Or do you think it's ok to do any degree, because they can simply retrain afterwards?

28-03-2021 1:18pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

The reality is that no one can give you that kind of information, because we have no idea what the work life will be in 5, 10, 15 years time. Many of the jobs that existed 20 years ago are gone and many new ones have appeared. This idea that you can go to school, college, etc, get a job and build a career in it was a one generation thing. In terms of change in the work place we're back to the more traditional situation, where things are evolving.

This is a good point. I ended up working as a data analyst, it's a job that wasn't on the radar when I was in college. I learned basically everything about it on the job.

shesty wrote: »

I actually disagree because I think it is what you make of it.My qualification is the same and if I had stuck to that civil/structural world, I would be shoe horned alright.But if you view it as a good basic degree that can be used to open doors to you in different careers, it suddenly becomes much more valuable.

100% agree. I have an engineering degree as well, not sure there's a degree that you can take in so many different directions. Would be delighted if my kids studied engineering.

AlphabetCards · 28-03-2021 10:50pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

So why didn’t you change? There was and still is no reason a person with a since degree could not switch and do an MBA and go off in a different direction.

I wanted to work on rocket propellants, which is a chemistry-specific field. I'm bemoaning the industry as a whole, not just my personal position.

As for these ‘non-technical, non-skilled jobs’, well they do require skills, a lot of soft skills that are not so common and far more valuable to a company.

You are proving my point here. They are more valuable to a company because managers with good soft skills and proven project management experience are rarer than chemists. If good chemists, scientists were rare, then the cost of hiring them would be reflected in the wages!

Some people can justifiably blame their environment, but I don’t accept it from graduates. If you’ve got the ability to get a degree, you’ve got the ability to take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. I you choose not to do so, the a large portion of the blame is on you.

As you have been in the workplace for 35 years, it is safe to say that you graduate uni in, about 1985? Since then the number of graduates in the UK has gone from 15% of 17-30 years olds to 45% (can't find similar stats for Ireland but I would imagine it is mirrored). That's a 200% increase, all vying for jobs. The opportunities haven't grown since then, the competition for well-paid jobs has increased and productivity requirements are the highest they have ever been. To suggest that students these days don't "take advantage of the opportunities" is nothing short of boomerism - they work damn hard, pay through the nose for rent and education, but are **** on by bad policies and dishoneset media and government pushing them into 'in-demand' areas.

AlphabetCards · 28-03-2021 10:54pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

As for the work life balance, well Ireland has a pretty bad reputation in that respect, but the UK is even worse. So moving to the UK, if the work life balance is important to you, is not going to work out well. In fact any where in Western Europe would probably be a better choice. Here in Switzerland it’s unusual to find anyone in the after say 19:00. But the work pace is faster, there is none of this chatting around the water cooler, going for coffee or socializing, you are there to do a job, nothing else. When regularly working later or at the weekend is considered sign of incompetence, people’s approach to work changes.

Work life balance is something that isn't really standard for any grads these days. Doesn't matter if you go consulting with BCG, McKinsey or Deloitte, or working as a nurse or doctor, or even some management grad scheme. You are worked to the bone, for far less pay in real terms compared to your golden years of the Celtic Tiger, knowing that there is someone to take your place if you **** up, or speak up.

But yeah, cheers Mr Zurich, I'll let those grads know that they should 'learn to code' or whatever.

Jim2007 · 29-03-2021 5:51pm

AlphabetCards wrote: »

Work life balance is something that isn't really standard for any grads these days. Doesn't matter if you go consulting with BCG, McKinsey or Deloitte, or working as a nurse or doctor, or even some management grad scheme.

It actually is, just not in Ireland/UK/USA.

jackboy · 29-03-2021 6:02pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

Here in Switzerland it’s unusual to find anyone in the after say 19:00. But the work pace is faster, there is none of this chatting around the water cooler, going for coffee or socializing, you are there to do a job, nothing else. When regularly working later or at the weekend is considered sign of incompetence, people’s approach to work changes.

I remember being at a late evening work meeting in Switzerland a few years ago. We came out of the meeting at 17:30 and the building was deserted and all the lights were turned off. Some job getting out of the building, we didn’t know where the light switches were.

I loved the Swiss way of working though. Go in, work flat out until going home time, then leave and forget about the place. Time at work flies.

irishrepeat2 · 30-03-2021 2:40am

Agree with OP.
Science fields generally are ****e jobs for the effort that's put in. Engineering doesn't have a good reputation, healthcare seems in the middle and compsci seems to have good opportunities.
I also think from people I know being Doctor/Vet isn't worth the hours and demands of the job. So yes science particularly hardcore science is wayy overated. That said there are many death traps like law.

I think the best jobs are stuff in business like Accounting, HR, CompSci, teaching and Admin roles or classic 9 to 5 roles with limited real stressful responsibility like some allied healthcare professionals.

dazberry · 30-03-2021 9:49am

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 · 30-03-2021 10:33am

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 · 30-03-2021 11:54am

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 · 30-03-2021 12:12pm

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 · 30-03-2021 4:00pm

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.

30-03-2021 4:06pm

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 · 30-03-2021 5:14pm

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?

30-03-2021 5:16pm

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 · 30-03-2021 5:18pm

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 · 31-03-2021 12:24am

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.

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

Comments