4 ms·

So why don't scientists get other jobs in the private sector? People with Arts degrees don't whinge about the lack of "Historian" positions, they just get jobs

by wisty 15y ago

So why don't scientists get other jobs in the private sector? People with Arts degrees don't whinge about the lack of "Historian" positions, they just get jobs where they can utilize their amazing skills at churning out 5000 word faux-essays about why their cherry-picked positive paragraphs outnumber the negative paragraphs they threw in for "balance" (arts hater, sorry, but haters gotta hate). Maybe they are HR officers, or Marketing Stooges, or Strategic Analysts, or Project Officers, or even Software Engineers. There seems to be an utterly moronic disconnect betweens science students who want a job with "research" in the title, and businesses who don't want to reach out to smart, hard-working, honest candidates. Science students do have skills - the ability to read massive amounts of technically difficult work (for example, research articles, government regulations), math skills, statistics skills, and a deep understanding of physical and / or biological processes. I understand that they don't want to head-hunt full professors into C-level positions, but surely there's some scope for people crossing over. I mean, does anyone really think that science grads are less business ready than business grads, and if so, why?

gyardley 15y ago
Oh, man, do I know a lot of people that whinge about the lack of historian positions. - former Ph.D. student in History.
- ericd 15y ago
  Is there a good way to look for just those people? I feel like there are a lot of jobs out there that aren't specialized, but could really benefit from having really smart (in a general sense) people.
  - gyardley 15y ago
    If there is, I don't know of one. History teaches all sorts of wonderful analytical skills that I use all the time as a start-up founder - it's great training for what I do. However, by the time you make it a significant way into a Ph.D. program, you get ruined culturally - you end up thinking you're going to get a job in academia, or you're a complete failure. Switching careers after your mid 20s feels like an impossible undertaking (it's not hard at all, but we're talking about feelings here), so you keep on slogging it out. If you do come across some all-but-dissertation from a good program who actually wants to try new things, snap them up.
jballanc 15y ago
What private sector jobs would you recommend? When I started graduate school studying Biochemistry, a job in the pharmaceutical industry was a credible alternative to academic research. Today, the pharmaceutical industry is hurting, with hiring freezes on nearly everywhere, mass layoffs following giant mergers, and all the while being maligned by the press and the public as over-charging money-grubbers. In short, the pharmaceutical industry is bust (most people just don't realize it yet). > I mean, does anyone really think that science grads are less business ready than business grads, and if so, why? Yes, yes, a million times yes. A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. While it is true that there are scientists who are great at public speaking or business, in almost all cases these individuals were good in those areas before they became educated in science. Furthermore, in my time working in research, I've come to appreciate that science graduates are absolute luddites in every realm of technology that is not directly involved in their own research. Anecdotally, I've watched researchers working on promising cures for Parkinson's have trouble logging into their Windows XP machine and others working on cancer-fighting nanoparticles unable to connect a printer to print their manuscripts. Basic research can never compete in a capitalist economy because the profits of most research activities are realized on time scales greater than an individual lifetime and there is no monetary incentive (only altruistic incentives) to invest in something that will only pay out when you're dead.
- wisty 15y ago
  >>> A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. So? Scientists often tackle problems that they don't have training in. There seems to be 2 parts to the myth: 1) Scientists aren't suitable for business. I think this is crap. Mathematicians can do engineering and financial stuff, just not the final sign-off (which requires a licensed professional). Ecologists can analyse a company's strategic position, based on stuff like competition, symbiosis, and other buzz words that they actually understand. Psychologists could work in marketing. This is true for many pure research areas. It's may not be so true for applied research, like biochemistry - a lot of that could be very domain specific, but the tools they use could be applied elsewhere (if the number of graduates and number of research jobs doesn't match). 2) Scientists are doing more valuable work, they just aren't being rewarded. This is sometimes true, but sometimes not.

by wisty 15y ago

gyardley 15y ago

Oh, man, do I know a lot of people that whinge about the lack of historian positions. - former Ph.D. student in History.

ericd 15y ago
Is there a good way to look for just those people? I feel like there are a lot of jobs out there that aren't specialized, but could really benefit from having really smart (in a general sense) people.
- gyardley 15y ago
  If there is, I don't know of one. History teaches all sorts of wonderful analytical skills that I use all the time as a start-up founder - it's great training for what I do. However, by the time you make it a significant way into a Ph.D. program, you get ruined culturally - you end up thinking you're going to get a job in academia, or you're a complete failure. Switching careers after your mid 20s feels like an impossible undertaking (it's not hard at all, but we're talking about feelings here), so you keep on slogging it out. If you do come across some all-but-dissertation from a good program who actually wants to try new things, snap them up.

jballanc 15y ago

What private sector jobs would you recommend? When I started graduate school studying Biochemistry, a job in the pharmaceutical industry was a credible alternative to academic research. Today, the pharmaceutical industry is hurting, with hiring freezes on nearly everywhere, mass layoffs following giant mergers, and all the while being maligned by the press and the public as over-charging money-grubbers. In short, the pharmaceutical industry is bust (most people just don't realize it yet). > I mean, does anyone really think that science grads are less business ready than business grads, and if so, why? Yes, yes, a million times yes. A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. While it is true that there are scientists who are great at public speaking or business, in almost all cases these individuals were good in those areas before they became educated in science. Furthermore, in my time working in research, I've come to appreciate that science graduates are absolute luddites in every realm of technology that is not directly involved in their own research. Anecdotally, I've watched researchers working on promising cures for Parkinson's have trouble logging into their Windows XP machine and others working on cancer-fighting nanoparticles unable to connect a printer to print their manuscripts. Basic research can never compete in a capitalist economy because the profits of most research activities are realized on time scales greater than an individual lifetime and there is no monetary incentive (only altruistic incentives) to invest in something that will only pay out when you're dead.

wisty 15y ago
>>> A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. So? Scientists often tackle problems that they don't have training in. There seems to be 2 parts to the myth: 1) Scientists aren't suitable for business. I think this is crap. Mathematicians can do engineering and financial stuff, just not the final sign-off (which requires a licensed professional). Ecologists can analyse a company's strategic position, based on stuff like competition, symbiosis, and other buzz words that they actually understand. Psychologists could work in marketing. This is true for many pure research areas. It's may not be so true for applied research, like biochemistry - a lot of that could be very domain specific, but the tools they use could be applied elsewhere (if the number of graduates and number of research jobs doesn't match). 2) Scientists are doing more valuable work, they just aren't being rewarded. This is sometimes true, but sometimes not.