4 ms·

It seems strange to me that people assume that more education in any field they want will necessarily result in more money. Schools are producing too many Biol

It seems strange to me that people assume that more education in any field they want will necessarily result in more money. Schools are producing too many Biology Phds. Or Forensic Science undergrads. Such is life. There's no way to predict 100% what the market will be like, so we make do. There's no intrinsic right to a job in the field that one chooses to study, and most people work in fields outside of their major. It's also true that your choice of first (or second or third) job is no guarantee. GM used to be a job for life. Now it isn't. As individuals we make our best choices, and then have a small safety net to fall back on if we're wrong. The only thing we should push for schools to do is show transparency on where the alums wind up, because unfortunately their incentives in producing Phds (and JDs and Russian literature degrees) differ from ours in receiving them.

throwawayaway 12y ago
idea for a business, #1 use cheap forensic scientists to enable police state. #2 ????? #3 profit
fat0wl 12y ago
yeah i guess it strikes me as odd that these silos are painted as such dire straits when describing a scenario that includes the backdoor of "unless you choose to go into industry and immediately make 100k+". I and the other people in my graduate program don't have that option... I studied music technology, degree was pretty expensive. no stipends, literal you pay for degree, BA-style, but are not going into a six-figure business field. These are the choices you make in life, and being presented with an opt-out like that is as they say "a good problem to have". It would be cool if every field could make intelligent people rich as they improved the world but, you know.... its life. If I had chosen a different field maybe I would be making 6-figures instead of doing boring enterprise work (decent money but most of my research peers were less programming focused, didn't even have this type of out), but I also would be even further from my goals. I wouldn't have the foundation of knowledge that I'm hoping to return to / build from in the future. I guess the point of this comment is that the author should be thankful that people in science are valued by industry (even many programmers are only considered "labor", basically). There are lots of fields people devote themselves to that have no industrial use & they are relegated to lower-paying dayjobs regardless of who they are willing to sign on with. As for whether or not academia should be more lucrative, well.... should people be paid to learn? is academia the most efficient way of learning? is it an antiquated social construct? many open-ended questions.... got my masters but didn't go back for PhD, waiting to see whether or not there is a better way to make it happen out on the pavement.
- mathattack 12y ago
  Many scientists struggle with the Plan B. If it's very math heavy (physics or engineering) then Wall Street is an option, but by the time many others opt out, they are too specialized to use their knowledge for a 100K job.
DaveWalk 12y ago
> and then have a small safety net to fall back on if we're wrong I think it's the years that really hurt. A student is delaying entering the workforce for a lousy paying job, for 5-8 additional years, and now a postdoc or two? Wouldn't you want for some more money at the end? But I completely agree with your diagnosis: accountability is a great way to open some folks' eyes. It is my wish, in fact, to be able to reach biology/chemistry/genetics/biochemistry/etc. students early in their undergraduate career and convince them NOT to consider graduate school. I think the application process with GREs etc. makes it difficult to accurately weigh the opportunity cost of going for a Ph.D., and by the time I talk to applicants on interview day it's too late.
- mathattack 12y ago
  Some of it is which graduate school. I would like to see a lot of folks with those majors studying policy, business, law, government, etc. Knowing the scientific method goes a long way above and beyond doing pure research and teaching.

throwawayaway 12y ago

idea for a business, #1 use cheap forensic scientists to enable police state. #2 ????? #3 profit

fat0wl 12y ago

yeah i guess it strikes me as odd that these silos are painted as such dire straits when describing a scenario that includes the backdoor of "unless you choose to go into industry and immediately make 100k+". I and the other people in my graduate program don't have that option... I studied music technology, degree was pretty expensive. no stipends, literal you pay for degree, BA-style, but are not going into a six-figure business field. These are the choices you make in life, and being presented with an opt-out like that is as they say "a good problem to have". It would be cool if every field could make intelligent people rich as they improved the world but, you know.... its life. If I had chosen a different field maybe I would be making 6-figures instead of doing boring enterprise work (decent money but most of my research peers were less programming focused, didn't even have this type of out), but I also would be even further from my goals. I wouldn't have the foundation of knowledge that I'm hoping to return to / build from in the future. I guess the point of this comment is that the author should be thankful that people in science are valued by industry (even many programmers are only considered "labor", basically). There are lots of fields people devote themselves to that have no industrial use & they are relegated to lower-paying dayjobs regardless of who they are willing to sign on with. As for whether or not academia should be more lucrative, well.... should people be paid to learn? is academia the most efficient way of learning? is it an antiquated social construct? many open-ended questions.... got my masters but didn't go back for PhD, waiting to see whether or not there is a better way to make it happen out on the pavement.

mathattack 12y ago
Many scientists struggle with the Plan B. If it's very math heavy (physics or engineering) then Wall Street is an option, but by the time many others opt out, they are too specialized to use their knowledge for a 100K job.

DaveWalk 12y ago

> and then have a small safety net to fall back on if we're wrong I think it's the years that really hurt. A student is delaying entering the workforce for a lousy paying job, for 5-8 additional years, and now a postdoc or two? Wouldn't you want for some more money at the end? But I completely agree with your diagnosis: accountability is a great way to open some folks' eyes. It is my wish, in fact, to be able to reach biology/chemistry/genetics/biochemistry/etc. students early in their undergraduate career and convince them NOT to consider graduate school. I think the application process with GREs etc. makes it difficult to accurately weigh the opportunity cost of going for a Ph.D., and by the time I talk to applicants on interview day it's too late.

mathattack 12y ago
Some of it is which graduate school. I would like to see a lot of folks with those majors studying policy, business, law, government, etc. Knowing the scientific method goes a long way above and beyond doing pure research and teaching.