MUST READ: Whatever you do, do NOT go to graduate school!!!!!!!!!!!!

[marble30]

---

Members do not see this ad.

dude what are you talking about this thread is to warn pre-meds not to just go to gradschool as an alternative if they don't get accepted the first time. You were arguing that gradschool was a good thing to go into(which it isn't). Also this argument applies to every medstudent and resident who constantly complains about their life. You are saying ridiculous things like if you were fit for research you would have been the 1 out of 10 who succeeds. This shows that you know nothing of career advancement in the realworld. Also the guy who you are arguing with has accomplished a lot you should be more respectful.

👍

 

[austinap]

That article could not have summed it up better.

For every 500 Ph.Ds there is one faculty position and for every 300 Ph.Ds there is a industry scientist position. If you think gaining an allopathic acceptance is hard, think about being a Ph.D!

Also, living in Los Angelos, Houston, New York making 35,000$ a year = no savings whatsoever = work until you die, a lonely one at that too.

I don't know exactly what your issue is here. You're obviously bitter about something. However, those numbers are nowhere near accurate. The postdoc salaries, sure. But the number of PhDs competing for those positions, hell no. Competition is tough, yes, but part of the reason it's difficult is that a competitive, self-selected group of people are competing for a limited number of positions. The number of positions isn't nearly as limited as you're making it seem.

You still haven't addressed any of my comments about WHY you've done three postdocs, or why you did them all for a year each. The only postdocs I've know that have left after a year did so because they were fired. Even in fast-moving fields, 2-3 years is standard, and more isn't unusual. In biological fields, 5+ year postdocs aren't unusual. It's far more unusual to do more than one postdoc. That you did three postdocs doesn't increase your qualifications, it raises questions. At best, it suggests that you've been working for people who are poorly funded, further suggesting that they're not big names in their field.

[ Also, for those reading that don't have an nuanced understanding of how postdocs work: the name of the institution that you work for doesn't matter as a postdoc. Not even a little bit. It's all about who you work for. You can work for a no-name person at a well-known university and it won't do you any favors, or you can work for a big name at a less prestigious institute and have your career set for you. That the OP had postdocs at UCLA, etc, is meaningless in itself. It depends on *who* they worked with at UCLA. Maybe the OP worked for a big name, but given the record they've gone on about, I'd be surprised. ]

OP - you're clearly bitter. Get off it, it won't do you any favors. Even if you've been truly shafted, playing the victim won't help you. Furthermore, if you really think you're the victim, it's largely because you were unrealistic about your outcome. I'm sorry your wife left you, but don't pin that on science. She likely would have left you had you gone to med school right away anyhow - what, with the moving around for residency and working ridiculous hours for the better part of a decade. That means she's either a b!tch and unwilling to accommodate something that is important to you, or that you're incapable of balancing a demanding career with a personal life.

Your bitterness is not reason enough to spew vitriol to students who may be interested in pursuing graduate school just because it didn't work for you. I would recommend that anybody thinking about entering a PhD program think about it seriously, and consider how it might fit into their ultimate goals. Don't go into it lighthearted, but know that if you do, there are still plenty of opportunities to succeed, and a PhD will not hurt you at all, far from it. I would give the same advice for anybody considering medical school, the main difference being that with graduate school, at least they won't be going into debt they can't recover from. For the vast majority of people I know in grad school, a PhD was a much better choice for them than an MD, and they'll do well with their degree.

 

[NFkappaB]

I don't know exactly what your issue is here. You're obviously bitter about something. However, those numbers are nowhere near accurate. The postdoc salaries, sure. But the number of PhDs competing for those positions, hell no. Competition is tough, yes, but part of the reason it's difficult is that a competitive, self-selected group of people are competing for a limited number of positions. The number of positions isn't nearly as limited as you're making it seem.

You still haven't addressed any of my comments about WHY you've done three postdocs, or why you did them all for a year each. The only postdocs I've know that have left after a year did so because they were fired. Even in fast-moving fields, 2-3 years is standard, and more isn't unusual. In biological fields, 5+ year postdocs aren't unusual. It's far more unusual to do more than one postdoc. That you did three postdocs doesn't increase your qualifications, it raises questions. At best, it suggests that you've been working for people who are poorly funded, further suggesting that they're not big names in their field.

[ Also, for those reading that don't have an nuanced understanding of how postdocs work: the name of the institution that you work for doesn't matter as a postdoc. Not even a little bit. It's all about who you work for. You can work for a no-name person at a well-known university and it won't do you any favors, or you can work for a big name at a less prestigious institute and have your career set for you. That the OP had postdocs at UCLA, etc, is meaningless in itself. It depends on *who* they worked with at UCLA. Maybe the OP worked for a big name, but given the record they've gone on about, I'd be surprised. ]

OP - you're clearly bitter. Get off it, it won't do you any favors. Even if you've been truly shafted, playing the victim won't help you. Furthermore, if you really think you're the victim, it's largely because you were unrealistic about your outcome. I'm sorry your wife left you, but don't pin that on science. She likely would have left you had you gone to med school right away anyhow - what, with the moving around for residency and working ridiculous hours for the better part of a decade. That means she's either a b!tch and unwilling to accommodate something that is important to you, or that you're incapable of balancing a demanding career with a personal life.

Your bitterness is not reason enough to spew vitriol to students who may be interested in pursuing graduate school just because it didn't work for you. I would recommend that anybody thinking about entering a PhD program think about it seriously, and consider how it might fit into their ultimate goals. Don't go into it lighthearted, but know that if you do, there are still plenty of opportunities to succeed, and a PhD will not hurt you at all, far from it. I would give the same advice for anybody considering medical school, the main difference being that with graduate school, at least they won't be going into debt they can't recover from. For the vast majority of people I know in grad school, a PhD was a much better choice for them than an MD, and they'll do well with their degree.

I had the title post-doc for my first 2 appointments, my last appointment at UCLA I had the title research associate.

For my 1st post-doc at Upenn, the PI told me outright from the start that the funding for this position is only for 1 year. 1 year post-docs are common, as many of my peers also were in a 1 year post-doc. This PI I worked for is not a leader in his field, but this just shows how hard is it to even grab post-doc positions. I applied for well over 30 positions in my last year, and only 2 offered a position. One of whom were directly contacted by my PI.

For my second stint at Penn state, the post-doc is indeed renewable after the 1st year, but I chose to leave because the PI was an unreasonable man. He demanded me to work basically 80 hours a week in the lab, threw fits when the experimental data didn't fit the abstract, and literally eats his students alive when they make minor mistakes. So, I decided to leave when a new opportunity came up at UCLA. Of course, even though I despised this boss, I still left on very good terms. He often used me as an example in the lab for others to follow, and repeatly said how competent I was.

For my 3rd appointment as research associate at UCLA Immunology, I only stayed for one year of course because I was accepted to medical school.

My bitterness is a very reasonable one. Why does educated and talented scientists in America get treated like fast-food workers? Working 80 hours a week making 35,000$ translates to 8 dollars an hour. Why does been a scientists in America mean that I must now give up my retirement, life, family, marriage, and a right to life?

 

[NFkappaB]

Also, I did not exagerrate those numbers of 500 Ph.Ds for a faculty and 300 Ph.Ds for a industry position.

Every PI told me that for an opening in the past at their university, they typically get around 500 applicants. For a highly sought-after industry position, the general consensus is that it is slightly less competitive than tenure-tracked positions, hence 300 applicants instead of 500.

 

[hopki099]

He demanded me to work basically 80 hours a week in the lab, threw fits when the experimental data didn't fit the abstract, and literally eats his students alive when they make minor mistakes.

That's disgusting. Good thing you got out of there still alive. This man should be in prison!

 

[Baron Samedi]

I don't know exactly what your issue is here. You're obviously bitter about something. However, those numbers are nowhere near accurate. The postdoc salaries, sure. But the number of PhDs competing for those positions, hell no. Competition is tough, yes, but part of the reason it's difficult is that a competitive, self-selected group of people are competing for a limited number of positions. The number of positions isn't nearly as limited as you're making it seem.

You still haven't addressed any of my comments about WHY you've done three postdocs, or why you did them all for a year each. The only postdocs I've know that have left after a year did so because they were fired. Even in fast-moving fields, 2-3 years is standard, and more isn't unusual. In biological fields, 5+ year postdocs aren't unusual. It's far more unusual to do more than one postdoc. That you did three postdocs doesn't increase your qualifications, it raises questions. At best, it suggests that you've been working for people who are poorly funded, further suggesting that they're not big names in their field.

[ Also, for those reading that don't have an nuanced understanding of how postdocs work: the name of the institution that you work for doesn't matter as a postdoc. Not even a little bit. It's all about who you work for. You can work for a no-name person at a well-known university and it won't do you any favors, or you can work for a big name at a less prestigious institute and have your career set for you. That the OP had postdocs at UCLA, etc, is meaningless in itself. It depends on *who* they worked with at UCLA. Maybe the OP worked for a big name, but given the record they've gone on about, I'd be surprised. ]

OP - you're clearly bitter. Get off it, it won't do you any favors. Even if you've been truly shafted, playing the victim won't help you. Furthermore, if you really think you're the victim, it's largely because you were unrealistic about your outcome. I'm sorry your wife left you, but don't pin that on science. She likely would have left you had you gone to med school right away anyhow - what, with the moving around for residency and working ridiculous hours for the better part of a decade. That means she's either a b!tch and unwilling to accommodate something that is important to you, or that you're incapable of balancing a demanding career with a personal life.

Your bitterness is not reason enough to spew vitriol to students who may be interested in pursuing graduate school just because it didn't work for you. I would recommend that anybody thinking about entering a PhD program think about it seriously, and consider how it might fit into their ultimate goals. Don't go into it lighthearted, but know that if you do, there are still plenty of opportunities to succeed, and a PhD will not hurt you at all, far from it. I would give the same advice for anybody considering medical school, the main difference being that with graduate school, at least they won't be going into debt they can't recover from. For the vast majority of people I know in grad school, a PhD was a much better choice for them than an MD, and they'll do well with their degree.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!

Of course he's "bitter about something"...did you not read his OP? 🙄 You "don't know what his issue is"? Try reading.

This post is a LOT better than the hundreds of threads asking about applying June 20th vs June 18th or asking us to calculate someone else's GPA. It's informative. Even if it is biased that doesn't mean it's not a valuable perspective.

Those PhDs you mention will never make as much as an MD, and they will never make us much as an MBA. They will struggle a lot more...and these tenure-track faculty positions are few and far between.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[keepworking10]

Many current scientists have said over and over that we could shut down all life science training programs (PhD track) for a full decade and there would still be scientists unemployed in their area.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!

Of course he's "bitter about something"...did you not read his OP? 🙄 You "don't know what his issue is"? Try reading.

This post is a LOT better than the hundreds of threads asking about applying June 20th vs June 18th or asking us to calculate someone else's GPA. It's informative. Even if it is biased that doesn't mean it's not a valuable perspective.

Those PhDs you mention will never make as much as an MD, and they will never make us much as an MBA. They will struggle a lot more...and these tenure-track faculty positions are few and far between.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about here.

👍

This post is a lot more informative and interesting than the DON'T GO INTO MEDICINE BECOME A LAWSTUDENT OR AN I-BANKER. That we get every week. Many pre-meds are told if they don't get into med school on the first try that they should go to gradschool. Even though it doesn't improve chances that much.

Also the job situation is much worse for the humanities. That when talking to my Philosophy professor for a letter of rec he told me that he trys his best to dissuade students from going to gradschool in the humanities

 

[NFkappaB]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!

Of course he's "bitter about something"...did you not read his OP? 🙄 You "don't know what his issue is"? Try reading.

This post is a LOT better than the hundreds of threads asking about applying June 20th vs June 18th or asking us to calculate someone else's GPA. It's informative. Even if it is biased that doesn't mean it's not a valuable perspective.

Those PhDs you mention will never make as much as an MD, and they will never make us much as an MBA. They will struggle a lot more...and these tenure-track faculty positions are few and far between.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about here.

Thank you.


I would also like to add that, many Ph.Ds you meet will immediately get defensive when you even mention something about a prospective career. The truth is that, once you have a Ph.D and then you leave science, you will be frowned upon by everyone as a "failure."

In fact, my PI often talk about a previous Ph.D student who left in the middle of his studies and keep on mentioning what a "failure" he was. Guess what? He is now a salesperson for Qiagen making 90,000$ a year. That is 3 times more than what I will ever be able to make a perpetual post-doc.

 

[keepworking10]

Thank you.


I would also like to add that, many Ph.Ds you meet will immediately get defensive when you even mention something about a prospective career. The truth is that, once you have a Ph.D and then you leave science, you will be frowned upon by everyone as a "failure."

In fact, my PI often talk about a previous Ph.D student who left in the middle of his studies and keep on mentioning what a "failure" he was. Guess what? He is now a salesperson for Qiagen making 90,000$ a year. That is 3 times more than what I will ever be able to make a perpetual post-doc.

I have seen that mentality myself as well. Why is it that way anyway?

 

[neuro raqs]

This is a really interesting discussion. I have mixed feelings about this. Firstly OP, it sounds like you weren't given good info about career prospects when you were deciding to pursue a PhD. I appreciate you bringing up the issue of too many people being trained for too few existing jobs. NO ONE tells you about that! You rarely hear anything clearly describing how one goes from post-doc to faculty, it's always a bit hazy. When I was working as a tech for the past year under a post-doc, I did start hearing snippets about these issues from her. But you got into med school in the end, so congrats!

The take home message from this discussion (at least, for those who are fervently interested in research) is not don't ever go to grad school, but instead the need to consider a wider array of job options, find other ways to use the PhD. Generally after getting the PhD, people do one or two post-docs It seems to me that after 2 (or even 3) post-docs if the faculty jobs look impossible, it's time to look beyond academic research science.

The PhD training does provide marketable skills that can be applied in other fields. Writing, critical thinking, selling ideas to other people, etc. Because academia might not be able to offer enough jobs for all the scientists it produces, scientists need to get over the stigma of leaving academia for industry, or science for something else.

 

[neuro raqs]

also, maybe this topic should be brought up in the Physican Scientist board, it's certainly relevant.

 

[keepworking10]

also, maybe this topic should be brought up in the Physican Scientist board, it's certainly relevant.

Not really. This thread is more to help educate the high school students and the young pre-med students who don't know the realities of what life is like in specific career paths.

Our young children are brainwashed into thinking they can accomplish whatever they want if they put their mind to it while ALWAYS ignoring the facts of specific career paths.

In my state there are 4,000 college students that graduate every single year with a degree in education and there are NEVER over 1,000 job openings in our state. It is like that in almost every single possible career.

There always fewer jobs available in a career path than there are college graduates.

 

[BerlinDude]

I have seen that mentality myself as well. Why is it that way anyway?

Because in order to convince people to stay in research, the scientific community needs people to believe there is something inherently noble about staying in science. You are doing an important job in science, helping society, etc, but as the OP notes, that doesn't compensate for being paid sub-minimum wage.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

The PhD training does provide marketable skills that can be applied in other fields. Writing, critical thinking, selling ideas to other people, etc. Because academia might not be able to offer enough jobs for all the scientists it produces, scientists need to get over the stigma of leaving academia for industry, or science for something else.

No not really a PhD is for research. And for those other things you listed going to gradschool for those things is not wise at all. In fact, it will hurt you since you have a huge degree but no real world experience they will have to pay you more so you often get looked over.

 

[austinap]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!

Of course he's "bitter about something"...did you not read his OP? 🙄 You "don't know what his issue is"? Try reading.

This post is a LOT better than the hundreds of threads asking about applying June 20th vs June 18th or asking us to calculate someone else's GPA. It's informative. Even if it is biased that doesn't mean it's not a valuable perspective.

Those PhDs you mention will never make as much as an MD, and they will never make us much as an MBA. They will struggle a lot more...and these tenure-track faculty positions are few and far between.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about here.

I meant to imply that he's bitter about something other than just how tough science is. You know all those posts by 4th year med students and residents ranting about how idiotic it is to go into medicine and how terrible it is? This is the science equivalent of that. Yes, things are competitive if you want an academic job, and you need to be excellent to get one (though not as competitive as the OP is trying to convince you, I'll get to that in a minute). There are a *lot* of good reasons to not go into grad school. There are a *lot* of people that shouldn't go to grad school. However, grad school can be perfect for a lot of people, and if you're realistic about the challenges when you go into it, you can have a happy and fulfilling career in science.

I had the title post-doc for my first 2 appointments, my last appointment at UCLA I had the title research associate.

For my 1st post-doc at Upenn, the PI told me outright from the start that the funding for this position is only for 1 year. 1 year post-docs are common, as many of my peers also were in a 1 year post-doc. This PI I worked for is not a leader in his field, but this just shows how hard is it to even grab post-doc positions. I applied for well over 30 positions in my last year, and only 2 offered a position. One of whom were directly contacted by my PI.

For my second stint at Penn state, the post-doc is indeed renewable after the 1st year, but I chose to leave because the PI was an unreasonable man. He demanded me to work basically 80 hours a week in the lab, threw fits when the experimental data didn't fit the abstract, and literally eats his students alive when they make minor mistakes. So, I decided to leave when a new opportunity came up at UCLA. Of course, even though I despised this boss, I still left on very good terms. He often used me as an example in the lab for others to follow, and repeatly said how competent I was.

For my 3rd appointment as research associate at UCLA Immunology, I only stayed for one year of course because I was accepted to medical school.

My bitterness is a very reasonable one. Why does educated and talented scientists in America get treated like fast-food workers? Working 80 hours a week making 35,000$ translates to 8 dollars an hour. Why does been a scientists in America mean that I must now give up my retirement, life, family, marriage, and a right to life?

I've never heard of anyone even considering doing a single year postdoc, simply because you can't get a meaningful amount of work done in that time. I've also never heard of anybody applying to nearly that number of positions. Most students from our lab (and department as a whole) will apply to ~5 labs, and I've yet to hear of anybody not getting at least one offer for a postdoc. We routinely get postdocs that applied only to our lab.

If you're looking at postdocs as a career salary, you're doing things wrong. Postdoc salaries are still 35-50k/yr, which is enough to live on, and quite well. It isn't enough to raise a family, I agree, but it's a temporary thing. You also don't need to do a postdoc to get an industrial position, though some companies are starting to recommend it (qualifications are often listed something like "PhD with 3+ years of experience or post-doctoral training). Median wages in the biological sciences are around $80k/yr, which is far from terrible. If you're good at marketing yourself and learn valuable skills, it isn't too difficult to push yourself above the $100k mark.

As far as your numbers, you're playing with the math a bit. Even if what your advisor told you was true, that they receive 500 applicants for each opening, you're neglecting a few things. The same 500 people will be applying to every academic position they qualify for, so there are far *fewer* than 500 applicants per available position. In a given year, there may be ~30-50 openings for academic position that a given candidate qualifies for, making your numbers off by at least an order of magnitude. You're also neglecting that people aiming for academics will often apply during more than one cycle, artificially inflating the numbers. Though things have been particularly bad the last few years, somewhere around 10-15% of PhDs end up in tenure track academic positions within 6 years of finishing their degree (source).

As far as industrial jobs, they're significantly less competitive, and it's all about what you're willing to do or what you're willing to take for compensation. If you're aiming for >$100k/yr right now, competition is tough. If you're well qualified and will work for $85k/yr, there are plenty of jobs to be had. I couldn't find numbers relating the number of industrial openings to the number of departing postdocs, but I can assure you that they're better than 1 in 200.

Of course, all of this is ignoring a huge number of foreign graduate students / postdocs that go on to positions in other countries, as almost all of the numbers account only for US positions.

For anybody that actually believes the OP's numbers, think of it this way: if the OP were correct, then PhD level scientists in this country are >99.5% not employed in scientific positions.


To be clear, I'm not saying everything in science is rosy. There are problems, and I strongly suggest that anybody thinking about that career path do so carefully. Realize that if you want to go into academics, it is going to be a tough career path ahead of you. If you really want to go into academics, go to a top-10 university for your PhD, as there is a huge amount of academic inbreeding. You also are unlikely to become rich as a scientist, unless you learn to market your ideas and start a company. However, keep in mind that high level positions in e.g., pharmaceutical companies, are occupied almost entirely by people holding PhDs. If you're aiming for a position like that, you need the degree (but obviously that won't guarantee you that position in itself).

My offense with the OP isn't that he's complaining about science, it's that he's cooking the numbers to justify his position. There are enough valid complaints about the state of science in the US that there's no need to do that. Hell, he could go further and point out that even once you get an academic position, you're still fighting for funding for the rest of your career. The OP also strikes me as being the kind of person that will be back on this board in 4 years complaining about how stupid of a decision medicine was, and how nobody should ever go to medical school. Bitter people tend to be bitter regardless.

 

[austinap]

No not really a PhD is for research. And for those other things you listed going to gradschool for those things is not wise at all. In fact, it will hurt you since you have a huge degree but no real world experience they will have to pay you more so you often get looked over.

A PhD is primarily for research, but there are other non-research careers that almost require a PhD. Critical thinking is one skill developed in grad school that isn't developed to the same extent in any other path.

If you get a science PhD when you don't like science, you're idiotic, so lets just add "science" before those fields. Science writing is a growing field that a number of people I know have gone into and love. Science consulting is also an attractive option. Venture capital (e.g., in biotech) attracts a fair number of people as well. Essentially every position in biotech above technician and outside of marketing requires a PhD. I would estimate that ~30% of graduating PhDs get a job that is neither academic nor bench science.

A PhD will disqualify you from some positions, mostly because people will be distrustful of why you would take such a position anyhow. At the same time, there are a ton of positions that are only open to PhD level candidates.

 

[morning]

I personally think that you should never go into Bio/Chem/Physics/etc grad school as a second or backup plan UNLESS you LOVE and are willing to do bench research for a long time. It's a horrible idea to go into grad school to "improve" your app, it's just not efficient wrt to time and money.

Master's degree you can still find work in QA or something. But a PhD and you hate research is masochism.

 

[familyaerospace]

I'm an Anatomy grad student, and I make $45/hour teaching at a CC. But what do I know, I don't even have my Master's yet.

I'm envious since most of the community colleges I've seen require a minimum of a masters. My local one claims a minimum of a masters (which I have), but they really want a PhD.

 

[Frozen]

MS and PhD are NOT good backup plans to medical school. They are areas of intense study for people who love to learn and research. They require many sacrifices, not unlike medical school. Research is often all consuming...
That being said, there are many other non financial rewards to doing what you love.

If you want to get rich, get an MBA.

Some interesting data on Post docs for those who are interested:
http://www.sigmaxi.org/postdoc/highlights.pdf

 

[TheDuder]

Thanks OP for a very interesting and eye opening story. I'm sorry for the difficulties you've faced, and I sincerely wish you the best of luck in the future.

The older I get the more I realize how much of one's successes and failures in life both professionally and personally is influenced by plain old luck. People who land the big jobs or the top 10 acceptances always always always want to attribute their success to something inherent in themselves, which is totally natural and entirely understandable. But very often people with equal intelligence and motivation and ability are unable to attain that level of success despite being comparably qualified.

I think that we'd all be well served to just keep in mind that many things in life, our opportunities from a young age, the quality of our high-school education, the background and ability of our parents to prepare us, whatever, are outside of our direct control. If you've achieved great success in life, count your blessings, stay humble and keep working hard. If not, try to keep hope alive, work your butt off, and go easy on yourself. Your salary is not a quantification of your personal worth. Blah, thanks again OP. In ten years you'll be nostalgic for your poor as dirt post-doc days. 👍

 

[keepworking10]

Thanks OP for a very interesting and eye opening story. I'm sorry for the difficulties you've faced, and I sincerely wish you the best of luck in the future.

The older I get the more I realize how much of one's successes and failures in life both professionally and personally is influenced by plain old luck. People who land the big jobs or the top 10 acceptances always always always want to attribute their success to something inherent in themselves, which is totally natural and entirely understandable. But very often people with equal intelligence and motivation and ability are unable to attain that level of success despite being comparably qualified.

I think that we'd all be well served to just keep in mind that many things in life, our opportunities from a young age, the quality of our high-school education, the background and ability of our parents to prepare us, whatever, are outside of our direct control. If you've achieved great success in life, count your blessings, stay humble and keep working hard. If not, try to keep hope alive, work your butt off, and go easy on yourself. Your salary is not a quantification of your personal worth. Blah, thanks again OP. In ten years you'll be nostalgic for your poor as dirt post-doc days. 👍

I had this exact discussion with a couple of really close friends of mine. When I was a senior in college, I spent time to remind myself why I left my decent paying job before I went to college (and taking into account getting laid of at two factory jobs because the factories moved to Mexico) and the reason why I went to college.

So, I asked my two close friends to have a frank discussion with me. I pointed out that every single day you go to work for someone else you are taking your income in the hands of your boss. Your boss is the one that can take away your income in a split second. So we sat down and came up with some business ideas that have low start-up costs and high profits so we can build larger businesses that require large monies.

So, we all decided that I should still get a regular day job while I work at building my businesses. So we devised those plans and now I am making some really good money, but I want to keep making more and more money so I can buy businesses and create more businesses.

I was not even close to being the smartest person in high school and nor was I even close to a 4.0 GPA in college. Now when you look at what my old high school classmates are doing in today's world (10 years out of high school), most are poor. There is one former high school classmate still in medical school (poor guy), one in his last year of residency in internal medicine, one practicing lawyer, another one just graduated from law school, and none of them will even come close the impact I am making on society. As far as the rest of the people I went to high school with, I am making more in six weeks worth of work than they make in a year (I post about my ventures in the Lounge). It really is sad.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

A PhD is primarily for research, but there are other non-research careers that almost require a PhD. Critical thinking is one skill developed in grad school that isn't developed to the same extent in any other path.

If you get a science PhD when you don't like science, you're idiotic, so lets just add "science" before those fields. Science writing is a growing field that a number of people I know have gone into and love. Science consulting is also an attractive option. Venture capital (e.g., in biotech) attracts a fair number of people as well. Essentially every position in biotech above technician and outside of marketing requires a PhD. I would estimate that ~30% of graduating PhDs get a job that is neither academic nor bench science.

A PhD will disqualify you from some positions, mostly because people will be distrustful of why you would take such a position anyhow. At the same time, there are a ton of positions that are only open to PhD level candidates.

Critical thinking in what? Engineers are good at critical thinking and it needs to have a real world approach. A person can easily get those jobs with a B.S. Science writing means either technical or science fiction for these you need good writing skills and those jobs are primarily for journalists who have a Undergrad degree in science. Who will have more real world experience doing that job. In the workforce experience>>>>>>>school. So you are 5 years out of the workforce competing with people who are fresh out who will do the same job and start for less.

PhD is a helpful critical thinking style but outside of research its benefits quickly disappear. Science consulting does not require a PhD just a Masters. My professor even told me that most of the time a M.S is much preferred to a PhD in the workforce.

 

[nisarg2010]

My dad is a PHD and a college professor and He agrees with everything that you have said. Thank you for sharing your story.

 

[austinap]

Critical thinking in what? Engineers are good at critical thinking and it needs to have a real world approach. A person can easily get those jobs with a B.S. Science writing means either technical or science fiction for these you need good writing skills and those jobs are primarily for journalists who have a Undergrad degree in science. Who will have more real world experience doing that job. In the workforce experience>>>>>>>school. So you are 5 years out of the workforce competing with people who are fresh out who will do the same job and start for less.

PhD is a helpful critical thinking style but outside of research its benefits quickly disappear. Science consulting does not require a PhD just a Masters. My professor even told me that most of the time a M.S is much preferred to a PhD in the workforce.

No, there are subsets of those jobs that you can do without a PhD. I wasn't referring to science fiction, anybody can do that. Some areas of technical writing you can get by with a BS, some with just a masters, and some require a PhD. For example, to be on an editorial board of a scientific journal, you need a PhD in a relevant field.

Science consulting usually does require a PhD, especially if you want to work with any of the bigger, more well-known firms.

The other thing that people tend to miss is that a PhD grants you mobility within many of these career paths that lesser degrees don't. If you go into biotech without a PhD, you're essentially stuck at the level of technician forever. An MS can make you more hirable than a PhD in some situations, but certainly not all of them.

Again, I'm not saying everyone should go get a PhD, but to declare that a PhD doesn't grant you certain opportunities is ignoring reality.

 

[neuro raqs]

A PhD is primarily for research, but there are other non-research careers that almost require a PhD. Critical thinking is one skill developed in grad school that isn't developed to the same extent in any other path.

If you get a science PhD when you don't like science, you're idiotic, so lets just add "science" before those fields. Science writing is a growing field that a number of people I know have gone into and love. Science consulting is also an attractive option. Venture capital (e.g., in biotech) attracts a fair number of people as well. Essentially every position in biotech above technician and outside of marketing requires a PhD. I would estimate that ~30% of graduating PhDs get a job that is neither academic nor bench science.

Thank you, this is what I mean. I was especially thinking of science writing. The PhD is for research, but this thread is discussing what happens when research doesn't seem to be working out. As the numbers thrown around have indicated, research isn't going to pan out for everyone who gets a PhD. I'm saying rather than get stuck in a decade of post-doc purgatory, it would be better to find a different way to use the skills you've acquired, since you happen to have them now. The alternatives to research will most likely still have to be related to your science-field, but that's not bad since most people get the PhD because the love science anyway.

I could be totally wrong, but it seems like going into academic research is sort of a "one-shot" thing. There's a certain amount of time to land that faculty position, and a certain amount of time to get tenured. If it doesn't happen in that window, rather than getting stuck in post-doc after post-doc and not progress, then it's time to change strategy, put the knowledge and skills to use in a different field.

 

[Hurricane95]

I agree with everything stated here pretty much. A PhD is a grueling long process and should NOT be something you do as a stepping stone to try to get into medical school; it's a totally different and divergent pathway. Only do a PhD in something if you are passionate about it and cannot see yourself doing anything else for a living, keeping in mind that the future is often uncertain and pay can be very low. To me that's horribly unappealing, but to each his own.

In my opinion, a master's degree is only useful in fields that are practical (technical fields in which the additional degree actually gives you a deeper understanding of your job). This includes engineering, architecture, communication, business, and some social sciences like psychology. Master's programs here in these actually prepare you better for a real-world job and make you more marketable, with far better earning potential. A master's degree in other things like basic sciences or liberal arts are largely less useful. So you decide to do a master's in cellular biology. Um, ok. So you take extra 500-600 level classes and learn more worthless minutia about the inner workings of cells. What job are you going to apply for after that...pretty much the same ones you can do with just the BS degree. As for making you a better candidate to reapply to med school? Well, it shows you did SOMETHING during your year off before you reapply, but in my opinion your time is better spent working in the healthcare field, volunteering, and possibly doing some research.

 

[imer]

...

 

[imer]

...

 

[Dreaming big]

OP, did you do NFkappaB research?

 

[NFkappaB]

OP, did you do NFkappaB research?

Yes I did. My focus was on preventing cellular apoptosis in cardiac myocytes, and inducing apoptosis in cancer cells via adenovirus vectors.

 

[Parts Unknown]

No doubt a majority of you pre-meds are life science majors, and not a single person so far can post their own personal success? Could it be that, there is indeed no jobs/careers for life science grads?

Hmmm, let me recall some of my colleagues from grad school (finished my PhD in 2001). One did a 3 year postdoc, landed a tenure track assist. professorship, and got tenure. He came out of an insanely productive PhD lab and ended up in a reasonably "hot" field.

One went into industry as a toxicologist. I think he's doing okay. One is an assistant prof in infectious disease. My former roommate is in his 8th year of postdoc in the same lab. His field is pretty small, and each year he knows exactly how many people are in the market for a job and how many jobs are available. The former > the latter. One was working for a well known university on the west coast and has taken a Government job. One did a postdoc and then got an insanely low paying job at the same institution running one of the core labs. I could go on, suffice to say the percentage who have landed a bona fide faculty job is fairly small.

You guys can quibble over the details, but the overall point remains valid: PhDs in the biological sciences are being overproduced relative to demand. The source of this dysfunction is an imbalance of money and labor. There is too little research money and too few tenured jobs, but demand for data is high. This leads departments to hire boatloads of the cheapest labor there is: graduate students. This leads to a flood of fresh PhDs and available postdocs, which perpetuates the oversupply and continuously tightens the job market. On paper the solution is simple: increase funding for research and tenure-track jobs in academics, hire more techs, and train an more appropriate number PhDs.

I was one of 3-4 PhDs turned MDs who were around during my grad school stint, but I have only really kept up with one. He's a dermatologist now, lives near his hometown, has a family, and makes bank. I'm about to start a job in a private pathology group. Ten years ago lot of my friends thought I was crazy for taking on med school + residency after a PhD, but I currently find myself in an enviable position relative to most of my former colleagues.

 

[fahimaz7]

I got into medical school following a MS. Sorry to hear about your bad luck.

 

[thefritz]

Why do people go to graduate school in life sciences and then complain about not making enough money? Did you really think it was going to make you rich when you started? Pursuing a PhD in life sciences only makes sense if your primary life goal is research and teaching in the field and you have an extreme passion for it. Doing it because you hope to improve your lifestyle is *****ic.

If you are only looking for a decent paying job with good security, which most people are, there are literally thousands of options besides grad school that pay far more and take much, much less time.

For instance, wait until the next PUBNAT and get picked up for ATC training. You'll be done quickly and will start out making around 90,000 per year, topping at nearly double that down the road for 40 hour work weeks.

 

[thefritz]

My bitterness is a very reasonable one. Why does educated and talented scientists in America get treated like fast-food workers? Working 80 hours a week making 35,000$ translates to 8 dollars an hour. Why does been a scientists in America mean that I must now give up my retirement, life, family, marriage, and a right to life?

No, your bitterness is not reasonable. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I absolutely love playing competitive tennis. But why oh why does being a professional tennis player in America mean that I must give up a stable paycheck, a regular schedule, and never get to see my family? Oh wait, that's just the nature of the job.

These are choices that we make. You are not enslaved as a scientist forever. You have a choice, every single day, to do something else. You're not bitter about the fact that you don't earn enough money, you're bitter about the fact that you're not in charge of determining the appropriate level of remuneration of labor in this country. And that is totally unreasonable.

 

[thefritz]

There always fewer jobs available in a career path than there are college graduates.

That is an absurdly false blanket statement. Just one example (even in this awful jobs economy), positions in mining and minerals engineering just cannot be filled at all with new graduates since there aren't enough coming out of school. Mines in northern Canada will hire new grads at around $100,000 per year (with just a four year degree), but nobody's applying.

 

[Medhatter]

Why do people go to graduate school in life sciences and then complain about not making enough money? Did you really think it was going to make you rich when you started? Pursuing a PhD in life sciences only makes sense if your primary life goal is research and teaching in the field and you have an extreme passion for it. Doing it because you hope to improve your lifestyle is *****ic.

If you are only looking for a decent paying job with good security, which most people are, there are literally thousands of options besides grad school that pay far more and take much, much less time.

For instance, wait until the next PUBNAT and get picked up for ATC training. You'll be done quickly and will start out making around 90,000 per year, topping at nearly double that down the road for 40 hour work weeks.

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous angle, especially with the bolded part. God forbid if someone wants to live a good life and do something productive. You are basically saying the problem is not with the economic model inherent in the scientific establishments but the people who choose to pursue it? I'm okay with your reasoning if it's something trivial like sports, which mostly benefit yourself but do you not realize the important contribution of science to the society?

I don't understand why some of the posters here feel the need to attack OP without even addressing the problems he mentioned.

 

[austinap]

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous angle, especially with the bolded part. God forbid if someone wants to live a good life and do something productive. You are basically saying the problem is not with the economic model inherent in the scientific establishments but the people who choose to pursue it? I'm okay with your reasoning if it's something trivial like sports, which mostly benefit yourself but do you not realize the important contribution of science to the society?

Sure, but this isn't a situation that isn't well known, and it isn't something that changed recently. I had no illusions that a PhD was going to boost my income before I did it, I went to grad school because I find it fascinating and it affords me certain opportunities and experiences that I'm unlikely to have with an MD alone. It takes a very minimal amount of research to realize that a PhD is not going to give you a massive boost in pay, or that academic positions are competitive, and anybody that goes into should be going into it *knowing* that. If NFkappaB didn't know that beforehand, that's his own fault and a poor reason to be bitter. Regardless, he still decided to stay in the field for TEN YEARS after undergrad. His problems are his own fault here.

Would it be nice if I could make $200k for a 40 hr week with only a PhD? Sure, but it isn't going to happen and everybody in science *knows* that isn't going to happen.

 

[learnmdabc]

The argument is shifting back and forth. One moment it's "plenty opportunities abound to make a decent income in science. you just played your cards wrong." Other times it's "you don't go into science for the money. it's your own fault that you didn't do the necessary research into the job market, no pun intended." So which one is it?

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

No, your bitterness is not reasonable. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I absolutely love playing competitive tennis. But why oh why does being a professional tennis player in America mean that I must give up a stable paycheck, a regular schedule, and never get to see my family? Oh wait, that's just the nature of the job.

These are choices that we make. You are not enslaved as a scientist forever. You have a choice, every single day, to do something else. You're not bitter about the fact that you don't earn enough money, you're bitter about the fact that you're not in charge of determining the appropriate level of remuneration of labor in this country. And that is totally unreasonable.

Wow way not to understand the thread it is to warn others about going into gradschool. The OP is going to Medschool. You should save this post to all the complaining medstudents and residents.

Why do people go to graduate school in life sciences and then complain about not making enough money? Did you really think it was going to make you rich when you started? Pursuing a PhD in life sciences only makes sense if your primary life goal is research and teaching in the field and you have an extreme passion for it. Doing it because you hope to improve your lifestyle is *****ic.

If you are only looking for a decent paying job with good security, which most people are, there are literally thousands of options besides grad school that pay far more and take much, much less time.

For instance, wait until the next PUBNAT and get picked up for ATC training. You'll be done quickly and will start out making around 90,000 per year, topping at nearly double that down the road for 40 hour work weeks.

This post is so absurd it is INCREDIBLY hard to get picked for ATC training (endless freezes and the airline industry is in the gutter) and the shifts are absolutely brutal. You have no idea what you are talking about. Also all of these options are open to any given person. Pre-meds are often told to go to gradschool by advisors if they don't get into medschool on their first try.

 

[Medhatter]

Sure, but this isn't a situation that isn't well known, and it isn't something that changed recently.

Wouldn't hurt to discuss it, this is what open forums are for right?

I had no illusions that a PhD was going to boost my income before I did it, I went to grad school because I find it fascinating and it affords me certain opportunities and experiences that I'm unlikely to have with an MD alone. It takes a very minimal amount of research to realize that a PhD is not going to give you a massive boost in pay, or that academic positions are competitive, and anybody that goes into should be going into it *knowing* that.

I don't want to get between your arguments with the OP. Your points are valid but don't you think it's a little narrow minded to use this to dismiss the OP's grievance entirely ? It serves the interest for every professional field if it can attract the best minds and talents. The best lure is usually the financial stability it offers (note, I don't think the OP is asking to make a fortune here). Do you honestly think we'd have so many people going for med if it pays less than science?

 

[austinap]

The argument is shifting back and forth. One moment it's "plenty opportunities abound to make a decent income in science. you just played your cards wrong." Other times it's "you don't go into science for the money. it's your own fault that you didn't do the necessary research into the job market, no pun intended." So which one is it?

I've never said that a career in science is peachy. I've specifically stated the opposite. My problem is that the OP is essentially making up numbers to complain about his choices.

There's also no conflict between the statements "there are plenty of opportunities to make a decent income" and "you don't go into science for the money." I consider $80-90k to be a pretty decent income, and there are plenty of opportunities to make that or more. I don't consider that to be rolling in cash, and there aren't many paths that will end you with an income of >$200k with a PhD. If you go into it thinking that, you're mistaken.

There's a difference between there being jobs, and there being high paying jobs. The OP claimed a number of times that there are *no* jobs in science, which is simply not true. There are plenty of jobs in science, even in this terrible economy essentially every one of my classmates is getting hired. Jobs in science have never been high paying, and they likely never will be. It isn't anything new, so if you go into science for some massive paycheck, you're doing it for entirely the wrong reasons.

 

[Kaustikos]

So, I only have a masters with 4 years research experience and I already make more money than you. Should I start a thread to go into research? You made a mistake; you went into a specific field tailored for someone who loves science and isn't in it for the money. If you wanted a research career with a good income, you screwed up. Physiology isn't a marketable "specialty", it's a hardcore devotion towards finding critical answers in the field of science. Now, if you had done -
Pharmacology
Toxicology
Biochemistry
You would have had a MUCH different outcome. I can definitely say that these guys make at least 60K, easily. They have a marketable education. Simple. This thread is completely misleading.

 

[austinap]

Wouldn't hurt to discuss it, this is what open forums are for right?


I don't want to get between your arguments with the OP. Your points are valid but don't you think it's a little narrow minded to use this to dismiss the OP's grievance entirely ? It serves the interest for every professional field if it can attract the best minds and talents. The best lure is usually the financial stability it offers (note, I don't think the OP is asking to make a fortune here). Do you honestly think we'd have so many people going for med if it pays less than science?

A discussion, sure. I'm more than open to discussion, but I'm vehemently against making up numbers to support one's claims. There are a lot of things I think could be made better within science, including things that haven't been mentioned yet such as obtaining funding to run a lab, improving the tenure system, etc.

Another point is that if we're not careful, the US is not going to be a scientific leader in the near future. The best graduate schools in the country have trouble attracting and retaining qualified citizens, and large percentages of every graduating class are international students that aren't allowed to stay to work here. To me, that's idiotic. I don't think finances are necessarily the way to attract the best people, but I'll agree that it doesn't hurt. I think that one of the most harmful influences on science right now is the general scientific ignorance of the population here. Prestige is a powerful motivator (look at competition for faculty positions!), but science has lost a lot of that over the past ~10-20 years. The population no longer respects scientists, so fewer people care to go into it. It's very similar to medicine in that way I suppose.

I suppose I just don't have a lot of respect for anybody that makes up ridiculous numbers to support their stance, and was unable to read some very obvious writing on the wall regarding their career path. I mentioned a lot of them earlier, but there are some details in the OPs story that I find fishy as well, including the three extremely short postdocs and the shortage of first author pubs.

 

[ToldYouSo]

A discussion, sure. I'm more than open to discussion, but I'm vehemently against making up numbers to support one's claims. There are a lot of things I think could be made better within science, including things that haven't been mentioned yet such as obtaining funding to run a lab, improving the tenure system, etc.

Another point is that if we're not careful, the US is not going to be a scientific leader in the near future. The best graduate schools in the country have trouble attracting and retaining qualified citizens, and large percentages of every graduating class are international students that aren't allowed to stay to work here. To me, that's idiotic. I don't think finances are necessarily the way to attract the best people, but I'll agree that it doesn't hurt. I think that one of the most harmful influences on science right now is the general scientific ignorance of the population here. Prestige is a powerful motivator (look at competition for faculty positions!), but science has lost a lot of that over the past ~10-20 years. The population no longer respects scientists, so fewer people care to go into it. It's very similar to medicine in that way I suppose.

I suppose I just don't have a lot of respect for anybody that makes up ridiculous numbers to support their stance, and was unable to read some very obvious writing on the wall regarding their career path. I mentioned a lot of them earlier, but there are some details in the OPs story that I find fishy as well, including the three extremely short postdocs and the shortage of first author pubs.

I strongly agree with this. I think our country is becoming too "service" orientated with not enough interest in the sciences and technical fields like there used to be. The idea of young kids playing around in their basement "laboratories" and science kits in the garage no longer holds true. My professor who I'm doing research with now is in her late thirties and despite winning several generous grants/awards, she is still trying to get tenure. Where is the appeal for going into research or a PhD program if you need to work so much harder just to make it? http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-04/darpa-chief-testifies-us-faces-critical-nerd-shortage

 

[mTOR]

I appreciate the OP's sentiments. Thanks.

👍

 

[Perrotfish]

I strongly agree with this. I think our country is becoming too "service" orientated with not enough interest in the sciences and technical fields like there used to be. The idea of young kids playing around in their basement "laboratories" and science kits in the garage no longer holds true. My professor who I'm doing research with now is in her late thirties and despite winning several generous grants/awards, she is still trying to get tenure. Where is the appeal for going into research or a PhD program if you need to work so much harder just to make it?

Do we need this government mediated clusterf**k at all? Does it make sense to make sense to do all of our research through universities, and to make a PhD the union card you need to apply? Espically when the PhD 'training' forces scientists to do scutwork for what is generally considered to be their most create period? Is it a healthy system when the standard reward for success is a written guarentee that you will never be fired, no matter how incompetent you become? Do we really need our scientists to have doctorates at all?

Why not just scrap the PhD entirely and move the science out of the university sytem. Let people with masters bid on research proposals through private foundations that may or may not be attached to a school. You could get the same work done with less cost and misery for everyone involved.

 

[austinap]

Do we need this government mediated clusterf**k at all? Does it make sense to make sense to do all of our research through universities, and to make a PhD the union card you need to apply? Espically when the PhD 'training' forces scientists to do scutwork for what is generally considered to be their most create period? Is it a healthy system when the standard reward for success is a written guarentee that you will never be fired, no matter how incompetent you become? Do we really need our scientists to have doctorates at all?

Why not just scrap the PhD entirely and move the science out of the university sytem. Let people with masters bid on research proposals through private foundations that may or may not be attached to a school. You could get the same work done with less cost and misery for everyone involved.

Since when is graduate school work mostly scutwork? Not here - we're all in control of our own projects, and there is nothing I do on a daily basis that I would consider being anything close to being scutwork.

While I think there are things that could be improved, getting rid of grad school isn't a reasonable 'solution'. There's no good way to replace that training - in industry, you're expected to be productively working on a project that has a high probability of success, and you typically don't have a lot of intellectual freedom to direct the project. Graduate school gives you that opportunity, and it gives scientists a chance to take a risk on 'long-shot' projects.

It's no more reasonable to get rid of graduate school as it is to get rid of undergraduate or medical education. They each serve their purpose.

 

[thefritz]

This post is so absurd it is INCREDIBLY hard to get picked for ATC training (endless freezes and the airline industry is in the gutter) and the shifts are absolutely brutal. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't know what I'm talking about? Are you sure? You just threw me the world's biggest softball, but I'll let it go. PUBNATs only come out when there is a high need. There are two other paths to ATC other than off-the-street PUBNATs, both of which consistently place graduates. To get picked up for a PUBNAT, you just have to do decent on the ATSAT and wait for the right time to apply. But you already knew all this, right? I find it hilarious that someone on a medical school forum is openly stating to the audience (medical students and applicants) that it is "incredibly hard" to get picked. Anyone who can do well enough on the MCAT to get into med school would absolutely crush the ATSAT with only a quarter of the preparation.

Also, please explain how exactly the airline industry "is in the gutter" and how that has any effect on ATC? Are controllers getting laid off because there are no flights in the air anymore? Sorry, that is not the way ATC works. The centers have their sectors, which certainly aren't going to go unmonitored, and there isn't a driving force to shut down towers as far as I know. If you haven't been on the comms recently, rest assured they are quite busy.

Sure, pilots (in general) are having a hard time right now due to vast oversupply and FO's willing to work for peanuts. ATC is not the same thing as the airline industry. ATC is a publicly funded and federally managed part of the FAA that serves to control traffic operating in A-E classified airspaces. It is not a for-profit organization like the airlines. Airspace does not just shrink or go away when there is a recession. As long as there are planes still flying, the airspace will need to be controlled. A huge amount of ATC is retirement age (Vietnam era guys) and the government has been hiring aggressively the past few years.

And as for controller's shifts being absolutely brutal -- yes, it's a stressful job and you can't slack off at work or you get fired. But brutal? It's an 8 hour shift, 5 days a week. That is not so brutal. Again, hilarious post on a medical training forum. This ATC discussion is obviously not but so relevant to the OP, it was just to serve an example that you can make a decent and stable living and much more money without a graduate, or even undergraduate degree. There are many of these kind of examples. But I guess they aren't in things the ivy league, country club crowd would necessarily respect.

Also all of these options are open to any given person.

This is the whole point I was trying to make, thank you for re-stating it. There is no law that says you must earn a living in a field that requires your college degree(s) or you will go to jail. People, like the OP, get stuck in the ivory towers of higher ed, and never let themselves consider a career (and certainly not just a job) not involving a graduate degree.

 

[C5toC9]

It is definitely a sad reality. Many people go into graduate school thinking it will open doors and lead to very successful careers, but the reality is that very few actually make it into tenure-track or professor-level positions. It pains me to see postdocs in their 30s because it's such a state of limbo and these are very smart people who could have had great careers in other industries, but it's now too late.

You can see from this thread that there are still many naive undergrads who think it's great to do a PhD in the sciences. The landscape has changed now and it's just not a sustainable career unless you are in the top 1%.