Finally in college

[The Peon]

All my life since I was 5 years old (my earliest childhood memories that I know are real) I wanted to be a scientist. I loved bugs and discovering new insects and facts about nature. At some point along the line, I got lost and forgot about my dream. I am 34 now, and all my adult life I never felt smart enough to be a scientist or even if I did become one I would achieve nothing in life, all despite the fact that I come from a pretty smart family. My mother is in MENSA and my father is a successful business man. My brother is a neurosurgeon and my sister... well she is my sister. They always encouraged me to go to college, saying I was even smarter than they were! But while I enjoyed the praise and didn't fight it, in the back of my mind I somehow felt I was not intelligent enough. Something clicked in me recently and I felt I could no longer avoid my destiny. So I signed up for a "biotech" degree at my local college. Ultimate goal? To achieve a PhD in Genetics.

 

I chose Genetics because I feel it is the key to solving human suffering and disease. Think about it. Using future gene therapy techniques, we can cure genetic disease before the baby is even born (and possibly permanently cure that disease for all future generations of babies born to that one). We can even alter our DNA to achieve greater physical feats and achieve greater intelligence. DNA to me, is the power of a god raveled into a small little bundle of joy..

 

I made this thread because right now at this present moment I have 0% doubt I will see this through. I have never been more sure of anything in my life. I made this thread so as the years go by, I can return and post my achievements and hopefully eventually join the ranks of the experts on this forum. If any one has any advice or encouragement, it will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading.

[Moontanman]

Much respect Peon, you have chosen to walk the road less traveled, i wish i had the motivation to follow you.

[Arete]

Congratulations on your college entry.

 

One piece of advice I'd offer is don't have gaining a PhD as your ultimate goal. A PhD is a starting place, rather than an end goal - think of it like you would an apprenticeship: it would be unusual for say, a person embarking on an electrical apprenticeship to have finishing their apprenticeship as their ultimate goal - getting the apprenticeship is a milestone along the way to becoming an electrician. So I'd consider your end goal - is the PhD because you want to become a research scientist, or so you can hang the certificate on your wall, etc.

Once you've determined what your end goal is, ask yourself if you really need a PhD to get there. E.g. it sounds like medical research is you r end goal. Do you want to be a decision maker and spend most of your time dealing with administrative tasks, personnel, management and overall project direction (So a PhD would be required), or do you prefer being on the coalface with a pipette in your hand (So a BSc/MSc and bench experience might be better) ? Or do you not know at this stage?

 

The reason I ask is because simply having a PhD is not a guaranteed ticket to an academic career path anymore. Only 20.5% of UK PhD gradates in science end up with a job in science, and less than 1% end up as tenured professors. http://tomhartley.po...m/r-e-s-p-e-c-t . In the US, 57% of PhD candidates drop out of their programs and there are 6.25 PhD graduates for every professorship offered http://edudemic.com/2012/01/phd-job/

 

The consequence is that if you want in to academia, you're looking at a minimum of a couple of postdocs after your PhD, with little security and so-so renumeration, after 4-8 years of being a grad student, before you're even looking like getting a tenure-track job (If you're highly competitive) which isn't certain until you've locked down some good grant funding (and NIH is funding to the tune of 18% of applications http://news.sciencem...-its-grant.html) before you've actually got a secure position.

 

I'm not saying this to be discouraging, simply to point out that if you're aim is to get into the University research community, the end of your PhD is the beginning of a long and tough road, with little financial reward and a lot of uncertainty, and probably a number of big geographically speaking moves. Have a clear idea of why you want a PhD and what you want to achieve with it, and make sure you reassess as you go.

 

Enjoy your studies and good luck.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Arete

[Prometheus]

I'm in a similar position. I hope to go on to a neuroscience PhD. My biggest worry was being too old to significantly contribute, but i convinced myself determination is more important than age. I've no doubt it will be a long hard road, so best of luck.

[The Peon]

Wow thank you for all the encouragement and advice!

 

I do feel I want to be at the helm of whatever research group I join. Taking your advice however, I will do some more research into the matter. I was not aware of such a high "failure" rate among Scientists. Is that in ALL fields? I heard Genetics was a growing field, I figured a company would sop up pretty much any new Dr. as they graduated. I was really psyched to eventually be the one directing the research and hopefully making great discoveries and insights. One of my talents is really good abstract thinking. I came to my own conclusions with several theories that turned out to be actual working theories once I read about them. Most of the time I have been right (a big one I predicted on this forum almost 6-7 years ago was Neanderthals having interbred with Sapiens, the thread still exists). I wanted to lend this sort of talent to the field of research, where abstracts are what brings in new insights and ideas.

 

I guess ultimately if I was consigned to being a lab rat, and help conduct experiments for existing scientists I could be somewhat satisfied with that. It's a very exciting field and I can't wait to be a part of it! 18 months to go till I can get my first job (job placement in biotech in my area and with my school is about 98%, they are starving for more lab techs here). Any more advice, or even a rebuttal is greatly appreciated!

[Ringer]

Wow thank you for all the encouragement and advice!

 

I do feel I want to be at the helm of whatever research group I join. Taking your advice however, I will do some more research into the matter. I was not aware of such a high "failure" rate among Scientists. Is that in ALL fields? I heard Genetics was a growing field, I figured a company would sop up pretty much any new Dr. as they graduated. I was really psyched to eventually be the one directing the research and hopefully making great discoveries and insights. One of my talents is really good abstract thinking. I came to my own conclusions with several theories that turned out to be actual working theories once I read about them. Most of the time I have been right (a big one I predicted on this forum almost 6-7 years ago was Neanderthals having interbred with Sapiens, the thread still exists). I wanted to lend this sort of talent to the field of research, where abstracts are what brings in new insights and ideas.

 

I guess ultimately if I was consigned to being a lab rat, and help conduct experiments for existing scientists I could be somewhat satisfied with that. It's a very exciting field and I can't wait to be a part of it! 18 months to go till I can get my first job (job placement in biotech in my area and with my school is about 98%, they are starving for more lab techs here). Any more advice, or even a rebuttal is greatly appreciated!

 

http://persistentastonishment.blogspot.com/2011/05/six-graphs-answer-questions-about-phd.html

 

This may give you some information on different PhD group's employment statuses.

[CharonY]

Taking your advice however, I will do some more research into the matter. I was not aware of such a high "failure" rate among Scientists. Is that in ALL fields? I heard Genetics was a growing field, I figured a company would sop up pretty much any new Dr. as they graduated.

 

This is most definitively not the case. As a note to Ringer´s data, they are from an older survey and the situation has gotten much much worse due to the economic downturn. Also note that the majority of PhD holders do not remain "lab-rats". Actual in-lab positions for PhDs are almost always transient and based on term-contracts. Postdocs are in quite a way waiting positions with a lot of uncertainty of getting a tenure-track position (which is filled with uncertainty of actually getting tenure). The funding rate of 18% mentioned by Arete is actually way lower for junior scientists (usually assistant prof level) as the majority of funds are awarded to well-established groups (i.e. often groups that already had funding). First-time success rate was way below 10% (often around 2, I was told).

 

Just to reinforce what Arete said, a PhD alone is not a goal to anything. You will have to identify the position you want to get and for some you may need a PhD. However getting an academic position is very competitive (roughly 20 % of all PhDs will get tenure eventually) takes a long time (depending on discipline most tenures are granted around the forties). There are arguably more industrial positions, but even they can wait and select the best fit. This does not mean having a PhD but having a lot of hard and soft skills (especially the latter) that makes a candidate more attractive.

 

Just to give some real-world number: the average number of candidates for a given tenure-track position are usually 100-200 (depending on how attractive the position is), in industrial settings the numbers I have heard range from 50-200. All of them with PhDs and usually considerable relevant experience and skills. As you can see, a PhD barely covers the basics. Note: this is not to deter anyone from pursuing a PhD (we need cheap labor, after all), but it is important to decide on a career path prior to entering a PhD track.

 

I guess ultimately if I was consigned to being a lab rat, and help conduct experiments for existing scientists I could be somewhat satisfied with that. It's a very exciting field and I can't wait to be a part of it! 18 months to go till I can get my first job

This is more akin to a technician position and most of the time requires a master degree (or bachelor plus proof of experience).

[The Peon]

The reason I would like to get a PhD is to eventually be considered an expert on the subject (genetics), particularly to be a consultant for projects, or to lead a project myself. I am interested in projects involving gene therapy and nano/biotech advancements. I am not overly interested in working as a professor or teacher of the subject. I am relatively new to understanding the whole process, I just know I want to see it through to reach my goals. If I don't need that much education to achieve my goals, then so be it. Thanks for all the feedback so far. I think what I really need to do is sit down with someone who works in genetics as a project lead or who works for a company involved in the type of research I want to be involved with and ask some hard direct questions.

 

On a side note, I took my second test today. I got a 100%! So far I have taken two tests and got 100 on both. So my GPA is still sitting at 4.0 But then again it's a math class so it's not hard for me. I have always been good at math.

[CharonY]

You will have to look what kind of position actually exist. There are not many pure research positions. Most principal investigators are also college teachers. There are of course research institutes which sometimes have fewer or no research load, but the positions are extremely rare (much more so if limited to a given topic, of course).

 

I am not aware of consulting positions outside of think tanks (again, not really a mass market). TBH what you describe is something most students drawn to science are interested in. Thinking about problems and conduct experiments. In reality the job market and requirements are quite different. Also, if you manage to obtain a non-term, non-teaching research position (again, a very rare thing), your job will mostly entail securing funds, networking, managing people, etc. In fact, the more successful you are as a scientist, the less time you will have for science.

Sounds paradoxical, but is unfortunately true (and is another reason why people leave academia).

 

Meeting with people in the job and talking to them is definitely the right way to go. Note that companies tend not to do a terrible amount of research. Often, innovations are grown outside the private sector and then grow into startups, for example.

[Arete]

I figured a company would sop up pretty much any new Dr. as they graduated.

 

Nope. Here's a sobering read on the current STEM PhD job market: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-pushes-for-more-scientists-but-the-jobs-arent-there/2012/07/07/gJQAZJpQUW_story.html

 

"The pharmaceutical industry once was a haven for biologists and chemists who did not go into academia. Well-paying, stable research jobs were plentiful in the Northeast, the San Francisco Bay area and other hubs. But a decade of slash-and-burn mergers; stagnating profit; exporting of jobs to India, China and Europe; and declining investment in research and development have dramatically shrunk the U.S. drug industry, with research positions taking heavy hits.

 

Since 2000, U.S. drug firms have slashed 300,000 jobs, according to an analysis by consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. In the latest closure, Roche last month announced it is shuttering its storied Nutley, N.J., campus — where Valium was invented — and shedding another 1,000 research jobs.

 

“It’s been a bloodbath, it’s been awful,” said Kim Haas, who spent 20 years designing pharmaceuticals for drug giants Wyeth and Sanofi-Aventis and is in her early 50s. Haas lost her six-figure job at Sanofi-Aventis in New Jersey last year. She now works one or two days a week on contract at a Philadelphia university. She dips into savings to make ends meet."

[The Peon]

All that information is really depressing.. I figured Science would be one of the biggest fields invested in and one of the fastest growing sectors. Is this only in the USA? Are EU nations more progressive? If I had to move to another country to fulfill my ambition I would not mind doing so...

[Arete]

All that information is really depressing.. I figured Science would be one of the biggest fields invested in and one of the fastest growing sectors. Is this only in the USA? Are EU nations more progressive? If I had to move to another country to fulfill my ambition I would not mind doing so...

 

 

Nope. Many EU countries are doing considerably worse than the US in terms of scientific funding rates and cut backs. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/23/us-eu-budget-science-idUSBRE8AM0N420121123 http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/11/eu-scientists-research-fight-budget-cuts

 

I'm pretty sure CharonY and I am definitely not trying to dicourage you from something you really want to do - but it is important to know the landscape for post PhD employment before you decide to go into it. I've seen a lot of very disillusioned graduates who were expecting a job to be waiting on the other side of their PhD only to find themselves amongst swarms of other postdocs in a competitive, sometimes soul sucking culture of being used as cheap labor in academia, and without easily obtainable empolyment in other sectors unless they retrain - so it's important to know why you want a PhD and not see it as an "end of the rainbow - pot of gold waiting for me" scenario.

[CharonY]

The point is that one has to have a realistic understanding of the actual situation. A PhD is nothing more than a base qualification that gives you nothing career-wise on its own. As Arete said, many students just concentrate on their degree and do not realize that getting a career afterwards requires a serious long-term strategy.

Another rather depressing aspect is that landing a job is often not a function of your (scientific) abilities. For both academic and private sector hiring is often based on intangibles. In other words, things like a high publication rates alone will not guarantee a job. It is really important also to invest time in career building rather than just doing ones job (goes for grad students as well as postdocs, for that matter).

[CaptainPanic]

Nope. Many EU countries are doing considerably worse than the US in terms of scientific funding rates and cut backs.

 

True, but only true for subsidized research. Our governments try not to spend more than they get contrary to the USA where spending can be twice as much as the government revenues. But now I am going off topic...

 

For example in the Netherlands, there is still a shortage of scientists/engineers in the exact sciences. I am sure that a degree in biotech would get you a job soon enough here. But it would probably be in a commercial company, not at a research institute or university. The expectation is that this shortage will only increase in the near future, because the baby boomers are all retiring.

 

I can only find sources for this claim in Dutch, but just in case you don't believe me, here's one. And here's one which even claims that there will be an increasing need specifically for biotech (again in Dutch, sorry).

[CharonY]

One has to be careful with these projections. Virtually everywhere (including US) there is a claim that more engineers or scientists are needed. Truth is that companies demand a surplus of scientists and engineers so that they have a large pool to draw from. Unless the situation is vastly different from Germany there is no guaranteed success, either.

 

Of course this is vastly economy-dependent. During the Biotech boom late 90s and 2000 a lot of people got a job almost immediately post-graduation in the biotech area (mostly sales and product management). The projections at that time were also vastly optimistic. In the mid 2000 many companies had to shrink themselves healthy and lay off people. Since 2011 many are on a waiting loop in terms of new hires. The rather obvious thing is that job projections are (similar to most economic projections) vastly unreliable.

 

And finally, there is of course always the actual mechanics of getting a job. Just because there is a need (assuming there is) and you are qualified, does not guarantee you a job. In the end, post PhD jobs are extremely dependent on networking (even company positions). Another thing that I should mention is that many companies (well, I heard it from German and US companies FWIW) are reducing their commitment for on-the-job training and even entry positions require a certain amount of industrial experience. The reason they can do that is the (relatively) high amount of unemployment of already trained personnel. Only if they cannot find someone with experience to fit the spot (or when specialist knowledge is needed) a real entry-level person will be hired.

Captain, IIRC you are working in biotech in the Netherlands? Maybe you can share your experience. I am always interested in info from the private sector side.

[Arete]

There is a supposed shortage of scientists in the US too: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/11209/title/Ominous-Statistics-Foretell-Drastic-Shortage-Of-Scientists-----/

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2074024,00.html

 

This is based largely on the fact that many postdocs in the US - like myself are foriegn nationals on H1B "specialty occupation" visas, and subsequently "taking jerbs from 'muricans" to paraphrase South Park. That, coupled with rapid advances in STEM research in China, means that, for similar reasons a lot of developed nations are saying that on paper there is a shortage of scientists in their countries. Of course the simle solution for politicians is to teach more science in schools and pump out more science graduates:

 

"“When students excel in math and science, they help America compete for the jobs and industries of the future,” said President Obama. “That’s why I’m proud to celebrate outstanding students at the White House Science Fair, and to announce new steps my Administration and its partners are taking to help more young people succeed in these critical subjects." - Obama 2012 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/07/president-obama-host-white-house-science-fair

 

The issue, of course runs much deeper and the need for more STEM graduates is largely a fallacy: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/06/scientist_shortage_is_a_myth_.html

 

The way the system is set up, large sucessful research groups are reliant on cheap labor in the form of postdocs to suceed in research - and this is true across the developed world. This has lead to a rapid incease in the number of newly minted PhD degrees to fuel the demand for cheap, qualified staff. While in theory there should be a swathe of jobs opening up as baby boomer professors retire, they are inadequate to accomodate the increased number of graduates.

 

Industry is also not absorbing them, as outsourcing to developing nations like China, India, etc is more cost effective (see above articles) This is happening in the UK: http://tomhartley.posterous.com/r-e-s-p-e-c-t http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/glaxos-uk-plant-keeps-inhaler-production-country/2012-06-26 Switzerland http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/astrazeneca-cuts-1150-us-jobs-adds-china/2011-12-08 and Germany http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/takeda-plans-to-reduce-europe-u-s-workforce-by-2-800-jobs-in-three-years.html

[CharonY]

In the academic area one of the major issues (IMO) is that there are no real mid-level positions (with very few exceptions). Either you are on the path of getting tenure, or you are stuck on temporary positions. A postdoc is essentially a cheap waiting loop until you either score a TT or find something outside academia. Obviously there cannot be sufficient tenure positions to absorb all graduates (or even just the majority of them), and since there is the political will to increase the number of graduates, the situation is likely to become worse.

 

Sad thing is that I know quite a few people who would actually be content with the equivalent of postdoc positions, despite the low pay. However, the way the system is set up, a long postdoc is likely to hurt your career and make you more dependent on the goodwill of your supervisor (but that is another issue entirely.

[CaptainPanic]

Captain, IIRC you are working in biotech in the Netherlands? Maybe you can share your experience. I am always interested in info from the private sector side.

 

I'm a chemical engineer. I am not working in the biotech, but I do sometimes work with the biotech. All I know is that companies are still actively searching for people. It's not like in the early 2000's, when companies went mad to attract someone. But it is also not the case that for every opening they get loads of applications. Sometimes companies struggle to find a suitable candidate. I do see emails sometimes from other companies trying to encourage people in a particular network to apply for a job with them - and these are mails sent to people who generally speaking already have a job (like me).

 

Anyway, I would much rather be on the job market with a biotech diploma than without it...

 

If you take both income and job satisfaction into account (and you should), the investment in a study in biotechnology will certainly have a payback time.

[Arete]

In the academic area one of the major issues (IMO) is that there are no real mid-level positions (with very few exceptions).

 

Totally. A major issue I have with the current system is the impossibility of getting your ideas funded as a postdoc, especially a foreign postdoc. There no NIH or NSF platforms which would fund a proposal I wrote with me as the PI. This means that if I have an idea I really want to persue, I have to hand it over to a tenured professor to act as PI, even if I write the grant. This gives them curatorial control over both the project and the funding, leaving the postdoc who thought of the idea extremely vulnerable. In an absolute worst case scenario, a PI could let the postdoc write a grant, then choose to not hire that postdoc for the project and leave them out in the cold. I've been lightly scorched on a grant I wrote, and I know many postdocs who have been burned by PI's on grants that were the postdoc's idea - ranging from funding being spent on other projects, to core components being farmed out to other lab members as the PI sees fit as the demands of running the PI's lab and facilitating the postdoc's project collide.

 

It's a system which actively discourages young scientists from persuing independent lines of research in academic settings which I find extremely frustrating.

[CharonY]

Actually there are at least two grant mechanisms that you could take advantage of. One which eventually is supposed to give you independence is the K22 mechanism (IIRC). But obviously this does not alleviate the broader issue.

[Arete]

Actually there are at least two grant mechanisms that you could take advantage of. One which eventually is supposed to give you independence is the K22 mechanism (IIRC). But obviously this does not alleviate the broader issue.

 

 

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-12-156.html#_Section_III._Eligibility

 

"By the time of award, the individual must be a citizen or a non-citizen national of the United States or have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (i.e., possess a currently valid Permanent Resident Card USCIS Form I-551, or other legal verification of such status)"

 

H1B visas do not count as permanent residency, nor do J1 visas, so foreign national postdocs are ineligible, unless you independently qualify for a green card. You could apply for a green card after 5 years of holding an H1B, but by that stage you'd have been out of your degree too long to qualify for the postdoc.

[CaptainPanic]

I propose we set up a new thread, because I think we're going off topic.

 

Since the thread drifted off topic quite slowly, I cannot determine where it exactly happened. Also, because I am involved in the thread, I am officially not allowed to moderate anything here. Does it make sense to ask one of you (Arete or CharonY) to summarize this properly and make a new thread?

 

!

Moderator Note

In this thread, we will now focus on the progress of The Peon again, as was intended in the opening post.

[The Peon]

It really is okay, I don't mind if they go "off topic" since it pertained to my interests. As long as they don't start talking about reality TV *shudders* I don't mind.. but it's your house and your rules moderator

 

And really.. this is all very depressing guys. Let me tell you my mentality just a week ago compared to now. A week ago I was wondering, why on Earth is science not progressing in leaps and bounds all things considered (I envisioned tons of cash being injected into the sector).. and now I am getting an idea as to why that is not true. A week ago I thought I would make a difference in the world by entering a field which I knew was not very well payed for the work you put in to "get there", and now it seems like I would just be another fish in an overpopulated pond unless I could somehow just discover some new theory or idea. I know I am not stupid, but I don't think I am an Einstein.. or at least I don't feel like one.

 

It's so depressing to see so much funding and effort made by mankind towards killing one another and towards consumerism but something as vital and important to humanity, science, is a bust. You would think Governments and industry in general would pour money into advancing most sciences and that the sector would be starving for new scientists. I see now I was just dreaming. I am really going to have to reassess my goals here. Either way, thanks for all the help so far. I wonder if anyone has any specific advice for me, other than to be a genius and discover something amazing that would make me known and lead to what I want which would be funding for research or working with a research group?

 

 

Side note: Took my second math test. I got another 100. Still sitting on a perfect score at 4.0. I asked the teacher what I thought was a deep question about circles and finding the area inside, and she suggested I become a mathematician. I had to laugh considering how badly I dislike doing Math. My question basically was, at what point does checking the area of a non-circle become checking the area of a circle? For instance, you have to multiply the two sides of a square to get the area inside. If you add two more sides, you now have to do more math to figure out the area of the now hexagon. So my question was, at what point when you keep adding sides is the math getting at using pi to figure out the area inside?

 

Granted, I am just in intermediate Algebra, I bombed bad in math in High School because I was a rebel when I was younger. So I have to take some remedial type classes to learn the "basics" before I can move on to stuff like Calculus. She said my question was along the lines of Calculus 2 (no idea what that means but I assume an advanced Calculus class). Either way, I impressed the heck out of her so that was good. I am actually overall very excited to be in school, and I have having a great time!

Edited December 6, 2012 by The Peon

[CaptainPanic]

It's so depressing to see so much funding and effort made by mankind towards killing one another and towards consumerism but something as vital and important to humanity, science, is a bust. You would think Governments and industry in general would pour money into advancing most sciences and that the sector would be starving for new scientists. I see now I was just dreaming. I am really going to have to reassess my goals here. Either way, thanks for all the help so far. I wonder if anyone has any specific advice for me, other than to be a genius and discover something amazing that would make me known and lead to what I want which would be funding for research or working with a research group?

My advice: don't let the bastards grind you down.

 

In fact, nothing changes. If you were going into the sciences for your own personal gain, then you made a wrong choice anyway. You're not gonna get rich being a scientist.

 

So, while it is indeed sad that the world around the scientists is a lot nastier than you thought last week, this is happening outside your field, and doesn't / shouldn't influence you. The only relevant piece of info is that the job market is not as good as you thought. And if that were true only in the sciences, then this could be a reason to change your mind. But it's crisis everywhere.

[The Peon]

Yesterday was my final for my second class college Algebra. I scored a total final score of 99! GPA remains rock solid at 4.0. I am sooo glad that I finished my Math first, now I move on to more interesting subjects. Oddly math grew on me... at one point I thought about actually teaching it. Math is like small little puzzles and the challenge was enjoyable. Next week I start Psychology which is one of my favorite subjects. I can't wait!