Are Medical Laboratory Technicians and Medical Laboratory Scientist jobs for the bottom students?

[Genecks]

I've been looking over the job descriptions and eligibility requirements for Medical Laboratory Technicians and Medical Laboratory Scientists: http://www.ascp.org/certification

 

One of the things I've been questioning is if these jobs are for the students who did not do too well in their college and university programs. There does not appear to be a GPA requirement. There may be GPA requirements to get into various programs, such as a 2.0/4.0 GPA. This website discusses people who get a 3.0/4.0 GPA having their GPA heavily weight for admission to the program. It looks like the Medical Laboratory Technicians get paid around $35,000 USD and that Medical Laboratory Scientists can get paid around $50,000+ USD. As such, I interpret that it's more worthwhile to become a MLS rather than an MLT. Regardless, this keep me coming back to a point: Are the majority of people who pursue MLS and MLT positions students who did not do too well in school?

 

I have that question, because I would think they would go into a health profession, such as physical therapist, physicians assistant, or some other career that pays more, especially if they already hold a bachelor's degree. The MLT eligibility appears to only require a pre-requisite associates degree, while the MLS requires at least a bachelor's degree.

[CharonY]

I am not sure why would link low requirements with bad school performance. At least it does not make sense to me. Typically I expect that one would pursue a career (e.g. technician) and does it best to get the requirements (i.e. bachelor or master instead of PhD). Looking at GPA and use that as sole decision maker is kind of arse-backwards.

 

Not that either really matters much for the job, though (unless there is too much competition, at which point any little thing can be used to create a shortlist). That being said, you should look carefully whether you need a certification at all. In some jobs it may help, in many others you will receive company training anyway. You have to be careful when looking at MLS jobs, as the requirements can range from associate degree to PhD and the higher salary could be due to addition of the higher degrees into the same bracket.

Instead of shopping for degrees and salaries it is probably worthwhile to shop for companies and positions and see what the potential employers want to have.

Edited June 16, 2014 by CharonY

[Genecks]

...

Instead of shopping for degrees and salaries it is probably worthwhile to shop for companies and positions and see what the potential employers want to have.

 

I don't understand your reasoning behind that statement. Could you please explain it to me?

[ajb]

Medical Lab tec and similar are far from the lowest jobs for science graduates. Many engineering and science graduate have to take jobs outside their field and many end up in menial jobs. I will say that this is in the UK, maybe the US looks after its graduates better.

[mississippichem]

Medical Lab tec and similar are far from the lowest jobs for science graduates. Many engineering and science graduate have to take jobs outside their field and many end up in menial jobs. I will say that this is in the UK, maybe the US looks after its graduates better.

The situation is no better across the pond. I've had a science degree for several years (high GPA, several papers, good lab experience) and have just recently obtained a job in my field. Jobs are there, but it seems like qualified people are having to fight to get them. Luckily I was able to find a decent non-science job to feed myself between graduation and now.

 

This is of course anecdotal and the stats may prove me wrong. I do know many others who were in the same situation though.

[CharonY]

 

I don't understand your reasoning behind that statement. Could you please explain it to me?

 

The relevant point is that you are looking for a career, not a degree. Hence you should check out what qualifications hiring companies demand. If they state that for their position a bachelor in whatever field is requested than that is what you should be looking for. If they request a certification, then that. If they do not care for one, it would be potentially a waste of time and money

There is no case where a degree itself leads to a job. And currently, the situation for grads since the financial meltdown is pretty bad in general (compared to earlier).

Edited June 16, 2014 by CharonY

[Arete]

I would not say that technical staff are people who didn't do well at college. Most of the techs I've worked with have either been lab management staff, or on their way to something else (e.g. deciding if they wish to go to grad school). In fact where I am the technical staff get substantially better benefits and salaries than the grad students, and often the postdocs. $35K is a middle of the road postdoc salary - i.e. what someone who has "made it" through a PhD and been retained in science. The truth of the matter is that being a scientist, for most scientists, is not an overly financially rewarding career choice - despite the fact that most people who become scientists are intelligent, driven people who could easily have successful careers in more financially rewarding industries if they wished. I know more than a few people who have left science entirely to pursue a more financially rewarding career.

 

Science is saturated. And most people graduating with STEM degrees will not pursue a career in a STEM field (see figure below). We hear a lot from politicians about the "shortage" of people working in these fields, but the solution of pumping out more graduates into already oversupplied workforces doesn't solve it, and leads to the depression of wages in these fields.

 

Edited June 16, 2014 by Arete

[ajb]

I do know many others who were in the same situation though.

I too struggled to find a position. I am now busy looking for the next job and it is not like there is a lot out there.

Science is saturated.

This is my opinion also, based on the number of poistion I see avaliable and talking to others looking for jobs.

 

Yet here in the UK we have various groups including the government saying we need more STEM graduates! Absolute BS in my opinion, unless the government is going to create more positions.

[CharonY]

Academia is well oversaturated (the part where the government actually could create jobs). In industry demand is at least partially partially artificial. The industry does actually have issues filling certain specialist positions, but it is partly a self-perpetuated problem. What I was told is that while they have candidates, their abilities are not up to par so they rather not hire (rather than train them up).

Companies have shifted the burden of training and screening to unis. Truth is, they do not want to hire STEM grads but they want to hire the (in their eyes) best grads. The goal (or at least it appears to me) is to have a sufficiently large pool from which the top 20% or so are taken to fulfill industry needs. The rest can flip burgers for all they care.

 

In addition, I think politicians also like to channel people into colleges as a) it keeps them out of the unemployment statistics for just a little longer and b) the unemployment rate is still lower for graduates for now. With increasing grads that is going to change, obviously, but politicians tend to have a short-term view on things.

Edited June 16, 2014 by CharonY

[Elite Engineer]

Originally, I wanted to major in chemistry, but was deterred by lots and LOTS of people telling me a bachelors is chemistry gets you no where, at most a lab rat job. So I changed to biochemistry, and after finding out the same thing switched to double major of biotechnology and medical technology. I only changed to bio/med tech for a career, not because I couldn't "hack it".

 

That being said, I always thought the same about the bio/med tech peoples relative to the chem, engineering etc. They're really their own group they seem to be happy that they're there, and don't go beyond the scope of their field. At my university the GPA requirement was 3.4, and bio/med techs are really glorified here (lets see in the real world ), so I suppose it depends where you go. I'm from Buffalo, NY and we have a huge med-tech boom going on here now so techs are in high demand. I guess I lucked out.

[ajb]

What I was told is that while they have candidates, their abilities are not up to par so they rather not hire (rather than train them up).

This is something that could be tackled. The governments and universities need to talk more to people in industry to ensure that typical undergraduates have the skills required for the workplace. Otherwise typical undergraduate degrees are not going to be worth the time and money spent on them.

I only changed to bio/med tech for a career, not because I couldn't "hack it".

Medical science has lots of money thrown at it from many directions; governments, medical & drug companies, charities and so on. It must be a relatively secure field.

[Genecks]

Alright. Thank you, all, for the replies so far. Here is a question, though.

 

If a person is focusing on a company for a career, how much time should a person devote looking into the company and understanding what the company is doing before applying? For instance, I saw a position for a research technologist on Careerbuilder.com, and it appears there are a few publications from the laboratory. I don't want to read all of the research papers, so I'm attempting to read the methods to get a quick glance at what is going on at the lab. For the company I had an interview with last week, I couldn't find much information about the company at all. However, during the interview, I was given a tour of the establishment, so I was able to better understand what was going on.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Genecks

[ajb]

If a person is focusing on a company for a career, how much time should a person devote looking into the company and understanding what the company is doing before applying?

It helps at the interview stage (if you get that far) to have some idea on what a company is doing. That said, as you have found out, the interview can work both ways and it is a chance for you to find out more and see if you think you will fit it.

 

However, at some point you need a job and exactly what that company does may be a secondary consideration when you don't have many options.

[CharonY]

Research papers and similar should only give you a rough overall idea what they are doing. No one expects intimate familiarity from the get-go. However, knowing the mission and purpose of the company and demonstrating the ability to fit in, is very important. The key point is really the overall fit rather than intimate knowledge of techniques. You should have (demonstrably) the technical background that they request but do not neglect the overall context (is it quality control? diagnostics? medical? manufacturing?).

At entry level they tend not to expect too much, but everything that shows that you made an effort could increase your odds (e.g. infusing your cv with the right keywords that shows that you really want to do whatever the position they want to fill).

Best case scenario is if you can speak with someone of that company about what they are looking for (i.e. network), though obviously cold calls are not really easy and often not really appreciated at that level.