chemistry careers

[Kim S]

Hi Dayton,

I'm snowed in this sat afternoon and bumped into your posting on
misc.jobs.fields.chemistry....i'm actually a biochemist, which is not
the same as chemistry per se, but a very related career.

Currently I work as a research assistant in the department of
biochemistry at Dartmouth Medical School in NH.

I'm 26 years old, female. I spent most of my life wanting to go into
science, loved chemistry and math in high school (got all A
s all the time). Attended the University of Michigan in chemistry for a
few years before transferring to Michigan State University and obtaining
a degree summa cum laude in cell and developmental biology, with a
strong math and chemistry component. For two years I then went on to
start in a PhD program at the University of Alabama in molecular
biology, and hated and despised every aweful minute of it........so I
quit and got my job here. I've been here for a year, and am actually in
the process of re-assigning my position here to a new laboratory, since
the lab I just spent a year in made me sick-chemicals and people. My
new position will be working for an MD endocrinologist on fatty acid
metabolism.

1. What's it like being a chemist?

I'm not sure you can really generalize so much. There are a lot of
different kinds of "chemist". People like me in the molecular biology
fields are sorta chemist. Chemical engineers, food scientists, people
who do ecology oriented things-like water resource stuff, and a lot of
other people are also chemist. I think different people in various
positions will have awefully different views of being a chemist.

For academic research, it is lonely, boring, and extraordinarily
dangerous. I faculty member in our chemistry department recently
posoined herself accidently when cleaning up a mercury spill, and is now
permanently handicapped, retarded and disabled. Unfortunately, I don't
think many people in the profession are as serious as they should be
about handling chemicals. There are a lot of communication problems
since there is so much diversity in terms of national origin, etc...for
example, in my graduate program 70/90 students were asian, which made me
as an american feel lost since I didn't speak to anyone (no one spoke
English)....in the lab I just quit, people spoke French, Greek, German,
Chinese, .....making it difficult to communicate. This problem is very,
very common in science today, and I think a lot of AMericans feel out of
place in their own home, like I do.

Pure research is frankly, dull and boring....people spend years and
years solving a minuscule problem, which no one cares about except for
them.....often everything you do is a miserable failure, and it's pretty
depressing....the big rush is to publish papers in journals, which no
one in the public has ever heard of and no one reads. Press coverage of
science often sounds exciting, but does not at all reflect reality and I
doubt many people realize this.....scientists are too embarassed to tell
anyone.

2.Are you satisfied with your career choice?

Read 3. below

3. Would you do it again?

Would I major in science as an undergraduate ? Yes, absolutely. It is
interesting, intellectual, strengthens a lot of skills, and opens doors
to an aweful lot of professions, perhaps more so than any other major.
Would I go into academic/pure research type stuff? NEVER EVER EVER EVER
in a million years. The pay sucks (I make 30K, which is very low for
someone with my education/experience relative to other things I could be
doing, esp since I live in a high cost of living region), the hours SUCK
(I've worked apx. 60 hours/week on average, the social life SUCKS, the
security sucks (salaries depend on government grants...and you know how
stable the government is. in terms of funding), you lose contact with
reality and the public doesn't have a clue what you
do...........UHG....frankly, I don't have much positive to say about
academic/pure research

4.What would you do differently?

I'm trying to enter a Masters in Education program (part-time while
working for a few more years) to become a high school math/chemistry
teacher.

5.What is good and what is bad about being a chemist?

See above.

6.What are the job prospects like?

Depends A LOT on exactly what kind of chemist you want to be. At the
BS/MS level there are TONS of technical positions (like mine) which pay
relatively (20-50K) little and have little respect.......if you don't
finish a PhD, you'll never have your own lab or be able to do your own
reseaarch, you'll always be working under a PhD or MD person who runs
the show......however, there is much less stress (you don't have to
write the grants or papers) you can have a much more stable life, and
the jobs are definitely there (I applied for jobs this past month and in
four days got 6 interviews, and would have gotten every position I
wanted).....anyone who says otherwise has their head stuck in the
sand....

PhD's however face dismal and grim prospects.....they become
overspeciailized and overqualified for technical positions and can't
obtain faculty positions at universities or PI positions in
inducstry....you could not imagine how many people have cried to me
wishing they had quit their PhD program and become
technicians...although industry jobs are a zillion-fold easier to
obtain......see the way the system works is if you don't have a PhD (and
damm near EVERYONE does nowadays) you're looked upon as an inferior, but
if you do have a PhD you can't get a job (unless you're the greatest of
the greatest which only about 1/500 of the PhD level peole are)...it's
sort of a no-win situation.....

What I think is a good thing a lot of people at the BS/MS level are now
doing is obtaining business or law degrees to enable them to advance in
science in places other than the wet lab (patent law, management, etc)
and still get lots of respect....although I'm not sure there are that
many jobs are there......you should contact people who are doing this
sort of thing (and there are a lot) ......if young, a lot of people are
trying to get into medical schools, etc....again, you wouldn't believer
how many peole get into or through a PhD program, spending 8-11 years
pursuing the BS -PhD path and realize they're made the WRONG decision

7.If your child was planning on becoming a chemist, what would your
advice be?

It depends.

There are a lot of things you can do with a chemistry background. I
strongly advise against going for pure research/academic type careers.
However, a chemistry background is very good for careers in medicine,
pharmacy, environmental studies, public health, engineering/technical
things, etc......

Hope you find this helpful/amusing Dayton, and good luck.

E-mail me if you have any questions....

Kim

[Jeffrey Mitten]

Kim--
You honestly can't think that PhD's are that unemployable, do you? I'm
going to be attending the University of Delaware to pursue my PhD in
Organic Synthesis. I've heard, depending upon the field of study, there
are sometimes not enough individuals who have specialization in the right
area. For me, an industrial position with a Pharmaceutical company is
what I'm seeking, heading up research in a major R&D lab. However, I've
heard the prospect for biochemists is relatively low, considering there
has been such an influx of individuals into the field in the last 10-15
years. For some of the other disciplines within chemistry, such as
physical, analytical, inorganic, the majority of individuals seem to go
into government/academic positions--for which the salaries are typically
low and the jobs sometimes unrewarding (depending where you work, as
well, this can be the case in industry). I believe, or perhaps I'm just a
disillusioned Senior graduating with my B.S. in chemistry, that going on
for a PhD can be both intellectually and monetarily rewarding, however,
the choice of which field you specialize in is a major player in
employability and monetary compensation as well as choosing a position in
either industry or academe.

Just some thoughts,
Sincerely,
Jeff Mitten,
BS Chemistry & Biology (exp 5/97)
Dickinson College

**************************************************************************
"One can never consent to creep when one feels an impulse to soar."
--Helen Keller
Message from Jeff Mitten [mit...@alpha.dickinson.edu]
**************************************************************************

[Matthias Pohl]

In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.97030...@alpha.dickinson.edu>,
Jeffrey Mitten <mit...@dickinson.edu> wrote:

[...deleted...}

> well, this can be the case in industry). I believe, or perhaps I'm just a
> disillusioned Senior graduating with my B.S. in chemistry, that going on
> for a PhD can be both intellectually and monetarily rewarding, however,
> the choice of which field you specialize in is a major player in
> employability and monetary compensation as well as choosing a position in
> either industry or academe.

Jeff,

I am afraid that Kim is quite realistic in her assessment. I am a
Ph.D. chemist myself and the situation is less than satisfactory even for
the best of us. Of the many colleagues I know less than 50% are in
permanent career-track positions at the age of 30-34. The rest is either
post-docing, on a time-limited contract (typically 2 yrs.), or just plain
unemployed.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you want to
take a 50/50 gamble (at best) as the employment situation for chemists is
certainly not going to improve any time soon. DO YOU FEEL LUCKY, PUNK?
WELL, DO YOU?:)

Also for further insights into this topic, check out the newsgroup
sci.research.careers, and the YSN (Young Scientists Network) mailing list
and archive.

Rgds.
/Matthias

[Dose]

Jeffrey Mitten wrote:
>
> Kim--
> You honestly can't think that PhD's are that unemployable, do you? I'm
> going to be attending the University of Delaware to pursue my PhD in
> Organic Synthesis. I've heard, depending upon the field of study, there
> are sometimes not enough individuals who have specialization in the right
> area. For me, an industrial position with a Pharmaceutical company is
> what I'm seeking, heading up research in a major R&D lab. However, I've
> heard the prospect for biochemists is relatively low, considering there
> has been such an influx of individuals into the field in the last 10-15
> years. For some of the other disciplines within chemistry, such as
> physical, analytical, inorganic, the majority of individuals seem to go
> into government/academic positions--for which the salaries are typically
> low and the jobs sometimes unrewarding (depending where you work, as

> well, this can be the case in industry). I believe, or perhaps I'm just a
> disillusioned Senior graduating with my B.S. in chemistry, that going on
> for a PhD can be both intellectually and monetarily rewarding, however,
> the choice of which field you specialize in is a major player in
> employability and monetary compensation as well as choosing a position in
> either industry or academe.
>

> Just some thoughts,
> Sincerely,
> Jeff Mitten,
> BS Chemistry & Biology (exp 5/97)
> Dickinson College
>
> **************************************************************************
> "One can never consent to creep when one feels an impulse to soar."
> --Helen Keller
> Message from Jeff Mitten [mit...@alpha.dickinson.edu]
> **************************************************************************

************************************************************************

Whoa here. The situation is not that bad, and I've read just too many
messages in this newsgroup moaning about how awful it is to be a Ph.D.
chemist. I can no longer bite my tongue.

God knows there are problems, but having worked at 3 universities, 2
national labs, a consulting firm, and 2 pharmaceutical companies in my (Gad,
am I that old?) long career, maybe it's my turn to yield some perspective
here. I've had a lot of fun, and while the money came later than I'd hoped,
even that part is now going swimmingly, thank you.

(I hope a lot of people are reading, because I'm only going to have the
energy to write this once. I am writing primarily for U.S.-raised chemists
looking to do M.S. or Ph.D. industrial chemistry in the U.S. Most U.S. Ph.D.
chemists go to industry. It just doesn't seem like it because as far as the
universities are concerned they are never heard from again. Much will apply
to academicians and to holders of green cards, too, but not all. So, Jeff,
I'll write "you" a lot, but that refers to all of the above.)

First, let's take a realistic look at the problems and what you (all of you)
can DO about each one.

(1) More than in most fields, the chemistry workforce is expanding faster
than the field. I mean, more people immigrate to be chemists than to be
accountants. Let's not kid ourselves: that means there will be pressure on
salaries for chemists under 35-40. Supply and demand. Salaries are generally
OK in industry, though. So, what can one do to help yourself? (A) Pay
attention to what makes your company go. If you help them make money, they
will reward you. If you do nothing but screw around in the lab for decades,
they won't. Important: volunteer for projects you know little about or that
your peers hesitate to take even for a day - stretching will lead to
learning just as much as any college course. Most people will expect you to
fail; when you don't you'll astonish them. That is what gets promotions. (B)
Consider managing after a few years. When "they say" most scientists have
done their best work by 40, they aren't kidding. Bust your *** in the lab,
but around 35-40 decide if you might be more valuable keeping a few others
on track than by your doing yet more lab work with your own two hands.
People that call managing selling out usually just know they couldn't cut it
and don't want you to succeed either. The jealousy factor can be tremendous.
Before you ask for your first management/supervisor job, make sure your
company has a history of treating labbies who fail at management without
prejudice. My experience is that about 50% of Ph.D. chemists fail at their
first management attempt, and that it is hard to tell which ones they are in
advance! (C) Don't be a dope - visibility counts (when you're succeeding).
For example, when you've succeeded at something, send e-mail to your
coworkers thanking them and describing the success in detail and copy all
their bosses. When you are having a hard time, keep your mouth shut and work
your *** off until you're not having a hard time anymore (such periods do
pass). And don't dress like a slob unless you want to be paid like one. The
best rule of thumb is simply to dress for the job you want.

About your later considering managing - if the current influx of scientists
continues (good for US but maybe not for you personally), do you want to
compete in the lab with all these bright guys and gals 5-10 years younger,
or to have a few of them happy in your own lab? By 35 you'd better be
thinking about it - it is a bigger decision than the one you made going to
grad school (!).

(2) Status is a weird issue for chemists. They are respected by most of the
public as long pollution doesn't come up. As an analytical chemist, I am
somewhat removed from that, but some industrial chemists I know take more
frowns and kidding than they'd like. In addition, the field is considered
too dry and boring by a lot of right-brain ("fun") types, and you won't get
invited to their parties; you won't even hear about them. That's just how it
is.

(3) A different problem is that a chemist's first 10-20 years at work can be
almost nomadic. Since grad school I have moved to Ohio, Florida, New Jersey,
Florida (again), Tennessee, Ohio (again), and Florida (third and last time).
Even though that's extreme and even though it appears I may well stay with
my current company for the rest of my career, I probably will have to move
one more time (to headquarters) as I progress. If all this moving appeals to
you, you are in the right field. Some Ph.D. chemists never move much - they
are the exception, *believe* me. As far as not having a permanent position
by 35, keep plugging each position real hard until one clicks. It will.

(4) Or go into business for yourself, with or without other chemists. The
money can be gotten for good ideas, so keep your eyes open for just such
ideas. I have never seen a field of people so afraid of working for
themselves as chemists. Well, OK, physicists. But it is the best road to
wealth if that's important to you and if you can stomach a few failed
attempts first. And it beats complaining about salaries, like someone owed
us something for just being so danged smart.

Hope this helps. Good luck to all, and to all a great career.
-- Eric Dose, Ph.D. (Rice U., 1977)

[Sriram Shankar]

Finally, some one else that thinks that being a Ph.D chemist is not "all work
and no play"....

Though I can't speak from any industrial experience (having had none), I
can speak from my 6 years of doing research and from a perspective of one
that is writing his thesis.

It is not always fun, as others have opined in this group, being cooped up
in lab working seven days a week often and meeting deadlines and handling
pressures. But the real world as I gather is not that much easier in any
way... One has to put in some effort to succeed, and the effort is seldom
very much fun.

I concede that being in lab without a social life is quite often the case
among scientists. But if you want to have fun, it is possible to handle
it concomitant with research. I dance reglarly and have played several
sports over my career as a MS and Ph.D chemist. It took me a while but
once I found that it is possible to enjoy life while busting your behind
working in lab, it was not all that difficult to handle.

And in my research group, I have not just learnt chemistry. I have learnt
to interact with people of differing cultures. I have learnt to lead, and
I have learnt to follow. One has to know well how to follow orders in order
to be a good leader. And I have learnt to think out problems and solve
them, a feature for which you seldom have the luxury of time in the industry,
if you were to say start out with only as a BS Chemist.

And I have enjoyed the various invited speakers spanning the world of Chemistry
and the gamut of research.

I guess you have to admit that one has to be cut out for it - the cut is
made by the people that can persevere through tough times. If you are not
cut out for it, I am afraid a Ph. D is just not for you.

Remember one thing - If things go the way they are supposed to, you can soon
be your own project leader with people working under you, if you had a
doctorate. A bachelor chemist, unless with outstanding potential, is often
a part of team rather than its leader.

I am also sure that with every pessimistic opinion, there goes an optimistic
listener (of the group) that is just thinking, do I really want to spend my
time trying to change this person's mind. I almost did...

good lcuk with your career choices, I hope that you will find success and
happiness in whatever field you chose to pursue.

Sriram.

[Ed A. Luinstra]

In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.97030...@alpha.dickinson.edu>,
Jeffrey Mitten <mit...@dickinson.edu> wrote:

> .... I believe, or perhaps I'm just a

>disillusioned Senior graduating with my B.S. in chemistry, that going on

>for a PhD can be both intellectually and monetarily rewarding....

Pursuing a PhD is likely NOT monetarily rewarding. Consider the lost
income while in grad school, as well as lost retirement benefits at the
end of your career.

The company where I worked paid according to ability, not education
(except for new grads). The money I received as a PhD was the same as my
Chemistry classmates got who did not continue in grad school.

This will obviously depend on your situation...

===
| |
/ o \
/ O \ Ed Luinstra
(___o___) luin...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca

[Ed A. Luinstra]

In article <3324CA...@worldnet.att.net>,
Dose <do...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Whoa here. The situation is not that bad, and I've read just too many
>messages in this newsgroup moaning about how awful it is to be a Ph.D.
>chemist. I can no longer bite my tongue.

It sure is that bad where I am. Where are you?

Have a look at misc.jobs.offered. My news server typically delivers
15,000 posts for jobs a couple of times a week. There are usually only
20 or 30 or 40 for chemists. Practically all of these are for specialty
positions (analytical, pharmaceutical, plastics), for candidates with
years of experience.

My newspaper conveys the same picture.

We are in the worst job crunch since the early 70s, and the situation
seems especially bad for chemists and researchers. No point in doing a
whitewash.

[Dose]

Ed A. Luinstra wrote:
>
> In article <3324CA...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Dose <do...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>

> >Whoa here. The situation is not that bad, and I've read just too many
> >messages in this newsgroup moaning about how awful it is to be a Ph.D.
> >chemist. I can no longer bite my tongue.
>

> It sure is that bad where I am. Where are you?
>
> Have a look at misc.jobs.offered. My news server typically delivers
> 15,000 posts for jobs a couple of times a week. There are usually only
> 20 or 30 or 40 for chemists. Practically all of these are for specialty
> positions (analytical, pharmaceutical, plastics), for candidates with
> years of experience.
>
> My newspaper conveys the same picture.
>
> We are in the worst job crunch since the early 70s, and the situation
> seems especially bad for chemists and researchers. No point in doing a
> whitewash.
>
> ===
> | |
> / o \
> / O \ Ed Luinstra
> (___o___) luin...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca

***************************************************************

It's just silly to call my post, which exonerated people to take their
fates in their own hands, a whitewash. I thought it was rather serious.
What *does* have no point at all is to wring one's hands and moan on
about how awful things are. It would be unhelpful even if it were true;
it's doubly defeating when it isn't true, as now.

Now here's some truth to deal with: There currently exists no general
job crunch. Universities are in a major job funk of their own, but that
has *nothing* to do with industrial prospects. (That difference is
precisely why I'm not a professor anymore!) I sometimes wonder where the
hell the universities get their information about industry. Industry
surely has its hard times, but this is emphatically not one of them.

Check this out: (1) Unemployment in the US is right now at a
*multidecade* low (I can't speak for Canada). That's no job crunch. (2)
The unemployment rate for chemists is even below that low rate. That's
no job crunch, unless you're an employer! (3) Layoffs still occur, but
the numbers are way down from 1991-1995, and the fear out there is
largely gone. People are actually job-hopping again for higher salaries,
etc., and that never happens in any job crunch, certainly not in any
"worst one in 25 years." Wage inflation is higher than general
inflation; the demand is increasing, albeit slowly. (4) The top chemists
do not get jobs from newspapers; they get them from finding out where
the jobs are and sending out dozens of clean, accurate resumes to well
defined targets. Rule of thumb: if a prospective industrial chemist
can't find 50 companies to which he could reasonably send a resume, he
isn't ready for the workforce.

In the not-very-long run, the hustlers get the jobs. Here are some
Frequently Made Mistakes: Don't apply to human resources or a company's
general address; get a relevant manager's name and title (by any legal
means you can), and fire the resume to him/her with a brief cover letter
which at least displays that you are articulate (many of your
job-seeking competitors are not, and it only takes 2 paragraphs to tell
the difference). SPELL THE RECIPIENT'S NAMES RIGHT (you'd be surprised,
and all it takes is a 30-second call to their secretaries)! Ask him/her
to forward it to a likelier manager if that one is not looking to hire.
That sort of thing.

I found my previous great job when a guy who interviewed me (and did not
hire me) happened to mention my name to a manager at a *competitor*
company in a different state. That competitor hired me. Sow lots of good
seeds; impress even the managers you don't want to work for - word gets
around faster than you'd believe. Use any legal means if you really want
it. But hustle is just so out of fashion at universities that they seem
sometimes to believe that only the out-of-step or the lucky get the
jobs. It's almost never luck. It's good advice and hustle and
intelligence, in about that order. I've been years on each side of the
hiring table. I wouldn't kid you.

Anyone who relies on newspapers for a job, well, no wonder it looks so
bad out there. Technical hiring hasn't worked that way for decades. The
few internet job lists are OK as far as they go but are nothing to rely
on. Advice doesn't get any worse than relying on the jobs to come to you
rather than vice versa.

Finally, I'd be the first to agree that plenty of advanced chemists are
underemployed. I hate that that is so. But there are also companies one
has never heard of that employ hundreds of degreed chemists. Reference
books in the public or college libraries can help you start a list. I've
found jobs by bugging my employed friends, making lists of all the
technical companies in an area I wanted to be in, cutting articles (not
ads) from trade journals, etc., etc. I have NEVER gotten a job from a
newspaper.

Best of luck in your hunt; I truly hope you find something great.
-- Eric

[Theresa Marwood]

To Eric,
Sounds like you've had lot's of experience looking for jobs. Sounds like
you've had lots of jobs. Sounds like you're a bit older than some of us
less experienced still-trying-to-break-into-the-field types. I have lots
of GREAT contacts in government AND academia. Everyone around here is
VERY very very depressed! It's depressing to look for work because no
one is hiring anyone and they are all VERY very very worried about
losing their own jobs and the people they already have. Maybe industry
is better, maybe the USA is better, but here in Ontario, if you want to
do pure research and publish your work, times are tough.

[Dose]

********************************************************************

Ah, but my msg addressed only the economy as a whole, and in fact noted
that "universities are in a funk." It's of course clear that for those
want to do pure research, times are tough.

But life is not picking on you. Historically, for hundreds or thousands
of years, only the wealthy, their patronees, or those who renounced this
life's pleasures ever did much research. So we had a few good years for
pure research in the 60's and 70's, when people actually got paid for
it. that was an oddity - it should be no surprise that life has gone
back to its historical norms. The question remains for each individual:
given that that is the way the world *is*, what am *I* going to do about
my situation?

I could never advise someone to go into academia without absolute
committment. It does not get easier. I know those starting out want very
much to believe that it is easier with 20 years of experience. Knowing
many professors in their forties, I'd have to say that having all that
experience makes it different but not easier. Academia just stays hard.
I applaud that research is want they want to do. But don't take on
illusions - a young academician who tells himself that the more
experienced ones have it easier is kidding only himself, and it may take
half his career to realize it.

The ones who succeed are the ones who love the work so much that they
don't care that it is hard and that it pays poorly, the ones who cannot
see themselves doing anything else, the ones who see a 4-year postdoc as
a short wait, who have no doubt they'll succeed at pure research.
-- Eric