I appreciate any help/suggestions. Please use Email rather than
follow-up postings.
--
John
jnov...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu The George Washington University
Live every day as if it was your last. One day you'll be right!
: I wish your son the best of luck. It's a tough choice -- choose the career
: you love or choose the career that pays?
My father always told me - work at something you like and learn to live on
the money it pays. I followed his advice and have never regretted it - if
I won the lottery I'd still do what I do. I've seen all too many people
working in a job they hate because the money is good and they are too
afraid of the big bad world to make a change, or too loaded down with
responsibilities to afford the risk. Work is where you spend 40 hours (at
least) per week for most of your life - that's too much time to be stuck
doing something you don't like. Your son is young - don't let him get
into THAT trap!
Thomas C. Wilson / Ocean Instrument Lab / Marine Sciences
State University of New York / Stony Brook NY 11794-5000 USA
Tel: 516-632-8706 / FAX: 516-632-8820 / TWi...@ccmail.sunysb.edu
"Opinions expressed are not necessarily, etc. etc...."
P.S. As a lad I too wanted to study lakes and streams, but since I had
never heard the word "limnology" I told everyone I wanted to be a marine
biologist - which is why I left the hills of West Virginia and ended up on
the coast of Long Island. Funny how the little things can make such a
difference...
P.P.S. I COMPLETELY AGREE with Steve's cautionary tale. If you choose
oceanography/limnology/fisheries be prepared for a lot of hard work, some
job insecurity, and adequate but minimal monetary rewards. Also, LOVE of
the field is not a sufficient prerequisite - you better hit the books,
take lots of science and math courses, learn to write well (!!!) & think
critically, and do pretty well at your courses if you expect to succeed in
this field (or any other!). Best of luck!
On Tue, 10 Jan 1995, Stephen C. Ertman wrote:
> In article <3esr5r$e...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu> jnov...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (John A Novotny Jr) writes:
> >Path: mailer.acns.fsu.edu!gatech!darwin.sura.net!gwu.edu!jnovotny
> >From: jnov...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (John A Novotny Jr)
> >Newsgroups: sci.geo.oceanography
> >Subject: Freshwater Marine Biology???
> >Date: 10 Jan 1995 02:24:59 GMT
> >Organization: The George Washington University, Washington DC
> >Lines: 13
> >Message-ID: <3esr5r$e...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.164.127.252
> >X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
>
> >My son is interested in finding a college where he can study marine
> >biology in a freshwater environment (lakes, rivers, largemouth bass,
> >etc.) Does a generic marine biology cirriculum cover fresh and salt
> >water? Can you specialize in fresh water? Are schools in Florida and
> >California the place to look?
>
> >I appreciate any help/suggestions. Please use Email rather than
> >follow-up postings.
>
> I might as well throw in my 2 cents worth because I ARE a marine biologist.
>
> First of all, freshwater marine biology is an oxymoron. Based on your
> comments, your son seems to have three career options: 1) Limnology --
> deals with the science of freshwater environments, principally lakes and
> ponds. 2) Aquatic biology -- freshwater and marine. 3) Fisheries --
> principally interested in studying economically important fish (fresh and
> marine). Where he should look for schools depends largely on which of these
> options seems most attractive. There is a book listing all the undergraduate
> and graduate programs in the aquatic sciences for all the colleges and
> universities in the U.S. I don't have the title handy, but some high schools,
> most colleges, and even some city librarys may have a copy in their
> career/placement centers.
>
> As for job opportunities, I began my studies of aquatic (mostly marine)
> biology in 1976. The job outlook was poor then, it is poor now, and it is not
> expected to improve any time within the next decade. Fisheries is a smidgen
> better because it is economically important. Don't get me wrong, I love the
> field and would probably make the same decisions again given the option.
> Nevertheless, I am sometimes depressed by the dificulty of the struggle. I
> know many excellent marine scientists who are undervalued and under-employed.
> Given the supreme importance of the aquatic environment on this planet, it is
> unfortunate that it is so poorly valued. We (as a collective whole) wish to
> exploit it in so many ways, but funding to study it is very limited. Out of
> sight,...out of mind,...out of time.
Ok, as a practicing academic marine biologist, I can't let this pass
without comment. First of all, I know of extremely few "independently
wealthy" marine biologists. My contemporaries in graduate school and
my older colleagues certainly didn't achieve their positions based on
inherited money.
The comment that most biologists Ray knows are not doing research work
is a comment on Ray's community of friends, not a statistical comment
on the field of marine biology. Most of the marine biologists _I_ know
are active academics. Again, a comment on who I happen to know,
not a statistical statement. Would I claim that most people that show
an interest in marine biology at some stage of their education become
marine biologists? Of course not. On the other hand, most people
aren't firemen either...
The employment/salary issue is a complex one. First of all, academic
physics positions are not exactly easy to get (why don't you ask one of
the hundreds laid off with the collapse of the SSC?). Academic jobs
are hard to get. Period. More to the point, no one should head to an
academic job based on the pay scale. Compared to lots of other jobs,
the pay sucks compared to the demands. The reasons for going into
academics are numerous, but high pay is not an issue, whether for
biologists, physicists, or engineers.
As another poster mentioned, one is far better off studying something
that is personally interesting. Hard work comes much easier, so
excellence is easier to achieve. It is excellence in one's field that
leads to a good job (as well as all the unquantifiables like
personality, friendships, and luck). What qualifies as a "good" job is
highly personal. For one person, it may be an intensive teaching job
with mediocre pay, for someone else, a high-pressure research job
(again with mediocre pay!), and for yet another person, it may be a
fast-track, well-paid industry job. Different people (fortunately)
find different things personally rewarding.
And, I can't let the gratuitous swipe at marine biology as not a "hard
science" slip by. In the metaphorical sense of "hard science/soft
science", marine biology is as hard as they come. I'm a very
mainstream marine biologist and in my lab we regularly work with
computers, workstations, numerical techniques, acoustic Doppler
equipment, laser induced fluorescence, computer-assisted
electrochemical probes, real-time video processors, etc. (as well as
diving, chemistry, and animal behavioral observations). Hard science
enough for you? In the direct sense of the word "hard science", I also
have to disagree. Marine biology is very, very hard. It often makes
challenging physical as well as intellectual demands on its
practitioners since it is dedicated to studying a difficult-to-enter
environment. Whether data are collected from ship or directly by
diving, the effort per data point is often far greater than for lab- or
terrestrially-based scientists. Marine biology is hard science.
Like any academic field these days, it's difficult to get into, with
uncertain rewards. Actually, that sounds a little like the job market
in general.
-Dean
--
N. Dean Pentcheff
Biological Sciences, Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia SC 29208 (803-777-3936)
Internet addresses: pent...@pascal.acm.org or de...@tbone.biol.scarolina.edu
WWW link: <a href="http://tbone.biol.scarolina.edu/~dean/">home page</a>
> I might as well throw in my 2 cents worth because I ARE a marine biologist.
>
> First of all, freshwater marine biology is an oxymoron. Based on your
> comments, your son seems to have three career options: 1) Limnology --
> deals with the science of freshwater environments, principally lakes and
> ponds. 2) Aquatic biology -- freshwater and marine. 3) Fisheries --
> principally interested in studying economically important fish (fresh and
> marine).
While we're on the subject of word choices, that should be
"fishes" :-)
> Where he should look for schools depends largely on which of these
> options seems most attractive.
As well as the powerhouse marine institutions (Rhode Island,
Miami, etc) he might find just what he's looking for at a University
elsewhere, even one in the heart of the landlocked prairie, where there
happens to be a professor interested in some aspect (ecology, ethology,
physiology, etc) of a marine organism or system. One way to find out is
to pore over papers on subjects of interest and then seek out the
authors. Worked for me, anyway.
> I wish your son the best of luck. It's a tough choice -- choose the career
> you love or choose the career that pays?
The trade-off seems inevitable, but you never know what the
possibilities will be upon graduation (he says, hopefully, having a long
path ahead of him before that event). If I wanted to just make money I
would have gone to Law/dental/radiology school (etc - fill in the blanks)
or become a TV preacher. Now, at least, I'll be qualified as an exotic
dancer upon graduation (come out to throbbing music, fling my buoyancy
compensator into the audience, drape a transect line across my
shoulders, peel off the first layer of my wetsuit...)
Shane