Premier Rock Forum

I've applied for school at UIC for Biology. I was thinking of going to Columbia (which I also applied for) for something more "computer/technical art"-oriented, but I have a lot of math and science credits from doing 2 years in engineering and a decent amount of humanities/elective credits from 2 years of part-time undeclared lib./fine arts school. So it shouldn't take me much more than two years to finish a degree in biology or chemistry. Also, I like lab work a lot more than sitting in front of a computer all day (granted, they use a lot of computers in labs nowadays).

So, are any of you out there working in the scientific community, either professional or academic? Any insights? Is growing cells in a basement in California for a drug company a bad job? Are the politics for finding grants for academic research that difficult and anxiety inducing? I'm genuinely interested in the field but have had reservations in the past, which is why I went into engineering, as it's more practical and the job market is more diverse. But, while at school I always had a certain envy over my friends who were studying "pure" science in the LAS college.

I have two friends who get are on their way to being professional scientists. One is in bio-chem, the other biology. They are both currently working their asses off for their doctorate with 10 hours a day in the lab, but seem to be holding out and enjoying it.

The situation is a little different than it would be at Columbia, though, since they are both from Serbia and study in Brno, Czech Republic, and have been receiving scholarships from both the Czech and Serb governments.

Anyway, they are both really into it and will likely be able to teach/work anywhere in Europe after receiving their PhDs.

Their only major complaint is their lack of influence over the studies they are working on. One time, a prof dropped a study which the biology guy had been working on for a year just as he was making serious progress on it. It really pissed him off, and he briefly considered abandoning his doctoral program. But he ended up sticking it out.

better a scientist than a scientologist.

I should point out that I meant Columbia College here in Chicago, not the school I probably couldn't get into in NY.

Just a quick observation from a non-scientist who has known a lot of chemists, biologists and engineers-

It has seemed to me that the majority of biologists with only a graduate degree work in jobs that seem a lot more boring (more technician-type positions than scientist-type positions) than those of chemists or of engineers with the same level of education. The impression I have received is that you study this interesting discipline for x number of years with the hopes of doing some science and then in the real world all you do is transfer cells from one dish to another all day...

Maybe some real-life biologists on the forum can tell me this is not true? I hope so.

Disclosure: my father is a chemist and my ex of 5 years is a bio-chemical engineer, so there might be some prejudice in my viewpoint!

my brother is a physics phd. he wasn't interested in university work so he joined a consulting company. i don't know if he still considers himself a scientist. they like him though. smart is smart.

Yeah, I'm a professional (Ph.D in physical chemistry, 1997, 25 intl papers, about 30 conferences). I've had some shit jobs that paid very well (big university, public service), and some good jobs that paid poorly (small university, private company). There seems to be an inverse correlation between pay rates and job satisfaction. Big "sandstone" universities can be full of conceited pricks...find yourself a good small uni, or company, with a nice small department/division (in your specialty). Don't stop publishing, if you do it gets very hard to go back to R&D (example job interview question: Why haven't you published in the last few years?)

I've got a better idea, find some mates and form a band. Oreint your career around your band/family. Very rewarding.

I AM A SCIENTIST I SEEK TO UNDERSTAND THINGS... as robert pollard said. I'm a chemist and have worked in various fields, big pharma, contracting for big oil, contracting for biotechs, and working for a large charitable/ academic institute.. the last one was the best, good working practices, felt like I was doing something useful, and they were very flexible over me taking time off to do music, I did that for a long time.. the pay was awful but gradually got better, but i relocated to live with my partner. I don't have a pHD and she does, so despite my 10 years experience in the lab' i am at a big disadvantage in terms of getting any sort of responsibility/ line management style stuff and therefore the big cash payout.. but luckily I'm not bothered. From what I have seen it's not the most financially rewarding or secure career path.. either in academia or industry.. small- medium biotechs are constantly buying one another or folding.. academic institutions struggle with funding.. and there's the whole issue of outsourcing the technical side to the far east.. on the other hand I love working in the lab' and actually doing something with my hands and physically seeing something that I've made sometimes from concept on the page to actually there in front of my eyes.. and as a bonus if you pick the right path you might actually be doing something that's good for other people (Although that's pretty secondary to most pharma's)

I have enjoyed a rewarding and successful career as a Rock It Scientist.

I am a physicist. I love it. I am very lucky to be employed. I have a real problem with the idea of working in the defense industry and as a result my job options are severely limited. Definitely the higher degree you have, the more options will be out there. I recommend research as much as possible. It is not always the most profitable but you spend your time problem solving, not performing repetitive tasks. If I had it all to do over again I would have chosen to finish my PhD and tried to get a job in academia.

Outside of academia, physic research opportunities are very hard to come by, but with a degree in biology it seems there are far more opportunities for research, especially in the boitech fields.

As far the difference between engineering and "pure" science it is distinct. Mind you this is coming from a physicist and we known to be arrogant fucks, but engineers and scientists approach problems differently. The best illustration is the idea that if an engineer is working on a problem and the outcome is not expected they tend to scratch the problem and start over whereas a scientist will evaluate the outcome and attempt to figure out why the unexpected occurred. Then they will publish and tell everyone they expected the outcome from the beginning. Also, most of the engineers I have worked with (these are mostly materials and mechanical) seem to have a "eh, it's good enough" perspective. I think it has to to with engineering being task oriented whereas science is problem oriented. Did I mention scientists are arrogant?

If you want to easily find a job, engineering seems to be the way to go but do whatever makes you happy. Fuck the money. If you really enjoy research then by all means pursue it to exhaustion. In the end, you will be content.

Jon