Volunteer/unpaid work to build skills

[Dominic Fagan]

I got a chemistry degree a few years ago bit I didn't use it to get a job since I've been doing other things. I love working in the lab and would really love to build up my skills but I don't see myself getting a paid chemistry job any time soon so looking for another way to gain lab experience.

Are there ways to volunteer to work as an unpaid volunteer or intern in a lab? The idea being it should be relatively easy to get a position.

 

[berkeman]

Here in Northern California we have a very fun educational museum called "The Exploratorium":

https://www.exploratorium.edu/

They are always looking for qualified volunteers to help with planning, building and maintaining exhibits, as well as serving as docents with the public. Perhaps there is some similar science museum in the area where you live?

We also have a very nice large public/research aquarium on the Monterey coast, called the "Monterey Bay Aquarium":

https://www.montereybayaquarium.org/

They use paid research staff, but they probably have opportunities for qualified folks to volunteer to help with research and other activities.

Have you found anything interesting in your area so far with your Google searches?

EDIT / ADD -- Have you looked at your local high schools and community colleges to see if they have classes or chemistry clubs where they could use a qualified volunteer to help out?

 

[Dominic Fagan]

Here in Northern California we have a very fun educational museum called "The Exploratorium":

https://www.exploratorium.edu/

They are always looking for qualified volunteers to help with planning, building and maintaining exhibits, as well as serving as docents with the public. Perhaps there is some similar science museum in the area where you live?

We also have a very nice large public/research aquarium on the Monterey coast, called the "Monterey Bay Aquarium":

https://www.montereybayaquarium.org/

They use paid research staff, but they probably have opportunities for qualified folks to volunteer to help with research and other activities.

Have you found anything interesting in your area so far with your Google searches?

EDIT / ADD -- Have you looked at your local high schools and community colleges to see if they have classes or chemistry clubs where they could use a qualified volunteer to help out?

Im looking to build my practical chemistry skills up so gain more experience with things like synthesising and preparing compounds, analysing compositions, as well as things like extractions. Not sure what kind of skills I could build somewhere like the exploratorium but would love to find out. I am kind of in a nomad phase right now, I have no fixed location so I am happy to move to a place I can volunteer.

Im in Peru right now and found a really good one, I can volunteer in a medicinal plant laboratory near Cusco but maybe I got lucky because I haven't found anything else in my google searches yet.

 

[Zap]

Why can’t you find a job related to chemistry with your chemistry degree? Shouldn’t the point of school be to learn skills so you can get a job? I think you already have extraction experience and used just about every chemical instrument that exists, if you were required to complete 15 dreadful laboratory courses like I was. The sad part of that is I spent much more time writing lab reports than actually being in the lab and using the instrumentation.

But regardless, I’ve still used just about every spectrometer known to man and extracted multiple times in my coursework alone.

If you were in my country, I’d tell you that you probably don’t hae a prayer to volunteer or work for free at any professional company. However, you can easily find volunteer work in academia.

 

[Locrian]

Shouldn’t the point of school be to learn skills so you can get a job?

Many posters here would strongly disagree with you. We've been having debates about this for at least a decade.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Shouldn’t the point of school be to learn skills so you can get a job?

It depends on what type of school and what type of program you are studying. If you are attending a community college for a diploma program or an apprenticeship program for a specific trade or work (e.g. electrician, mechanic, medical tech, MRI technician, etc.), then yes, the programs are intended to teach you skills so you can get a job upon graduation.

Some university programs (e.g. engineering, medicine, law, accounting) are similar to the above, in that they are vocational programs. But many college/university programs are not like this. Specifically, the degree program isn't specifically geared to train you for a specific job upon graduation.

Chemistry and physics degrees are among such programs, although both programs should teach you skills that will be of use to you upon graduation in the workforce.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I got a chemistry degree a few years ago bit I didn't use it to get a job since I've been doing other things. I love working in the lab and would really love to build up my skills but I don't see myself getting a paid chemistry job any time soon so looking for another way to gain lab experience.

Are there ways to volunteer to work as an unpaid volunteer or intern in a lab? The idea being it should be relatively easy to get a position.

That strongly depends on where you are. In some places, legal requirements are such that volunteers may be much more or much less attractive than paid employees. Some company cultures are concerned with intellectual property and they have much more control over paid employees than volunteers. Lots of colleges and universities in the US are very cool with volunteer student workers, but it is much harder in some places to get the requisite approvals for volunteers who are not current students.

I've helped students I mentor get plenty of paid and unpaid jobs in chemistry and physics research, but so much of the process depends on your resume and location. Yes, you'll need a good resume even as a volunteer. Even unpaid lab workers need to establish that they are worth the time and effort of the lab or research group. Feel free to PM me with your resume and location, and I'll try and give more useful advice.

 

[Zap]

Many posters here would strongly disagree with you. We've been having debates about this for at least a decade.

In my opinion, it is way too expensive to think otherwise. If you're in a country in which higher education is payed for or not as expensive, I can see how one might think college shouldn't be solely to find a job.

Unfortunately, a lot of people in our country have a romanticized perception of college, as though it's some kind of philosophical place to explore or experience new things, despite it costing a fortune. This is hurting us and the youth in this country, and we need to stop it as soon as possible.

If I'm not a prime example of the damage it's done, there are thousands of new freshman every year that I teach and tutor who are. If going to college is to explore and experience new things, one shouldn't have their life ripped away from them for doing so. The costs to attend university are way too high. If you can't find a job afterwards, you are really screwed.

I think we could debate whether one should go to college for any reason at all. It's not like they are safeguarding hidden knowledge over there. Do you want to pay six thousand dollars to listen to some foreigners give speeches in broken English for 15 hours each week, or just buy a few books and read some articles? Which option do you think will teach you more? I hope one day the internet will totally replace university.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Why can’t you find a job related to chemistry with your chemistry degree? Shouldn’t the point of school be to learn skills so you can get a job?

The bottom line is should there be freedom to choose between majors with a high level of employment prep (medicine, law, nursing, engineering, education, comp sci) and majors with a lower level of direct employment prep (science, math, English, art, etc.)? Or should students ONLY be able to choose majors with a high level of direct employment prep? I favor freedom. Apparently, you do not.

Chemistry is actually a science degree with a relatively high degree of employability. But employability always depends on the reputation of the school, the GPA, and what marketable skills the student picked up along the way. A 2.x GPA from a mid- to lower tier school is never going to have huge employability in Chemistry, Physics, or Math. AND IT'S NOT A MATTER OF SKILLS. It's because a 2.x GPA from a mid- to lower tier school SCREAMS "I have a lousy work ethic, regardless of my skills."

I mentor a number of physics and chemistry majors. I wouldn't dream of letting them fantasize they have a decent working future with 2.x GPAs. That's burger flipping range. I am very clear with them that decent job opportunities begin with 3.x GPAs, tons of lab experience and a specific marketable skill set - documented lab skills in research environments where the staff will provide recommendations, programming skills with a documented list of tangible projects, other practical work experience.

Welcome to real life. I am sorry if someone lied to you. But my experience has been that most students work pretty hard to fool themselves that they are working hard enough in college when plenty of adults in their lives are telling them otherwise.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Zap, Zap, Zap...

From the moment you decided you were "taking a break" from job hunting, your problems became entirely of your own making.

 

[symbolipoint]

I got a chemistry degree a few years ago bit I didn't use it to get a job since I've been doing other things. I love working in the lab and would really love to build up my skills but I don't see myself getting a paid chemistry job any time soon so looking for another way to gain lab experience.

Are there ways to volunteer to work as an unpaid volunteer or intern in a lab? The idea being it should be relatively easy to get a position.

Instead of any volunteer position, do you believe you are qualified for any advertised but low-wage, low-salary position which you might find advertised? If you could be hired for one, then you would be able to build some in-the-lab experience.

 

[Zap]

The bottom line is should there be freedom to choose between majors with a high level of employment prep (medicine, law, nursing, engineering, education, comp sci) and majors with a lower level of direct employment prep (science, math, English, art, etc.)? Or should students ONLY be able to choose majors with a high level of direct employment prep? I favor freedom. Apparently, you do not.

I still think the focus of school should be to get a job, even if it's in a field that's not marketable. If you get an art degree, part of your education should be career oriented. Most people will study art because they want to get a job as an artist, not just for the sake of art. I think a good university should be able to produce productive graduates that can contribute to society, no matter what program they decide to pursue, and if the program really is useless, they should get rid of it. It doesn't look good for the school to produce minimum wage workers, and it's not good for the students.

We are free to study whatever we want, regardless of whether we go to school for it. We have access to all the textbooks they use at universities and more. Therefore, the degree should only be a credential that you get for a job. Otherwise, there's no point in it. If the degree doesn't count for anything, it shouldn't be there. What if you wanted to study skateboarding? Do you think skateboarding should then be offered as a 4 year program at universities? Of course not. You can save your money and learn skateboarding on your own time.

 

[symbolipoint]

I still think the focus of school should be to get a job, even if it's in a field that's not marketable. If you get an art degree, part of your education should be career oriented. Most people will study art because they want to get a job as an artist, not just for the sake of art. I think a good university should be able to produce productive graduates that can contribute to society, no matter what program they decide to pursue, and if the program really is useless, they should get rid of it. It doesn't look good for the school to produce minimum wage workers, and it's not good for the students.

We are free to study whatever we want, regardless of whether we go to school for it. We have access to all the textbooks they use at universities and more. Therefore, the degree should only be a credential that you get for a job. Otherwise, there's no point in it. If the degree doesn't count for anything, it shouldn't be there. What if you wanted to study skateboarding? Do you think skateboarding should then be offered as a 4 year program at universities? Of course not. You can save your money and learn skateboarding on your own time.

Highly Faulty Response or Discussion.

Main reason for studying Art is to understand expression and ways of conveying feeling or to symbolize feeling; or to communicate through both human language and non-language. Art of all sorts have also made their way into commercialization, but some art is for commercial purposes and some other art was or is not for commercial purposes. Studying for both intents is useful. Or either intent. Art is to express, to communicate, and to understand. Applying it for commercial purposes is possible and practiced, but is not the point.

The example of Skateboarding fits well as a subtopic of Physical Education, and maybe Sociology.

 

[EngWiPy]

I still think the focus of school should be to get a job, ...

I agree. However, where I see the problem is not the school, but rather the employers. In school, you learn the theoretical fundamentals, and a way of thinking, which are important, but employers care only about money, and need employees to produce from time 0 with 0 investment. I read once that for every dollar investment employers put, they gain 1.5 dollars in return (i.e., they don't lose anything). But they want to reduce the investment to zero to maximize profit. They are unwilling to train employees in most cases. Internships help but they are very scarce, again because of the monetary aspect, and this makes them competitive as well. A company may have very few internships at any given time. Not enough to create talent on a large scale. The system in Germany works better. They have dual vocational training programs that involve theory and practice, and employers are part of these programs.

 

[Vanadium 50]

They are unwilling to train employees in most cases.

Why then did US corporations spend $90B on it then?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I still think the focus of school should be to get a job, even if it's in a field that's not marketable. If you get an art degree, part of your education should be career oriented. Most people will study art because they want to get a job as an artist, not just for the sake of art. I think a good university should be able to produce productive graduates that can contribute to society, no matter what program they decide to pursue, and if the program really is useless, they should get rid of it. It doesn't look good for the school to produce minimum wage workers, and it's not good for the students.

We are free to study whatever we want, regardless of whether we go to school for it. We have access to all the textbooks they use at universities and more. Therefore, the degree should only be a credential that you get for a job. Otherwise, there's no point in it. If the degree doesn't count for anything, it shouldn't be there. What if you wanted to study skateboarding? Do you think skateboarding should then be offered as a 4 year program at universities? Of course not. You can save your money and learn skateboarding on your own time.

I think you are confusing necessary and sufficient. There are many jobs for which a degree is necessary, but for which a degree is not sufficient. The burden of sufficient preparation should be on the student rather than on the school, since the school only has a limited amount of time to prepare the student (typically 120-128 credit hours for Bachelor degrees.) Further, your complaint seems to be more focused on entry level jobs. Whereas, a Physics or Chemistry degree is more focused on the body of knowledge and skills most likely to be useful over a 30-40 year career rather than getting the first job right out of college.

 

[Joshy]

I accepted an offer before graduating, but I could relate to these thoughts while I was looking for internship experience in the past. There were a lot of great paid and unpaid opportunities; an unpaid opportunity I accepted in the past was about as useful and prestigious as the paid ones I've worked. I applied for whatever I could and choose what works best of the options. We spend so much time thinking about whether we should on one or two opportunities, but sometimes the decision is made for you if you're not a super competitive candidate. I would take a look at a large handful opportunities and apply for it if it makes sense.

 

[Zap]

H
Main reason for studying Art is to understand expression and ways of conveying feeling or to symbolize feeling; or to communicate through both human language and non-language. Art of all sorts have also made their way into commercialization, but some art is for commercial purposes and some other art was or is not for commercial purposes. Studying for both intents is useful. Or either intent. Art is to express, to communicate, and to understand. Applying it for commercial purposes is possible and practiced, but is not the point.

Applying it definitely should be the point of the degree.

The burden of sufficient preparation should be on the student rather than on the school, since the school only has a limited amount of time to prepare the student (typically 120-128 credit hours for Bachelor degrees.) Further, your complaint seems to be more focused on entry level jobs. Whereas, a Physics or Chemistry degree is more focused on the body of knowledge and skills most likely to be useful over a 30-40 year career rather than getting the first job right out of college.

I disagree that the school does not have enough time. Application should be included in everything that is taught. If the university wants to say that they don't have time to provide sufficient preparation for graduation, than they should get rid of all of the unnecessary coursework.

Most students tend to enjoy learning things that are applicable. The applicability part makes it more interesting and relatable. Most students in physics see it as applicable, because they are pursuing a career as a research professor. So, studying physics for the sake of physics makes sense to them.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I disagree that the school does not have enough time. Application should be included in everything that is taught. If the university wants to say that they don't have time to provide sufficient preparation for graduation, than they should get rid of all of the unnecessary coursework.

Everything I learned in every STEM course I took in college is applicable to some career path common for physics majors. The challenge is that there is a lot one learns in a physics or chemistry major that is not applicable to every possible career path. The research lab path will emphasize different skills from the programming path which uses different skills from the data analyst which uses different skills from the teaching path which uses different skills from the engineering paths. Doing a better job preparing for one specific path (say the research lab) is going to necessarily imply not doing as good a job preparing for other possible career paths.

Since in my career, I've been a teacher, worked in research labs, worked as an engineer, done a lot of programming, and done a lot of data analysis, I've had a chance to use just about every skill from my STEM courses in my career. But if one emphasizes being prepared for that first job out of college, there will still be lots of skills that are more applicable to other jobs.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Why then did US corporations spend $90B on it then?

What is the source of the above figure? This is important because whether US corporations spent this amount, it is important to distinguish what type of training US corporations spent on training.

For example, in my line of work, there are mandatory training on things like security awareness, IT security, good management practice (GMP), good clinical practice (GCP), etc. These are the types of training that one doesn't usually put on resumes because they are for the most part obvious activities that are part and parcel of the job, and employers expect future employees with experience to know this, but this is the kind of training that presumably is included in that number you quote.

 

[Zap]

Everything I learned in every STEM course I took in college is applicable to some career path common for physics majors. The challenge is that there is a lot one learns in a physics or chemistry major that is not applicable to every possible career path. The research lab path will emphasize different skills from the programming path which uses different skills from the data analyst which uses different skills from the teaching path which uses different skills from the engineering paths. Doing a better job preparing for one specific path (say the research lab) is going to necessarily imply not doing as good a job preparing for other possible career paths.

Since in my career, I've been a teacher, worked in research labs, worked as an engineer, done a lot of programming, and done a lot of data analysis, I've had a chance to use just about every skill from my STEM courses in my career. But if one emphasizes being prepared for that first job out of college, there will still be lots of skills that are more applicable to other jobs.

I feel you. That’s pretty cool. I think I definitely have a unique skillset, but you’re right that it’s not specialized toward a specific career. I don’t think anything I learned in my math and science classes was completely useless, but I do wish that there was more focus put on career guidance rather than graduate school.

 

[symbolipoint]

I feel you. That’s pretty cool. I think I definitely have a unique skillset, but you’re right that it’s not specialized toward a specific career. I don’t think anything I learned in my math and science classes was completely useless, but I do wish that there was more focus put on career guidance rather than graduate school.

Yes, schools and major fields need some balance. Better to attempt to help students know how to point themselves possibly in either direction, at least to be well informed how to prepare for either.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I feel you. That’s pretty cool. I think I definitely have a unique skillset, but you’re right that it’s not specialized toward a specific career. I don’t think anything I learned in my math and science classes was completely useless, but I do wish that there was more focus put on career guidance rather than graduate school.

I can see this from a student's viewpoint. But consider the department's viewpoint. The biggest slice if the pie chart for what physics majors do next is apply to graduate school for most departments. Since the skill sets tend to be so different for different career paths, they can't really over emphasize the specific skill sets for different career paths: teaching, engineering, lab jobs, programming jobs, analyst jobs. Time and effort spent better preparing their physics majors for programming and engineering jobs would necessarily take away from time and effort preparing them for graduate school, lab jobs, and teaching jobs. Available time is limited. Spending more time and effort on one emphasis demands spending less time and effort on others.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I can see this from a student's viewpoint. But consider the department's viewpoint. The biggest slice if the pie chart for what physics majors do next is apply to graduate school for most departments. Since the skill sets tend to be so different for different career paths, they can't really over emphasize the specific skill sets for different career paths: teaching, engineering, lab jobs, programming jobs, analyst jobs. Time and effort spent better preparing their physics majors for programming and engineering jobs would necessarily take away from time and effort preparing them for graduate school, lab jobs, and teaching jobs. Available time is limited. Spending more time and effort on one emphasis demands spending less time and effort on others.

One way to address the issue of available time is to create separate degrees within the physics departments -- an BS (or MS) degree in applied physics (focusing on students intending on an industrial career) and a BS degree in physics, where the emphasis is on building the foundations to pursue graduate studies.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

One way to address the issue of available time is to create separate degrees within the physics departments -- an BS (or MS) degree in applied physics (focusing on students intending on an industrial career) and a BS degree in physics, where the emphasis is on building the foundations to pursue graduate studies.

Sure, but then you have the attendant critical mass issues. Lots of departments only have a handful of physics majors each year. Diluting the number who take specific required courses makes it likely you'll fall below critical mass for running the course.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Sure, but then you have the attendant critical mass issues. Lots of departments only have a handful of physics majors each year. Diluting the number who take specific required courses makes it likely you'll fall below critical mass for running the course.

You raise a fair point regarding attendant critical mass - that is a risk of creating any new program within any given department, and I can see that this issue may be more acute in physics compared to other STEM fields.

On the other hand, hypothetically it may be possible that students with an aptitude and interest in the physical sciences who may be dissuaded from majoring in physics due to a (perceived) lack of a clear path towards employment in industry could potentially apply to a new applied physics program. Please note that I add the words "hypothetically" and "could" to indicate uncertainty whether such new programs will in fact do so.

 

[Zap]

My university offers undergraduate degrees in engineering physics with an engineering discipline as the focus. I'm not really sure why anyone would choose that over a regular engineering degree, but a few students do. From what I've seen, they've easily found jobs as engineers. I had no idea there was a stark difference between science and engineering until after I graduated. We like to group them together and call it STEM.