How depressed should I be that I am going for a career in science?

[atyy]

At least one shuttle driver revolutionized biology.
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/30-how-bad-luck-networking-cost-prasher-nobel

probably a mishap on my part, i meant chemistry major in college is dead end.
bio-scientist are totally different field from just chemist,

That's the opposite of what I was trying to say. I meant that one could do fantastic work and still not get one's just deserts. (OTOH, maybe the concept is out-dated, since most progress comes from teamwork. But I cannot bring myself to say that in Prasher's case.)

 

[twofish-quant]

But pretty much no one with a college degree ends up living out of a cardboard box, that's a terrible metric.

It's a pretty important one for me. I'm pretty sure that I've ended up with less money than I would have had I gotten an MBA or law degree. But the important thing for me is *how much less*? If it's a choice between "explore the universe + $10K/year" versus "do law + $120K/year" that's one thing. If it's a choice between "explore the universe + $180K/year" versus "do law + $360K/year" that's another.

The question should be- are science degrees a good way to meet your goals.

It depends on what your goals are. I want to explore the universe. I want to avoid poverty. Vast sums of money are nice, but I'll forgo that if it means living a life that is more interesting.

If your goal is a decent salary in some business position, then an undergrad science degree is a decent way to go. If your goal is more technical work, then its probably not.

It's worked for me.

And a phd is a totally different beast. Getting a phd and ending up outside your field is a waste of time and training- the phd system burns human capital in an unhealthy way. Yes, phds don't end up destitute, but that's the wrong comparison.

Disagree with this. I hate being trapped in a "field" and one thing that I've done that seems to have worked is to switch from field to field in order to find where the grass is greenest. The fields that are *most* interesting to me are those that no one has explored yet.

Spending a few years at the frontiers of human knowledge and experience is great training for being at the frontiers of human knowledge and experience.

The other thing is that Ph.D. programs are different from school to school, and I get the sense that mine did something seriously right. Maybe what ended up working is the attitude "there are no jobs as a research professor, we have no clue what to do, good luck and let us know how it works out."

 

[twofish-quant]

One other thing is that I seriously trying to avoid the "so who makes more money" game, because it's a losing game. If you are in the 1%, you see the 0.1%. If you are in the 0.1%, you see the 0.01%, etc. etc. etc.

 

[nickyrtr]

[...] And a phd is a totally different beast. Getting a phd and ending up outside your field is a waste of time and training- the phd system burns human capital in an unhealthy way. Yes, phds don't end up destitute, but that's the wrong comparison.

One can actually find themselves less employable after a PhD, due to the widespread perception that PhD's are "overqualified" for everything except being a professor.