Physicists and physics majors, was it worth it?

[Andy Resnick]

It's all true however not every book has good content that is worth mastering. If you spend money on a cello lessons, work hard and there is no progress then there is huge chance that lessons are not taught very well. There are classes that are taught badly or content is useless and you "work hard" because it's very time-consuming but in reality you don't learn anything useful. You can't blame students for everything.

I believe I didn't succeed with physics degree not because I was lazy (because I wasn't) but because it wasn't degree suitable for my needs and what I wanted to do.

Of course I don't blame students for everything, neither do I hold all teachers blameless. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of a transactional view of learning, and note that you (originally) left out the above qualifiers.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I think we should recognize that the typical physics curriculum in the US has room for improvement.

I certainly agree that the curriculum has room for improvement. The point of debate is usually (at least for us) how to accommodate the myriad of potential 'next steps' for an undergraduate. Focusing on making a student 'job-ready' means we would have to first know what technical skills various employers are looking for now, but also predict several years into the future what the needs will be. And since employers are not actively communicating with us about their needs, we have to spend a lot of (uncompensated) time and effort tracking them down. Engineers don't graduate with a generic engineering degree, they obtain degrees in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. A physics degree is the liberal-arts version of a science degree.

Also, there are very few electives in any science degree and making changes to existing courses can be a multi-year approval process. This is another barrier to making the degree flexible. It's unclear how we can offer a subset of students courses to prepare them for graduate school while at the same time providing a good foundation for the student who is hired for IT in a hospital, another student who is hired for R&D at a steel mill, another student who is hired for technical sales at a motor manufacturing plant, etc. etc.

One approach is to include internships (or similar work-study experiences) as a degree requirement. This can work well but requires a lot of time, effort, and support to implement and oversee.

 

[russ_watters]

I think we should recognize that the typical physics curriculum in the US has room for improvement. The APS and AAPT formed a joint task force to look at this issue, and in its report, the task force wrote:

Both graduates and their employers report that physics graduates could be better prepared for positions available to those with physics training. This is equally true for recipients of Ph.D. degrees in physics, almost half of whom occupy positions outside academia one year after receiving their degrees, and more of whom move to private-sector or government positions after completing a postdoc.​

and

It is worth restating that 95% of undergraduate physics students will not become physics professors. As a profession we cannot afford to ignore the needs of 95% of our undergraduate students, if we expect an education in physics to remain relevant in the 21st century. While there will always be a cohort of students who are drawn to physics purely because of its intellectual attractions and its roots in basic research, physics departments cannot in good conscience neglect their responsibility to provide the best possible preparation for all students.​

You can download the report from here: http://www.compadre.org/jtupp/

I've perceived before what I would call an "expectations gap" with physics majors. As a BS in mechanical engineering, I expected and got a job with the title "mechanical engineer". I expect the majority of my classmates did too. Expectations matched reality.

Art history is one of the lower degree-matching-job majors out there. But what do people expect? I sure hope that your typical art history major is not expecting to get a job with the word "art" in the title. Same for English and history (and an awful lot of the humanities). If they don't expect to, maybe that's ok? Do they come away from school angry that their art curriculum didn't include classes in coffee making and answering phones?

If there is an expectations gap, that's a bad thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality that's wrong. Indeed, I think it is more the expectation that is unreasonble. Personally, I would rather see college freshment of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors. Similarly, I don't think changing the game just to get more fans in the seats is doing baseball any favors in the long run.

 

[Rika]

This is what justifies to have good counseling and advising for those particular physics students who may make poorer choices in their education otherwise.
Also Rika, knowing what you want to do, very specific jobs, once you graduate, can help a student on what choices to make to include in his/her set of courses.

I think most students make huge mistake thinking "what should I study in university" instead of "what I want to do in future as my career". University lasts only for 3-6 years while you work for almost rest for your life and while you can change your career mid-way it's still easier to start with solid education. Even if student don't know specific job he/she should at least know if:

- wants to work with clients/patients, interact with people or not
- wants to specialize in very narrow field or be exposed to different stuff during their work
- wants to have stationary job or to travel
- wants to work in shifts/overnight or not

If he/she decide to choose STEM at least can consider if:

- likes to code or not
- likes to do "hands on" stuff
- likes to play with equipment/do instrumentation stuff
- likes to play with data
- likes to design physical objects
- likes to do field work
- wants to work in management/sales
- has more "empirical" attitude or not

Answering those questions can be really helpful.

 

[Rika]

I've perceived before what I would call an "expectations gap" with physics majors. As a BS in mechanical engineering, I expected and got a job with the title "mechanical engineer". I expect the majority of my classmates did too. Expectations matched reality.

*claps*

Art history is one of the lower degree-matching-job majors out there. But what do people expect? I sure hope that your typical art history major is not expecting to get a job with the word "art" in the title. Same for English and history (and an awful lot of the humanities). If they don't expect to, maybe that's ok? Do they come away from school angry that their art curriculum didn't include classes in coffee making and answering phones?

Dude, those words are pure gold.

Nobody in my painting major expected to get a job as a gallery painter (rather than that they wanted to get stable job as art school instructor). Most of my class was focused on graphic design, I treated this major as "foundation course"/ free atelier for illustrator job. But most of my physics class (myself included) believed that we will get an engineering job strongly connected with physics or high-paying corpo-job.

If there is an expectations gap, that's a bad thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality that's wrong. Indeed, I think it is more the expectation that is unreasonble. Personally, I would rather see college freshment of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors. Similarly, I don't think changing the game just to get more fans in the seats is doing baseball any favors in the long run.

Unfortunately you could see yourself on this thread - it's impossible. Many people (mostly those whose expectations for many reasons actually matched reality) were saying all that crap that me and my peers have heard when we were high school graduates - "physics teaches you how to THINK", "if you study physics you are so ****ing smart and have so flexible mind that you can do ANYTHING and employers will love you". It's not like me and my class had unrealistic expectations out of nowhere. And nobody want to say the truth because that means physics major will be even less popular that it already is.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I've perceived before what I would call an "expectations gap" with physics majors. As a BS in mechanical engineering, I expected and got a job with the title "mechanical engineer". I expect the majority of my classmates did too. Expectations matched reality.

Art history is one of the lower degree-matching-job majors out there. But what do people expect? I sure hope that your typical art history major is not expecting to get a job with the word "art" in the title. Same for English and history (and an awful lot of the humanities). If they don't expect to, maybe that's ok? Do they come away from school angry that their art curriculum didn't include classes in coffee making and answering phones?

If there is an expectations gap, that's a bad thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality that's wrong. Indeed, I think it is more the expectation that is unreasonble. Personally, I would rather see college freshment of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors. Similarly, I don't think changing the game just to get more fans in the seats is doing baseball any favors in the long run.

@russ_watters, the difference between an engineering degree such as yours versus science or humanities degrees is that an engineering degree is, by its very nature, a vocational degree -- a degree program specifically designed to train its students in a specific profession. In this respect, engineering shares commonalities with other professional educational programs like medicine, nursing, law, accounting, etc., or even the skilled trades (e.g. plumbers, electricians, mechanics, tool-and-dye makers, etc.) So inherently it is much easier for such professional programs to match the expectations of its students.

I believe the issue here is that most other degree programs (in both the sciences and the humanities) are not like this. So students who pursue such fields don't always have a clear idea of just where their education can lead them career-wise. So it is especially important for such students to have a clearer idea of where they want their career path to take them and develop those key skills as an addition to their main education.

However, that does not mean that these other science or humanities programs are worthless or don't have value -- it just means that students need to be aware and be pro-active in gaining those employable skills. Further, I disagree with your implication that the only value that a humanities program (like art history, as per your example) will only qualify its graduates in low-skill work such as coffee serving (we've discussed this at length about this in another thread, so I won't repeat myself here).

(Aside: I had intended not to respond any further to this thread, but felt the discussion had moved forward in a direction in which I feel I could contribute in a meaningful manner)

 

[CrysPhys]

Engineers don't graduate with a generic engineering degree, they obtain degrees in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. A physics degree is the liberal-arts version of a science degree.

(1) There are schools that offer a "general engineering" major and other broad-based, multi-disciplinary engineering degrees. (2) Physics is not a generic science degree by any means. E.g., you're overlooking at least the major branches of chemistry (and chemical sciences) and biology (and life sciences).

 

[Dr Transport]

The expectation gap is a direct consequence of the media spouting off about what I'll call "sexy science", i.e. the LHC, Higgs etc...90%+ of the practicing physicists in the wold are not doing that but what I'll call the mundane parts of physics. We see no press corps beating down our doors to write about the stuff we do that actually affects what happens in a normal persons life on a daily basis. I believe that the Division of Condensed Matter at the APS is the largest division but we got no press, most of it goes to HEP and other esoteric branches.

All the student see while growing up and deciding to go into physics is the "sexy stuff" and not the run of the mill work that is done every day.

 

[vela]

A case can always be made that material needs to be added to the curriculum for physics graduates to be more employable. But no one ever says what should be taken out.

Personally, I would rather see college freshmen of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors.

The idea isn't to take water down physics education but to, for example, restructure courses so that more emphasis can be placed on skills, like problem solving using computers, that the majority of physics students will eventually need anyway, instead of expecting them to "just pick it up" along the way.

 

[Nidum]

You need two different degree subjects - Pure Physics and Applied Physics .

 

[Andy Resnick]

(1) There are schools that offer a "general engineering" major and other broad-based, multi-disciplinary engineering degrees. (2) Physics is not a generic science degree by any means. E.g., you're overlooking at least the major branches of chemistry (and chemical sciences) and biology (and life sciences).

When a Physics major is primarily 'advertised' as "The math and problem-solving skills they pick up are great for the job market. Physics majors teach, work on Wall Street, and serve in the military. They also perform well on the admission tests for law and medical schools." or "One possibly appealing aspect of studying physics is the diversity of physics careers, which are not set in anyone direction. Physics graduates have skills that are in high demand in diverse sectors. These include skills relating to numeracy, problem-solving, data analysis and the communication of complex ideas, as well as a wider understanding of how the world works, on a scientific and human level.", that indicates to me that a Physics major isn't expected to become an expert in anything, but rather a jack-of-all trades.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

When a Physics major is primarily 'advertised' as "The math and problem-solving skills they pick up are great for the job market. Physics majors teach, work on Wall Street, and serve in the military. They also perform well on the admission tests for law and medical schools." or "One possibly appealing aspect of studying physics is the diversity of physics careers, which are not set in anyone direction. Physics graduates have skills that are in high demand in diverse sectors. These include skills relating to numeracy, problem-solving, data analysis and the communication of complex ideas, as well as a wider understanding of how the world works, on a scientific and human level.", that indicates to me that a Physics major isn't expected to become an expert in anything, but rather a jack-of-all trades.

I respectfully disagree. Strongly. If the department did their job, and the graduate availed themselves of the opportunity, the physics major is an expert in physics. The advertising language is just trying to explain that to an audience who does not really understand what physics is or why a physics major is valuable.

Breaking down what it means to be an expert in physics:

1. An expert in the scientific method, especially in quantitative areas.

This may be contrasted to other areas of science (biology, medicine, geology) which often tend to be more qualitative. This may also be contrasted with engineering which tends to be quantitatively strong, but scientifically weak. By that I mean, engineers tend to be strong enough at telling you what the equations mean, but tend to be weaker at questioning whether the equations are really true (and what the resulting uncertainty might be). If you want someone to design experiments to tell you how good the equations really are, you want a physicist. Engineers tend to believe equations based on authority (in a book or published paper) rather than demanding to see and understand the underlying data and the limitations on applicability.

2. An expert in quantitative problem solving.

A well trained physics major will be seeking to apply and solve at least one quantitative model. They often will try and apply multiple quantitative models that each apply for certain assumptions. They will consider limiting behaviors as well as how the solutions to different models compare with each other. They understand that the "true" answer of a complex problem is likely somewhere in the midst of the predictions of several simplified models.

3. An expert in skepticism and doubt.

The history of physics has many examples of long-established quantitative models eventually being found to be flawed. They tend to be waiting for "the other shoe to drop" as additional experimental evidence becomes available. On most teams (when teamed with engineers or scientists from other disciplines), the physics major will be most likely to be able to articulate concerns about why the consensus view may not be exactly right or as broadly applicable as hoped. The physicist may be first to come up with an "order of magnitude" estimate, but they'll also likely be the last to underestimate the error bars.

4. An expert in analogies

Feynman said, "The same equations have the same solutions." The physicist is the most likely to find a paradigm for a new problem similar to one they already know pretty well. And a good physics education provides a broad base of quantitative paradigms from which to draw. So the physicist can't just solve the equation once it gets picked, they likely have the broadest experience base to choose good candidates from which to try.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Breaking down what it means to be an expert in physics:

1. An expert in the scientific method, especially in quantitative areas.
2. An expert in quantitative problem solving.
3. An expert in skepticism and doubt.
4. An expert in analogies

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

Other than physicists and physical chemists, I've met very few people who meet the all four criteria. So if I wanted to hire someone meeting all four criteria, physics graduates would be on the top of my list to interview.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So if I wanted to hire someone meeting all four criteria, physics graduates would be on the top of my list to interview.

But that's my point- I have *never* seen a job advertisement that mentions any of those, let alone all 4. Lastly, I know lots of people who meet all 4 of those criteria- economists, doctors, engineers, teachers, technicians, the list is nearly endless.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

But that's my point- I have *never* seen a job advertisement that mentions any of those, let alone all 4. Lastly, I know lots of people who meet all 4 of those criteria- economists, doctors, engineers, teachers, technicians, the list is nearly endless.

I don't think our experiences are really that much different, but I suspect my bar for defining an "expert" is much higher than yours.

 

[atyy]

A physics major is an expert jack of all trades.

 

[symbolipoint]

We are reading the experts argue:

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

Other than physicists and physical chemists, I've met very few people who meet the all four criteria. So if I wanted to hire someone meeting all four criteria, physics graduates would be on the top of my list to interview.

But that's my point- I have *never* seen a job advertisement that mentions any of those, let alone all 4. Lastly, I know lots of people who meet all 4 of those criteria- economists, doctors, engineers, teachers, technicians, the list is nearly endless.

I don't think our experiences are really that much different, but I suspect my bar for defining an "expert" is much higher than yours.

Will a resolution come of this?

 

[CrysPhys]

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

(1) There are different levels of expertise in any field.

(2) The education and training required to reach a specific level of expertise varies with the field (and subfield).

(3) In an earlier post, you stated:

Engineers don't graduate with a generic engineering degree, they obtain degrees in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. A physics degree is the liberal-arts version of a science degree.

To which I responded:

(1) There are schools that offer a "general engineering" major and other broad-based, multi-disciplinary engineering degrees. (2) Physics is not a generic science degree by any means. E.g., you're overlooking at least the major branches of chemistry (and chemical sciences) and biology (and life sciences).

To which you responded:

When a Physics major is primarily 'advertised' as "The math and problem-solving skills they pick up are great for the job market. Physics majors teach, work on Wall Street, and serve in the military. They also perform well on the admission tests for law and medical schools." or "One possibly appealing aspect of studying physics is the diversity of physics careers, which are not set in anyone direction. Physics graduates have skills that are in high demand in diverse sectors. These include skills relating to numeracy, problem-solving, data analysis and the communication of complex ideas, as well as a wider understanding of how the world works, on a scientific and human level.", that indicates to me that a Physics major isn't expected to become an expert in anything, but rather a jack-of-all trades.

(4) Let me highlight and expand some key points.

(a) Physics is not a general science degree. It does not include, e.g., chemical sciences and life sciences.

(b) There is a general engineering degree.

(c) At the undergrad (and grad) level, a student typically does have the option of getting a degree in a specific concentration of engineering (such as EE or ME). But even a major such as EE, e.g., has a broad scope. Typically one does not practice as a general EE: Further expertise in a subfield (such as data networking, semiconductor devices, or power systems) requires additional education (MS or PhD) or training.

(d) At the undergrad (and grad) level, a student typically does not have the option of getting a degree in a specific concentration of physics (such as solid-state or high-energy) [there are exceptions at some schools]. Typically one does not practice as a general physicist: Further expertise in a subfield requires additional education (typically PhD for physics) or training. Deep expertise is often acquired via the PhD thesis. But the initial required base expertise (broad background) is a major plus.

(e) The situation is similar in other fields, such as law or medicine. One achieves a base level of expertise with a JD or MD. Typically one does not practice as a general JD or MD: Further expertise in a subfield (such as patent law for a JD or neurosurgery for a MD) requires additional education or training.

 

[Andy Resnick]

(4) Let me highlight and expand some key points.

(a) Physics is not a general science degree. It does not include, e.g., chemical sciences and life sciences.

(b) There is a general engineering degree.

(c) At the undergrad (and grad) level, a student typically does have the option of getting a degree in a specific concentration of engineering (such as EE or ME). But even a major such as EE, e.g., has a broad scope. Typically one does not practice as a general EE: Further expertise in a subfield (such as data networking, semiconductor devices, or power systems) requires additional education (MS or PhD) or training.

(d) At the undergrad (and grad) level, a student typically does not have the option of getting a degree in a specific concentration of physics (such as solid-state or high-energy) [there are exceptions at some schools]. Typically one does not practice as a general physicist: Further expertise in a subfield requires additional education (typically PhD for physics) or training. Deep expertise is often acquired via the PhD thesis. But the initial required base expertise (broad background) is a major plus.

(e) The situation is similar in other fields, such as law or medicine. One achieves a base level of expertise with a JD or MD. Typically one does not practice as a general JD or MD: Further expertise in a subfield (such as patent law for a JD or neurosurgery for a MD) requires additional education or training.

Maybe this thread has wandered too far off track- I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, in terms of "Physicists and physics majors, was it worth it?".

 

[Andy Resnick]

Will a resolution come of this?

I invoke Sayre's law :)

 

[CrysPhys]

Maybe this thread has wandered too far off track- I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, in terms of "Physicists and physics majors, was it worth it?".

The impression (maybe mistaken) I got from your previous posts is that a physics major is so broad (compared to engineering) that it has less worth with respect to a career; in particular, a physicist is a jack-of-all trades (in a negative sense) and an expert at none. So what I tried to do is place the discussion of breadth and expertise in a proper context, as well as counter what I consider to be inaccurate statements.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Will a resolution come of this?

Each student needs to decide what to major in and how to pursue that major. I am arguing that physics is a valuable major and that graduates of rigorous programs who demonstrate an excellent work ethic will graduate with a number of important skills and levels of expertise that will make them employable in most job markets, especially if they are not too tied to geographical constraints. For me, every time a student who is strongly drawn to the science of physics chooses to major in physics, I feel like I have "won." I also feel like I have won when these students major in engineering, chemistry, or math, but I regard these as lesser victories if the student's real passion is physics.

Each physics program needs to decide how to construct their physics major(s). I value the free market, so I am not greatly offended by programs with concentrations like engineering physics, applied physics, or teaching. But I prefer the more traditional physics programs that require 3 semesters of Calculus, 1 of diff eq, 1 of linear algebra, 1 of math methods, a semester of modern physics, a semester of thermo (stat mech), two semesters of quantum mechanics, two semesters of E&M, at least one semester of classical mechanics after the freshman sequence, as well as 1-2 semesters of advanced laboratories at the junior or senior level.

Physics does not have a degree approving or sanctioning body like the ACS has their approved chemistry programs. But most of the specialty Chemistry programs (Environmental Chemistry, Forensic Chemistry, Chemistry teaching, etc.) represent a significant dumbing down of the chemistry content compared with the ACS approved program. When I served as the Director of the Forensic Science program for a large university in the southern United States, I had a chance to visit a number of crime labs and speak with a number of hiring managers for the crime labs. What did they really want to hire? Graduates from a rigorous program who really knew their chemistry. The crime labs could teach how to apply chemistry to the various forensic issues they faced. They were less able and interested in teaching the chemistry to students who hadn't learned it, because their forensic chemistry program had substituted watered down "forensic science" for the real meat of a rigorous chemistry program.

I've kept this experience in mind when I consider what a physics major should look like. It is not a vocational program. It should be a rigorous physics version of the ACS approved chemistry major. A number of vocational skills can be included along the way, but it should not be emptied of the physics rigor in order to do that, and students need to take ownership of which vocational skills they pick up along the way, based on their future employment goals and interests.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The impression (maybe mistaken) I got from your previous posts is that a physics major is so broad (compared to engineering) that it has less worth with respect to a career; in particular, a physicist is a jack-of-all trades (in a negative sense) and an expert at none. So what I tried to do is place the discussion of breadth and expertise in a proper context, as well as counter what I consider to be inaccurate statements.

Ah. On the contrary, I believe a Physics degree has much value and not just in terms of employ-ability. When a Physics degree is paired with another degree (either as a double major or as a minor), it's even better. I simply take issue with the attitude that a baccalaureate degree is mere 'job training'.

 

[CrysPhys]

Ah. On the contrary, I believe a Physics degree has much value and not just in terms of employ-ability. When a Physics degree is paired with another degree (either as a double major or as a minor), it's even better. I simply take issue with the attitude that a baccalaureate degree is mere 'job training'.

I'm in full accord with this post.

 

[Rika]

Ah. On the contrary, I believe a Physics degree has much value and not just in terms of employ-ability. When a Physics degree is paired with another degree (either as a double major or as a minor), it's even better. I simply take issue with the attitude that a baccalaureate degree is mere 'job training'.

It's not mere job training but to some degree it should be. Otherwise why even bother spending extra years on education and then what? Back to square one? Spending another years for vocational training? That's why I believe engineering degree is better (when it's the only major and on Bsc level) it gives you both - mental and vocational training.

 

[symbolipoint]

It's not mere job training but to some degree it should be. Otherwise why even bother spending extra years on education and then what? Back to square one? Spending another years for vocational training? That's why I believe engineering degree is better (when it's the only major and on Bsc level) it gives you both - mental and vocational training.

Again, that is why I and others say, Physics degree (undergraduate) by itself is not enough, and that a student NEEDS more than the minimum to earn the degree; and why I said, some students NEED counseling and guidance as Physics major students.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It's not mere job training but to some degree it should be. Otherwise why even bother spending extra years on education and then what? Back to square one? Spending another years for vocational training? That's why I believe engineering degree is better (when it's the only major and on Bsc level) it gives you both - mental and vocational training.

It's clear that you think an engineering degree is better *for you*.

 

[Rika]

It's clear that you think an engineering degree is better *for you*.

I believe not only for me but for everyone who want to join workforce asap, be employable straight after Bsc and seek clear path of employment. Tell me then what kind od advantage could Bsc in physics have over engineering or cs degree?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I believe not only for me but for everyone who want to join workforce asap, be employable straight after Bsc and seek clear path of employment. Tell me then what kind od advantage could Bsc in physics have over engineering or cs degree?

Most students don't really know what they want to do immediately after college when they are picking a major in their first or second year. I recommend students pick paths to keep as many options open as possible, and for students who love physics, a straight physics major keep open all the options after completing the BS: Masters programs, Medical Physics programs, PhD programs, med school, dental school, pharmacy school, lab technician jobs, engineering jobs, and teaching type jobs. Of course, most of these paths will be easier to pursue with some intentional effort along the way: programming skills, lab experience, teaching experience, organic chemistry (for med, dental, and pharmacy).