Advanced degrees don't guarantee jobs for scientists

Scientists in Ph.D. programs may find the advanced degrees they are pursuing will pay off. Although President Obama and groups like the National Science Foundation have been calling for universities to produce more scientists, there are in many fields too many laboratory scientists for too few jobs.

That's according to a report in the Washington Post by Brian Vastag, who recounts the case of Michelle Amaral, who three years after earning a doctorate in neuroscience gave up trying to find a permanent job in her field and took an administrative position at a university.

The Post article does have some good news for readers of EE-Evaluation Engineering. Jobs are plentiful in some high-tech areas, including computer engineering. (Petroleum engineering is booming as well.) However, the market is tight for lab-bound scientists pursuing biology, chemistry, and medicine.

Vastag quotes Jim Austin, editor of ScienceCareers, as saying, “There have been many predictions of [science] labor shortages and…robust job growth. And yet, it seems awfully hard for people to find a job. Anyone who goes into science expecting employers to clamor for their services will be deeply disappointed.”

There seem to be two trends depressing demand for scientists with advanced degrees, Vastag reports. First, traditional academic jobs are increasingly scarce. An NSF survey found that only 14% of those with a doctorate in biology or life science take an academic position within five years. And second, mergers, stagnating profits, declining R&D investment, and outsourcing have shrunk the U.S. pharmaceutical industry—once a haven for biologists and chemists.

Vastag does note that unemployment rates for scientists are lower than overall rates. The unemployment rate among chemists is at its highest mark in 40 years but is still only 4.6%. The situation is worse for young chemists, however, with only 38% of recently graduated Ph.D. chemists finding jobs in 2011.

In addition, many scientists, like Amaral, do work but not in their specialty, and therefore don't show up in unemployment figures. In fact, says Vastag, many work in fields they didn't necessarily train for—physicists work in Wall Street, for example.

The job picture for scientists could have and unfortunate effect on the potential next generation of scientists. Vastag concludes by quoting Kim Haas, who after 20 years of employment recently lost her six-figure job designing pharmaceuticals in New Jersey. Haas “…plans to 'get out of Jersey and get out of science' when her daughter graduates from high school in two years. 'She’s very good at everything, very smart,' Haas said of her daughter. 'She loves chemistry, loves math. I tell her, don’t go into science. I’ve made that very clear to her.'”