is adv science able to get a high-salary job? (2 Viewers)

[RogueAcademic]

If you're interested in science.
but have a mind for logical reasoning, creativity, spatial thinking and problem solving.
why not try engineering?
It's heaps of fun! and you will get a high paying job at the end of it

Can you make it sound a bit less like you're trying to convince a 6 year old to eat their broccoli?

 

[skyline]

No that guy is right about what he said, if you are passionate about science and maths, then engineering should be the thing to do, there are so many fields you can work in, your guaranteed a job anywhere especially since there are a shortage of engineers and are therefore in demand, its best for people who are keen problem solvers and enjoy maths and science usually chemistry and physics ,at the end your pay will be a whole lot larger then a science teacher/researcher , for e.g civil engineers can earn a rough start salary of $52000 p.a and when you reach senior position it can go as much as $180,000 p.a when you compare these salary ranges to that of science graduates, id say there is no comparison...

 

[Graney]

anything in science mate, is peanuts

Australia Scientific Salary Information at MyCareer

The average salary for graduate enrolmental scientists, is over $100'000 p.a. It's a fast growing industry. There is good, constant demand for employees.

Geology and anything in earth science are also brilliant.

It's simply not true you can't earn a reasonable wage as a scientist.

 

[RogueAcademic]

The average salary for graduate enrolmental scientists, is over $100'000 p.a. Geology and anything in earth science are also brilliant.

The OP was talking about the biomedical field, pharmacology in particular.

. It's a fast growing industry.

The government at State and Federal level have been saying it's a 'fast growing' industry for a number of years now...but not much seems to have changed, and in fact, there seems to have been more cuts to federal funding or changes made to grant applications that don't seem to make it easier.

The average salary for graduate enrolmental scientists, is over $100'000 p.a. It's simply not true you can't earn a reasonable wage as a scientist.

Do you know what is the definition of 'graduate'? It takes considerably longer to achieve that kind of salary when you consider that science students have to complete the undergrad degree, then honours, and/or masters, then a PhD, then maybe a decent salary via a post-doc or two. That could be up to 10 years there. Is that what's meant by 'graduate'?

 

[Will Shakespear]

No that guy is right about what he said, if you are passionate about science and maths, then engineering should be the thing to do, there are so many fields you can work in, your guaranteed a job anywhere especially since there are a shortage of engineers and are therefore in demand, its best for people who are keen problem solvers and enjoy maths and science usually chemistry and physics ,at the end your pay will be a whole lot larger then a science teacher/researcher , for e.g civil engineers can earn a rough start salary of $52000 p.a and when you reach senior position it can go as much as $180,000 p.a when you compare these salary ranges to that of science graduates, id say there is no comparison...

That's not entirely true

If you're interested in science for science's sake, and never particularly wanted to be an engineer, then don't do engineering just because you like science

The degrees are very hard, and even more boring
It takes a lot of work, and you have to actually want to be one type of engineer or another to get thru it.

 

[RogueAcademic]

That's not entirely true

If you're interested in science for science's sake, and never particularly wanted to be an engineer, then don't do engineering just because you like science

The degrees are very hard, and even more boring
It takes a lot of work, and you have to actually want to be one type of engineer or another to get thru it.

You're forgetting one thing:

why not try engineering?
It's heaps of fun!

 

[georgefren]

hahaha.

 

[Graney]

The OP was talking about the biomedical field, pharmacology in particular.

No sir, no.

I was plainly referring to the guy I quoted. Not the OP. Generalising about 'science' employment is pointless, when it differs so much across disciplines.

The government at State and Federal level have been saying it's a 'fast growing' industry for a number of years now...but not much seems to have changed, and in fact, there seems to have been more cuts to federal funding or changes made to grant applications that don't seem to make it easier.

The disciplines I reffered to have grown substantially, and will continue to do so.

That could be up to 10 years there. Is that what's meant by 'graduate'?

There's plentifull opportunities in some disicplines without being a phd.

 

[RogueAcademic]

I was plainly referring to the guy I quoted. Not the OP. Generalising about 'science' employment is pointless, when it differs so much across disciplines.

My apologies.

The disciplines I reffered to have grown substantially, and will continue to do so.

It's a bit unpredictable at the moment with the current economic downturn/crisis has slowing things down considerably eg. the WA mining industry.

There's plentifull opportunities in some disicplines without being a phd.

With very little, to zero chance, of ever achieving a $100k salary. Again, it would help if we knew what did they meant by 'graduate' and in what area.

 

[Graney]

With very little, to zero chance, of ever achieving a $100k salary. Again, it would help if we knew what did they meant by 'graduate' and in what area.

I'd say the chance is quite reasonable.
With an undergraduate degree alone and a few years experience you can end up in these and similar positions. With honours and a few years experience, the salary is a given. It would be very unusual for someone to hold a phd in one of these positions-
SEEK jobs database and employment advice
SEEK jobs database and employment advice
SEEK jobs database and employment advice

 

[RogueAcademic]

I'd say the chance is quite reasonable.
With an undergraduate degree alone and a few years experience you can end up in these and similar positions. With honours and a few years experience, the salary is a given. It would be very unusual for someone to hold a phd in one of these positions-
SEEK jobs database and employment advice
SEEK jobs database and employment advice
SEEK jobs database and employment advice

When you say "a few years experience" what do you mean?

I would say those positions require at minimum, applied masters level, if not PhD. If not, you'd have to have an impressive CV with experience to gain those kinds of positions.

For example, job No.2 above lists: "This International firm is looking to employ an Scientist or Consultant with minimum 5+ yrs experience." If you take into account a science graduate with honours, that's 4 years, plus minimum 5 years experience, that's 9 years. Science degree + honours = 4 years, plus 3 year PhD = 7 years.

Sounds like it takes a couple of years longer than the time it takes to get a PhD to get to get that kind of job if we assume that the position does not require a postgraduate background in the first place.

Job No.1 - need more information to know exactly what the job entails and what sort of applicant they are looking for. It could possibly be offered to an honours graduate but I would think a hons graduate with at least a couple of years experience under their belt beforehand. It's the kind of job I can imagine is entry-level for a masters or PhD graduate.

Job No.3 - is clearly a highly onerous position requiring a highly experienced/qualified applicant. I would think that kind of position requires at least a masters or PhD level and/or someone with many years (more than just 'a few years' at least) of executive management level experience. The job description goes far beyond an undergraduate would know - planning and statutory management, high level NRM (far beyond any kind of responsibility given to an undergraduate) etc.

 

[Graney]

If not, you'd have to have an impressive CV with experience to gain those kinds of positions.

For example, job No.2 above lists: "This International firm is looking to employ an Scientist or Consultant with minimum 5+ yrs experience." If you take into account a science graduate with honours, that's 4 years, plus minimum 5 years experience

Well yeah obviously. You're not going to be offered 100'000 with no work experience, in any field.

I always see a shitload of council and government positions advertising for environmental scientists on $75'000 if you have 3 years experience, and it just goes up after that, especially if you move into the private sector.

 

[RogueAcademic]

Well yeah obviously. You're not going to be offered 100'000 with no work experience, in any field.

I always see a shitload of council and government positions advertising for environmental scientists on $75'000 if you have 3 years experience, and it just goes up after that, especially if you move into the private sector.

I've seen those positions too, my understanding is that many of these positions require a PhD background.

One thing I want to add, there are more PhD graduates than there are academic positions available so you'll be competing for a lot of these jobs with applicants who have PhDs.

 

[Graney]

I've seen those positions too, my understanding is that many of these positions require a PhD background.

Show me evidence.

How come in the hundreds of ads, it's never mentioned?

All the government ads say "a degree in environmental science and min. 3 years relevant experience". Never anything like what you're suggesting.

Find me an ad anything like the ones I posted that specifies the need for a phd.

If phd gradutes were so abundant they were the only ones these organisations were accepting, they would specify so, to avoid wasting the time of the thousands of applications they doubtless must throw away.

 

[Graney]

On seek.com.au there are currently 373 jobs under environmental science.

There are 37 under chemist.

I think it's fair to say the required qualifications to secure a job, and the competition for wages in each sector would be rather different.

What you're saying may well be fair for some science disciplines, but I disagree it should apply to all.

 

[RogueAcademic]

How come in the hundreds of ads, it's never mentioned?

You have to read between the lines and/or been in the industry for years to understand how the system/politics work or the kind of responsibility that is given to certain qualified individuals.

All the government ads say "a degree in environmental science and min. 3 years relevant experience". Never anything like what you're suggesting.

Find me an ad anything like the ones I posted that specifies the need for a phd.

Alright fine. Have a look at this job with the state EPA:

Careers with Victorian Government Australia: Current Vacancies

That sounds like a decent job, salary range $60k-$70k pa. If you download the pdf job description, go down below to "Selection Criteria", it doesn't exactly say PhD or in fact any specific level of tertiary education required, does it?

Now, it says this job is classfied VPSG4 (that's: Victorian Public Service Grade 4). Go to the EPA website here:

Careers with EPA Victoria

And download the "Victorian Public Service (VPS) Agreement 2006 - Core Terms and Conditions of Employment" pdf document.

Go to "TABLE 4: SCIENCE GRADE AND VALUE RANGE DESCRIPTORS" page 92, for a description of VPS Grade 4.

Look at the job description. Tell me that an honours graduate with 'a few years experience' fits into that column. They don't exactly say a PhD is required but by clear inference the job that they are describing there can only be done by someone with a PhD.

 

[RogueAcademic]

I mentioned previously in this thread about politics in the industry. Notwithstanding all of what I've just mentioned about VPSG4 position, even though it does not specify "PhD", you can bet that if any individual without a PhD was offered that position, there'd be hell to pay from those with PhDs who think they deserve that position and that salary range. This is not something you will read about in job ads.

 

[skyline]

That's not entirely true

If you're interested in science for science's sake, and never particularly wanted to be an engineer, then don't do engineering just because you like science

The degrees are very hard, and even more boring
It takes a lot of work, and you have to actually want to be one type of engineer or another to get thru it.

Engineering boring? , its actually very fun, challenging and practical, and i mean real practical, unlike boring science, all you do is test different chemicals and shit in a lab all day, lol i mean bloody hell, the engineers usually make fun of the scientists saying how dumb they are, you see my friend, scientists come up with a theory, the engineers have to go about proving the theory and see if it works, in other words, "a scientists dream is an engineers worst nightmare" hahah, why do you think its obvious scientists are mocked in this society? The engineers carry all the analysis doing the hard work, while the scientist sits on his ass coming up with astranged hypothesis', you still got a lot to learn kid so dont lecture me about engineering being boring, sure its hard work, but anythings possible with a bit of study, im going to be quite frank with these people, but those who study science, are clearly idiots, and have no mathematical or problem solving techniques whatsoever compared to that of engineers, hahahaha...

 

[RogueAcademic]

Graney - I just noticed that you're only three years out of high school and still completing your undergrad degree. Let me explain a couple of things:

I always see a shitload of council and government positions advertising for environmental scientists on $75'000 if you have 3 years experience

This is the thing about the science field, it's really unlike, say for example commerce graduates or law graduates or even engineering graduates, where the sky is the limit after completion of one undergrad bachelors degree. Comm, law or eng graduates have the potential to earn as much as they want without having to go back to uni for a postgrad degree.

But the science field is different. There is a hierachy with bachelors, honours, masters, PhD, post-doc, and post-doc experience. It's a bit difficult sometimes to tell what's going on but usually what gives it away is the salary range. If they say they're willing to pay $70k-$100k, then chances are it'll be a PhD graduate with post-doc experience the closer it gets to $100k. Anything other than a PhD graduate, it'll have to be someone who has years, years and years of experience to make up for it. Or it'll be someone with a different degree, say for example someone with an environmental engineering degree plus experience (no PhD) applying for an environmental science position. That's why it's hard for employers or job ads to qualify exactly what kind of degree they're looking for because it's different depending on who's applying with what qualification. Plus, they want to look every bit as equal opportunity as possible.

Speaking of equal opportunity, it is often company policy (not sure if this is also part of workplace relations laws) to openly advertise for employment vacancies in order to ensure fair opportunity to any and all qualified applicants, to prevent bias or other issues. The truth of the matter is, sometimes these positions are already unofficially taken or 'pre-determined', for example by internal applicants looking to move up or move laterally within the company. Sometimes these pre-determined applicants are coached by key individuals within the company on how best to present their application to make it look like they're the best person for the job. So these advertisements are for show only, to comply with company policy.

How come in the hundreds of ads, it's never mentioned?

If phd gradutes were so abundant they were the only ones these organisations were accepting, they would specify so, to avoid wasting the time of the thousands of applications they doubtless must throw away.

On seek.com.au there are currently 373 jobs under environmental science.

Another thing I should mention - internet jobsites notoriously advertise vague job ads. A lot of these vague ads may be due to cost-per-word advertising (employers wanting to save money) or more likely because these ads are placed by employment agencies acting for employer clients. How do employment agencies make their money? They place their vague ads (no name of actual employer company, no specific selection criteria, sometimes not even a salary range) to draw in hundreds of hopeful applications or enquiries so that they can later go back to their employer client and say: "Yes we drew in 650 applications for you (ie. we did a great job didn't we!) and now we've done our work and interviewed and filtered it down to the best of the best, here they are".

That sounds better than: "Yeah our ad was so specific that our ad only drew in, like, three people, but they all happen to be qualified for the job. Here they are". Employer client: "How much am I paying you again?".

I'm exaggerating to illustrate the point but you get the gist.

I am generalising here, I'm sure that there will always be an example you can find somewhere that will contradict everything I've just said but just as long as you are aware about the existence of the darker side of reality, because it does happen. If you are job-hunting, I suggest you do some research and target specific organisations where you want to work and look through their websites or make contact directly with them, or keep your ears out for opportunities through your own network of industry contacts. Some organisations refuse to use employment agencies for good reason.

 

[Graney]

Graney - I just noticed that you're only three years out of high school and still completing your undergrad degree. Let me explain a couple of things:

Given the condescending tone, I'm interested in where you're employed?

I tried to ring that victorian guy above, to ask what qualifications are necessary to get that job, but forgot it's Sunday lol.

Do you really think all ~370 job ads, on seek.com.au alone, among which few would pay much under $70'000, would go mostly to phd qualified individuals? Lets extrapolate this further and assume among all job ads nationwide, and including the pool of unadvertised jobs, there are closer to 1000 vacancies for individuals with environmental science or related background.

How many phd's are they handing out these days? How many dr. environmental science even exist in this country? 1000? 5000? 10'000? Because there are certainly plenty of jobs paying $70'000+

Anything other than a PhD graduate, it'll have to be someone who has years, years and years of experience to make up for it.

Yes, of course. You're not going to be offered 100'000 with no work experience, in any field.