Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To get kids into science, just do it

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#31

Post by jleyank »

auxym wrote: post #6
dislikedtom2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not able to tell if this comment is satire and it worries me.

I don't think it's satire. STEM is pushed hard, but realistically, science and math dont have that great career prospects. For one thing, a PhD, and the 4-7 year opportunity cost that comes with it, is pretty much required to get anything more than a lab tech job. After that PhD, where do you go? You can try for an insanely competitive tenure track faculty position. Or a very limited number of industry researcher job…

There are a fair number of phd’s employed in biotech/pharma. Who do you think makes the stuff? Bs/ms are their techs. The ads in the states publishes salary history every year for those who care. It’s not SV salary but it’s way more useful than selling ads and scarfing data - you can actually end up curing a cancer or other diseases…

And before you go about just curing symptoms, remember that many real cures would require gene modification and people aren’t all that interested in being a gmo. Ask RA sufferers about drugs like Humera re curing symptoms.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#32

Post by fastneutron »

To the people posting about having good chemistry sets as a kid: what were these sets and where did you/your parents get them? Where are the good sources today?

Everything I remember growing up in the 90s was pretty dumbed down at best, and if you wanted to order any of the interesting chemicals or equipment, you needed a company or school letterhead with a PO account. Things got better in the 00s when eBay was still pretty open in terms of what you could find, but that seems to have been clamped down on more recently. Fear of litigation most likely.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#33

Post by counters »

jbsimpson wrote: post #30
chriskanan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a scientist, I'd say this claim doesn't hold true for many scientific disciplines. I know scientists working in biopharma earning over $1M per year. That said, I do think the salary mentioned is accurate as a starting salary in academia for a research faculty position (tenure track starting salary in USA is ~50% higher though), but academia pays much worse than industry. You give up salary for huge amounts of auto…

You also have to factor in how terrible post-doc pay and job security is, just to have a shot at getting on the tenure track. In the US it's half of that 80k number in bio research.

We also need to dispel the myth that tenure track academic roles are the only jobs for scientists. In my field, one can have a wonderful, decently-paying career working in some of the most desirable places in the US if they go the national lab route. There's also a thriving private sector which will just get bigger. This doesn't even factor in the exit ramp careers if, late in the game, a student realizes that "science" isn't quite what they want to do for their 9-5 - e.g., trading in all of those hundreds or thousands of hours grinding data analyses for their Masters/PhD for a career in data science or software engineering.

We should make sure that folks understand a modern career in science may look, from a salary and QoL perspective, quite like a doctor or other professional. High-stress, relatively low-pay, challenging from your late teens to late twenties, then a rapid increase in earning power and opportunity into your early thirties.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#34

Post by insightcheck »

chriskanan wrote: post #18
rdtwo wrote: post #2

Why would you want to get kids into science? It don’t pay for shit and career/life prospects are grim. Grind out a phd for 80k starting salary? Hard pass

As a scientist, I'd say this claim doesn't hold true for many scientific disciplines. I know scientists working in biopharma earning over $1M per year. That said, I do think the salary mentioned is accurate as a starting salary in academia for a research faculty position (tenure track starting salary in USA is ~50% higher though), but academia pays much worse than industry. You give up salary for huge amounts of auto…

> “You give up salary for huge amounts of autonomy.”

I heard otherwise from a staff scientist at a university in biological sciences, though I’m not sure how representative his view is. He said that non-professors lack research autonomy, and even then, there are limitations of what one can fund due to grants (though I’m not sure how accurate this is, as I used to assume that academic grants generally had fairly flexible conditions for using the funding).

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#35

Post by n0tth3dro1ds »

fastneutron wrote: post #32

To the people posting about having good chemistry sets as a kid: what were these sets and where did you/your parents get them? Where are the good sources today? Everything I remember growing up in the 90s was pretty dumbed down at best, and if you wanted to order any of the interesting chemicals or equipment, you needed a company or school letterhead with a PO account. Things got better in the 00s when eBay was still…

Ever hear Kary Mullis (PCR inventor / Nobel prize) talk about his childhood? He could basically buy whatever chemical he wanted. Definitely did dangerous stuff and got into trouble, but it’s hard to imagine children today having similar ability to hone skills with brains still spungey and time still abundant.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#36

Post by btrettel »

chriskanan wrote: post #18
rdtwo wrote: post #2

Why would you want to get kids into science? It don’t pay for shit and career/life prospects are grim. Grind out a phd for 80k starting salary? Hard pass

As a scientist, I'd say this claim doesn't hold true for many scientific disciplines. I know scientists working in biopharma earning over $1M per year. That said, I do think the salary mentioned is accurate as a starting salary in academia for a research faculty position (tenure track starting salary in USA is ~50% higher though), but academia pays much worse than industry. You give up salary for huge amounts of auto…

> You give up salary for huge amounts of autonomy.

The "autonomy" is a facade in many instances. Professors have to do what can be funded. For a lot of professors that means doing what's trendy or what panders to moneyed interests rather than what they'd actually like to do and what would be more valuable.

Read chapter 4, titled "Assignable Curiosity", in the book Disciplined Minds for more detail.

https://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/

(Note: There's a lot I disagree with in this book, but I think this particular chapter is accurate.)

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#37

Post by karmakurtisaani »

ourmandave wrote: post #16
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing what I know now, I would have jumped ship in your shoes in an instant. After 5 years of that work you could be free from working ever again and do whatever you feel like. I've heard that RT for example can pay you up to 1M per year for entry level, and looking at their profit margins I don't really doubt it.

Had to look it up. The starting salary for a research scientist is $170 - $205K. https://www.rentec.com/Careers.action?researchScientist=true

RT has a yearly return averaging around 40%, and the employees only portfolio averages around 70% per year (at least this was the case a few years ago still). I would imagine the major part of the compensation comes from bonuses and the opportunity to invest in the employees only fund.

170k-200k is not that different from ordinary banks, I can't imagine it's all RT would pay.

Edit: had to look up the annual returns and they seem to be a bit different depending on where you look, so take those numbers with a grain of salt. In any case they're consistently the most profitable hedge fund out there.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#38

Post by insightcheck »

counters wrote: post #33
jbsimpson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to factor in how terrible post-doc pay and job security is, just to have a shot at getting on the tenure track. In the US it's half of that 80k number in bio research.

We also need to dispel the myth that tenure track academic roles are the only jobs for scientists. In my field, one can have a wonderful, decently-paying career working in some of the most desirable places in the US if they go the national lab route. There's also a thriving private sector which will just get bigger. This doesn't even factor in the exit ramp careers if, late in the game, a student realizes that "scien…

I completely agree, but I think most people who arrive at this perspective only reach this view after spending time in industry or adjacent to people working there.

A lot of the focus on tenure track jobs comes from professors and academics who dedicate their life almost solely in academic environments (so in their view, it’s a rather unhealthy attitude of academic tenure or bust). I’m not sure how feasible this is, but perhaps a work-study private sector summer internship could be an encouraged part of certain PhD, to widen perspectives and help both students and professors better understand the possibilities out there, which someone can be motivated to strive for, rather than settle for.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#39

Post by lotsofpulp »

chriskanan wrote: post #18
rdtwo wrote: post #2

Why would you want to get kids into science? It don’t pay for shit and career/life prospects are grim. Grind out a phd for 80k starting salary? Hard pass

As a scientist, I'd say this claim doesn't hold true for many scientific disciplines. I know scientists working in biopharma earning over $1M per year. That said, I do think the salary mentioned is accurate as a starting salary in academia for a research faculty position (tenure track starting salary in USA is ~50% higher though), but academia pays much worse than industry. You give up salary for huge amounts of auto…

Probability distributions are the difference.

There are people earning $200k, $500k, and $1M+ in many fields.

The probability of getting there (and quality of life while getting there and after you get there), are the important bits of information.

For example, if you have to grind out my whole 20s (some of the best years for the human body) doing dissertations and working 80+ hour weeks for near minimum wage (per hour worked), only for a 10% chance to make it to $200k per year or more, maybe it is not worth it.

Especially if other options exist that provide much higher probabilities of attaining an income you want with similar levels of dedication.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#40

Post by [deleted] »

pdpi wrote: post #23
auxym wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's satire. STEM is pushed hard, but realistically, science and math dont have that great career prospects. For one thing, a PhD, and the 4-7 year opportunity cost that comes with it, is pretty much required to get anything more than a lab tech job. After that PhD, where do you go? You can try for an insanely competitive tenure track faculty position. Or a very limited number of industry researcher job…

A PhD in maths is _incredibly_ valuable. Anything abstract algebra related, and the likes of the NSA are all over you. Anything numerical analysis related will find plenty of opportunities in finance, and the industry just calls statistics specialists "Data Scientists".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN