Science graduates lack skills - BBC article
Discussion
poah said:
The other thing is even if undergraduates have A-level maths, when they get to uni not all the top students have any real brains. I've taough a lot of labs in both biological and medical degrees and they are not all as smart as you think.
As one of the 'biological' people referred to, I'd agree with this statement. There are a lot of smart people who do Biology/Medicine. But you certainly don't have to be smart to get a relatively good degree. A degree doesn't test understanding, it tests memory - regurgitate the facts and the 2.1 is yours...wiffmaster said:
As one of the 'biological' people referred to, I'd agree with this statement. There are a lot of smart people who do Biology/Medicine. But you certainly don't have to be smart to get a relatively good degree. A degree doesn't test understanding, it tests memory - regurgitate the facts and the 2.1 is yours...
I got a 2:2 
lolSimpo Two said:
Things are much easier to remember if you understand them. One ball rolling along rather than 500 balls all in little boxes.
Absolutely - if you understand something, you'll remember it for years. I can still remember most stuff from the modules I understood well a few years later.But one of my modules (Immunology) I had zero interest in as the lectures were mind numbing and took place at 9:00am in the middle of winter. So, I never went to the lectures and never did the reading. My entire revision for the module consisted of looking at past papers and reading through a textbook for the two days before the exam. I had no real idea as to what was going on, yet still got 78% in that module. That's not because I'm some kind of rainman, it's because the way that Universities examine is an absolute joke; memory, not understanding. I deserved to fail that one, yet got a 1st in it - that can't be right. Frankly I'd have much preferred a lot more coursework at Uni - at least that can't be 'faked' in a couple of days.
Interesting points made by all on this topic, hopefully I can add a little experience and therefore perspective to the thread.... Pass me the soap box.
Went to a good boys grammar school and studied Biology, Chemistry, Maths and General studies and achieved laughable grades (I blame cars and women). Fortunately ended up embarking on a degree in Chemistry part time while working at a major pharmaceutical company on a starting salary of £12,700 in 1999. After completing this my MSc was sponsored in Pharmaceutical Sciences and then finally completed a non-sponsored MBA through the OU. Having worked in the industry I have had the pleasure of working with great highly intelligent, motivated people on medicines for cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart conditions, paediatric medications, orphan medicines some of which have actually made it to the patient!
Generally my close knit school friends went into finance/accounting/insurance/engineering/science related disciplines. 13 years on lifestyles are 'comparable' between us, but it is understood and possibly realised that the guys in finance generally work longer hours and reap larger bonuses. One of the engineers has a job that we all envy and is rewarded handsomely for his craft (testing the Nissan GTR last week), whereas it would be more difficult to envy a finance related roles.
Back to the BBC article, many companies will collaborate with universities through PhD/MSc/Summer studentship programmes to help develop skills required industry.
An apparent issue with R&D roles is the ability to link the work we do to the profit the organisation makes. In finance roles this is much more apparent therefore salary negotiation and market value for the employee can increase rapidly.
A job in science is a completely different proposition than one in the finance industry; I fell into it and have no regrets. Salary is important but equally if not more so is enjoying your job.
However, on the flip side one of my colleagues who has worked for 17 years in industry has a completely opposite view! Top of his school for maths, grade As without trying in further maths and has grown old and cynical in his scientific career.
Went to a good boys grammar school and studied Biology, Chemistry, Maths and General studies and achieved laughable grades (I blame cars and women). Fortunately ended up embarking on a degree in Chemistry part time while working at a major pharmaceutical company on a starting salary of £12,700 in 1999. After completing this my MSc was sponsored in Pharmaceutical Sciences and then finally completed a non-sponsored MBA through the OU. Having worked in the industry I have had the pleasure of working with great highly intelligent, motivated people on medicines for cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart conditions, paediatric medications, orphan medicines some of which have actually made it to the patient!
Generally my close knit school friends went into finance/accounting/insurance/engineering/science related disciplines. 13 years on lifestyles are 'comparable' between us, but it is understood and possibly realised that the guys in finance generally work longer hours and reap larger bonuses. One of the engineers has a job that we all envy and is rewarded handsomely for his craft (testing the Nissan GTR last week), whereas it would be more difficult to envy a finance related roles.
Back to the BBC article, many companies will collaborate with universities through PhD/MSc/Summer studentship programmes to help develop skills required industry.
An apparent issue with R&D roles is the ability to link the work we do to the profit the organisation makes. In finance roles this is much more apparent therefore salary negotiation and market value for the employee can increase rapidly.
A job in science is a completely different proposition than one in the finance industry; I fell into it and have no regrets. Salary is important but equally if not more so is enjoying your job.
However, on the flip side one of my colleagues who has worked for 17 years in industry has a completely opposite view! Top of his school for maths, grade As without trying in further maths and has grown old and cynical in his scientific career.
wiffmaster said:
I found the subject itself fascinating, and the skill-set developed within the degree lends itself to a number of non-science related industries. But, I don't fancy spending the rest of my working life in a lab where a supposed 'vocational' element is seen as making-up for low pay. I've chatted with friends who've graduated with Biology/Chemistry/Physics degrees and they feel similarly. Why work as a scientist when we're going to be paid sod-all to begin with, sod-all twenty years down the line and are highly unlikely to ever get any sort of recognition, perks, bonus, etc? Sure, there'll be a few people who love science so much that they will look past all that, but there's certainly not enough of them to sustain the industry long-term and it's certainly not how the majority of science graduates feel.
When science related industries complain that they cannot find graduates with the required skill-set, the assumption is that the university isn't preparing them properly. I think the reality is that 90% of people who would have the skills science-based firms are looking for, will never bother applying as their skills can earn far more in another industry.
Look at big pharma - an industry which is on its arse at present. You'd think they'd be pulling out all the stops to attract fresh young talent. Yet log onto the Pfizer/Merck/Roche websites and you get a vague description of what the graduate scheme entails and learn that the salary is 'competitive' (read: crap). Compare that with a law firm or a bank's website and notice that there is a full description of what to expect as a graduate, what to expect going forward and an exact salary stated (which really is 'competitive').
A science degree is great insofar as it ensures that pretty much all industries are open to you at graduate level. It's hardly surprising that science-based firms are not at the top of many science graduate's lists of potential employees.
You sir have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Compared to 10 years ago, graduate salaries in pharma have not kept up with other industries and I have witnessed this movement not only in graduate thinking but also experienced hires. People who do science for the 'love of it' are few and far between, but if you do manage to somehow stumble on being part of a great team who work on an interesting R&D project great things can still happen.When science related industries complain that they cannot find graduates with the required skill-set, the assumption is that the university isn't preparing them properly. I think the reality is that 90% of people who would have the skills science-based firms are looking for, will never bother applying as their skills can earn far more in another industry.
Look at big pharma - an industry which is on its arse at present. You'd think they'd be pulling out all the stops to attract fresh young talent. Yet log onto the Pfizer/Merck/Roche websites and you get a vague description of what the graduate scheme entails and learn that the salary is 'competitive' (read: crap). Compare that with a law firm or a bank's website and notice that there is a full description of what to expect as a graduate, what to expect going forward and an exact salary stated (which really is 'competitive').
A science degree is great insofar as it ensures that pretty much all industries are open to you at graduate level. It's hardly surprising that science-based firms are not at the top of many science graduate's lists of potential employees.
Anyway I'm off home in 1 hour, enjoy your FTSE/NASDAQ/DJI/NIKKEI for the next 12 hours!
The reality of a career in science didn't really kick in until I was a postgrad at a research institute. My supervisor was working his arse off for a very mediocre salary, being made ill by the stress and spending more time working as a manager than as a scientist.
I'd consider going back to science if I won the lottery and no longer needed to earn or to advance my career.
I'd consider going back to science if I won the lottery and no longer needed to earn or to advance my career.
One of the issues is the shocking disconnect between industry and academia. Let me give you an example.
I was asked to give a talk at a student conference, which was open to all uk under and postgrad students studying in my area of expertise.
Now most graduates in this area end up working within high hazard industries, of which a fundamental cornerstone is the safety-case. Bearing in mind these students represented every uni teaching this course - L'boro, UCL, Cranfield, etc. - not one of them had heard of a safety case before. To my mind this is shocking as academia is turning out woefully unprepared grads.
What was even worse is that this experience spurred me on to approach a few of my colleagues within the industry and sketch out a 1 to 2 day course, which would teach the fundamentals currently missing from current courses. We approached all of the UK courses with the syllabus and not one single university took us up on the offer to come in and teach this course for free (as long as they covered our travel costs).
At the moment it costs industry a shed load of money to sort out this delta between skills taught and skills needed to do the job profitably. Until this is sorted perhaps science grads won't be seen as worthy of the high salaries?
I was asked to give a talk at a student conference, which was open to all uk under and postgrad students studying in my area of expertise.
Now most graduates in this area end up working within high hazard industries, of which a fundamental cornerstone is the safety-case. Bearing in mind these students represented every uni teaching this course - L'boro, UCL, Cranfield, etc. - not one of them had heard of a safety case before. To my mind this is shocking as academia is turning out woefully unprepared grads.
What was even worse is that this experience spurred me on to approach a few of my colleagues within the industry and sketch out a 1 to 2 day course, which would teach the fundamentals currently missing from current courses. We approached all of the UK courses with the syllabus and not one single university took us up on the offer to come in and teach this course for free (as long as they covered our travel costs).
At the moment it costs industry a shed load of money to sort out this delta between skills taught and skills needed to do the job profitably. Until this is sorted perhaps science grads won't be seen as worthy of the high salaries?
I think there's also another issue to bring to this topic (I'm referring specifically to Analytical type Chemists here but I believe it's relevant to other disciplines). Unless you have a 1st, or at a stretch a 2:1, class degree and/or a Ph.D from a well respected University (or you are very, very lucky) then you will struggle to find a permanent job on graduating. Most likely you will do the rounds of various Agencies, until some outfit deems you have enough experience and you are either offered, or through your own efforts (meaning attending interviews at places other than which you are currently temporarily employed) get one.
Indeed, in my time in this industry I have witnessed the devaluing of skills, many of the top Pharma/Chemical companies appear to employ the very minimum of permanent staff these days. The rest being filled with a seemingly endless slew of temps, who they will re-hire on a rotation basis, after 6 months of not employing them have passed, good business sense for them in not having to pay pesky things like pensions. I'm hoping recent legislation may change this, but if you've read this far you may already have formed the opinion I'm somewhat jaded and very cynical, and you'd be correct.
I guess when you work in a place and the guys on the plant, who pretty much shovel chemicals/raw materials about and really don't have any qualifications above "O" grade/GCSE level and earn, in some cases, nearly double what you do, well you wonder where the heck this industry went wrong?
Don't get me wrong, my choices have put me here, I'm not the woe is me type, this is just saying that part of being a man (or, indeed a grown up) is learning to live with your decisions, but also knowing when the time is right to change them.
I'll be changing, make no mistake about that. Don't get me wrong I never expected to get rich in science. I did, however, expect to be comfortable, and by any standards I'm not. So, if you can be content just getting by and doing something you like (or even love) then science may be for you, but if you have aspirations and ambitions, then you better be pretty damn good at what your chosen field is.
Edit: Another thing to add - A lot of dialogue I have had with others in my field recently is that a lot of jobs are being gobbled up by folk seemingly vastly over qualified for the positions i.e. BSc level jobs going to Ph.Ds. I have applied for jobs, and I am careful in my selection, that I am a very, very good fit for and have scarcely had a reply in most cases, let alone an interview.
Indeed, in my time in this industry I have witnessed the devaluing of skills, many of the top Pharma/Chemical companies appear to employ the very minimum of permanent staff these days. The rest being filled with a seemingly endless slew of temps, who they will re-hire on a rotation basis, after 6 months of not employing them have passed, good business sense for them in not having to pay pesky things like pensions. I'm hoping recent legislation may change this, but if you've read this far you may already have formed the opinion I'm somewhat jaded and very cynical, and you'd be correct.
I guess when you work in a place and the guys on the plant, who pretty much shovel chemicals/raw materials about and really don't have any qualifications above "O" grade/GCSE level and earn, in some cases, nearly double what you do, well you wonder where the heck this industry went wrong?
Don't get me wrong, my choices have put me here, I'm not the woe is me type, this is just saying that part of being a man (or, indeed a grown up) is learning to live with your decisions, but also knowing when the time is right to change them.
I'll be changing, make no mistake about that. Don't get me wrong I never expected to get rich in science. I did, however, expect to be comfortable, and by any standards I'm not. So, if you can be content just getting by and doing something you like (or even love) then science may be for you, but if you have aspirations and ambitions, then you better be pretty damn good at what your chosen field is.
Edit: Another thing to add - A lot of dialogue I have had with others in my field recently is that a lot of jobs are being gobbled up by folk seemingly vastly over qualified for the positions i.e. BSc level jobs going to Ph.Ds. I have applied for jobs, and I am careful in my selection, that I am a very, very good fit for and have scarcely had a reply in most cases, let alone an interview.
Edited by zb on Saturday 18th August 22:13
Eric Mc said:
And society has changed over the years too. Modern society tends to place a higher value on the showman, the sales person, the bragger, the boaster and the clown.
In most modern corporations, driven by quarterly results, the sales departments are the people that make the money for the company. Everyone else is just a cost centre - even though you may be performing 95% of the work and 100% of the intellectual know-how, it's the 5% of effort that the sales people put in that is recognised and rewarded. It's very screwed up IMO.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff