Survey: What education was most valuable to your career?

[Jade.Barker]

...make sure that the background is there, for instance taking physical chemistry without a good mathematical background might be useless.

Ouch It hurts because it's true! I am also light on the math.
I took stats instead of calculus so I could get working more quickly. I guess I will add that to the list.

[Don_Hilton]

Jade,

My degrees are both in Chemistry. My masters is in organic chemistry - but I've been doing analytical since. I don't know how much you got to read of what I wrote before the site got moved. We can see if Tom can pull up the remains of some of the more recient longer posts, if needed.

Or, I can try to remember my ramblings.

Don

[tcay584]

The best way to learn is to do...and there's no motivation to do lots like the threat of having to spend another year at grad student pay! HaHa! I would definitely recommend it.

May I ask how many years your Phd took? Also how did you identify a good counsilor/mentor?

It took 4 years. Mostly I looked for a PI who was doing interesting research and had good funding. I'd heard of too many folks getting into their third year and the prof. losing funding.

[Jade.Barker]

I'd heard of too many folks getting into their third year and the prof. losing funding.

Oh, thats what happens... I have seen a number of Young Chemists with "2 years towards a PhD..." on their internet bios. I was having trouble understanding why anyone would go through the hassle of getting in, then doing 2 years, then quiting. Loss of grant money makes sense though.

Tell me, what is the situation where loss of funding is most likely to happen? Is it rare or fairly common that a PhD student would experience this? Does it happen more often at public universities than at private schools?

[tcay584]

Oh, thats what happens... I have seen a number of Young Chemists with "2 years towards a PhD..." on their internet bios. I was having trouble understanding why anyone would go through the hassle of getting in, then doing 2 years, then quiting. Loss of grant money makes sense though.

Tell me, what is the situation where loss of funding is most likely to happen? Is it rare or fairly common that a PhD student would experience this? Does it happen more often at public universities than at private schools?[/quote]

Well, when I was still in school a lot of grant money was being cut because sciences in general were not being funded at the federal level. Even my professor, who did not usually worry given his history, was feeling a little fretful. We studied the biosynthetic pathways of anti cancer and anti inflammatory compounds derived from marine organisms, so he had a very relevant and potentially "commercializable" course of research. My school was a public school, and having never attended a private university, I can't say where this trend is most prevalent. There are a lot more reasons that people stop the program though. It can be extremely demoralizing when an experiment you've put 80+ hours a week into for the last three months doesn't work and there's nothing to do but literally go "back to the drawing board.....again". If it hadn't been for an amazingly supportive husband and family (and a PI who really knew what it was like to have that happen), I don't think I would have made it. There are lots of other reasons people don't finish. I will say though that what you learn of science, technology, and humility will follow you forever. Hopefully, funding for science research at the university level will be revitalized because that is really a great starting point for a love of science and research to blossom.

[juddc]

I've found that the most important element of my education is what I've learned during the process of solving the problems that I've been asked to solve.

I don't know whether a Ph.D. teaches one to think systematically or not because I've seen holders of doctorate degrees that were shatteringly brilliant and others that were incapable of thinking their way out of a paper bag...but they had excellent memories. I know that I did not learn to think from going to school. It was expected of me as a member of my family. I may eventually go for a doctorate in my retirement, but that would obviously not be done for financial considerations. I'd do it just to learn something.

Luckily for me, I was able to develop a reputation at a small comany that, over the period of a few years, became a huge one, so I have some of the advantages of both.

[Consumer Products Guy]

Some personal background and some (more or less) random observations:

The personal background:

I have a BS and MS in chemistry and an MBA. On the scientific side, almost everything that I *use* was learned in one of two ways:
- from teaching high school chemistry for 4 years.
- via the "school of hard knocks" (books, articles, conversations, etc.).
The MBA (particularly the "organizational behavior" courses) has been much more useful. In part, that's because I have always gravitated to a small-company environment.

The random observations:

The larger the company, the more important the "Ph.D" after your name. It's not that you can't succeed with a BS or MS, but it's an uphill battle. With smaller companies what (and who) you know is more important.

What you learn in the process of getting an MS can be priceless, but the MS degree (per se) is virtually worthless. Just look at the ACS salary survey and you'll see what I mean.

Most of the tools you will be using in the future don't exist yet. No matter what degree you pursue, what's important is learning how to learn.

I have BS degree, in career 30+ years, entry level to department manager. I haven't seen where PhDs can operate efficiently in my Analytical Chemistry department, haven't seen it in my experience, this is real world. I don't buy into that the letters after the name are worth beans, everyone's an individual. Usually it means that someone had family, spouse, or financing to help them get through (heck, I'm Phi Beta Kappa and Magna cum Laude, and "just" BS degree) As to what helped me most: knowing how to repair automobiles and stuff around the house, great troubleshooting training, and applicable to HPLC and GC in way more ways than most would think.

[lmh]

Diagnostic.Lab/Jade,

This is a mini-rant:

from the point of view of personal learning, you already have the most fundamental necessity: you want to learn.

My background is degree and PhD in biochemistry (though I don't like to admit it, as engineers are often convinced all biochemists are self-centred, over-confident machine-breakers, and pragmatical analysts don't believe in PhDs). Summary: I have no analytical training, and little experience.

I run a small analytical lab in a research institute where very few people have analytical experience, so I'm always excited when someone turns up who claims to be an analytical chemist. There is so much to learn. But I've started to distrust degrees in analytical chemistry. I reckon if someone's studied analytical chemistry for 3 years, I shouldn't have to explain to them why a single quad has a different sensitivity to a trap MS. Even more disappointing, I'd expect them to understand (or at least feign interest) while I explain. Perhaps I've just had bad experiences.

Summary: unfortunately neither a PhD, nor a masters, nor any form of training guarantees that someone who calls themselves an analytical chemist is really fit to be let loose in a lab; attitude is much more important.

Good luck, whatever you choose. And whatever you choose, your attitude is likely to make it beneficial to you.