[harmonslide]

I'm currently entering the last year of my B.S. Chemistry degree, so the time has come to pick out grad schools. The professors in the department -- almost all of them have always been exclusively in academic careers -- all tout that the PhD is the way to go. This makes sense, for academia--since teaching requirements usually include a PhD and beyond. And I know that in chemistry it's customary to pursue the PhD directly after the BS (contrary to some other fields which include a Master's as part of the expected path).

However, I don't know what the expectations in industry are. Who do companies like to hire, and though a PhD affords a significantly higher salary than a Master's degree, does it specialize you so much that jobs become nearly impossible to find?

I've been browsing job postings to get a feel for what I should set my educational sights for. Am I correct in assessing that most of the chemical industry consists of synthetic organic chemistry and analytical chemistry? Most of the listings I see ask for a BS or an MS with several years experience.

I'm interested in either analytical chemistry (particularly instrumental analysis or instrumental design, though that crosses into engineering) or physical chemistry (such as medical applications of spectroscopy), and I guess my overall question is whether I should shoot for the MS and get some industry experience or go for the jugular and try for the PhD?

[bluejay]

My 2 cents... others likely have different experiences and different opinions.

I have worked on the analytical chemistry side in laboratories in pharma, environmental (water/wastewater utilities) and food raw material manufacturing.  Most of the people I've worked with have had a B.S. in a science field.  A few have had a Masters, and a very few a PhD.  For most manufacturing and water/wastewater lab positions, my opinion is that a Phd would be considered over-qualified. Pharma labs would probably have more positions appropriate for Phds, but most analysts I think you would find have either a B.S. or a Masters. 

I think you have to decide where you want to head. For more research oriented jobs, be it in industry or academia, more education is likely to be an advantage.  However, I believe there are relatively few of these jobs out there.  For more process control, product release, compliance testing type labs, on-the-job-experience is likely to get you farther.  My experience is that most lab jobs fall into this category. 

I have worked in small labs (2-6 people) for the last 8 years.  I would note that in my experience, the smaller the lab, potentially the more types of instruments and analyses you get to play with.  I have used GC, HPLC, IC, ICP, FIA, TOC, etc, of course mixed with some good old fashioned tests like BOD, solids filtrations, etc.

Of course, whatever direction you choose now, it is likely at some point in your career you'll head off on some tangent you never imagined was an opportunity....

[Doc Oc]

I agree with Bluejay, a Ph.D will hurt your prospective chances (it certainly hurt mine).  If you like being in the lab and doing bench work, a Master's is enough to get you a good job with a nice salary.  Don't listen to academic professors, their livelihood is maintained by constant flow of graduate students so no matter how terrible the job market is for Ph.D's (which right now is god awful, and even the publications Science and Nature are admitting it) they will tell you that going to grad school is the best thing you can do for your life.

It's entirely possible for you to have a BS degree and a very fulfilling/successful career in biotech/pharma as well.  I would say from my experience in pharma that analytical chemists are more in demand than physical, but I think physical chemists could find positions with medical device companies or something.

Again, as Bluejay said, it's important for you to evaluate what you want.  If you're looking for a decent salary and the ability to do some interesting science, then get an MS at most.  You can start looking with your BS and be totally happy (my former manager has a BS and is looking to buy a house in a very nice neighborhood in CA).  If you're full of ideas and/or bristle at the idea of constantly working under someone the rest of your life, Ph.D may be a consideration you should make, but understand that it doesn't guarantee an easy life for you (in fact, you are making your life MUCH more difficult in a lot of ways).

Here's some resources you should give a look at:
Nice article about the financial comparison of Ph.D and BS scientists
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2008_04_11/caredit.a0800055

This is a surprising article showing that the Ph.D glut didn't start with the economic crash, but more than 10 years ago!  Notice what percentage of chemists ended up doing postdocs "because there weren't other jobs available"
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2002/winter/art03.pdf

Derek Lowe for In The Pipeline wrote an article on this topic and you should go through the comments as well.  Most of them are VERY opinionated and intemperate so take them with a bit of a grain of salt, but there's a general consensus that if you want to work in pharma/biotech that a Ph.D will negatively affect your chances.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2007/04/15/doctorate_or_not.php

Good luck.

[harmonslide]

Thanks for the replies - and the articles. The advisors in my department heavily pressure everyone (kind of assume they will all go to PhD programs afterwards). In a seminar about applying to grad school, one of them informed us there was "no point" in getting an M.S. and that PhD would not overspecialize you and many career options would be available... I'm skeptical.

My own advisors are pressuring me due to my GPA and academic record (4.00 in the honors program) to go to a PhD and at a Top-10 school (expressing scorn when I presented the possibility of an Ohio State level school). I feel I could get into a good PhD program and complete a PhD -- but I don't know if the effort is worth the reward. While I find chemistry research interesting, I could see myself doing many different things in life, and I'm not "in love" with organic synthesis.

[Doc Oc]

That's a load of BS, but it doesn't surprise me.  My Ph.D advisor was constantly admonishing me about what life inside the walls of industry was like, despite the fact that he had never worked a single day for a company (not even as a consultant) and I had worked in biotech/pharma for 4 years before joining his group.  One of the guys in our group flunked out of the program and on his last day my advisor strongly suggested he try to go back to grad school later on.  He wasn't quitting, he wasn't taking leave, he wasn't burned out.  COULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD.  And my advisor still told him to go to grad school.  That's a bit of an extreme example, but it sounds like your advisor isn't any less myopic.  One professor that deals it straight is Jonathan Katz.  This article is surprisingly on his research webpage.  I don't think I'd go as far as him (recommending that people don't bother studying science), but he does make an interesting point on the value of a Ph.D in the sciences.

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

One thing that is true, if you're going to go to grad school the pedigree of your program can really help you.  I talked to a guy who used to work for Merck and he said the hiring manager for their department didn't hire anyone that wasn't from Harvard because that's where he was from.  But if you think you'd ultimately be happier and more productive with the Buckeyes, you should go there.  Plenty of people from these "low tier" schools make a perfectly great living.  But if you think about it from a hiring manager's perspective, when you're looking through 100 resumes and you're trying to narrow down to 4 or 5 candidates to interview, seeing a school like Yale or Stanford helps you make some very fast decisions.

My advice to you (which is not gospel truth either so talk to some others as well), start looking for jobs.  Right now freshly minted BS scientists are a pretty hot commodity and you shouldn't have too much trouble getting a job.  Look for analytical chemistry positions, that will probably be along the lines of what your personal interests.  That'll give you an inside look at the industry and see if you are interested enough to continue pursuing it for a longer term.  If not, you're young enough that you can go in a totally different direction without jeopardizing your family/marriage/mortgage.

[JGK]

I've spent virtually my entire working life in the contract research area. Working in CRO's is fast paced but there's a huge variety in the work.

I started there with a BSc. but over time the entry level candidates. who originally only needed BSc's, became applicants with MSc's then (later) PhD's due to the expanding higher education system.