[Borek]

Not that I have a lot to say on the subject, but a lot depends on where do you live and where do you plan to live. There are huge differences between countries and even parts of the countries, so what people from US write doesn't necessarily apply to the place from which you posted.

[sdfsfgfdgdfdf]

I'm actually ready to live anywhere, where I can find a decent job, anywhere in the US, anywhere in Europe, Australia... I'm prepared to go anywhere where I can get a scholarship, just not in the Asian countries, because I don't speak those languages and I'm skeptic about their economic growth... I just don't know where chemists are in demand... And yes, it applies to my country also. Many American companies have opened labs here, but the main reason is that they can pay engineers and chemists, biologists etc. minimum wage and get away with it, so that's not really an option... They pay chemical engineers and analytical chemists with masters $350 a month, that's like $2-3 an hour, waitresses make the same amount of money... I'm from Macedonia by the way, that's just above Greece... All the industry closed down during the 90s, and now people have no choice, either work for minimum wage or leave... I used to live in the US when I was younger, so I was hoping to go back there, but I'm starting to change my mind now... I just need to find out where in the world the chemical industries are and where money is being invested in research

[Jasim]

We need chemists!! We are desperate in fact! Medicinal, pharmaceutical, organic synthesis chemists; Analytical chemists; Chemical engineers; Physical chemists. We are desperate for chemists where I am.

If you are into the computers stuff, they need chemists with technical backgrounds to program, control, and troubleshoot instrumentation and robotic synthesis machines. Chemical software engineering is a huge field in need of talent as well, as is chemical informatics.

I'll back what Borek says. Sure it may be bad in some places, but not everywhere. The OP took the wrong approach to the problem. The economy sucks right now, on a global scale. But those with education and training in STEM fields will always have a growing market that constantly needs new talent.

I will say that the largest area in need is for QC and analytical chemists. If you have trouble finding something you want, why not look into one of those areas just to get some job training and experience.

Personally I wanted to go into organic synthesis, but I ended up as an analytical chemist. A couple months ago I was approach with a job offer to do organic synthesis work. I got that offer because of my extensive experience (a whopping 5 years if you are wondering!). I ended up turning it down because I actually really enjoy what I'm doing now.

I agree with the posters that say you may need to look beyond your typical geographical area for a good job. Some areas are just hot for chemists, others not so much. Take a look at job postings in large cities that are home to 3 or 4 big research/science labs. In my own area of the woods in Indianapolis, we have Eli Lilly, Dow Agro Sciences, Purdue University and affiliates, AIT, and Covance. A science recruiter can help you get your footing and a good one will even help with your resume.

Good luck!

EDIT:
and I have full benefits, starting pay was around $20+ with bonuses. Not bad in my opinion, but the cost of living isn't high around here. I'm doing well enough to pay my bills and debts and be the sole income for my family of four.

[sdfsfgfdgdfdf]

Thanks a lot! This is the first positive thing I've read on the internet in days about chemistry jobs. Actually chemical informatics sounds very interesting. We had two courses on chemical informatics in university, but they were more about molecular modelling, not so much about doing actual programming, but from what I've read so far about the field, it does seem like something that i would like to do. Robotic synthesis sounds really cool but I'm guessing it's not the easiest field of study

And, about not being picky for jobs, people here have told me the same thing, to just accept whatever offer I can find in order to build up experience. Apparently its better to be doing something than nothing, because the longer you wait, the more you forget what you learned and the less likely it is you'll get a job. And it doesn't look good on a CV...

[imhan]

"but a lot depends on where do you live and where do you plan to live."

Very, very true, Borek. I was lucky enough to start my science career decades ago, when the profession was respected and jobs were plentiful, and I love what I do. But for US grads starting in chem, engineering and other STEM fields today, the prospects are utterly brutal- increasingly for my own students and others I've mentored, emigration from America has become the solution, and from anecdotal evidence among my colleagues, this is increasingly common.

One of the most jolting conversations I've had in the past few years was with an old student, one of my very best in decades of doing this- graduated with top honors, entrepreneurial, thrifty and innovative. But when I asked about the general consensus for career advice among mentors, promising young grads and entrepreneurs lately, I was shocked by the answer: "Learn German or Mandarin, and write a technical paper in it if possible."

I was taken aback by this, but this sort of meme made more and more sense as I researched it. While they may have their own problems, careers in chemistry, engineering and STEM fields overall are better respected in places like Switzerland and Germany (especially), Scandinavia, parts of France and of course throughout East Asia. They have a more long-term outlook there that balances the more immediate demands of markets with a deep cultural appreciation of cultivating knowledge- thus an emphasis and appreciation of basic science- as well as social structures that allow for better career and family stability in a STEM career, even in economic downturns. It's partly the mixed-economy model that everyone cites- capitalist but also community-oriented, with virtually no student loans, much lower-cost and accessible health care and day care, more modest financial demands for marriage and kids (or divorce if it comes to that) and taxes that really aren't higher than in the US given the multi-tier structure we have here- but I think it goes much deeper than that.

It's hard to pin it down, but these countries esp. in Central Europe have a cultural ethic that values hard work, preparation and high achievement, and yet maintain these values in a context that places a much greater premium on science as a tool for long-term societal gains (even if it takes many years to realize them), and on everyone coming together to help boost opportunities for each generation. Hence the growing importance of German as a technical standard, given that this is becoming one of the major opportunity-producing areas again for STEM fields.

For chemists, engineers and recent STEM grads in the USA in general, conversely, the problem goes beyond a short-term (if "from 2007" is still considered short-term) plummeting in the job market- it goes to deeper cultural issues in the US. It's this relentlessly short-term outlook that's encouraged mass outsourcing of the very tech jobs that the society needs to build a future tech and consumer base, lack of a coherent industrial plan, virtual abandoning of the young generation (massive student loans and health care costs plus utter lack of good-paying jobs means a collapsed economy within about 15 years). Not only are jobs scarce, but support for entrepreneurs is harder than ever to come by- if you don't come from a wealthy family to begin with, then capital is crazily tough to come by (and even then much of it is eaten up by health-care costs in a new business), which drastically shrinks our entrepreneurial pool. So even though the economy is improving, for STEM fields at least, the problem in the US has much deeper roots over decades. Add in the general lack of regard for the sciences and intellectual striving, and more holistic aspects of society such as our comparative lack of social cohesion and solidarity- the kind of "we're all in it together" aspect that helps many countries get through these sorts of crises- and the US is increasingly a lousy place to start a STEM career. Central Europe and East Asia are options that anyone with qualifications should consider.

[sdfsfgfdgdfdf]

What about Canada? I recently read several interesting papers in the journal of physical chemistry and journal of chemical physics from a university in Alberta, so I thought, maybe Canada has more respect for scientific work... They also have all the other social factors that you mentioned about the European countries, as far as I know they have accessible health care and education for everyone and apparently they're nice... I've never been to Canada though, so I don't really know what its like there.

[sschoe2]

I see Jasim you are from Indianapolis. I am in Chicago. I actually took a few trips to Indy to interview with Lilly, Covance, and a food company.  There are a few companies out there that are hiring but I think saying that they are desperate for chemists is a major overstatement. Lilly after going through several rounds of layoffs like most of the other big pharma's are replacing the laid off chemists with contractors (AMRI I believe is their shell company provider). Abbott Labs is doing the same thing up here in Chicago. Some of the emails I get from Indian recruiters do sound desperate. We have an urgent need for a Chemist with a graduate degree and experience with cancer drugs and every analytical technique known to science to work for no benefits and no job security for a contract that is up for renewal every 3 months.

The places where there is a fair number of science jobs are Boston, NY/NJ/CT, and CA. Those also happen to be the most expensive areas in the country to live so $40k is not a great offer there it is borderline poverty. Try finding a nonghetto apartment in NYC for less than $1500 a month. Public school teachers out there start at $60k so you might as well do that instead and at least they get summers off and great benefits and tenure.

I finally did end up with a decent job and am looking forward to telling my current permatemp employer to get bent.  It took me nearly 3 years, I fought like crazy, interviewed over 2 dozen times, turned down a fair number of offers that were insultingly unacceptable or were temp and no better than my current job for a job with mediocre pay and benefits. My ultimate goal is to get a job with the federal government as that is the only place I feel I can have a stable and decent paying career with a science degree. Staying in the private sector I am constantly afriad of layoffs and another 3 year job search or permatemp purgatory.

[Jasim]

I see Jasim you are from Indianapolis. I am in Chicago. I actually took a few trips to Indy to interview with Lilly, Covance, and a food company.  There are a few companies out there that are hiring but I think saying that they are desperate for chemists is a major overstatement. Lilly after going through several rounds of layoffs like most of the other big pharma's are replacing the laid off chemists with contractors (AMRI I believe is their shell company provider). Abbott Labs is doing the same thing up here in Chicago. Some of the emails I get from Indian recruiters do sound desperate. We have an urgent need for a Chemist with a graduate degree and experience with cancer drugs and every analytical technique known to science to work for no benefits and no job security for a contract that is up for renewal every 3 months.

I'm sure there may be some situations like that. Temp agencies tend to not be a place to stick around, usually poor benefits, little security, and renewal issues as you described. I work on contract at Lilly, yes Lilly did get rid of many of their own employees, but they have been hiring contractors in droves (it's a LOT cheaper for them). As you point out, many companies are going this route.

The best thing about being a contractor is that I have better job security than a direct employee. I am part of a Eurofins subsidiary. If my contract with Lilly ever goes away (which doesn't at all seem likely at the moment) I can go anywhere in the world with Eurofins, and they have a many positions that need to be filled. My supervisor relocated from Colorado when a contract ended. The company paid for his relocation to Indiana.

And I'll let you all in on another secret, The job may list needing someone with a ton of experience in all kinds of things, but in my area at least they have been taking under-qualified people and spending the money and time to train them. My resume has been incredibly buffed up since joining this company. They also will pay for a portion of my graduate school - don't hear that often anymore. Yes, it's true contractors make a little less than direct employees, but not much less. And the opportunities I have has a contractor are an immense benefit in themselves.

[sschoe2]

Well I am done working contracts. I finally got a job after 3 years of trying that doesn't have a pimp agency taking half your pay check. If I wanted half my paycheck taken away I would have fathered some illegitimate children or something.

I intend to keep trying for a job with the federal govt. If that doesn't work out I'll switch fields out of science entirely.  But I am never going to bust my rear working for a parasite agency again.

[sschoe2]

Also the conversion of all the jobs to contract/temp/permatemp is not a positive development for the field. It is a further manifestation of how little regard the MBA's running things place on their science staff. They do not even care to directly hire them and offer them benefits, raises, career development and the other things that real professionals get even the useless and vacuous bimbos in HR I've had the pleasure of being interviewed by.  

That desperation is more a cry for really smart suckers; the same as the shortage of scientist crap. Until the conditions and this attitude changes I will continue to steer people away from pursuing science as a career and society will continue to suffer. Unfortunately I have doubts it will ever change at least in a good way.

[Kazerdargon]

I feel like this post, in it's entirety, is a ploy set on deriving most undergraduates and those thinking about entering the field of chemistry from actually doing so.

The economy is on the low, no surprise there, so wouldn't it be logical for chemists to convince their possible future competition from even trying?

For someone with a degree as advanced of a field as chemistry, one would also have the intuition to know that chemistry is not a field to get into if all you're looking for is money. Clearly this something I believe everyone is told, even in the undergraduate years (at least my class was). This doesn't deter me from my studies. I love science and chemistry.

Not to mention

If you come up with publications and patents under your own name that inherently useful, then the royalties from those should be able to sustain your fanatical grandeur of lifestyle.


Patent Royalties:
the pharmaceutical with pre-clinical testing, 2–3%
with clinical trials, 3–4%
proven drug with US FDA approval, 5–7%
drug with market share, 8–10%

If you have a PhD, you should be used to research and development. As a PhD, you should be used to thinking outside of the box and not so linearly.

Those that sit there and regret going for their major in chemistry. Why did you ever get into chemistry in the first place? It makes no sense at all, for you to sit there and say the thing you wanted to do and dreamed of doing is now you're biggest regret because you're not lining your walls with all the extra gold you inherited from intellectual spoils.

_______________________________________________________________________
The line that separates a genius person from an insane person is measured by their success.

[Wald_ron]

I'm pleased to see this thread heading in a positive direction

[408]

If you come up with publications . then the royalties from those should be able to sustain your fanatical grandeur of lifestyle.

lol.  only for patents...not publications.

And patents only if the uni wants to cover lawyer fees to get those royalties...

[Doc Oc]

If you come up with publications and patents under your own name that inherently useful, then the royalties from those should be able to sustain your fanatical grandeur of lifestyle.


Patent Royalties:
the pharmaceutical with pre-clinical testing, 2–3%
with clinical trials, 3–4%
proven drug with US FDA approval, 5–7%
drug with market share, 8–10%

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post.  This set of sentences is enough to prove you don't understand how industry works.

[DrCMS]

What I hear from you is " I worked hard, and I got where I am through my own sheer effort and determination. I never needed a break or advice from anyone, and I have never been frustrated in my career. So if you aren't as successful as I am, it must be your own fault."

Well not quite, I have been frustrated from time to time so I found another job and moved on but other than that yes this is a pretty good summation of my views. 

Too many people want to blame an external reason for their lack of success when the main reason they've failed is their own fault.  Not everyone has the skills that are in demand and too many are lazy and ineffective in their jobs.  Those people do not succeed in anything and then when looking for the reason why they never look in to their own shortcomings instead they blame, the banks, the government, managers, schools, immigrants, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc etc.  I'm sick of the politics of envy.  The world does NOT owe you anything you need to earn everything.