Slashdot Mirror
Starting a Career in Science at Age 38?
A Science Nostalgic writes "I'm 38, have a successful career as a software developer but feel the all-too-similar enterprise apps are boring my brains out, and I'm intensely missing the world of science, which I didn't pursue in favor of programming when I got my engineering degree. Now, I'm contemplating a job in research, but fear the age and the lack of 'exercise' with math and physics would pose an understandable handicap. If I study math seriously, I can realistically shed the 'rust' in a year, maybe two, but I still fear I'll be considered too old for research. I graduated abroad so I don't have any old contacts at the local universities (there are a few in my city). I checked their job boards, and they have no positions for research, just the usual ones in software development that I could use as an entry point. Do you have any experience with such a career change? Is it feasible at all to get into science once you approach 40? I feel my brain is still alive and kicking, and years of debugging have taught me a few things about investigating causes and correlations, which are useful skills in research."
Your age is irrelevant.
Your desire and drive determine whether you can be successful in a career.
If you are carefree and cavalier, don't expect others to take you seriously.
If you are dedicated and driven, and capable of actually learning/applying knowledge you'll be an asset.
You'll be poor, but hopefully happier :)
Have considered the same switch myself!
Do you have any experience with such a career change?
no - it's weird you would even ask.
Is it feasible at all to get into science once you approach 40?
like i said, i'm probably not the best to ask but my guess would be no - it's not. i've never found taking risks or pushing for change to be worthwhile.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Also, I know when I was taking my classes in physics as an undergrad, there were several people in your situation. People who wanted to get into a new field at 30 or 40 and picked physics. I would say try to find a field that your coding skills will shine in, but where you can use them in a way that doesn't bore you to tears. You're experience should serve you well.
Of course you may be taking a pay cut starting in a new field and all....
You might just end up with the, "Body is willing but the mind is not" thing though.
Old people tend to have the opposite kinda problem, but hey. Mid-life crisis and all that.
(Kidding, kidding)
On a serious note, I know several people who decided to take up alternative careers or go for a PhD much later in life. When I was in grad school, there was this guy who had graduated from MIT in the 80s and came back in his 40s to go to grad school.
He had his own company, so that was helping him support himself. And I've seen several people who decide later on in life that they want to specialize in something different because they felt that they weren't using their head enough at their current job.
I think at the end of the day, anyone can do it - you just have to like it enough. Goodluck!
If you haven't claimed your stake by age 30, the common wisdom is that you won't accomplish anything of value after that age either. Don't underestimate how hard it will be to get back up to speed or to perform like somebody younger.
Change is good. The human mind is a wonderful thing, it allows you to learn how to do new things no matter how old you are.
Bottom line, do it if you want a new challange and it interests you. I recently changed jobs (my last day at my current job is actually today), my new job hold alot of challange and requires skills that i both have and haven't developed ~yet~.
If humans were happy doing the same thing all the time, we would have never moved out of caves. It's human nature to want to be challanged and inspired by new things.
-Pizentios
Your age may be a benefit, actually, if you play your cards right. You may not have the knowledge that someone fresh out of graduate school would have, but you have maturity and (hopefully) stability.
Have you considered keeping your job but getting into teaching? Your company may like it and let you do both--it's good PR and a great opportunity to get quality employees. From their perspective you're basically giving your students a 4 month interview process. Teaching can be a great challenge and may be more fulfilling than trying to advance yourself enough to do research. Good teaching will also advance your own skillsets, too.
I hear there is good money in debunking these scurrilous theories about man's effect on climate.
Their they're doing there hair.
I'm a theoretician in a physical science and my learning capacity, memory, and math abilities have not diminished with age; to the contrary I feel like they've gotten stronger and ... wait, what were we talking about?
Can't answer any of your questions, but I'm in a similar boat: 38 years old, and I sort of want to do something else, anything else. Good luck, and if you succeed, share your secrets/lessons/etc.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What field of science you want to enter determines what level of math prowess you must have. If you're going to be a physicist, then you need to be strong in math. Chemist or biochemist - that depends upon what type of chemistry you're going to do. Simple algebra could be enough if you're thinking about organic chemistry or molecular biology.
I'm an organic chemist who practices material science and fire safety engineering - and I haven't had to use calculus since I took it for grade in undergrad. Algebra is about as difficult as I encounter in my field, and to some extent (and I know this will cause howls of disbelief and screams of being a lame scientist), there are many programs that do the complex math for you. It is more important to understand the concepts and design good experiments in many of the physical sciences than to be actually good at the underlying math in the equation behind measurements in that experiment. The exception to this is if you're actually measuring the measurements or determining new ways of measuring physical phenomena...but now you're moving back into the realm of physics which does require good math skills.
I would look at what you want to do and then figure out if you've got the math chops to do it before worrying about this too much.
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
Don't do a wholesale switch where you abandon your skill set for whatever Science you prefer.
The way I did it was literally cold-calling people in the field I wanted to be in, eventually got some feedback on the skills I had versus the skills I needed to be desirable in that field and figured out ways to get those skills in a professional environment.
It won't happen overnight and it requires constantly thinking about where you want to be versus where you are but it will happen.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Most people working as scientists have gone through a process that includes MS, PhD and post-doctoral studies that take 7-10 years after completion of their BS level degrees. Some people manage to do it by starting at a lower level and gaining the equivalent in experience and study as they work. You are seriously missing this background. With an engineering BS you would be starting as a low level technician. To go and try to get this science background would take you years of additional study, if even you could find a program that would accept you at your age. By the time you completed this you would be near age 50.
I am not saying it is impossible, my father went for his PhD when he was about your age - but his circumstances were rather different - he had already been working in an R&D role for many years, and was able to get funding from a prestigious scholarship to pay both a salary and his college tuition because he had built up a strong reputation as a scientist without the PhD degree. People who can do this are pretty rare.
I'm 36 and just left a career in science for a career in software development.
Academic, private and public sector science is rife with incompetent management. I could bear it no longer.
Self employment in science was not an option as startup costs (hardware) are prohibitive. (Anyone want to loan me 1.5+ mil?... fat chance...)
Self-employment in software development however, is entirely feasible and far more rewarding than a career in science.
Avoid science like the plague, unless you like working for overpaid incompetents, slaving your ass off for pennies, meaningless work and zero job satisfaction.
Seriously, unless you are already rich, and can buy a management job for yourself, forget it. Unless of course you're into masochism.
Stay in software development, at least you have some chance of quality management and meaningful work. The chances of that in science are virtually nil.
The biggest problem with mid-life career change is avoiding getting in at the bottom rung in your new career. As an established professional, you'll want to demand more money, and be willing to work fewer hours, than your typical early-career employee in your new field.
I would advise you (as I've been advised) to search for a company that has both roles, your current one and your desired one -- and explicitly state during the interview process that you're looking to change to the new career. If you find the right company, they may even pay for refresher courses.
Once you establish with your target company that you're extremely enthusiastic about them and the roles (as well as being a go-getter and a good worker) you'll be in good shape. At a bare minimum, make sure you've read the latest journals in the particular field, so you can dmeonstrate your interest.
One other note -- taking the initiative to better your situation is a Good Thing(tm), both for yourself, and to prospective employers. Many good employers will consider that a huge advantage over a candidate who is just beginning a career and can't be sure if that's where they really want to be.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Being over 40 I've had a desire to go back to doing research, physics was my Bachelors. Considering though that middle age for Physics is 35. What I mean by this is that most of the important work a Physicist will do will have been done by age 35. Now depedning on what you want to pursue,I would suggest going to a local University and just talk to some professors. See what they think. Good Luck!
You are never too old to learn... or change!
:)
:)
I was a teacher for 10 years. Got sick of the system (NCLBA) and Administrators (loved the kids though) went back to school at age 35 and am writing computer programs now.
Yeah.. it's easier to get into programming than science probably, but the really weird factor is that if I decide on another career change, I was actually thinking about Meteorology. (I wanna chase tornados? (Hell ya I do, LOL) Actually, I'm addicted to weather and would love to get into the system that "predicts" weather... but... not sure what the future might bring, but it was some thoughts I had... if I get bored with programming / databasing..) Anyway, enough about me.. just wanted to say thanks for asking this question...
Good luck to you!!
Love to hear your success story in a few years!!
Kris
Remember when Windows were washed, mice were trapped and UNIX guarded the harem?
The OP makes it sound like you can just apply for a "research" job. I think most jobs in science research are done by Ph.D. level folks, so step one would not be "apply for research job", but "apply to Ph.D. science program."
That is something he shouldn't have a problem with. When I was in a Ph.D. chem program one of my best friends in my class was 35. A few years later we had a 40-pluser come in, though he had dozens of publications already, so that was probably a no brainer for his PI.
In short: Go for it! where it == apply to Ph.D. program.
Apparently Exxon is looking for scientists. Although I think that $10k salary is a little low... http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/ 02/1511229/
with the state of the economy, pensions, social security, medical advances you'll be working till you're 70 anyways so you've got a good 20 years of employment ahead of you (assuming you already have a degree and are making a concerted effort towards getting another).
The national labs generally support training on the job, so if you come in as a programer, you can get a second degree and move over to a science position. Look at the National Academies website http://www.national-academies.org/ to find mentor contacts in a field that interests you. Career Links is down and to the right.
--
Or, convert everyone to solar http://www.powur.com/mdsolar
I am 39 and am just starting my second semester of grad school to change careers. Most people in my program are 5-10 years younger than me. I thought it would be really difficult, but I find that I'm so interested in what I'm learning that it becomes easier - and it's a lot better than pushing myself through the job I had outgrown. It is so invigorating to pursue your true interests! I found a program that combines my work background (technology) with my desired new direction (art), so perhaps a "compromise" like that might work for you, too, like the poster who suggested using your coding skills in an area with more personal fulfillment.
And another note of encouragement: my aunt went to medical school at age 40. It was certainly a lot of work, and more difficult for her at an older age than 20-somethings for whom continual all-nighters and reams of memorization are physically easier. But she really wanted it and she did it: passed her boards (on the second try) and has been an M.D. for the past 17 years.
Good luck!!
In the case of the biological sciences, if you want to run a lab, you need to put five years into your graduate career and have a ~five year successful post-doc. If the applicant is 40, that means they won't be able to even apply for a faculty position until they're 50. If the applicant is looking at industry, then five years of experience is equivalent to a PhD (in order to get top industry job you still need that successful post-doc position) and graduate school won't help them. If the applicant "simply wants to learn", they they appear to have no focus. We have picked up older applicants, though they all had very good reasons for seeking an advanced degree (for example, in two cases they wanted to teach at the community college level). If you apply to graduate school, you must address these issues in your essay. Also, when you write your essay, focus on your work/research experience (this goes for all applicants) as we don't care about 'how you've dreamed of being a scientist since you were two'.
One other piece of advice, if you want a job in research, don't look at the job boards. Find a lab that interests you, and contact the PI directly. People come and go all the time and if I don't have a position open, I typically know of someone who does. I've never hired someone through HR, but only hire people who are interested in my research as I don't have enough time to focus on someone who 'simply wants a job'. Best of luck to you.
I'm 33 and working on my CS degree and planning to work on a engineering degree soon. I'll probably be in my early 40s by the time I get done with my masters. Will I ever get anywhere with this degree? My guess is probably not as far as if I'd leave school altogether with a CS degree.
The thing is that I want to take on this engineering education for myself. It's not really a career move. If I'm fortunate enough I may have the option to turn it into a career but I still don't see myself getting the educational investment back over my lifetime in the face of continuing to do IS work. It doesn't bother me.
If that kind of thinking bothers you maybe it's not the wisest move to make.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
and you can do it too. Go for it and don't look back.
I guess I'm the guy designated to piss on your parade.
You're vague in your post, but to me "doing research in science" means either academia or working in an industrial research lab. What "science" means is harder to say, but I'll assume it's one of the traditional sciences, and not computer science, for which your prospects might be better depending on the flavor of CS you want to do.
All that said, the truth is that you're in for an uphill battle, and you will have to REALLY want it. I'm in the CSCI PhD program at a top 10 university and can tell you unreservedly not to bother with any of this unless you want your quest to be the principle thing in your life. One might debate whether this need be true for a person who's gone the traditional route, but PhDs are hard, and you need one to do what I've described above as "science research."
Let's assume you're a passionate guy, you work sixty hours a week anyway, and this is a well thought-out dream you're on the cusp of pursuing. Here's what I'd recommend:
0: Buy a bunch of Schaum's outlines in pre-calculus, calculus, differential equations, probability, and statistics. Beginning working through them. Somebody posted on here that he's a scientist and rarely uses anything above algebra. That's probably true, but irrelevent. You don't have that luxury; you have to be better than everyone else or nobody's gonna bother with you. Regaining the math chops will be easier than you imagine if you're diligent, by which I mean you work on it everyday for a couple of hours, as if you were taking a class. If you're not diligent you're fucked anyway.
1: Enroll in a decent public institution. Not necessarily in grad school; I took some classes post-BS w/ my status as "Adult special" which is for people who just want to learn stuff, not worry about a degree.
2: Take classes in your area of interest. You'll probably have to start w/ undergrad classes. Prepare to feel weird among all the 18 year old hotties.
3: MAKE CONNECTIONS. Be the guy who asks questions in class, and make them good questions. Get to know the teachers, and make them like you. This is a critical step. Make them know your name, and know you do excellent work and are a smart guy.
4: When you know some profs who are doing research things that you're interested in, ask them if you can help. Researchers love this; that's how our group gets new people. You get involved, you do whatever they tell you to, you PRODUCE. After a history of successes you can make inquiries about whether this person would support your attempt at admission.
5: Apply for admission. You will need to have taken the GRE by this point, and probably a topic test, which your studies should have prepared you for. You'll need letters of admission, which your schmoozing, ass-kicking performance in class, and volunteering should make easy.
Like I said before, all of this stuff will consume your life. If you're the sort of guy whose life is consumed already, then this might be OK. If you expect to dick around for a little bit, and then somehow get everything you want, well, it's not going to work.
If you REALLY want it it can be done, but if you don't REALLY want it then you should find some way to get the satisfaction you're looking for from less drastic changes. I went back to school at 32, so I want to support the underdog. Good luck.
Are you the same guy who recently was contemplating a CS degree at age 39? on Wednesday. Both have a history of programming business applications, both a year's difference in age, and both seeking advice from Slashdot. I thought it was a little odd to see such a similar post two days after the first :)
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Be prepared for high expectations of workload without what you might perceive as adequate compensation. The vast majority of research done at Universities is performed by graduate students and post-docs, and so this is your competition for a job. Unfortunately for you, grad students and post-docs work very long hours for little or no pay, and as a result other University employees who do research are paid badly compared to what you could get in the private sector. Even a highly trained, advanced post-doc will rarely make over $50k (usually far less, trust me), and so you're going to need a convincing argument as to why you're worth more.
First of all, it should be clear to you by this point that you will have to accept a paycut. On the other hand, I've talked to people who said they were incredibly bored at their old job, and were more than happy to give it up to do something interesting.
Since I'm not 30 yet, I don't know what people mean by "rusty" skills and whether it's reasonable to consider whether you can learn what you need in 1 to 2 years. In my experience (i'm currently a computational chemistry grad student) I just learn the math I need as I go along. For most research problems, I would imagine that you do not start from scratch -- a lot of code is already available (probably in fortran) and if you start a project it will involve simply adding on or modifying it a little bit. Honestly, you do not use the majority of the math you learned...
However, if you want to get into a field like physics, I would imagine that the difficulty will be learning all the theory that is already in place. In theoretical chemistry, we have ~70 years of people poking around. If you have a good advisor, you won't need to worry about all that because they'll immediately direct you to an interesting project. Are you looking to start grad school or to get a job as a research position -- postdoc? The question is can you bring in enough skills for them to be willing to fund you out of their grant money, and add to that factor the question of whether there are other job seekers who have a degree.
When some people say that someone is "too old" for science, what they are usually referring to is probably not that they can't do it, but that they aren't the kind of risk takers who accept challenging projects. At some point, I think people begin to just find projects that produce papers, and not interesting science. I don't think there's a problem either way since honestly, both types are needed.
You might want to consider applying for at least a masters program if available in the field of your interest (many schools don't offer masters in fields like physics, chemistry). If not, maybe apply to a phd program. Honestly, advisors put up with a lot from their phd students, whereas they have higher expectations from their postdocs.
Lastly, it is important to remember that you *do not* need to be a good programmer in order to get good science done. I've been learning this. Many scientists produce really crappy code that produces good results. They don't need to understand the math because they simply link to a library. And, once you have legacy code that produces good, correct results, it's rare that people see the need to rewrite it. My point is, being a skilled programmer is probably not highly valued since scientists have demonstrated that it's unnecessary.
On the other hand, I'm sure companies like Gaussian, Schrodinger, etc like to have people good at writing visualization code. There are a lot of people looking into visualization research -- which requires good programmers -- because many biological entities like proteins need that kind of help to be understood.
So here's a summary from my rambling:
1) If you want to do science/engineering research, you probably need to go to grad school.
2) If you're interested in visualization, then there are probably a lot of research groups and companies in the biology/nanoscale/engineering realm who'd be happy to take you.
While you could possibly find a new career in the Science 'industry', to start off as a /Scientist/ at 40 is going to put you in a severe disadvantage.
...if you're lucky, you'll get to the point of being a professional Scientist for a few years before you retire.
Add the 3-6 years to complete undergrad school.
Add the 3-10 years to complete postgraduate school.
Add the 6-15 years it'll take to acquire professional standing
I don't think it's ever too late to do something new. One of my professors related a story about a student of his that just died at age 94. The man worked a full career, retired at age 60, and decided to go to law school. He got a job as an attorney for a nearby city and worked literally until the day he died, because he enjoyed it and didn't like being idle. The man worked *a whole second 30 year career* after putting in 38 years in his first career.
As an engineer currently in law school, I'm something of the reverse (although I feel I'm 'adding law' rather than 'leaving science'). They're just different mindsets.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Im in a similar boat. I studied Astrophysics in the UK, but during college I was immature and ended up drinking more than studying and getting a 2.1, which is a good degree, but meant I would have to compete with people with 1sts for research positions. To be honest I was too immature and had too many issues back then. When I was there, there was a man of 36 who started the bachelors program (he didnt even have pre-college maths iirc) and ended up as researcher at the university. Same thing in my master comp sci. program, some very good mature students. Looking back, I can see how silly I was (still had a great time), but maturity is definitely an asset not a hinderance. I find Im better at picking up new concepts now then when I was in my early twenties.
So I went on to do a masters in comp sci., and ended up working in the corporate cubicle farm for 10 years, now at 35 planning my escape. Considered starting my business, but my main aim now is to tutor & teach physics/maths/chemisty at junior college/AP level and see how it goes from there. I recently picked up the ole maths & physics books and I was surprised at how fast it all came back, and how much I really enjoyed it, which gave me more certitude in what I want to do, that and realising how much I get out of helping people learn!
good luck!
If you're OK with just working with physics as opposed to doing research yourself, there are other places where software is a research tool and the people who write it get to learn about the physics.
The national supercomputer centers sometimes have ultimately cool projects like simulating galaxies colliding and rendering images of the result. That gets you the fun of programming big iron, some really challenging numerical problems, shock wave physics, and the chance to watch science being made from the inside. Once there, you can at least try to impress the right people and move into doing your own research. For sure you'll get a clearer idea whether that's what you want to do.
I was beginning to wonder if I was too old myself. As a programmer, do you think I'm too late to get in the field? I currently work in IT as a senior help desk technician. I decided I didn't want to pursue a higher level education in networking but rather do something that was a dream of mine since I graduated high school in '86. I won't be done with school until I am about 44 since I am going part time online after work, reserves, and having visitation with my kids every other weekend. I keep pushing forward but start getting scared that maybe I'm too old.
Sounds like Common Sense to me, you just know that this is how it's supposed to be....
oh, and never underestimate how much you'll need to lower your IQ and wisdom to perform like somebody younger....
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
"A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so."
- Albert Einstein
hi,
after abandoning careers in market/advertising/PR and computing consulting, i returned to college and, starting from the bottom, obtained a physics BS at age 35, a master's at 37 and a Ph.D. in experimental high-energy physics at 44 -- i'm currently a post-doc and will start searching for a real job either in academia or national labs (not necessarily in the US) starting this summer -- moreover, it seems reasonably realistic to believe that i can obtain such a permanent position
however, that said, there is an age bias built into the system and you additionally must be willing to accept drastically reduced earnings expectations over the (hopefully long!) time span of the rest of your life
however, my life is infinitely richer now than it might have ever been had i stayed in the business of business
good luck!
"I think at the end of the day, anyone can do it - you just have to like it enough. Goodluck!"
Become an actor in the porn business.
You can do good science; research labs are always looking for good software developers, and if you join one in that capacity, you can start contributing to research, co-author papers, and move up.
But don't expect a regular scientific career--competition is extremely tough, accomplishments are cumulative and carefully cataloged, and scientific careers span 50 years and never stabilize. You can become a doctor at 40 and catch up with your peers, but you can't do it in the sciences.
It depends. Science Arts: lit, paint, music, etc... > 60 and still going strong.
The sucky part is that for the math and science guys, you gotta do it before 30. Even the MAN, Einstein, regarding science, didn't do shit after 30.
I am. I am in the midst of going back to grad school after about 15 years of IT/Software work. Most of the people I spoke with said older students are really not at a disadvantage as thier experience and work ethic usually pull them through.
There are also fileds like geology where the stereotype is that older people in the field make the most important discoveries.
You should maybe take a few classes in math, chemistry or whatever you may need to brush up. Statistics is never wasted.
Also, being in software and if you know a little math, you can probably get a job as a modeler to pay for school (assistantship).
So I say, 'go for it'
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
... started back at university at around 34 and just graduated this past academic year at 39 (I believe) with a Math Honours degree. This academic year he started his grad program. He's similar to your situation as he worked for about a decade as a programmer/sys admin/etc.
But, how he got into doing research was to excel in his classes and get introduced (by me) to the instructor that I was marking for who happened to be doing research and needed someone with his skills. This turned into a summer job and the the next summer and this instructor turned into his graduate supervisor.
Basically, if you want to do research you canNOT just jump in i.e. having the "starting not at the bottom", "quick fix" mentality for research is absolutely ridiculous. You need the education (recently) and a little bit of luck to find someone that you can work with. The latter shouldn't be a problem if the profs know that you are one of the top students. This will also lead to more contacts as those profs are not typically just working with "locals".
In other words, go back to university. The other path is pretty much impossible.
I just completed my Masters in computer science and am already in the PhD program. I'm very lucky in that I have a part-time job that's very supportive of my studies; e.g., they allow for a flexible schedule, which is perfect for attending last minute school meetings and seminars.
My prior experience as a software developer have proven very useful as many academics have no practical programming experience. Moreover I bring domain knowledge that is also useful, such as familiarity with geospatial related software. (This is useful, say, for robotic navigation and for proper reading and rendering of geospatial data.) In a recent project I was able to use software design patterns and CVS to yield some productivity gains.
Working part-time has also, as a side-effect, forced me to adapt to the lower income to be expected switching to an academic or research mode from a professional software developer. Also, the livable income and decent health insurance from the part-time job are good compromises while making progress academically in parallel.
I cannot emphasize too much, however, the need to ensure that your fiscal affairs are in order. E.g., I have no debt and no credit cards. I don't have a car payment nor a mortgage. I also have a five figures of money saved up as a buffer.
After getting my PhD, I hope to continue doing research, whether at a company or university. I'm hoping that my "hybrid" background will make me more enticing to prospective employers.
(As an aside, there are a few other guys at my university about my age that have made the same switch from software engineering to academia. So, more positive data points for you.)
MAC | A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The only hard part is the ludicrously low pay and non-existent benefits. It really really sucks not having medical coverage for my family. But for me, it's still been worth it. After a grueling first semester of teaching, I went back to a high tech job for six months at 4 times the pay. But it quickly grew VERY tedious, so now I'm back teaching again.
The programming experience was also a great help for my research. There is SO much opportunity for software development in the biosciences, that I strongly recommend it to all who value creative intellectual work over financial benefit. As an additional (more speculative) incentive, I'm hopeful that biotech will someday make the transition from risky research to profitable engineering. If and when that happens, those with the experience should expect opportunities and payoffs that make the dotcom boom pale in comparison.
mhack
Building a better ribosome since 1997
I absolutely feel with you and always contemplate that step myself. Except I am not even sure if I would feel so at home at universities anymore either: it seems to me that science actually involves a lot of politics and diplomacy, too, it's usually not about the genius working alone in his study.
My personal idols are people like Stephen Wolfram (book "A New Kind Of Science"), Ray Kurzweill or Jeff Hawkins (book "on intelligence"), who earned a lot of money by founding their own companies and then used the winnings to do their own research. Granted it's hard to plan for making millions, but still - maybe there is a way to do research on one's own accord. Even Einstein still worked at the patent office when he did most of his great stuff, remember? I think he was also delayed in getting his PhD.
I would still be interested in getting a PhD, if only to learn the subject thouroughly. But perhaps there also is a way to do some research for one's one company and eventually wrap it up into a PhD thesis anyway? I am admitting here that the severe cuts in payments are indeed a consideration for me. And besides, I figure that either I'll be really good in what I am doing, in which case formalities will probably not be too much of a hindrance, or it's not worth bothering with it either. There are boring jobs in science, too, so no point in being a second rate scientist really. Doing research for a company would have the added benefit of at least having a chance of being useful, which can't be said for science in general, either.
Lastly, I would recommend the book "What color is your parachute" about finding a fulfilling job. He has some good suggestions, I think. For example instead of going about a career change the hard way (ie direct path, study again etc.), he suggests a two step approach: as a software developer you could first get a job at a research institution as a software developer in step 1. In step 2 you can then become a scientist, as you already have experience with the research stuff (he doesn't describe it for science, but maybe it could work there, too).
A couple of years ago - I ran across a the BASIS project - instrumentation that was used at the Salt Lake City Olympic games, to detect possible biological attacks...
My current job is/was Systems Administration. On my own time outside of work, I started learning about aerosol science and ended up designing some instrumentation - outside my day job to detect nasty stuff that affects the Respiratory System. My employer eventually gave me what they call a "determination of rights" - so that I own all the intellectual property. There were weeks that I would spend up to 80 hours outside my day job. Kinda tough on the family though.
How serious are you about science? Whether you get a formal education or self educate and network your way into a scientific position, it'll take a bunch of work - but there is hope - people do it!
Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'
--Andy, "Shawshank Redemption"
Step #1: Don't go to a university. Academia claims to be about drive, and ideals, and hard work. In reality it is only about people being assholes to each other at every opportunity. In general the work in academia is sub-standard at best to begin with. Avoid this path when you are young and avoid it even more when you are older!!! Only young idealist idiots are suckers for this, you are smarter than that (I hope).
Step #2: Get a new job. Stay in industry but find a new company. Find one that does research but needs your software talents. Be clear upfront what your goal is, to move into a more research like position. Highlight that you want to get involved in the research and science aspects of what you are coding and what to move away from coding. There are places that will accomodate you. They are naturally harder to find than the average job, but it is worth it, you'll get paid more, learn more, and operate in an environment in which there is accountability and smart people moving towards a useful goal.
Step #3: Possibily get another job. Even with your best laid plans step 2 might not work out for you. Fine, move on again. Changing jobs in industry three or four times is far less disruptive than entering any sort of university/academic career. Nothing will damage your future earnings more than leaving industry and trying to get a PhD or just working for a university as staff. Don't do it. Just keep changing jobs in industry until you find a company that fits your goals. I'm at one right now. They do exist. Make even a quarter of the sacrafice you'd have to make to leave industry and you'll find one.
Step #4: Once you'd succeeded try to create similar opportunities for others. Once this works out for you, perpetuate it. University learning is a dead end and needs to be altered. At the moment it survives on the backs of young doe-eyed morons who think it is about ideas and science. These poor idealistic victims provide the sweat and blood to line the professors and departments pockets. Remember, to a prof grad students are lemons, squeeze the juice out and throw them away. Companies on the otherhand see the value it developing and then using a resource. Academia never does this, it only plays lip service to it. Unfortunately the places like Bell labs, Xerox PARC, etc. are going away. Smaller organizations are taking up the slack. Help contribute to such places and mold them into centers of learning, inovation and development. Academia will never do it, so it's up to us in industry to make it happen.
Remember, stay in industry, and try, try, try again if you have to. University is a dead end, you've outgrown being a doe-eyed twenty year old.
Sign me up...
37, escaped a 15-year career in IT, back to college to finish my Microbiology B.S. (emphasis on applied environmental and industrial microbiology). If my local institution can be convinced to accept my second semester of English as a second semester of English and my semester of Calculus as a semester of Calculus (this place is evidently notorious for refusal to accept transfer credits) I should hopefully graduate this summer.
I'm working even harder now than I was in IT, but now at least I feel like it's productive work.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
As a scientist myself i.e. someone living your "dream" I find these sort of threads amusing. Most people seem to focus on whether you can/cannot get into grad school. The real question you should be asking is can you get a decent *job* afterwards. The market for jobs in academic research even for those much younger than yourself is pretty bad and to be frank it's going to get worse. The Golden Age of research is over. Tenure and tenure-track jobs are increasingly being replaced by non-permanent positions supported by grants or adjuncts where the pay is lower and conditions worse. This happened even during the dot-com boom. There is also ageism. A standard piece of advice is the more postdocs you do (above the initial one or two) and the older you get the worse your chances of getting hired are.
The editor of Science magazine "Supply Without Demand", Vol 20, pg 1105 (2000):
"There's one more, uncomfortable, explanation for calls to increase the supply of scientists. The present situation provides real advantages for the science and technology sector and the academic and corporate institutions that depend on it. We've arranged to produce more knowledge workers than we can employ, creating a labor-excess economy that keeps labor costs down and productivity high. Maybe we keep doing this because in our heart of hearts, we really prefer it this way.
The consequences of this are troubling. To be sure, the best graduates of the most prestigious programs may eventually find good jobs, but only after they are well past the age at which their predecessors were productively established. The rest--scientists of considerable potential who didn't quite make it in a tough market--form an international legion of the discontented."
In a study done by Yale, "The Postdoc Crisis" http://www.yaleunions.org/geso/careers.html:
"Figure 1 shows the increase of postdocs relative to faculty over the past two decades at Yale. The senior
faculty in the sciences grew by 13 members, while the junior faculty shrank by 21.4. In contrast, postdocs have increased 231%."
Senior faculty (i.e. those who got tenure) grew over 17 years from 140 by 13 members. Junior faculty i.e. tenure track *decreased* from about 80 to 60 while postdocs increased from around about 60 to 180. Basically tenure track track jobs, even at Yale are decreasing while postdoc positions (temporary, low paying, often without benefits) are blooming.
"For instance, the American Institute of Physics Report [3/01] noted that nationally 1,271 PhDs were awarded in Physics in 1999. However, only 335 ladder faculty hires were made in the 2000 academic year."
Also note that each year you will be competing not only with those from your year but also those who graduated in previous years who have remained in the postdoc holding positions waiting for a slot to free up.
"In 1973 55% of PhDs secured a tenure-track faculty position within 3-4 years of their
graduation. In 1995 that's down to 17%. More PhDs are suffering through longer postdocs, while fewer are securing faculty
jobs within six years of graduation. And according to Gary Ostrander, Associate Dean of Johns Hopkins School of
Arts and Sciences, "For people to be in postdoctoral positions for seven or 10 years
is not uncommon." [Quoted in JHM, p. 56]"
"Not only do scientists spend more time as postdocs, but they also find that the
longer their postdoc position, the smaller the likelihood of their ever getting a facul-ty position. Figure 4 shows that for nonbiological sciences the longer one remains a postdoc, the less one's chance of becoming a ladder faculty member."
"Postdocs are not the only temporary workers in academic science. There are other classes of non-ladder researchers. At Yale, temporary researchers (including postdocs) now account for almost 60% of the scientists in FAS.
This follows a national trend in which there were 30% more non-faculty research scientists
I started a research career at age 37 in evolutionary molecular biology, having not studied any biology since I was about 14. However, I had two advantages over you: I do have a science PhD (in astronomy) and my employer was an old friend of the family. I'm sure he didn't hire me just because of that, but it did at least get me an opportunity to be seriously considered.
I'd spent the time between my PhD and the new job as a commercial programmer.
Getting an academic job is likely to be very difficult. Working as a programmer for scientists is a fair possibility, which you can possibly leverage into a real research job eventually. You WILL take a pay cut. In my case, it was by about 30%. I'm happy with that trade-off.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
If you are a programmer, and want to work in the sciences, just get a job programming in the sciences. I currently do programming for space research in a predominately physics oriented environment. I know nothing about space or even physics (hated it at school!), but I've been doing fairly well at my job. It's an interesting field to be in, and beats the humdrum of code monkey or boring business applications. Our company is Southwest Research Institute but I am sure there are others out there...
I entered grad studies (MSc) in computer science at age 39. As a mechanical & electrical engineer, my lack of background in math and computer science made it a huge challenge. But what got me an opportunity to take the program was bull-headed hard work in my work years before that. With that work ethic, plus the maturity fitting my age, I made top student beating out younger, and often brighter, students fresh out of their undergrad programmes. My point, and the lesson I took away, is that it's not really about your brain. It's mostly about how hard you're willing to work.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
>>> What field of science you want to enter determines what level of math prowess you must have.
Huh. If you're not a scientist, don't attempt to get a job doing science. You don't have to be working in science to be a scientist, I imagine it's like not being an editor but still being a grammar nazi.
Oh and if you just show up at the lectures for an undergrad course everyone will probably think you're a visiting professor assessing the doctoral teaching staff. Could be fun.
Incidentally what is your field? When I was about 12 I decided I wanted to be a particle physicist; to be honest that's still the unfulfilled passion in my life but it turned out I wasn't dedicated enough at studying and probably (though I hate to admit this, being as I got the best A-levels in my entire town) not bright enough.
I work at a research institute in Japan, where there are quite a few Ph.D. students that got a bit bored in industry and came back to science. Usually, they keep their industry job and spend 50 - 60 % of their time in research. Many Japanese companies support this.
As a foreigner, you could therefore also get a Ph.D. position in Japan, but you either have to have a lab sponsor you, get a scholarship, or work in a Japanese company that allows you to transfer to Japan.
For a scholarship, you need someone who has experience in writing grant proposals. Essentially you write a two-page summary that sounds as if the project could be done right now, you just need the money.
In order to have a lab sponsor you, you need contacts. If you know someone from a certain research lab, he can talk to someone there who knows the head of a group where you may fit in. Positions in Japan are often acquired through connections. It is not easy to convince someone with the right connections that you're qualified, but once you have a "champion", he or she will do everything possible to represent you.
... as the woman you feel.
Then move to Alberta.
If what you want is challenging engineering problem, go into Electronic Design Automation (EDA). Plenty of interesting engineering problems to solve, and the maths is not too hard.
I started medical school fairly late - at age 29, and didn't finish my training until I was almost 40. I accepted a faculty position at a top 5 hospital (here in the States) just after finishing training.
So yeah, you can be wildly successful, even if you start out late. If you're happy at what you do, then it's not really like work, and you'll be good at what you do (although a bit of a drive like a bulldog does always help).
Whatever you do, do it well - don't do anything half-assed. Just like Yoda said
"Do or do not, there is no try." That fricken quote runs thru my head every week - it's a great way to get things done.
..........FULL STOP.
I think it's The Big Lebowski that begins with a narrative describing the protagonist as "a man who never found much use for himself." I'm in a similar boat in that I'm a couple years shy of 30, graduated with a BA in public relations and have ended up settling in as a linux systems admin. I am paid well enough, work from home, head up a small 501c3 non-profit and cavort around town more than most. I have racked up a bunch of certs (CISSP, RHCE, CCNP, etc) but place little faith in what they signify. In short, I do not think SA is not going to cut it for more than another year. It's just so damned circular, chasing all the usual listing systems, debugging the usual faulty driver, blah blah ad nauseum.
My temptation is that in attaining "professional" status in IT (and I'm generally regarded as competent by my peers), I'd like to believe I could segue into another field without going in for the typical grad school track. Granted, my odds of becoming a theoretical physicist without a grad degree are admittedly slim, but I believe an intelligent and dedicated individual really can teach themselves most of what they need to know to accomplish a particular project goal without having to settle in for four years of tuna and ramen. I would argue further that such an individual can attain a level of competence much faster than a PhD or masters candidate as they are working to solve a particular goal and can afford to skip or skim over material which plays no supporting role. There are enough tools out there (MIT's open courseware, for example) such that a prospective self-learner can see what entails a PhD in XXXX, pick out the most applicable courses, subselect further from that, and, yes, of course, spend some extra time learning necessary foundational materials to adequately comprehend the prior.
I mean I read published papers in biology or surgery and know that none of it is that radically incomprehensible.
Am I maverick that has gone as far as he's going to go without grad school, a brat dreaming that he can build a rocketship in his garage? Or am I right to recognize that knowledge and expertise are not locked solely in the halls of academia?
I'll conclude by saying that you can all save your breaths about grad school giving one great connections, advanced degrees being necessary for most positions, needing access to labs, etc. Assume I'm intelligent enough to pick an area where I could reasonably "go the distance" on my own -- economics / market behavior, algorithms, artificial intelligence, etc. Heck, one could argue that by self-learning one has more avenues for true field advancement in that they are not locked into the framework of a particular program or are poo-pood by professors who have their own regimented bias.
Hans Reiser, I believe, taught himself most everything he needed to know for ReiserFS (and skip comments about the trial). The founder of FedEx was told his idea would never work by a professor in his MBA department. Rare examples, sure, but examples all the same.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"