#Geology Careers
46 messages in this thread
I've just received my degree in economics but do not feel satisified. I went
for this degree because of pressures at the time, and it was my quickest way to
a degree. However, I have always had an interested in the
sciences(earth/space) and am now considering a degree in geology. I feel if I
don't persue something in the area of science, I will go to my grave with the
music still in me, and I do not want that to happen.
I am interested in hearing from people with this degree and their experiences
with college and the work force. My situation is:
I'm married with a 6yr old and I just turned 38. I need to work, pretty much
full-time while I go back to college. The ultimate situation would be to work
in a related field while going for this degree( I would be roughly 70 units
away).
Any suggestions, strength, or hope would be highly appreciated!
Thanks,
gary
Dear Gary:
I can sympathize with you. I don't have advice but I wanted to let you
know that you are not the only person that feels this way. I too have a career
that does not satisfy me.
Good Luck – Stop at nothing to find a career that is meaningful.
Ken
Ken,
>>I too have a career that does not satisfy me.
Good Luck – Stop at nothing to find a career that is meaningful.<<
Have you been persuing any direction at this time? I agree with the philosophy
of stopping at nothing to find what it is you are good at, but at times I'm not
sure I have the tenacity to follow this path. I guess the reason why is that
I'm not really positive what it is I REALLY want to do. I just know I like
science. I've looked at physics and engineering but the time factor is a lot
more than geology, and so is the intensity of the coursework. I know the earth
and space sciences are interesting, so I thought about geology after looking at
the job possibilities in my college catalogue. I guess I'm still searching
until I get hit by that lightening bolt that tells me THIS IS REALLY ME! Maybe
I'm dreaming too much and I need to get more practical and just settle for
anything that provides a decent living.
thanks for your reply…
gary
>> I've looked at physics and engineering but the time factor is a lot more
than geology, and so is the intensity of the coursework. <<
Please do read my first message *very carefully*. The idea that geology is not
as demanding as engineering or physics is enticing but could lead you into
spending several years coasting through introductory courses, then finding you
need to bail when the demands get steep, particularly if you have avoided the
math and hard-science support classes required to grasp the concepts in
advanced geology. And the time factor may surprise you, too, especially since
the Master's degree that Philip speaks of is probably not going to be enough,
what with all the PhD's laid off by the petroleum industry and the government.
It is possible to find a sub-field in geology with much less math involved,
like paleontology: but you much be able to memorize and recognize hundred of
fossils and tell similar species apart by miniscule differences, etc.
As you advance in geology (and you will need to, as echoed in other replies in
this thread), the intense stuff creeps in. Examples: optical mineralogy turns
out to be a course in the physics of light! Structural geology and
crystallography (two subjects as different as you can imagine) both use stereo
nets — which I have never mastered! — to depict the strain on surfaces. In
igneous and metamorphic petrology as well as geochemistry, you get to work with
two-dimensional projections of three-dimensional phase diagrams — not to
mention solving or recreating them in the lab.
It goes on and on!
So I say "Hurray" for signing up for two classes in geology, but run don't walk
to get "What Color is Your Parachute?". I have also heard about a
similar-but-different book to help you explore your own interests and abilities
called (something like) "Zen and the Art of Career Change". It's thicker,
possibly more "philisophical", and a bit more expensive; I cannot recommend it
personally (as I can and do "Parachute"), but a friend thought highly of it.
— E.
Elizabeth,
Last year I gave up a thirteen year career of going to sea to return to
school and get a profession on land. After going through the career information
center I decided on hydrology mainly because I'm not the 9 to 5 type and
because geology was one of my interests. However, during this last week I have
been going through hell after discovering that the job prospects for hydrology
should be drying up since the men I voted for in November are going to "give it
to me good."
As of today, though, I decided that I'm going to stick to my plans and
get my BS in Geology or Hydrological Science should I get accepted to UC Davis
someday. I figure that if I can not get a job here in the states than I can go
to the middle east where they told me that they will be hiring hydrologists for
quite some time.
The point is that I'm going to do what I want to do despite what those
Bozos in congress do. With a little luck I feel that I should be able to live
my dream and do what I love instead of living behind a desk or breaking my back
hauling bricks.
Doug
Doug,
Way to go! You mentioned UC Davis, where abouts in CA are you? I did 3
quarters at Davis before heading to Sac St. to finish my degree.
gary
Gary,
I'm in San Jose. I was originally planning to go to Humboldt State and
major in Geology but a classmate of mine is getting accepted into Davis and
tells me that they like to get the older students and that admission is not as
brutal as most people think especially in a nonimpacted field of study.
Checking further I saw that they had a Hydrological Science major offered for
undergraduates which I beleive to be a recent offering. If the bible thumpers
in Washington have their way and shut down USGS, then the job market will flood
with geologists looking for work as hydrologists or what ever they can find.
This may or may not happen according to the gentleman who wrote me a reply
earlier. If worse comes to worse I'm prepared to go into soil science or what
ever it takes to keep me out from behind a desk and stay in the outdoors.
Wish me luck,
Doug
Douglas,
>>If worse comes to worse I'm prepared to go into soil science or what ever it
takes to keep me out from behind a desk and stay in the outdoors.
Wish me luck,<<
I feel the same way, and the BEST of SKILL to you. Luck is nothing more than
when preparation meets opportunity!! I went to UC Davis for 2 quarters 2 yrs
back, great school. Where abouts in CA are you located? I just graduated from
Sac State.
Merry Christmas!!
gary
Elizabeth,
Thanks again for your reply. Very thorough, and informative.
>>The idea that geology is not as demanding as engineering or physics is
enticing but could lead you into spending several years coasting through
introductory courses, then finding you need to bail when the demands get steep,
particularly if you have avoided the math and hard-science support classes
required to grasp the concepts in advanced geology.<<
You are so right, this is where I always get myself into trouble. What I plan
to do is take the 2 required introductory classes, then get into the physics
and chemistry. I already have all the math I need. And thank you for the book
suggestions! Just picked up the latest ver. of "Parachute".
I really appreciated your time in reference to my question! You've given me a
lot to reflect on.
Have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
gary
I say go for it.
I must warn you, however, that the geology job market ain't what it use to
be. And if the republicans get the USGS shut down the market could be
flooded with very qualifed people to soak up what jobs do exist.
I've been pretty lucky and haven't had too many problems (except getting that
first job…that was tough), but I have switched to the computer industry
myself. Better money, more jobs.
Start out taking a class or two, take your time, and have fun.
How does that quote go?…"Of all the words of sorrow, none is as sad
as 'I could have'."
Mike
Mike,
Some of the replies here, although probabily based on reality, are frustrating!
It seems that when I talk about a career in the sciences, I mostly get negative
responses. I was always under the impression that there were shortages in
these fields, but that's not what I've been hearing here. Even the grades
schools are stressing the need for more math and science teaching, but why??
What are we preparing these kids for, empty job markets?? I thought about
physics and the space sciences at one point and received the same types of
responses.
>>I've been pretty lucky and haven't had too many problems (except getting that
first job…that was tough), but I have switched to the computer industry
myself. Better money, more jobs.<<
I take it that your degree is in geology. How did you switch to the computer
industry? And what did you need to do to get into this field?
>>How does that quote go?…"Of all the words of sorrow, none is as sad
as 'I could have'."<<
The frustrating part is that I agree with this statement fully!!, but in
today's society is it practical? What will it get you? And what do you risk
in the interim?
Still looking…
gary
Gary,
There _are_ shortages in a lot of fields. Problem is, the shortages aren't
just in men, but in funds as well.
>> Even the grades schools are stressing the need for more math and science
teaching, but why?? What are we preparing these kids for, empty job markets??
<<
Math and science in grade school are important because for the last twenty
years or so, public schools' treatment of those subjects has been rotten and
getting worse. The fact that people don't _understand_ math and science is
what spawns pseudoscience and antiscience movements.
Jon W.
Jon,
>>Math and science in grade school are important because for the last twenty
years or so, public schools' treatment of those subjects has been rotten and
getting worse.<
Don't get me wrong, I highly advocate the teaching of the sciences, but from
what I have seen after being in college for 5yrs is professors deliberatly
trying to weed out students to the point of frustration. Many students have
the desire to persue the sciences, but aren't given the chance and get fed up
at some point and quit. It's appears that for the greater part you have to be
in the top 5% before you can be accepted or get anywhere. You don't need 3+yrs
of calculus, physics, or chemistry to balance a check book and get by in life.
The people who persue the sciences have a natural curiousity about how the
world works. And if you look at a lot of, or even most of the financial
success'(which seems to be mostly everybodies goal) in this world, you can see
that it wasn't correlated to science classes taught in school.
>> The fact that people don't _understand_ math and science is what spawns
pseudoscience and antiscience movements.<<
I don't fully agree with this. Take a philosophy or critical thinking class or
classes to learn how to analyze what you read. I don't need to understand
calculus or physics to realize there is no loch ness monster, or that the crop
circle are a fake. I can read the "Skeptical Enquirer" and see what spawns the
pseudoscience and antiscience movements.
Believe me I love the sciences, but have had nothing but mostly negative
responses in regards to persuing these careers. I'm more frustrated than
anything else, and will probably follow my instincts regardless of what I hear.
Thanks for listening!
gary
Gary,
>> I highly advocate the teaching of the sciences, but from what I have seen
after being in college for 5yrs is professors deliberatly trying to weed out
students to the point of frustration. Many students have the desire to persue
the sciences, but aren't given the chance and get fed up at some point and
quit. <<
I'm convinced that a *lot* of students have that desire wiped out long before
they get anywhere near college. My public school system was pretty typical for
a suburban school system that served a largely middle-class area. The quality
of the science courses I took was putrid. It was all dull memorization and
dreary repetitions of experiments that had been done a thousand times before,
where the textbooks and the teachers *told* you what would happen even before
you did it. No challenge at all. What the hell is even remotely interesting
about that? The *only* reason I'm still interested in science is that I was
and still am a voracious reader and thinker, and reading about science gives me
things to stimulate that.
I was in college before I got a teacher (rather, a professor, of geology as a
matter of fact) who could teach science the way science should be taught. We
didn't stay in the classroom listening to him drone on about "this means this,
and that indicates thus-and-so." No, we by-God went out into the field and
*saw* what he was talking about. Talking about faults and folding and
metamorphic rocks? We didn't look at diagrams and photographs. No, we all piled
into vans and drove two hours southeast, which put us in the best outdoor lab
for such things in the continental US: the mountains of West Virginia. And we
saw faults and folds and metamorphic rocks up close and in person. Then we
talked about what we'd seen, what could make rocks look that way. *THAT'S* how
science should be taught.
>> It's appears that for the greater part you have to be in the top 5% before
you can be accepted or get anywhere. <<
That depends on where you're trying to get. <g>
>> I don't fully agree with this. Take a philosophy or critical thinking class
or classes to learn how to analyze what you read. I don't need to understand
calculus or physics to realize there is no loch ness monster, or that the crop
circle are a fake. I can read the "Skeptical Enquirer" and see what spawns the
pseudoscience and antiscience movements. <<
Critical thinking is a *part* of science. See, this is another aspect of what
I was talking about: most people think "science" is memorizing lots of arcane
trivia, talking in esoteric jargon, compiling huge tables of numbers, and
creating monsters behind locked lab doors. Science isn't any of those things.
Science is a way of looking at the world. Logic, critical thinking, analysis,
observation and deduction — *those* are science, not memorized lists of
jawbreaker words derived from long-dead languages. For a whole variety of
reasons, the American school system actively discourages critical thought, and
so most kids never develop the skills they need to make good scientists.
As to your examples of "the Loch Ness monster and crop circles" — you might do
well to pick others. The only real reason either of those are considered
'proven' frauds is that orthodox 'scientists' who have themselves forgotten
what science is all about have declared them frauds because they don't conform
to current theory. At best the evidence in both cases is inconclusive.
Pseudoscience and antiscience movements thrive because people don't understand
science. Writers for the SI can cover it in whatever psychotalk they like: the
reason at bottom is that people don't understand science, and we humans tend to
fear what we don't understand.
Jon W.
Jon,
>> My public school system was pretty typical for a suburban school system that
served a largely middle-class area. The quality of the science courses I took
was putrid.<<
I grew up in the same type of situation! Even though I've had an interest in
the sciences at an early age, it was never fostered by parents, or the
education system. Now at 38, I feel a void that I need to work on. It goes
back to the age old question of "What is the meaning of life?" Well, I read a
good response to this from an atheist, "There is no meaning to life, per se;
however, it is up to us to pump meaning into life on a daily basis!" Now, I'm
not an atheist, but I agree with that statement 100%.
>>The *only* reason I'm still interested in science is that I was and still am
a voracious reader and thinker, and reading about science gives me things to
stimulate that.<<
We have a lot in common! That statement defines me exactly, which is why I'm a
bit discontent right now. I enjoy the reading, but I want more! I want, in
some way, to involved and I just haven't figured out how as of yet. Science
books,shows, and items really stimulate my imagination and thinking.
>>Critical thinking is a *part* of science.<<
I agree and the only thing I stated, which was in it was in response to other
statements I've receive, was that you don't need 3+ yrs of calc, chem, and
physics to learn how to think critically. Some people seem to think that
without hard science teaching in our school systems our nation will spawn a
bunch of idiots.
>>Science is a way of looking at the world.<<
Exactly right! But a lot of people are not interested in this, and that does
not make them all ignorant. Everybody has different interest and areas in
which they are knowledgable. Science does not make or break a person, or even
define them, is what my whole point was.
>>As to your examples of "the Loch Ness monster and crop circles" — you might
do well to pick others.<<
>> At best the evidence in both cases is inconclusive.<<
Not true, they just had a special on the Discovery channel( or Learning
channel) about a month ago that had conclusive evidence against the crop
circles. People were secretely filmed making them, and they were replicated by
skeptics and scientist alike. Now for the Loch Ness monster read the Summer
1994 issue of SI, p 338.
>>The only real reason either of those are considered 'proven' frauds is that
orthodox 'scientists' who have themselves forgotten what science is all about
have declared them frauds because they don't conform to current theory.<<
This may be true to some extent, but there are a lot of scientist out there who
do not conform to that definition and who are really interested in trying to
educate the unscientific population. There is no scientific evidence to
support the Loch Ness monster.
>>Writers for the SI can cover it in whatever psychotalk they like: the reason
at bottom is that people don't understand science, and we humans tend to fear
what we don't understand.<<
The point of SI is to educate the unscientific pop. Read the list of members
inside the front cover of that mag. The many people responsible for that mag.
have solid backgrounds in many areas of the sciences.
Take care,
gary
Gary,
>> It goes back to the age old question of "What is the meaning of life?" Well,
I read a good response to this from an atheist, "There is no meaning to life,
per se; however, it is up to us to pump meaning into life on a daily basis!"
Now, I'm not an atheist, but I agree with that statement 100%. <<
Neither am I, but I agree with it too.
There are dozens of ways to get involved in science, no matter what your age.
We're using one right now: bulletin boards. You can look for local science
clubs, geology clubs, rockhound clubs. Talk to the local natural history
museum if there is one. Talk to a geology prof at the local college or
university. Do your own exploring along local roads and streams (always taking
care to obey the local laws). Find out if there's a group of cavers in your
area. I could probably think of more ways, but those will do for starters.
And none of them require that you have a degree.
>> you don't need 3+ yrs of calc, chem, and physics to learn how to think
critically. Some people seem to think that without hard science teaching in
our school systems our nation will spawn a bunch of idiots. <<
No, you don't _need_ it, but it does help. <g> You can teach people to think
critically without science, but teaching science (when it's done right) is a
very effective way to teach critical thinking.
Re: crop circles. I know some of them have been proven to be frauds. I also
know that when circles and other shapes appear in fields miles apart on the
same night, either they were created by non-human agencies (not necessarily
anything intelligent, maybe purely natural forces), _or_ the hoaxers are part
of a conspiracy. Has anybody claimed that these hoaxers are part of such a ring
of conspirators? I've heard of crop circles in US farm fields too. Has anyone
claimed that the ring of fakers extends across the ocean?
Re: the Loch Ness animal. I can't think of any easy way to lay hands on the SI
issue you refer to, but I do have some questions. Did the article deal _only_
with eyewitness sightings? Or did it also refute the Wilson photograph, the
Dinsdale film, the Rines photographs, the sonar tracings, etc.? Was it the
usual doubletalk about hallucinations and mass hysteria, optical illusions and
drifting debris and so on? Or did it offer believable explanations for all the
known evidence?
Did the article only address the Loch Ness animal? Or did it also address the
reports of similar animals from elsewhere in the world? Besides various other
Highlands lochs, Ness-type animals have been reported from Sweden, Ireland,
Iceland, Canada, Japan, Australia, Patagonia, and Siberia just to name a few.
Always the basic details agree: large, deep freshwater lake (or occasionally a
river that drains such a lake) as habitat; a large, highly mobile
water-dwelling animal; small head on a long neck; massive body with one or more
humps; flippers for limbs; and a motion on land that is very like a sea-lion.
Did SI refute _all_ of these sightings?
For a much better case of pseudoscience in action, I refer you to the "Bermuda
Triangle" or "Devil's Triangle" brouhaha. Now *that's* pseudoscience at its
worst. There is no evidence whatever of anything malignant lurking in the
waters or the air of the Caribbean/Florida/Bahamas area. There have been
unexplained incidents there, but no more than from any other similarly traveled
part of the oceans. Most of the incidents on which the Devil's Triangle legend
is based — Flight 19, the CYCLOPS, etc. — have perfectly rational
explanations that have simply been overlooked or forgotten. But eight out of
ten people will tell you there's Something Going On in the Devil's Triangle
that we don't understand.
Happy holidays to you and yours as well!
Jon W.
Jon,
>>Re: crop circles. <<
I don't have all the answers to your questions because I saw the program over a
month ago, but I do remember that in my mind there was enough strong evidence
in that show to refute the crop circles we are now seeing.
>>Re: the Loch Ness animal.<<
This article in SI uncovered how the famous "Wilson" photographs were made.
Did not mention anything about other Ness type animals.
>>For a much better case of pseudoscience in action, I refer you to the
"Bermuda Triangle" or "Devil's Triangle" brouhaha. Now *that's* pseudoscience
at its worst. There is no evidence whatever of anything malignant lurking in
the waters or the air of the Caribbean/Florida/Bahamas area. There have been
unexplained incidents there, but no more than from any other similarly traveled
part of the oceans. Most of the incidents on which the Devil's Triangle legend
is based — Flight 19, the CYCLOPS, etc. — have perfectly rational
explanations that have simply been overlooked or forgotten. But eight out of
ten people will tell you there's Something Going On in the Devil's Triangle
that we don't understand.<<
I can't understand why you refute the above, but hold onto the "other"
Ness-type animals belief when there is also no conclusive proof of their
existence? Maybe I misunderstood you in regards to these animals.
I don't know what your opinion is on SI, but I regard it as a reputable
research journal. The research in that journal is not just conducted by
anybody. As I mentioned previously, just look in the front cover of that
journal to see who some of these people are who are conducting this research.
Compare this list to the ones who are writing about these other occurance and
decide what you believe.
>> –have perfectly rational explanations that have simply been overlooked or
forgotten. But eight out of ten people will tell you there's Something Going
On in the Devil's Triangle that we don't understand.<<
I think that this statement of your sums it all up!
Hope you had a great New Year!!
gary
Gary,
>> I can't understand why you refute the above, but hold onto the "other"
Ness-type animals belief when there is also no conclusive proof of their
existence? Maybe I misunderstood you in regards to these animals. <<
It's simple: All other things being equal, I go with the simplest explanation
that fits all the facts. Occam's Razor, in other words.
In the case of the lake animals, we have hundreds of eyewitness reports from
all around the world that describe basically the same animal. Wilson's
photograph of the Ness animal agrees substantially with ancient petroglyphs of
'Naitaka' left by Canadian Amerinds. The simplest explanation is that they
look similar because they're describing the same animal, and the animal is
real. The simple fact that we don't have a corpse is not sufficient IMHO to
declare *all* those sightings invalid.
In the case of the Devil's Triangle, the "legends" often don't match what
actually happened, and also fail to account for perfectly rational
explanations. People are looking for one common cause for hundreds of
unexplained disappearances, but there's no reason whatever to think that they
all have a common cause. So, the legend of the Devil's Triangle doesn't hold
up under examination.
Jon W.
Hey Gary,
Go for it! You have my blessings for your deep desire for a life in the
wonderful world of geology.
Just make sure that your wife agrees.
And your child.
Rod
PS: Sorry for the vehemence; it's not directed at you. It's just that my blood
starts boiling every time I think about this for too long. It frustrates me no
end that so much potential talent is wasted because teachers don't know how to
teach science properly.
Jon W.
Jon,
No offence taken at all. << It frustrates me no end that so much potential
talent is wasted because teachers don't know how to teach science properly.<<
It frustrates me also, and I feel I could have had a better direction in my
life with better teachers. Now I have to struggle to make up for lost time!
Have a GREAT HOLIDAY season…
gary
Gary,
This may be a bit long, but….
Yes, my degree is a B.S. in geology. My first job in the field was for a
little environmental outfit in the L.A. area. Working in a small firm means
that you're a jack of all trades. Our speciality was in doing site
assesments for banks to determine their risk should they have to forclose on
a property that the bank loaned the money for. Here in California the owner
of a property is responsible for cleaning up whatever environmental problems
may exist with no limits (unless one has good lawyers). We would take a
look at the property and the surrounding area. A look at historic aerial
photos and building permits would follow. A property on a corner was a red
flag because that was a prime location for a gas station. With all this
info we determine the risk of the property being contaminated by something.
If we thought there was a risk we'd suggesting a drilling and sampling
program.
In this company I did everything from answering the phone to putting
together a bio-remediation program. Since I was the youngest and most
computer literate person in the company I did most of the computer working
including the graphics which were done in AutoCAD. It was about this time
that I became active in CompuServe (about 6 years ago).
Now the fellow that owned this company was a real hard-rock geologist and
hated the L.A. area (no real geology, just lots of alluvial
material…err…dirt<g>). He decided to move up near Sacramento to be near
the Sierra but still close enought to civilization to get some work. I
didn't care much for the Sacramento area (too hot for me) and stayed down
south. After a while in this company I had gotten pretty good at this
computer stuff and was doing some consulting with other environmental and
geotech firms. I was doing quite a bit of geotechnical drafting and AutoCAD
customization for geology types and posted a message on the AutoCAD forum
here on CompuServe looking for more work. This was about the time Autodesk
(the makers of AutoCAD) was increasing head count due to fast growth and
they invited me up to the S.F. bay area for an interview. And here I am.
About a two years ago a geotech firm briefly pulled me back to the L.A. area
to get their office going with a UNIX network and some PCs for their
landfill work. After a year of doing geology after coming from the computer
industry I found I was bored and returned here to Autodesk with a
programming wife in tow.
Doing geology for money (as compared to research) has several problems. To
get anything done (be it geotech like in building something or environmental
like cleaning a property up) you have to deal with a local, state, and/or
federal agency. These agencies move as slow as glaciers and seem to be
filled with the stupidest people. I considered myself lucky if I spoke the
same language as the person I needed to talk to. You wouldn't believe the
permits and red-tape needed. I interviewed with several other environmental
companies and your "ace" was (is?) the contacts you have developed in the
various agencies.
Another problem is that the companies that use your services think of your
time as a waste of time and money and their only using you because they have
to. They just want their building built or their property cleaned up. The
less time and money needed to do it the better.
I don't have a very optimistic image in mind about the future of this nation
(perhaps the world). Science seems to be OK as long as it doesn't cost
anything. Clean the environment? No problem! Just don't delay my project
or use any money! <grin>
You know, someone came up the other day and commented on my "Heavy Metal"
T-shirt (it says "Heavy Metal" in big letters with a periodic table of heavy
metals below) and said, "I just don't understand how scientists can spend so
much money trying to create these new, heavy elements when people are
starving in the world." She went on to say she heard about the project in
Texas of a group of scientist trying to detect neutrinos <sp?> with large
tanks of water in old salt mines and what a waste of time and money it was.
I was kinda shocked and didn't know what to say as I've always thought
highly of this person. I didn't even think to mention she wouldn't even
have a job in the computer industry if it wasn't for all these silly
scientist "wasting" all this money.
As the bumper sticker says "Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intellgent life
down here."
Let me finish to say I find geology more enjoyable as a hobby as compared to
a living. Ever so often I thing of getting a grad degree and perhaps
teaching or something. But the computer industry is pretty interesting
these days. I find quite a few geologist in this field too.
Sorry to ramble on. Plz excuse the grammer and spelling missteaks…it's
late and it's been a long weekend of work. If you have any other questions
or want any other hopes crushed just let me know<grin>!
Mike Sisk
Autodesk UNIX software QA
Mike,
>>If you have any other questions
or want any other hopes crushed just let me know<grin>!<<
Thank you for your response! If you think my hopes are crushed, you should see
all the responses I've received in regards to my questions on why emphasize the
sciences in school(even though I recommend it).
I think the computer industry is the place to be right now, and in the future.
I'm looking into that choice, and my options right now.
Thanks again for your help, and Hhave a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
gary
Glad to help. As I said, I find geology much more fun as a hobby than
a career. You should still take those geology classes as you do seem
to have an interest. Besides, in the computer industry Geogaphic
Information Systems are becoming a big thing and a background in
earth sciences is very helpful.
Mike
Mike,
Thanks again, and have a Happy Holiday!!
gary
Hi, Gary–
Welcome to the section/forum!
The job prospects for geo grads are a common topic here and in similar places
on the Internet. The consensus seems to be that the outlook is dismal (out of
one "dismal science" into another?). I maintain that the price of oil must
rise dramatically within a decade or so, enough to cause a resumption of
hunting for new fields, so things might look somewhat better by the time you
could graduate. Apparently hydrogeologists are more in demand right now, but
even that is reportedly fading.
The combination of economics and geology may be uncommon enough to allow you to
find a unique niche somewhere, perhaps the best key to survival in a tough
market. I am not sure how they might best be combined – something to do with
assessing economic viability of mining proposals, perhaps?
Bear in mind that I am an amateur in these matters.
Good luck!
–Doug
Doug,
>>The consensus seems to be that the outlook is dismal (out of one "dismal
science" into another?).<<
This seems to be the common responses for all the sciences. I was always under
the impression that there were shortages in the sciences, but that's not what
I've been hearing here. I can't understand why the grades schools are
stressing the need for more math and science teaching? What are we preparing
these kids for, empty job markets??
It appears that unless your a genius or in the top 1% of your class, you might
as well " go for something more practical, or realistic". Something I was told
by my parents and others a long time ago. The computer fields seem to be the
only realistic path today.
Thanks for the input!
gary
>> I can't understand why the grades schools are stressing the need for more
math and science teaching? What are we preparing these kids for, empty job
markets??
The purpose of teaching math and science in grade school isn't so that we can
train mathematicians, any more than we teach english so that we can train
poets. The important thing in math is to teach an awareness of manipulation of
numbers, so when these students grow up and become decision making adults, they
can understand what a trillion dollar budget is, what compound interest means,
how to balance a checkbook, how to make a monthly budget, whether 16 ounces of
peas at 55 cents is a better or worse deal than 12 ounces for 35 cents… We
teach science partly because we want to teach critical thinking, to teach how
to evaluate experiments (if my car doesn't start, and I change the battery, and
it still doesn't start, should I change the battery again?) and partly to give
the student a clue about the world in which he or she lives.
We still have PE classes, even though very few students become professional
athletes.
Tom,
A very good response, and who could possibly disagree with your reasoning.
But, to what extent do we need to emphasize this scientific training? I don't
need 3+yrs of calculus or a math degree to:
>> "The important thing in math is to teach an awareness of manipulation of
numbers, so when these students grow up and become decision making adults, they
can understand what a trillion dollar budget is, what compound interest means,
how to balance a checkbook, how to make a monthly budget, whether 16 ounces of
peas at 55 cents is a better or worse deal than 12 ounces for 35 cents…<<
Don't get me wrong, I love the sciences and agree we need to emphasize it more
in the grade schools; however, I realistically do not need 3+ years of
calculus/chemistry, and physics to be a success in this world. Not everybody
has the same curiousity about how this world works(and I think this is also a
sad fact).
I get frustrated because from what I have seen after being in college for 5yrs
is professors deliberatly trying to weed out students to the point of
frustration. Many students have the desire to persue the sciences, but aren't
given the chance and get fed up at some point and quit. And sure, maybe a lot
of them don't have the tenacity, but I believe more is involved. It's appears
that for the greater part you have to be in the top 5% before you can be
accepted or get anywhere.
I also remember posting a question in the Physics forum about a year ago in
regards to job possibilities and careers in physics, and your response, like
others, dealt with the lack of opportunity available in that field.
So I continue to search, but I must inevitably follow my own instincts
regardless of the outcome.
Thanks for your response, and have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
gary
Well, I thought the first question was about grade school. As far as secondary
and college education, yes, you can be a success without 3 years of math and
science. On the other hand, the mental discipline one gets from studying
science in depth will serve one well in whatever field one chooses. (Just as
studying philosophy and literature does – although the job market for
philosophers is probably worse than that for scientists)
Tom,
>> On the other hand, the mental discipline one gets from studying science in
depth will serve one well in whatever field one chooses.<<
I agree totally!! That's why I'm not wasting any time with my 6yr daughter.
Whether she persues science or not, she will definitely be exposed to it and
helped as much as possible.
Have a GREAT HOLIDAY SEASON!!
gary
Hi, Gary–
I see two needs for teaching science/math in grade school – one is to prepare
the next generation of scientists/mathematicians, but the other is to give
students the grounding in science/math that they will need to handle other
occupations (and life in general) well. For those computer jobs, for example,
one will do much better if one understands at least basic math and how
electrons move.
If job prospects in the sciences are generally dismal, how will they be in a
decade or two? Markets move in cycles, and we may be at the bottom of a dip
rather than sliding down an incline.
–Doug
Doug,
>>I see two needs for teaching science/math in grade school – one is to prepare
the next generation of scientists/mathematicians<<
I agree.
>> but the other is to give students the grounding in science/math that they
will need to handle other occupations (and life in general) well.
I disagree to some extent. You don't need 3+yrs of calculus, physics, or
chemistry to balance a check book and get by in life. There are a lot more
people getting by in this life without this type of science background then
with. Otherwise the sciences would not be that hard. The people who persue the
sciences have a natural curiousity about how the world works. And if you look
at a lot of, or even most of the financial success'(which seems to be mostly
everybodies goal) in this world, you can see that it wasn't correlated to
science classes taught in school.
>>For those computer jobs, for example, one will do much better if one
understands at least basic math and how electrons move.<<
I agree.
Thanks for your response…
gary
Hi, Gary–
A lot of people get by with severely limited understanding of science and
math, but how much better might they and society in general have done if they
had more of that understanding? I doubt we'll ever know. I agree that 3 years
of calculus are not needed for many occupations; high school algebra and
geometry are all I would recommend in such cases. Even geometry may seem
useless in many cases, but that class is really about a style of thinking,
mathematical proof, that helps in the oddest of places.
But lots of math and science are good for technical occupations and likely for
some others that would surprise even me. If mathematical rigor was a fairly
obvious asset to a programmer, I was somewhat surprised to find myself using
the scientific method extensively in tracking down computer bugs.
I figure many managers need a firm understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle for application to monitoring of subordinates. Those without a grasp
of it, whether by intuition or by education, are at a great disadvantage, I
suspect.
I suspect the world would be in better shape if lawmakers were required to
learn and use the principles of structured programming.
Merry Christmas! –Doug
Doug,
>>A lot of people get by with severely limited understanding of science and
math, but how much better might they and society in general have done if they
had more of that understanding? I doubt we'll ever know.<<
I agree, but when it is taught improperly, or with the intent of weeding people
out, who do we place the burden of blame on? The education system or the
individual??
>>I figure many managers need a firm understanding of the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle for application to monitoring of subordinates. Those
without a grasp of it, whether by intuition or by education, are at a great
disadvantage, I suspect.<<
Excellent analogy. The Heisenberg priniciple can be applied to life on the
Macro level!
>>I suspect the world would be in better shape if lawmakers were required to
learn and use the principles of structured programming.<<
Or if we had a lot less lawmakers!!
Have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
gary
Hi, Gary–
I agree that courses should be well-taught and to a useful purpose (other than
simple weeding), and would look askance at the school in question if they were
often not so, or at the relevant government agencies in the case of a public
school. Perhaps an exception could be made for reducing the number of
lawmakers by weeding some out… 🙂
–Doug
Gary,
<<<< I can't understand why the grades schools are stressing the need for more
math and science teaching? What are we preparing these kids for, empty job
markets??>>>>
It's called job security for teachers! They convince everyone of the need for
a "formal degree-program education" so that teachers will have a job. And, of
course, someone has to train the teachers, so enter the college education
departments. And, someone has to run the colleges, so enter the accountants,
lawyers, etc. And, someone has to get the money for the schools, so enter the
tax collector and politician. And then, the teachers have to be certified, so
enter the state government bureauracies. Had enough?
The lowest organism on this education food chain is the student (and possibly
the parent to foot the bill). All in the name of "education."
The old adage holds, "Buyer Beware!"
Regards,
Bob
Robert,
>>It's called job security for teachers! They convince everyone of the need
for a "formal degree-program education" so that teachers will have a job. And,
of course, someone has to train the teachers, so enter the college education
departments. And, someone has to run the colleges, so enter the accountants,
lawyers, etc. And, someone has to get the money for the schools, so enter the
tax collector and politician. And then, the teachers have to be certified, so
enter the state government bureauracies. Had enough?<<
Now, I've been hearing more and more of this, and I agree!!
>>The lowest organism on this education food chain is the student (and possibly
the parent to foot the bill). All in the name of "education."
The old adage holds, "Buyer Beware!"<<
So true, and such a sad fact. But you would think that from some of the other
responses I have received in regards to that question, we will be a lost nation
without more advanced science education! These fields appear to have the
amounts they need plus extras.
Happy Holidays again…
gary
(This is long! Please read all of it!)
Hi Gary:
Several sides to your dilemma:
I am a strong believer in "Do What You Love" (or "Do What You Are"). Many
people majored in geology a decade(+) ago because it was seen as "easy money".
"I like to hike and camp anyway, and they pay you big bucks." I had worked as
a laborer for an oil exploration company and knew that the professional
geologists did not spend very much time (maybe one day per several-month job!)
in the field, so I didn't have that misconception — but I *loved* geology.
Then, just about as we finished our degrees, the big bucks dried up. It
didn't matter to me because I loved my science. I have not kept in touch with
any of those who took geology for the money, but I imagine they have either
gone on to other careers, sorely disappointed, or are working in a field they
do not love for less money than they thought they would — also disappointed.
I went straight from my B.S. to work in a Chemical Analysis department (for an
oil company). Some of my work is related to geology, but it is not geology.
But I found out I like x-ray diffraction and am good at it, in a practical
sense. Now, however, I find myself soon to be without a job and without a
specialized degree, in a narrow field of shrinking employment opportunities,
where published Ph.D. authorities in crystallography have been laid off by IBM
and other R&D companies. I'm a long way from my studies in geology, and I
abandoned the idea of an advanced degree when I got married (and we don't even
have kids). For the following reason:
GEOLOGY IS VERY DEMANDING FIELD. Once you get beyond the introductory courses
(which exist partly to attract non-majors, to swell the enrollment and justify
the budget), this major entails heavy lectures, big labs, and field work —
even weeks or whole semesters tramping around measuring or picking up dirt.
The proportions of these vary with your speciality, but advanced study of
geology is as demanding as medical school (and if you want to work, a 2 or 4
year degree is not very promising, as noted).
You have to have a life. And you have to support your family in all ways,
not only financially but with your presence. Even though adults with families
do go to medical school, they have the advantage of a light at the end of the
tunnel: even with the Health Chaos called Health Reform, most MDs and DOs can
work in their field and support themselves and their families. Not so in
geology, at the present time.
GEOLOGY IS A VERY REWARDING FIELD. I think everyone should study at least some
geology: it makes everything (except maybe paved urbanity) interesting. It
teaches you to think about very large things, very small things, things that
happen very slowly and those that happen very quickly, time, matter.
My advice is to find as interesting a job as available with your current degree
(look outside the "economist" column in the classified, too: they say that many
jobs are never advertised because they *didn't exist before they were
filled*!). Look for companies that are involved with science (not just
geology) so that you can rub shoulders with scientists and find out about their
work. And for that matter, you may find work that does not even use your
degree, or only slightly related…
BY ALL MEANS — study geology. Start with a physical geology class at a
junior college. Take your family hiking, or at least walking (but the
6-year-old could surprise you!), and everybody can learn from your class.
If you can find ways to blend your work with science or at least prepare
yourself to explore linked careers, great. You'll be ready to move into more
fulfilling employment when it surfaces — or when you make the job!
Finally, I absolutely suggest you get "What Color Is Your Parachute?" by
Richard Bolles. You need to read it cover-to-cover, including the appendices.
It's published every year (to keep up with the job market), but sometimes older
versions are available in used bookstores for cheap. Be sure to get 1992 or
later; the important appendices were added that year. This book will help you
explore your interests AND abilities, and to balance ALL aspects of your life.
Good luck — E.
— P.S. By way of a "related career", I will probably go into scientific
writing after I am terminated. But I am lucky that my husband can support me
while I explore and develop this option.
Elizabeth,
I would not think about not reading all of your post. Very informative!
<<I am a strong believer in "Do What You Love" (or "Do What You Are").<<
This is also my core belief, but it's beginning to feel like I'm a dreamer.
I'm not looking to make a million bucks, I'd just like to get into a career
position that relates to the sciences, is challenging, and emotionally
rewarding.
>>You have to have a life. And you have to support your family in all ways,
not only financially but with your presence. <<
I also agree with this, but do you also compromise your life in the interim?
There is a majority of this population "just" going to work on a daily basis,
not liking what they are doing, supporting their families in the meantime, but
not happy! In the long run, I believe, if you are not happy with what you are
doing, your family suffers anyway. This goes back to the age old question,
"What is the meaning or purpose of life??" I believe there is a meaning for
each and everyone of us out there, we just have to search for it. But the
conflict is; what do we sacrifice in the searching? And there is the RISK that
we may never find what it is we are searching for, because we don't have the
tenacity, or something else happens. Strange is this think called life.
I read a good analogy from Earl Nightingale awhile back in regards to that
searching. He stated that some people are "river people". They run deep in
regards to their purpose in life. They know what they want to do at an early
age and persue it fully. The are the Mozarts, Einsteins, the artists, etc.
Then there are the "goal people". They have to be continually setting goals to
reach their objectives. And although this group can be just as successful,
they are for the most part externally motivated. But we can all find our
purpose by searching.
By no means am I a sexist, but at this point my wife expects me to get a job,
pretty much any job. She has a pretty decent job (which she herself does not
enjoy going to), but she expects me to become the major breadwinner. And I do
not have a problem with this, but I'm pulled between just accepting anything,
and searching for what it is I can connect with. I started college after we
were dating, and we eventually got married and had a child. And I've worked
pretty much full-time while going to school full-time, but they were not the
types of jobs with high pay, or even much security. But we managed, and there
was a lot of stress in between. So now that I have graduated (yesterday), she
has high expectations on my part. But I do not blame her one bit. If I could
just be one of those who are satisified with anything, and making a decent
living, there would not be the internal conflict.
>>My advice is to find as interesting a job as available with your current
degree (look outside the "economist" column in the classified, too: they say
that many jobs are never advertised because they *didn't exist before they were
filled*!). Look for companies that are involved with science (not just
geology) so that you can rub shoulders with scientists and find out about their
work. And for that matter, you may find work that does not even use your
degree, or only slightly related…<<
Excellent advice. This is my primary objective right now. I want to continue
my education, but I will do it at a slower pace. And if I can find a company
that will support my education, that would be great. I see from other
responses that the computer industry is the way to go. Seems like the only
stable field right now. It just frustrates me when I was always under the
impression from the education system and media that there were shortages in the
sciences, but that's not what I've been hearing here and the other forums. I
can't understand why the grades schools are stressing the need for more math
and science teaching? What are we preparing these kids for, empty job
markets??
>>Finally, I absolutely suggest you get "What Color Is Your Parachute?" by
Richard Bolles. You need to read it cover-to-cover, including the appendices.
<<
I do have the 1993 ver. of this book. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll start
my research there.
>>By way of a "related career", I will probably go into scientific writing
after I am terminated. <<
Elizabeth, I really hope this all turns out for you. It's motivation for those
of us who are still searching! And thanks for listening…
gary
Gary
I'm in my 50s, so I guess that qualifies me to give unsolicited advice.
Unless you are a very unusual person, you ought to do the following.
1. Learn a "trade" — plumbing, engineering, medicine, whatever. Something
you can do well that will put bread on the table. If you enjoy it, that's
great. If you don't, you're not alone. Money isn't everything, but not having
it is damnably inconvenient.
In your specific case, I think, you already have a trade. Unless you are sure
that you've picked a field that is going to go away — buggy whip making — why
learn another unless there is a near certainty that you will like it?
2. You will have 10 or 15 hours a week left over after work, play, and some
volunteer work for the community. Take 5 years of it and learn something about
financial management. Figure out what sort of savings you need and how to
manage them. Learn about stocks, bonds, insurance, how much it'll really cost
to send the kids to college, and how to avoid loosing your life savings (a real
possibility if you trust them blindly to professionals —
85% of the whom have only seen 1 week of a REAL bear market in stocks during
their careers).
In your case, I think you already have this step largely out of the way. But
just for kicks, put together a lifetime financial plan and see how long you are
going to have to plug away at your trade. Too long? Maybe you need to spend a
little less and save a little more. And Oh, yes — unless you're a total
klutz, take another 500 hours and learn how do your own automobile repair work.
Every year you can keep an older car running well saves enough money to cut
your term in a job you don't like by a month.
3. Once you have a trade and know how to handle money, spend your 10-15 hours
a week on a hobby you really enjoy. For the first decade, just dink around.
Then start trying to figure out how you can convert your hobby into a paying
business. Start building that business while you are still working at your
trade. It may take you 20 years to get to where you can tell the establishment
to take that lousy job and shove it. It may never happen. At least you have a
fighting chance that way.
Sounds like hard work? You bet. Mundane? Sure. You want it all now? Well,
you could buy some lottery tickets.
Don
Don,
Thank you for that great advice! There is really nothing more to add to that
wisdom. I've printed it out to remind me of my direction.
Thanks again and have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
gary
I received a BA in Geology 17 years ago and have never regretted it, even
though I used my degree only for a few years as a hydrologist and then moved on
to other work. ( I just received my Masters in Architecture and have now
started a second career, and it's tough being the "inexperienced" one again).
I would loved to have stayed in geology but made one big mistake: I didn't get
the Master's degree. In science, educational credentials matter. My big
problem was that I was terrible in math and thus never took a single calculus
class, which graduate schools want you to have. (But I ended up taking
calculus as a prerequisite to get into architecture and did just fine… the
difference being adult self-confidence, study habits, and interest in
abstractions). Point is, you'll really need the MS degree.
Concerning employment, I had a difficult time finding work in architecture
following graduation and was tempted to apply for the numerous jobs in
geology/hydrology dealing with ground water contamination (e.g. leaky gas tanks
at filling stations). Some jobs, requiring only 5 years experience paid in
high 30's to low 40's. There are still loads of these jobs opening up here in
Florida.
IMO, most jobs can be made interesting and rewarding. All work involves
people and if one imagines their job as being linked to the lives of others,
then doing well at whatever you do improves your/their "world." (this assumes
you're in an ethical line of work). If you think about geology as a career,
then see it as at least six years of education. If that seems like a daunting
amount of time, which it is when you have a family, then maybe you should
concentrate harder on what you are already qualified to do and use geology as a
diversion to keep the world interesting and grand. As the philosopher Satre
said, you can know a person more from their diversions than from their work.
He recognized that we all have, and typically need a kind of breadth that
cannot spring from only one source, as from only our career.
Philip,
>>IMO, most jobs can be made interesting and rewarding. All work involves
people and if one imagines their job as being linked to the lives of others,
then doing well at whatever you do improves your/their "world." <<
I must agree with you here. My problem is that I've been in school the last
6yrs and have worked full-time in jobs that were "just jobs" to help support
the family while I went to school. I'm burned out on those types of
jobs(unchallenging work), and am frustrated right now because I haven't found
an interesting job. I guess I'm getting impatient, so I'm looking at school
again.
>>If you think about geology as a career, then see it as at least six years of
education. If that seems like a daunting amount of time, which it is when you
have a family, then maybe you should concentrate harder on what you are already
qualified to do and use geology as a diversion to keep the world interesting
and grand. <<
Definitely good advice! My search continues right now for work, then I can
think about my next option. In the meantime I've registered for 2 classes-that
should not be overwhelming.
Thanks for your response! And have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
gary
Gary,
I don't want to discourage you, but at 38 you will have a difficult time
breaking into a new professional career with a company on a full time basis, in
my opinion. Most companies trash their employees that are over 40, and hire
younger recruits right out of college at 1/2 or 1/3 the price. By the time you
get your degree (economics–>geology), you'll be in the 40+ prime age group to
get bounced. I seriously doubt if anyone would hire you because of age, lack
of experience, and the cost of health insurance. Now if you can get a related
job while in college, this may help to stabilize your future.
As I used to tell my students in college, you don't always need to take a
course or have a degree to do certain things. If you're really interested in
geology, you may try to find some speciality, study up on it, get some
experience, and then become a "consultant" in that area, all without getting a
college degree. Most older technical people that I know of become
"consultants" because no companies will hire them even though they have some
prime expertise.
Also, you might consider some way to merge your economics and geology. Just
some crazy suggestions: (1) drill water wells; (2) find, produce, and market
gravel, sand, gems, etc.; (3) get into foundation engineering and soil surveys;
(4) environmental surveys.
I don't want this message to discourage you, but to help you see your options
from a different perspective. For what it is worth department, I was
responsible for recruiting and hiring geologists, geophysicts, chemists,
engineers, etc., for a major oil company research and technical facility
several years ago.
Best of luck,
Bob
Robert,
>>I don't want to discourage you, but at 38 you will have a difficult time
breaking into a new professional career with a company on a full time basis, in
my opinion. <<
Does this mean any company? or just the sciences? How would they know my age,
I can pass for 31 easily. Not sure if I fully agree with this.
>>Most companies trash their employees that are over 40, and hire younger
recruits right out of college at 1/2 or 1/3 the price.<<
Sounds like we should resort to the "Logan's Run" theme where we just
extinguish ourselves when we reach a certain age, say 30. I'm a believer that
with enough perserverence, and tenacity, anything is possible. Now, I don't
discount the fact that the battle is tougher at a later age, but I know of a
few individuals personally who have gotten into engineering and the
architecture profession while in their 40's.
Ultimately, I think what I need to do is go with my instincts whether they are
successful or not. I know I have an interest in the sciences, I just need to
find the path I need to be on. Like Cervantes said in "Don Quixote", "The
journey is better than the inn!"
Robert, thanks for the response, and have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
gary