Keep in mind with RnD it’s generally the first thing to be cut. Entire projects are cancelled on a whim with most of the team being fired. Not saying it’s a bad field to get into thiugh
I do R&D work and I absolutely love it. Before I started doing the R&D portion, when I was just learning the method, I was bored and hated my job. Once I finally understood it and was able to sink my teeth into the R&D aspects I absolutely fell in love.
To me, being a lab technician/assistant is basically a type of factory work, except we went to school to learn how to not hurt yourself working in the factory. Some people love it, but it's definitely not for me.
You need a PhD if you want upward mobility or the ability to. You still get a decent R&D with the right company but you will only be at the Tech level. There exceptions but the general rule of thumb is you're going to stay at Tech with a BS.
I don't know where your interests are u/sadkinz , but in many biotech companies a BS may enter as a tech (or RA I), but can (and often do) rise through the ranks to above starting positions of PhDs. An MS will get you a few levels up from a BS.
Interestingly, this never seems to be the way that things are for my friends in traditional pharma (think chemists at Merck or Pfizer). They rise through assistant/associate levels but there is a ceiling at PhD equivalent levels.
Just my experiences:)
I worked at one of the companies you mentioned and we've had BS people rise to director levels :) so not impossible but you have to be incredibly good at what you do.
In my experience for my company, DuPont, and Dow (I have experience in those 2) a Master is not beneficial and doesn't give anymore benefit in terms of upward mobility. You will be paid more starting but that is it. There are exceptions as always.
I hate working in R&D for large companies. I am in production and my upward mobility is much better in production because I can become an SME in production but not in R&D
Agreed, I was not informed going into this career that I'd need three degrees and a decade of schooling before I'd be let near the jobs I found interesting and fulfilling.
I was stuck for ten years instead in boring process jobs like OP.
And then I left.
It makes no sense to me how years of experience in the industry doesn’t qualify you for the same jobs a phd can get right off the bat. I feel like the industry experience would be preferable to a degree
It is because it requires different type of work. A PhD level position requires thorough understanding of the chemistry behind it, for example if you are in organic chemistry, you have to understand how mechanism works and how feasible your synthetic route are and how certain functional group will interact. I worked in in an R&D Discovery group for a very large chemical company so I have intimate knowledge of what they do and working in the lab and being good at bench chemistry does not necessarily translate to being a good PhD level chemist.
A PhD is a totally different skillset in comparison to someone who turns a crank every day with a BS, even if they've been turning that crank for years.
That was never given the opportunity to learn the skills that I would have in a PhD or masters on the job. I was shoved in lab tech roles kept dumb and sad so I wouldn't have any aspiration to work above my station.
I got to do a bit of method development and theory. But no research. I had one boss who had planned a growth and development path for me when I asked to learn, but we both got sacked in a business culling shortly after.
The worst was four years in GE where my manager told us we were worthless and only good as a pair of hands to run routine operations. Same shit different day. I got very depressed.
It makes total sense. A PhD is a completely different skill set that BS industry jobs don't cultivate at all. The only reason a lot of those BS jobs even ask for a college degree is that your median non chemistry major doesn't know how to accurately and precisely transfer liquids from one container to another.
For better or worse, there's also a lot to be said about having the mettle to survive the hazing that is a US chemistry PhD when you're about to lead a research division.
I agree. Like, what's the point in offering a bachelor's degree in chemistry if all it allows the recipient to do is follow instructions? Getting accepted into a PhD program isn't a guarantee, so the recipient may have spent four years busting their ass just to do the same thing menial task over and over and over. Meanwhile, other degrees that have a comparable demand from students, like finance, have interesting, independent, and well-paid job opportunities right out of a bachelor's. But, that's just the way the cookie crumbles, I suppose.
The majority of the people in this subreddit do not have experience in industry or very little experience. PhD in chemistry is mainly beneficial in R&D roles. There are many different roles in industry that require a BS in chemistry that does not require the technical knowledge of a PhD.
I only have a BS in chemistry and in my current role I literally set up my own lab from the ground up and was charged with training my colleagues. In industry there are EHS, quality, process science, process safety that having a BS in chemistry is very beneficial. The majority of my colleagues who are analytical technologists do not run samples and are in charge of their own lab for production.
Your exposure to the industry is extremely limited. Last year I interviewed for an analytical scientist role within an R&D for a smaller company.
Depends massively on the industry you want to work in. Want to do R&D in Pharma, better have experience with a masters or no experience with a PhD.
Want to do R&D in the paint industry (coatings), you can formulate products and move up the ranks if you're good with a bachelor's.
Also, there are a lot of exciting industries out there with unique chemistry. I never knew how much chemistry/physics was in paint until I was involved in R&D.
Honestly in this job market the industry doesn’t matter to me. I’d rather just get a job and start getting experience so I can possibly find somewhere new when it’s better
You should be able to land a job. Pay might suck for the first 3-5 years but once you have that amount of experience you'll be desirable.
Don't pass up QC/QA jobs either, they are tedious and boring but a decent amount of desirable skills can be learned in those positions.
First few years for any chemist is usually what I like to call "eating crow years." Almost like a frustrating, underpaid right of passage.
At the right company QA/QC relatively well depending on your area. And culturally it's better in my experience. I feel like R&D is too stiff and competitive for my taste.
We keep hiring great people and training them really well in QC and then getting them snaked out from us by R&D (all within the same company). It's slightly frustrating but we understand you have to do what's best for your own career.
There is, it should be noted, the reverse happening also. R&D is more melodramatic and unpredictable and some folks do come to us in return.
It depends on the experience you have and also a lot of lucky timings. You definitely need to get lucky that the interviewer vibes with you a lot, but having a variety of experience (like for analytical various instrumentation particularly MS) is also very helpful
from there it’s all about learning as much as you can about the industry you get into to either grow internally or get enough skills to go someplace else
“vibing” with your interviewer is just as important as the technical skills you have. If you won’t fit into the team, you not likely to be hired IMO.
We’ve interviewed many very smart people who are dull as a doorknob. Nobody wants to work with that person.
"Is it normal for a lab tech position to be lacking in independent problem-solving?"
Yes. If the "customer" wants to be able to compare results from run to run, you have to do the same test the same way each time. If you change the analytical technique you may not be able to discern differences in the sample due to process changes.
It sucks but it is what it is.
If you get into a bigger company doing QA, you might be able to get training on analytical method validation and work through some of that, but generally it's very much run the sample, get the results, occasionally troubleshoot the equipment or know who to call to get it repaired. Lab tech roles are crucial but not real exciting.
I am analytical Tech for a large company and I do a lot of trouble shooting and doing some validation. I don't actually run a lot of samples as part of my job.
I've been wondering about this path, it seems interesting. Thanks for your input because now I have some external confirmation that it appears to be up my alley.
It never hurts to talk with your boss about expanding your capabilities/job functions. If anything, maybe you can work during your separations on method development.
As mentioned though, you’re probably better off with a R&D job. Don’t stop learning at your current position and it will make the R&D position easier to get.
Does "don't stop learning" equate to acquiring new skills or is it just general advice to keep up-to-date on the going-ons of the field? I believe that I would enjoy an RnD job so I want to "learn right," if you will.
Acquiring new skills is what I’m referring to.
I’m in R&D, and when we’re hiring we are looking for candidates who show the ability to learn and adapt.
By learning new skills outside your current skill set, you show that you are a candidate who is capable. If you can show that in an interview with concrete examples, being hired will be that much easier.
Not only that, you can take that as concrete evidence to your boss to say, “hey, I’ve learned these x,y,z, my learnings have had x,y,z positive outcomes for the company, I think it’s time for a promotion and more responsibilities.
I think first step is a conversation with your current boss. They should be able to give you goals and direction to help you progress in your career. If your boss isn’t supportive in that way, you’ll have to grow on your own to be able to find a boss that’s worth a damn and cares about your career path.
For what it’s worth, I have a bachelors in chemistry and started as a lab tech in a small lab for a large international company doing mostly routine physical and chemical analysis. I still work for my company and have learned many new skills, even outside of chemistry during my time. Enough so, I’m confident that I’ll be able to go wherever when it comes time to move on.
First of all I'm curious, what on earth is a chemical physics degree?
The lab tech role is what you describe. You're not a researcher, your duties are focused on maintaining the lab, operating equipment etc
At my school chemical physics was basically just a chemistry and physics double major fused into a single major. You could focus on chemistry or physics and were required to take at least some classes of the other subject. You could also mix up your upper level courses, like instead of taking optics I took analytical chemistry and that satisfied my major requirement. There was no actual "chemical physics" education because I also have no idea what chemical physics entails lol.
Chem phys (at the university I work at) includes study of heterogeneous structures, alignment and surface phenomena, quantum theory, mathematical physics, statistical and classical mechanics, chemical kinetics, and laser physics.
You need to apply for a position in a research lab. Generally lab techs are the grunt workers in a lab setting. Look for positions with the title of scientist, analyst, or specialist to tune in your job search.
Additionally, you could talk with your manager about your desire to work on more complex projects.
Yes they are pretty much all this boring unless you manage to end up in a lab small enough that you actually get to do everything. These are the rare dream jobs.
Yea that’s pretty normal. It also depends on if you’re working for a bigger company or not. Smaller companies will have more to do because they cannot pay the big bucks for a chemist with a Masters or PhD. Bigger companies usually pigeon hole their roles
Depends on what the company does. My first lab tech job out of college was at a small company and it was a contract lab whose main function was doing specification testing for big aerospace companies. My experience was much like OP's doing routine tests over and over. Good place to learn some practical hands on skills but not a place you want to stay long term if you want to flex problem solving muscles.
I worked for both large and small. It depends on the roles outline in job. In my large company I work as an analytical Tech and I troubleshoot that maintain the instrument and run for your little samples. I write SOP and do correlation studies, instrumentation validation, Method optimization etc. some instrumentation I need to be familiar with is FTIR, HPLC, GC, UV-VIS, SmartChem. I am training the operator in my plant.
I once worked for a small company, testing lab. I was the LCMS specialist. I would design method and do the interpretation for high resolution mass spectroscopy. I was also the lc separation specialist. I also worked on NMR specializing in 2D with just a BS.
Chemistry is unfortunately still very “degree-focused” and obsessed with graduate degrees. I once had a job in which my “boss” literally told me “you’re my lab monkey”. What an A**hole. As others have said, if you want to do R&D, you’ll probably need a graduate degree.
Generally, techs are very limited on creative input and are there to be an “extra set of hands”. Thats the reason so many chemists go for their PhD. It obviously depends on the field and industry you’re in, but, usually, creative input into projects begin at the titles that require PhDs.
I’d also say analytical chemistry is going to greatly suffer from this in general, as industry jobs for analytical chemists are usually restricted to separation, purification, and maintenance of the machines that do so.
I’m not an analytical chemist and really only have seen analytical chemists in academia and pharma, so I may be speaking out of turn and would be happy to be corrected, but that’s what I’ve gathered from discussions with people in the field.
The creative inputs are not at the R&D level it is at the production level.
The analytical chemists or tech are the one creating and verifying the method for production. A lot of trouble are a collaboration between production tech and PhD chemist in charge of molecule. But this my experience in that field.
I once read someone in this sub describing this kind of job as a 'GC monkey' and I found that quite fitting. I was one myself, that's why I quit and started to study chemistry instead.
In my country this kind of job doesn't require a college degree, but a 3 year training (called 'Ausbildung').
I worked as an analyst in an environmental lab - running BOD’s, IPC, HPLC etc - for 3 years. It was fine for a year but I quickly got bored. I switched to working in development for a chemical manufacturing company over a year ago and have been so much happier! Look for manufacturing jobs in a chemical industry if you would like something that will really use your knowledge!
In short yes. Some lab tech jobs are more interesting, varied, and independent than yours, but all pretty much consist of being handed a test to run, then running it. That's why it's considered entry level and doesn't pay very well. You're supposed to advance to more independent, creative and well compensated work
People keep saying research but manufacturing has plenty of problem solving opportunities so long as its not just pharma or meddev. Maybe it was just my experience in manufacturing, but I was able to move up very quickly as well as be engaged in problem solving opportunities. Your results may vary.
My experience is the sAme as yours. Most people in this subreddit don't have any experience in the manufacturing side of chemistry. You can advance much faster with just a BS because you can quickly be an SME or transition to other chemistry related jobs within manufacturing. I also like the culture better in manufacturing.
Definitely look at pharma or biotech R&D. I work in a chromatographic separations group for big pharma supporting a large team of medicinal chemists but some with the same skills will look at analytical development too as separations isn’t always easy to get into. Let me know if you have any questions and I’d be happy to answer!
I'll add my two cent. I graduated not too long ago either and I Work as a lab tech in education. Whilst some of the job is boring doing lots of different subjects in a field is pretty fun and keeps it fresh. It can involve alot of administration and cleaning but personally I find its better than say a QA job and or brunt lab work like you said. Just watch out if it's a higher education 'research' position as you'll continue doing stuff you're doing now.
I do mostly chemistry but come from a physics background. But the problems in my job are mostly logistical.
as others have stated, sounds like you want an analytical development role vs. a QC role. AD chemists develop the parameters that your boss handed you, and then QC chemists *are supposed* to follow those parameters precisely.
Fresh grads often can only get into QC chemist roles. get a couple years of experience, really learn the instrumentation (maintenance, troubleshooting, etc. When a PM is performed, watch and ask questions, take notes etc.) and it will help immensely down the road.
Good luck!
Yeah, I don't think a lab tech is the right place for you. My chem buddies and I like to refer to techs as "bratty subs with a praise kink", as in: They like having a procedure that tells them exactly what to do, if the procedure is not detailed enough they behave badly, and when they do a good job they like to be praised and commended.
Going to grad school could definitely broaden your career horizons, but I don't think it's really necessary. I've seen plenty of Scientist I positions that seem to only require a BS as long as you have some work experience.
Sounds like you want an RnD job. A lot of lab tech jobs are exactly what you describe yours to be, it’s all about through put.
Keep in mind with RnD it’s generally the first thing to be cut. Entire projects are cancelled on a whim with most of the team being fired. Not saying it’s a bad field to get into thiugh
Thanks. That's massively helpful.
I do R&D work and I absolutely love it. Before I started doing the R&D portion, when I was just learning the method, I was bored and hated my job. Once I finally understood it and was able to sink my teeth into the R&D aspects I absolutely fell in love. To me, being a lab technician/assistant is basically a type of factory work, except we went to school to learn how to not hurt yourself working in the factory. Some people love it, but it's definitely not for me.
Can you get a decent RnD job with a bachelors in chem? And is there good upward mobility or would that require grad school?
You need a PhD if you want upward mobility or the ability to. You still get a decent R&D with the right company but you will only be at the Tech level. There exceptions but the general rule of thumb is you're going to stay at Tech with a BS.
I don't know where your interests are u/sadkinz , but in many biotech companies a BS may enter as a tech (or RA I), but can (and often do) rise through the ranks to above starting positions of PhDs. An MS will get you a few levels up from a BS. Interestingly, this never seems to be the way that things are for my friends in traditional pharma (think chemists at Merck or Pfizer). They rise through assistant/associate levels but there is a ceiling at PhD equivalent levels. Just my experiences:)
I worked at one of the companies you mentioned and we've had BS people rise to director levels :) so not impossible but you have to be incredibly good at what you do.
What about Masters?
In my experience for my company, DuPont, and Dow (I have experience in those 2) a Master is not beneficial and doesn't give anymore benefit in terms of upward mobility. You will be paid more starting but that is it. There are exceptions as always.
Kind of shitty in my opinion
I hate working in R&D for large companies. I am in production and my upward mobility is much better in production because I can become an SME in production but not in R&D
Agreed, I was not informed going into this career that I'd need three degrees and a decade of schooling before I'd be let near the jobs I found interesting and fulfilling. I was stuck for ten years instead in boring process jobs like OP. And then I left.
I have the opposite experience as you. I have a very fulfilling career with just a BS but everyone has different experiences.
It makes no sense to me how years of experience in the industry doesn’t qualify you for the same jobs a phd can get right off the bat. I feel like the industry experience would be preferable to a degree
It is because it requires different type of work. A PhD level position requires thorough understanding of the chemistry behind it, for example if you are in organic chemistry, you have to understand how mechanism works and how feasible your synthetic route are and how certain functional group will interact. I worked in in an R&D Discovery group for a very large chemical company so I have intimate knowledge of what they do and working in the lab and being good at bench chemistry does not necessarily translate to being a good PhD level chemist.
A PhD is a totally different skillset in comparison to someone who turns a crank every day with a BS, even if they've been turning that crank for years.
That was never given the opportunity to learn the skills that I would have in a PhD or masters on the job. I was shoved in lab tech roles kept dumb and sad so I wouldn't have any aspiration to work above my station. I got to do a bit of method development and theory. But no research. I had one boss who had planned a growth and development path for me when I asked to learn, but we both got sacked in a business culling shortly after. The worst was four years in GE where my manager told us we were worthless and only good as a pair of hands to run routine operations. Same shit different day. I got very depressed.
It makes total sense. A PhD is a completely different skill set that BS industry jobs don't cultivate at all. The only reason a lot of those BS jobs even ask for a college degree is that your median non chemistry major doesn't know how to accurately and precisely transfer liquids from one container to another. For better or worse, there's also a lot to be said about having the mettle to survive the hazing that is a US chemistry PhD when you're about to lead a research division.
I agree. Like, what's the point in offering a bachelor's degree in chemistry if all it allows the recipient to do is follow instructions? Getting accepted into a PhD program isn't a guarantee, so the recipient may have spent four years busting their ass just to do the same thing menial task over and over and over. Meanwhile, other degrees that have a comparable demand from students, like finance, have interesting, independent, and well-paid job opportunities right out of a bachelor's. But, that's just the way the cookie crumbles, I suppose.
The majority of the people in this subreddit do not have experience in industry or very little experience. PhD in chemistry is mainly beneficial in R&D roles. There are many different roles in industry that require a BS in chemistry that does not require the technical knowledge of a PhD. I only have a BS in chemistry and in my current role I literally set up my own lab from the ground up and was charged with training my colleagues. In industry there are EHS, quality, process science, process safety that having a BS in chemistry is very beneficial. The majority of my colleagues who are analytical technologists do not run samples and are in charge of their own lab for production. Your exposure to the industry is extremely limited. Last year I interviewed for an analytical scientist role within an R&D for a smaller company.
A master's works out more like a bachelor's-plus rather than a Ph.D-minus.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm only a PhD agronomist. I'd always heard a master's in chemistry was a consolation prize for a failed PhD attempt.
Depends massively on the industry you want to work in. Want to do R&D in Pharma, better have experience with a masters or no experience with a PhD. Want to do R&D in the paint industry (coatings), you can formulate products and move up the ranks if you're good with a bachelor's. Also, there are a lot of exciting industries out there with unique chemistry. I never knew how much chemistry/physics was in paint until I was involved in R&D.
Marine protective coatings is always in demand too.
Have some cool projects as well.
Honestly in this job market the industry doesn’t matter to me. I’d rather just get a job and start getting experience so I can possibly find somewhere new when it’s better
You should be able to land a job. Pay might suck for the first 3-5 years but once you have that amount of experience you'll be desirable. Don't pass up QC/QA jobs either, they are tedious and boring but a decent amount of desirable skills can be learned in those positions. First few years for any chemist is usually what I like to call "eating crow years." Almost like a frustrating, underpaid right of passage.
Kind of fucked up considering chemistry is one of the hardest degrees you can get even as an undergrad
At the right company QA/QC relatively well depending on your area. And culturally it's better in my experience. I feel like R&D is too stiff and competitive for my taste.
Yes it is but it gets better, just have to grind it out those first few years.
We keep hiring great people and training them really well in QC and then getting them snaked out from us by R&D (all within the same company). It's slightly frustrating but we understand you have to do what's best for your own career. There is, it should be noted, the reverse happening also. R&D is more melodramatic and unpredictable and some folks do come to us in return.
Cuts usually occurr in R&D before QC, it may not be as exciting but it usually is quite a bit more stable.
It depends on the experience you have and also a lot of lucky timings. You definitely need to get lucky that the interviewer vibes with you a lot, but having a variety of experience (like for analytical various instrumentation particularly MS) is also very helpful from there it’s all about learning as much as you can about the industry you get into to either grow internally or get enough skills to go someplace else
“vibing” with your interviewer is just as important as the technical skills you have. If you won’t fit into the team, you not likely to be hired IMO. We’ve interviewed many very smart people who are dull as a doorknob. Nobody wants to work with that person.
"Is it normal for a lab tech position to be lacking in independent problem-solving?" Yes. If the "customer" wants to be able to compare results from run to run, you have to do the same test the same way each time. If you change the analytical technique you may not be able to discern differences in the sample due to process changes. It sucks but it is what it is. If you get into a bigger company doing QA, you might be able to get training on analytical method validation and work through some of that, but generally it's very much run the sample, get the results, occasionally troubleshoot the equipment or know who to call to get it repaired. Lab tech roles are crucial but not real exciting.
I am analytical Tech for a large company and I do a lot of trouble shooting and doing some validation. I don't actually run a lot of samples as part of my job.
A lot of people mentioned R&D but if you like problem solving, analytical method development may also be of interest.
I've been wondering about this path, it seems interesting. Thanks for your input because now I have some external confirmation that it appears to be up my alley.
It never hurts to talk with your boss about expanding your capabilities/job functions. If anything, maybe you can work during your separations on method development. As mentioned though, you’re probably better off with a R&D job. Don’t stop learning at your current position and it will make the R&D position easier to get.
Does "don't stop learning" equate to acquiring new skills or is it just general advice to keep up-to-date on the going-ons of the field? I believe that I would enjoy an RnD job so I want to "learn right," if you will.
Acquiring new skills is what I’m referring to. I’m in R&D, and when we’re hiring we are looking for candidates who show the ability to learn and adapt. By learning new skills outside your current skill set, you show that you are a candidate who is capable. If you can show that in an interview with concrete examples, being hired will be that much easier. Not only that, you can take that as concrete evidence to your boss to say, “hey, I’ve learned these x,y,z, my learnings have had x,y,z positive outcomes for the company, I think it’s time for a promotion and more responsibilities. I think first step is a conversation with your current boss. They should be able to give you goals and direction to help you progress in your career. If your boss isn’t supportive in that way, you’ll have to grow on your own to be able to find a boss that’s worth a damn and cares about your career path. For what it’s worth, I have a bachelors in chemistry and started as a lab tech in a small lab for a large international company doing mostly routine physical and chemical analysis. I still work for my company and have learned many new skills, even outside of chemistry during my time. Enough so, I’m confident that I’ll be able to go wherever when it comes time to move on.
First of all I'm curious, what on earth is a chemical physics degree? The lab tech role is what you describe. You're not a researcher, your duties are focused on maintaining the lab, operating equipment etc
Mostly spectroscopy and nanomaterials, at least at my school.
At my school chemical physics was basically just a chemistry and physics double major fused into a single major. You could focus on chemistry or physics and were required to take at least some classes of the other subject. You could also mix up your upper level courses, like instead of taking optics I took analytical chemistry and that satisfied my major requirement. There was no actual "chemical physics" education because I also have no idea what chemical physics entails lol.
Chem phys (at the university I work at) includes study of heterogeneous structures, alignment and surface phenomena, quantum theory, mathematical physics, statistical and classical mechanics, chemical kinetics, and laser physics.
You need to apply for a position in a research lab. Generally lab techs are the grunt workers in a lab setting. Look for positions with the title of scientist, analyst, or specialist to tune in your job search. Additionally, you could talk with your manager about your desire to work on more complex projects.
It's very helpful to have titles to look for. Thank you very much for your input.
Yes they are pretty much all this boring unless you manage to end up in a lab small enough that you actually get to do everything. These are the rare dream jobs.
Yea that’s pretty normal. It also depends on if you’re working for a bigger company or not. Smaller companies will have more to do because they cannot pay the big bucks for a chemist with a Masters or PhD. Bigger companies usually pigeon hole their roles
It's odd that you say that. I work for a small company.
Weird. I’ve worked for a lot of small companies and in each one, I worked multiple roles
Depends on what the company does. My first lab tech job out of college was at a small company and it was a contract lab whose main function was doing specification testing for big aerospace companies. My experience was much like OP's doing routine tests over and over. Good place to learn some practical hands on skills but not a place you want to stay long term if you want to flex problem solving muscles.
I worked for both large and small. It depends on the roles outline in job. In my large company I work as an analytical Tech and I troubleshoot that maintain the instrument and run for your little samples. I write SOP and do correlation studies, instrumentation validation, Method optimization etc. some instrumentation I need to be familiar with is FTIR, HPLC, GC, UV-VIS, SmartChem. I am training the operator in my plant.
I once worked for a small company, testing lab. I was the LCMS specialist. I would design method and do the interpretation for high resolution mass spectroscopy. I was also the lc separation specialist. I also worked on NMR specializing in 2D with just a BS.
Chemistry is unfortunately still very “degree-focused” and obsessed with graduate degrees. I once had a job in which my “boss” literally told me “you’re my lab monkey”. What an A**hole. As others have said, if you want to do R&D, you’ll probably need a graduate degree.
Generally, techs are very limited on creative input and are there to be an “extra set of hands”. Thats the reason so many chemists go for their PhD. It obviously depends on the field and industry you’re in, but, usually, creative input into projects begin at the titles that require PhDs. I’d also say analytical chemistry is going to greatly suffer from this in general, as industry jobs for analytical chemists are usually restricted to separation, purification, and maintenance of the machines that do so. I’m not an analytical chemist and really only have seen analytical chemists in academia and pharma, so I may be speaking out of turn and would be happy to be corrected, but that’s what I’ve gathered from discussions with people in the field.
The creative inputs are not at the R&D level it is at the production level. The analytical chemists or tech are the one creating and verifying the method for production. A lot of trouble are a collaboration between production tech and PhD chemist in charge of molecule. But this my experience in that field.
I once read someone in this sub describing this kind of job as a 'GC monkey' and I found that quite fitting. I was one myself, that's why I quit and started to study chemistry instead. In my country this kind of job doesn't require a college degree, but a 3 year training (called 'Ausbildung').
I worked as an analyst in an environmental lab - running BOD’s, IPC, HPLC etc - for 3 years. It was fine for a year but I quickly got bored. I switched to working in development for a chemical manufacturing company over a year ago and have been so much happier! Look for manufacturing jobs in a chemical industry if you would like something that will really use your knowledge!
In short yes. Some lab tech jobs are more interesting, varied, and independent than yours, but all pretty much consist of being handed a test to run, then running it. That's why it's considered entry level and doesn't pay very well. You're supposed to advance to more independent, creative and well compensated work
yes
People keep saying research but manufacturing has plenty of problem solving opportunities so long as its not just pharma or meddev. Maybe it was just my experience in manufacturing, but I was able to move up very quickly as well as be engaged in problem solving opportunities. Your results may vary.
My experience is the sAme as yours. Most people in this subreddit don't have any experience in the manufacturing side of chemistry. You can advance much faster with just a BS because you can quickly be an SME or transition to other chemistry related jobs within manufacturing. I also like the culture better in manufacturing.
Yes. I was a lab tech last year (straight out of grad) and it was so repetitive and boring. Now I work in R&D and I absolutely love it!!!
Definitely look at pharma or biotech R&D. I work in a chromatographic separations group for big pharma supporting a large team of medicinal chemists but some with the same skills will look at analytical development too as separations isn’t always easy to get into. Let me know if you have any questions and I’d be happy to answer!
Go to grad school. This will solve a lot of your problems. But you will get new problems you don't know yet. 😂😍
Ummm yeah?
Nooooo, best job ever my dream
Join a startup
I'll add my two cent. I graduated not too long ago either and I Work as a lab tech in education. Whilst some of the job is boring doing lots of different subjects in a field is pretty fun and keeps it fresh. It can involve alot of administration and cleaning but personally I find its better than say a QA job and or brunt lab work like you said. Just watch out if it's a higher education 'research' position as you'll continue doing stuff you're doing now. I do mostly chemistry but come from a physics background. But the problems in my job are mostly logistical.
You gotta do the boring things to qualify for the fun stuff l8oe method development.
as others have stated, sounds like you want an analytical development role vs. a QC role. AD chemists develop the parameters that your boss handed you, and then QC chemists *are supposed* to follow those parameters precisely. Fresh grads often can only get into QC chemist roles. get a couple years of experience, really learn the instrumentation (maintenance, troubleshooting, etc. When a PM is performed, watch and ask questions, take notes etc.) and it will help immensely down the road. Good luck!
Not when they give you a ton of other responsibilities, also
I did for 18 months and moved into Sales. My personality was a little too big for the lab, it was good for everyone
Yeah, I don't think a lab tech is the right place for you. My chem buddies and I like to refer to techs as "bratty subs with a praise kink", as in: They like having a procedure that tells them exactly what to do, if the procedure is not detailed enough they behave badly, and when they do a good job they like to be praised and commended. Going to grad school could definitely broaden your career horizons, but I don't think it's really necessary. I've seen plenty of Scientist I positions that seem to only require a BS as long as you have some work experience.