On Jun 25, 7:59=A0am, Aging_Recycled_Scientist <bike...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:16=A0am, "rick++" <rick...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 6:20 am, Aging_Recycled_Scientist <bike...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Prospects for both paths presently suck ass.
>
> > There are several complaining losers in this newsgroup.
> > Their adivice is garbage because their lives have been failures.
>
> Whatever, go to sciencecareers.org. Review the recent threads where
> the moderators and other PhDs advise not to get a degree in biology,
> but rather advise chemistry or biochemistry. =A0Also review the repeated
> threads advising that only 1 of 5 phds in biolife science get a tenure
> track job... and the training they recieve is precisely for this
> goal. =A0Sure biology is interesting but society does not value it that
> way.... =A0 Money harvesting and clever means to
> manipulate paper or electronic investments is more highly valued.
The chemists in my group say the opposite -- go for biology. In either
case, the bottom line is that you can have an OK career as a biologist
or chemist with the right education, but to have a great career you
need to more than average smart. For those that have the talent the
field is a lot of fun, much better than just having a "job", but this
is the top 30% I would say.
How in the world does someone place real estate agent and biologist in
the same decision tree? Here's a better idea -- become a biologist
and supplement your income with real estate investing . This is a nice
complement - the reality is that most real estate agents can't make a
steady enough living to invest in real estate themselve, but most
biologists don't have an op****tunity to make money beyond a salaried
job. The combination isn't bad-- this is actually what I do and I feel
like I have the best of both worlds, and am not dependent on any one
thing.
Marc L.
|
