<p>[Why</a> is a chemistry degree so useless? - Yahoo! Answers](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/question/index?qid=20080723123019AACfoY1]Why”>http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/question/index?qid=20080723123019AACfoY1)</p>
<p>I know this question was asked 3 years ago but look at adept’s answer.</p>
<p>What do you guys think? This answer got my attention b/c I myself minored in Math…</p>
<p>as a chem major, i feel a large reason is because the chemistry field is SO diverse. there is just too much breath and not enough depth at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>few examples:
I go to a public university that is (supposedly) one of the best in synthetic organic chemistry (UCI). friends of mine (myself include) only took the sophomore level of organic chemistry and are now taking the graduate level version of mechanism. they were super worried they would be so far behind all the grad students who completed whole chem degrees/worked in industry for years/etc. turns out, the gap was no where near as large as any of us thought. and remember. we started with JUST the sophomore level orgo that everyone takes (bio majors too).</p>
<p>you realize a physical chemist, inorganic, biochemist, and synthetic chemist all take, roughly, the same classes? these are fairly different fields, yet their training doesnt diversify them anywhere near enough. you almost need a phd for this. </p>
<p>EDIT: sorry, what is the question? the one in your heading or the one from yahoo answers? to answer the heading question, it depends. i googled some jobs for “Chemical Process Operator” and some wanted people with B.S./M.S. in chemical engr but most just wanted a A.A./high school degree.
sounds like you’d be fine.</p>
<p>in short: lack of in-depth training.</p>
<p>Oooh I was just asking what many people’s opinion about the Chemical Process Operator is, rather than focusing on “uselessness” of Chemistry degree lol. Thanks for the reply.
Minimum education requirement is only AA/High school? That’s interesting.</p>
<p>I loved chemistry, when I was taking physical chemistry. It was hardcore, quantitative, required a high IQ, not everyone could understand it, and made me feel far superior to the low IQ scum in the bio department. Now I am being forced to take 1 biochemistry class and it is ridiculously useless memorization of worthless trivia.</p>
<p>In retrospect, going straight for materials, physics or chemE would’ve been far better. Both materials and ChemE will also teach physical chemistry (the good part of chemistry), materials also teaches analytical (the other quantitative part of chemistry), physics covers both in their EM, quantum and thermo classes, but you cut out the useless junk like biochemistry. Furthermore, they’re quantitative majors that do not teach trivia, but teach tools and the way to apply them, rather than teach a bunch of facts.</p>
<p>Do not give me facts, give me tools!!!</p>