Should I give up on science?

<p>and You Inmotion have yet to display good reading comprehension. The indeed stuff I posted was just for kicks I never claimed it as solid evidence just a sign. Job titles can vary for all professions. Not all accountants have the name accountant in their title either they can be auditors, analysts, IRS agents etc. </p>

<p>Tracking employment data is highly complex and is often misleading. A Chemistry major who can’t get a job as a chemist and works instead selling cars or doing construction work is employed. Heck I took the police exam to see if I could get hired there. BLS spends millions on doing these stats but they essentially do the same thing I did they just count the number of people with chemist as their job title and display the median salary and make projections. It does not include people in crappy permatemp jobs, nor give any indication as to what % of those who graduate are able to get decent jobs in the field. </p>

<p>The most recent ACS survey gave some more hints.<br>
[Chemjobber:</a> Well, that’s not good news](<a href=“http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-thats-not-good-news.html]Chemjobber:”>Chemjobber: Well, that's not good news)
Only 38% of MS grads in Chemistry were employed full time and of that 38% 55% were employed by academia. I have no idea what MS grads do in Academia (BS’s sometimes work as technicians and Ph. D’s as Post-Docs) but I doubt that it could be considered as good jobs as academia is known for significantly lower salaries. The take home message from that is the vast majority of chemistry grads do not find good jobs with the BSc., MSc., or even Ph. D. (40% FTE of that 60% Academia most are not tenured professors).</p>

<p>In conclusion, we have a degree that takes intelligence, long hours in the lab, and dedication and rewards it with extremely poor job prospects and increasingly anemic (worse than blue collar) salaries if you even get salary and not some hourly permatemp job. That is why I hate science and think that the people calling for more students to study science are either quite ignorant or incredibly amoral.</p>