I've hestitated to comment since I retired 12 years ago and am out of the
loop, but Canadian government policy used to be that only PhDs could be
Research Scientists, and other science professionals were classified as
Technicians. This has been relaxed, to what degree I can't say.
It should however be noted that there is an advantage to being a Technician,
in that you can be paid for overtime. On researh cruises (oops, we are
supposed to call those "missions") where everyone worked 12 or 16 hours a
day, the Techs made huge amounts of money while we got just our base salary.
Even when we were working shorter days, the PhDs got the night watches
because the Techs would get extra for working after normal hours.
On the other hand, a PhD is a much more general degree than a masters. Many
scientists have PhDs in fields which have nothing to do with their current
research, based on the idea that a PhD knows how to do research on the
unknown, while a technician is trained to do the work he is hired for (my
PhD is in low temperature solid state physics, but no one grumbled about my
doing research in ecology - although I did have a dean complain about my
doing some work in anthropology). So there is a trade-off, a PhD may be
considered over-educated for some positions, but there may be enough
openings in other fields to compensate.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "David L. McNeely" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: segunda-feira, 5 de Abril de 2010 15:38
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] M.S. -- is it useful?
Fact is, lots of federal government jobs specify a Ph.D. or equivalent
experience for GS 11 or higher, as do some state positions and
non-governmental organizations. A good many Ph.D. holders do work in R&D
and in compliance in industry.
But, your thoughts are generally correct -- unless one wants to work in
academia, a Ph.D. is probably only worth the investment in time, energy,
and money except for personal satisfaction, and it may narrow employment
prospects compared to a master's degree.
