13 September 2011
Charlie Ball, deputy director of the Higher Education Careers Service Unit
I am a failure. I have failed at science. Or you could say science has failed me. The reason? One science BSc, one science MSc and one science PhD (chemistry, since you ask), and what am I doing?
A non-science job.
How can I have failed to stay in science having accrued so many letters after my name? Or to put it another way, why has science failed to keep me? Those of us who work in the higher education sector ponder these questions a lot, particularly when we study research into graduate employment. For example, according to the HESA Destination of Leavers Higher Education Survey, last year around a third of employed physical science graduates from UK universities were working in science or research six months after graduation. But what were the other two thirds doing?
This issue of the other two thirds is something that a lot of us, including the UK government, take seriously. (There is a report commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and carried out by CRAC - the Careers Research and Advisory Centre - on this very issue). Are those physical science grads not doing science lost to us? Is it a waste of their education?
No. A lot of us are essentially doing science - even me. We are undercover science commandos. Science is, after all, essentially a method, rather than a set of industries. It is good that we do what we're doing. It is good for science and for society, and I'll explain why below.
But is it good for the people who leave science? Are they happy? What about the people who stay in science?
We at the Higher Education Careers Service Unit asked some of them. Real Prospects is a piece of research into graduates in employment. We delved into what it is they like and dislike about the work they are doing, what they think about it, how it could be improved and what advice they would give to young people embarking on their own careers.
Our sample contains over 3,000 science graduates who told us that when they liked their jobs (this is any job, not just something science related), they liked them for a range of reasons: from the varied nature of their work to the intellectual challenge it provided. Some liked dealing with the public - belying employer fears that scientists don't enjoy dealing with customers. Some like the chance to be creative - again, another skill that many employers, wrongly, think scientists lack. (In fact, don't get me started on science as an innately creative pursuit. Maybe another blog). Many said they enjoyed the more traditionally "scientific" pursuits, such as data handling, research and innovation.
None of this is very surprising. Believe it or not, scientists are not actually motivated by entirely different things to the rest of the human race. It was, however, interesting to see how often the idea of the challenge, the variety and the chance to learn cropped up in the motivations of young science graduates - and none of these are specific to a career in science.
Those science graduates who didn't go into science? You can find them all over the economy. Yes, many went into finance jobs, and a lot will have chased the money, but that's ok. In fact, it makes it very easy to work out how to convince those graduates to come back to science. You pay them more.
But a lot are motivated by the chance to do interesting, challenging, analytical roles, whatever the sector. And many of these young people are very grateful for the scientific training they've had, and see their jobs as a natural progression from their study and interests. If you want these people to come back to science, give them more contact with people, let them learn new skills and give them more challenges. Or turn the issue on its head and ask: is it always bad that they have left science?
I quite like the idea that my accountant might be a physicist by training. I like that we equip our science graduates with the flexibility to work elsewhere, and give them the opportunity to do that. I like that science training can be applied in many contexts that are not necessarily traditionally thought of as "science". I think it is a great advertisement for science education and science training. It is something that should be celebrated rather than bemoaned. That's why it is good that there are those of us who have stepped away from recognisable science jobs and are applying the skills we have learnt, as scientists, in other fields.
It shows prospective young scientists that a degree in science doesn't confine you to a narrow range of industries. Science opens doors, it is flexible and it gives you the keys to a big, wide world. After all, what employer doesn't want employees who love to innovate, who love a real challenge, who love a great big set of really complex data to analyse, who want to solve real, practical problems? No wonder everyone - business, government and society - constantly says they want more scientists. And many of the scientists we think of as not being "in science" are out there, demonstrating just how important science is to them and to the economy.
So no, I've not failed and science hasn't failed me.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário