Hammer or quill?
November 12, 2008 5:17 AM Subscribe
ScienceFilter: How can I best get involved?
I'm from an Arts background originally (BA) but have a technology-based Masters and for the past decade have been working as a developer/tutor/editor in web media. For the past couple of years I've been studying part-time towards an undergraduate degree in Geoscience. I love the subject and am fascinated by it's applications, largely around resource management and climate change. However, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth completing the full degree - as I'm in my mid-30s now it doesn't seem realistic to pursue a career as an actual geologist or environmental scientist.
I have the option of transferring to a masters level diploma in Science Communication which I could complete in two years rather than six years for the BSc. This aligns better with my skillset and current qualification but is it at all useful? Could I contribute (and be employable!) within the community without the foundation of a full bachelors, or should I stick it out at undergraduate level and really get to grips with one subject before attempting to enter the wider fray?
Any thoughts welcome.
I'm from an Arts background originally (BA) but have a technology-based Masters and for the past decade have been working as a developer/tutor/editor in web media. For the past couple of years I've been studying part-time towards an undergraduate degree in Geoscience. I love the subject and am fascinated by it's applications, largely around resource management and climate change. However, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth completing the full degree - as I'm in my mid-30s now it doesn't seem realistic to pursue a career as an actual geologist or environmental scientist.
I have the option of transferring to a masters level diploma in Science Communication which I could complete in two years rather than six years for the BSc. This aligns better with my skillset and current qualification but is it at all useful? Could I contribute (and be employable!) within the community without the foundation of a full bachelors, or should I stick it out at undergraduate level and really get to grips with one subject before attempting to enter the wider fray?
Any thoughts welcome.
Best answer: Is journalism one path for science communication? If so, that sounds like a good idea. Science and technology are pretty important parts of our lives and are touching our everyday existence more and more. So really, we need more writers with a good background in science who are good at translating difficult concepts into terms understandable by laymen. A lot of people with science backgrounds say that much of current science journalism is pretty terrible, so that might be a way to get involved. Here is a page about science writing [looks pretty old though].
The nice thing is if you are involved in reporting on research rather than doing research, you get to touch only the sexy side of science: you get to interact with scientists in a variety of fields all doing very different work, and usually you are encountering them when they have got to the sexiest parts of science -- interesting theories and/or interesting results. You don't have to do the most boring part of science -- doing the same experiment over and over again, carefully taking down the results, and then doing statistical analysis.
I would research how welcoming the science communication field is, and what job opportunities exist. Someone in the science communication department can probably help with this. I think a good barometer is probably whether you prefer to do science or read about it, and whether you feel the need to discover or the desire to spread knowledge.
I think that a lot of work for geologists is in the energy and natural resources field. The only geologists I have ever met worked for oil companies.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:07 AM on November 12, 2008
The nice thing is if you are involved in reporting on research rather than doing research, you get to touch only the sexy side of science: you get to interact with scientists in a variety of fields all doing very different work, and usually you are encountering them when they have got to the sexiest parts of science -- interesting theories and/or interesting results. You don't have to do the most boring part of science -- doing the same experiment over and over again, carefully taking down the results, and then doing statistical analysis.
I would research how welcoming the science communication field is, and what job opportunities exist. Someone in the science communication department can probably help with this. I think a good barometer is probably whether you prefer to do science or read about it, and whether you feel the need to discover or the desire to spread knowledge.
I think that a lot of work for geologists is in the energy and natural resources field. The only geologists I have ever met worked for oil companies.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:07 AM on November 12, 2008
Scientists usually employ other scientists, information technology staff, accountants, secretarial staff, and librarians. I'd say librarian sounds closes to the general liberal arts degree. Yes, most geologists work for oil companies, which make the field attractive financially.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:43 AM on November 12, 2008
posted by jeffburdges at 10:43 AM on November 12, 2008
Response by poster: Mister_A - I've been wavering on my reasons for committing the time and cash to the undergrad degree but you've made me think harder about what I want. I'm doing the study because I love the subject and want to learn more. I doubt I'd push through to a higher level degree I am more interested in the academic side of things at this stage.
Deathalicious - the 'barometer' helps, really I want to be finding out things myself rather than reading about them. The diploma route looked like a good way of quickly turning an interest into a career, but I already have experience in comms so I'll probably get much more out of studying the subject itself - and I can always pick up the reporting side later.
jeffburges - cheers for the perspective. Good pause for thought.
Thanks all!
posted by freya_lamb at 3:23 PM on November 12, 2008
Deathalicious - the 'barometer' helps, really I want to be finding out things myself rather than reading about them. The diploma route looked like a good way of quickly turning an interest into a career, but I already have experience in comms so I'll probably get much more out of studying the subject itself - and I can always pick up the reporting side later.
jeffburges - cheers for the perspective. Good pause for thought.
Thanks all!
posted by freya_lamb at 3:23 PM on November 12, 2008
Response by poster: Sorry - meant to say 'but I am more interested in the academic side...'
posted by freya_lamb at 3:25 PM on November 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by freya_lamb at 3:25 PM on November 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Also, a little info on the Science Communication program would help–what is the usual career path after that degree? I'm guessing working in a museum or something like that, and if that's what you want to do it sounds great.
posted by Mister_A at 6:08 AM on November 12, 2008