Yeah, I bet our lab tech makes more than I do, too. But that's because she's a better and more reliable experimenter than I am.

If I'm the PI/Senior Scientist, I don't give a damn if my tech knows "how" it works. Just make it work. That includes ordering primers, polymerases, running the damn machine, optimizing conditions when necessary, running a gel/blot, getting the sequencing, and generally putting the product in some organism to make sure it really works.

All truth. Dishingwashing techs are the ones who make 30K. The level 4 SRAs who've been in the lab for 10 years? Twice that, easy. If they're the lab manager, even more.

Crazy how little money extremely well trained/smart people in important fields make in the academic world.

I say this not disrespectfully, and I know it's just the way it is, still amazes me as someone who dropped out of HS

If you were trying to go from a UofC education to a DePaul job, you may have had a chance, but there is no way UofC will want anything to do with you.


If I'm reading wikipedia correctly,DePaul has only had a biology undergrad major available since 2011? That is not good.

So considering OP has a Bachelor's degree with insignificant research experience, and possibly non-existent work experience in a related field, what would be his best options?

I ask because this is of interest to me personally (and I'm too sober to make a thread).

Read my posts again, but either applying for grad school or going back to school for clinical laboratory science.

No. I know several people offered tt spots in depauls bio (ecol/evol) dept back in 2004 and 2005. Workload was atrocious though, so they were actually having trouble filling their **** spots.

Lol...you make a thread (a 5th thread), get relevant tips/suggestions/analysis from people working in or above your area of interest and then complain that the quality of feedback on 2p2 is not to your liking.

GTFO

Well, at least he can report the results from the career counselor and let us know what real advice looks like.

The lab tech in one of my grad school rotation labs was simply incredible. He was literally (which means literally) 2-5 times as efficient as the postdocs and senior grad students. It worked out really well for him; after something like 4 years of being a tech, he decided he wanted a PhD. His lab skills meant that finished it in a ridiculously short amount of time, basically limited by the time it took him to take courses and write things up.

While he was a lab tech, he ran experiments for the PI, designed and ran his own experiments, trained all of the new lab members (undergrad through grad, and some of the postdocs) in good lab technique, and handled all of the ordering. I never asked, but I certainly hope he got paid more than the postdocs.

I plan to apply to grad school...probably. My plan was to find some type of lab technician/RA type job, do it for a year, then go to grad school. I'm aware that grad schools will pay me like $30k/year to, for the most part, be an RA (with a few courses, teaching undergrads, and dissertation thrown in).

But it's too late to apply to start Fall 2012. I need research experience anyway (which is what I figured the year of working would do). I can apply to start Fall 2013 but need something to do in the meantime.

Here's the requirements for a job I applied to yesterday:

"Required: A.S. degree in the biological, life sciences, medical laboratory technology, or other related field; Computer experience with keyboard proficiency; Familiarity with medical terminology.

Desired: B.S. degree in the biological, life sciences, medical laboratory technology, or other related field; Prior work experience in laboratory support or health related experience."

This would fit what I need (i.e. it's in a lab). It's for a histology lab assistant. Are my chances really so horrible for this one? I feel they shouldn't be...I mean, I have not only the required qualifications but half the desired.

Is it a waste of time applying to jobs unless you literally meet every single qualification the posting asks for, including those beyond required?

Have you ever done histology? It's delicate work that took me a ton of tries to get right.

I mean, you're not just competing against the minimum requirements. You're competing against everyone else who might apply for the job. And it's extremely likely that someone who knows the difference between an H&E stain and a silver stain, and who already can prepare and mount samples from frozen tissue and from preserved tissue is applying.

Hell, I might look for another mollusk counting position. It's bitch work, but you're qualified, and it can count as research experience for your grad school applications. Once you're in grad school, the fact that you're somewhat inept doesn't matter any more. People will train you in doing the basics. Also, grad school doesn't pay anywhere near $30k. Think $20-$25k.

**** I hate histology. I am terrible at it.

As Wook said, what they say in the requirements is the very basic, extremely course preliminary filter designed to weed out the absolute worst people thinking of applying. Once you get down to it, you will be competing with people who go wayyyy above and beyond the basic requirements set out in the ad, so you essentially have no hope of getting that job.

I actually kinda liked it. I did it in high school. It took a ton of work, but I ended up with some gorgeous sections of human and mouse brain.

But aren't these people applying to positions that specifically ask for, say, 2-5 years of experience with histology? I'm sure there are some, better paying histology lab assistant positions with more responsibilities that absolutely require a few years of experience. I know the job market is bad now, but is it so bad that these people are stooping so low as to apply for spots they are greatly overqualified for?

FWIW, I actually have 2 months of volunteer experience in a hospital, from a very long time ago as a receptionist.