In the US, teaching at the community college level does not require any sort of teaching certification. For that matter, adjuncting shouldn't either, except for the field-specific degree. There are often positions as lab coordinators for bio departments that basically manages all of the labs in that department's undergrad courses (this is especially true in bigger, research universities). These positions often involve teaching labs, or teaching the TAs how to teach the labs.

Thanks for the information! Unfortunately there haven't been any positions opening up at the university here (Ottawa). Other than that most of the teaching positions I have seen posted require either formal teaching training or experience teaching courses. While I was a TA during grad school, my time at UCSF (postdoc and SRA) left me with no opportunity to teach. I probably should have been more proactive trying to find teaching opportunities but is is very easy to get hyper focused in the lab.

So my situation wasn't exactly the same, but I recently went through the process of finding a temporary research position right out of undergrad so I figured I'd offer my two cents. First of all, you need to fill some need. I am working in a comp bio/biophysics lab and, while there are tons of physicists here, there is no one with a particularly formal math background, which was how I sold myself. I don't really know how lab tech stuff works as I've never worked first hand with experiments, but if you want any hope of getting a position you need to find a way to show that you are more than a blank slate people will have to baby sit for a long time.

One crucial aspect is to just keep talking to people. I spent a long time chasing down different resources and got the position through a relatively long chain of people telling me to talk to other people. Lots of professors probably would love to take on people interested in research, but funding/space is a major factor. I went through a lot of people saying they either didn't have funding or didn't feel I was the best fit for their particular lab, but I guess I made good enough impressions on them that they pointed me towards better fitting labs for my interests.

One big thing is to have a goal in mind of what you want to research. I had a pretty particular thing I wanted to do which probably narrowed my chances at first glance, but if you can firmly say "I want to do research in x" people seem more likely to try to help you. This is because now you don't seem like a random person with their head up their ass anymore, you seem like a motivated person who has actually thought things through. Think of it like dating, if you just go up to a really hot girl and say "you're hot, we should go out", she will almost definitely reject you. If you have nothing more going for you than you think the person is attractive, why should they give a **** about you unless you are similarly attractive? Continuing the analogy, if you meet a really hot girl while doing some hobby/activity you both enjoy, there is some legitimate reason for you to talk to her and she is more likely to respond positively.

Seems like we have a ridiculous number of biophysics folks here.

I'm kind of in a similar boat as OP (BS in Biological Sciences, looking for a tech job) except that I have 2 years of undergrad research experience, teaching experience, and 6 months of a full-time tech job under my belt. However, one of the most resonating statements I heard in my research lab from the faculty member was that the job market for Ph.Ds is completely saturated. She happened to be at the top of her area so she could pick and choose where to go (ended up just moving to Rochester) but she basically said that Ph.Ds are worthless unless you've reeeaaally distinguished yourself. So I'm happy with my BS but may go on to get a Masters in the future in plant science or agronomy, something that may lead to a crop engineering genetic type career where I could stay in Lincoln or Omaha. But it does make an incredible amount of sense to me - why would I pay money for a big degree that, while prestigious, may not actually give me a leg up in the job market?

Dear god, why?!?

family lives there and a ton of other faculty there in their research area

95%+ of the time you go wherever it is they offer you a faculty position. Only those rare few can pick and choose a location...

I'm sure we know plenty of the same people.

I'm sure we know each other

first, i also work in a biophysics and physiology department as a tech, so add me on the list!

I think a lot of the advice here is misguided and downright mean.


But there are some things about science that are unavoidable. You have to be productive and have to do work. Of course PIs prefer people to know techniques from the get-go, but I know many techs that had no previous experience in a specific field land tech jobs for 30k/year. I did exactly this.

What's relevant is that you have to have a resume that says you love science. Be it, competitions in HS (me, where i got scholarships to go to college), or volunteer work, or even the smallest bit of experience in a wet lab.

Those things get you into the door, but what gets you past that IME is the interview.

Regardless, after reading OPs response, I think his best course of action is to try and become a volunteer in a lab at first. It appears to me that your resume is weak, too weak to even get an interview where you could blow someoen away with your motivation/perspective/goals/etc.

It's a very powerful thing to say that you ran gels independently, or experiments, or analysis. That you know things like Origin or Matlab. E.g. You take joe off the street who has some coding skills, and is creative, he could land any technician job that was analysis heavy. Literally, ANY.

OP, dont waste your time finding funded work right now. Just start blasting professors asking if their lab has time for a volunteer who could shadow a tech, postdoc, or graduate student. Ask them if there are opportunities 2-3 weeks down the road to be able to do some things independently. Ask them about projects. Then (after a while) ask them if there are some experiments that need to be completed off an old manuscript.

here is a stupid/funny story about a tech I used to train when i graduated from dishwashing (concentrated chromic sulfuric acid). He told me that in another lab where he takes care of mice, the PI asked him whether he'd be interested in helping out with surgeries. Apparently they were taking out kidneys. This dumb**** said no. He was happy just feeding and cleaning cages, and here was the biggest golden opportunity to learn mouse surgery. And he said no. I facepalmed for him and said that he was making a huge mistake and should go and tell the PI/grad student that he was interested.

I started a month ago and was in engineering previously so I don't know anyone except for the people directly in my lab. If you happen to work in chemotaxis then you might know people I know.

It's called sampling bias. First of all there are a ton of smart people on this website and its not very representative of the population. Second of all, there aren't too many people who post on that board. Third, the ones that answer or tried to answer your question probably did have a PHD. If there were 10 phds in the thread, I wouldn't have been suprised. I can easily bet that the average IQ on this site is significantly higher than the average of the people in countries that post on this site. If you didn't know how to answer the question in the thread, you probably wouldn't have answered in the thread. I'm not sure what the topic was but it could have been condusive to posts from people with PHDs in religion. I would not have been suprised.

Any chance you feel like expanding on that statement?

Talking about Rochester, MN?