I agree that graduate school is best delayed if it's an MBA, but some careers require the PhD, not just a Masters degree, & it is expected that the student will keep on going. It is important to find this out ASAP.
I think this is fallacy borne out of a new view of the world best explained by https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html. I agree the CAREER requires it, but you do not get a CAREER fresh out of school. You work towards it. It is not REQUIRED that you have those credentials to BEGIN working in the field. We seem to have lost the fact that you build your career over decades of blood, sweat and tears, not though immediate rewards of special snowflakes. Think about the implication of what your statement implies. IF entry level work required advanced degrees and everyone got them then you'd never have high level researchers with more knowledge because everyone is coming in with a PhD, which is a lot of book larnin' but not a whole lot of knowing how to do the work.
A key section of some research for the article above:
Paul Harvey, a University of New Hampshire professor and GYPSY expert, has researched this, finding that Gen Y has “unrealistic expectations and a strong resistance toward accepting negative feedback,” and “an inflated view of oneself.” He says that “a great source of frustration for people with a strong sense of entitlement is unmet expectations. They often feel entitled to a level of respect and rewards that aren’t in line with their actual ability and effort levels, and so they might not get the level of respect and rewards they are expecting.”
For those hiring members of Gen Y, Harvey suggests asking the interview question, “Do you feel you are generally superior to your coworkers/classmates/etc., and if so, why?” He says that “if the candidate answers yes to the first part but struggles with the ‘why,’ there may be an entitlement issue. This is because entitlement perceptions are often based on an unfounded sense of superiority and deservingness. They’ve been led to believe, perhaps through overzealous self-esteem building exercises in their youth, that they are somehow special but often lack any real justification for this belief.”
And since the real world has the nerve to consider merit a factor, a few years out of college Lucy finds herself here where her expectations for what is possible in early years out of college meet up with reality.
Dude, you dont know what you are talking about. Chemical industry is absolutely moving in the direction of requiring a phd if you want to do higher level work. And yes, you need the degree to compete. There is a surplus of PhDs in the market. Your daughter will be competing with PhDs for the job.
A phd is actually not entirely book larnin, but a ton of lab research. E.g. What you will do in the job.
You have a lot of ideas of how you think things should be, but not many about reality.
OK, except you just validated what I said. High level positions need a PhD. Never disputed that. My point was you can get a job in any field without a PhD, just everyone figures the only job worth having is the one at the top, and that ends up feeding this ludicrous desire to feel like you have to go to school for another 12 years to step foot in a job.
You bring up a good and valid point. There also shouldn't be a negative stigma on 'lower level' jobs.
But you also state that "IF entry level work required advanced degrees and everyone got them then you'd never have high level researchers with more knowledge because everyone is coming in with a PhD, which is a lot of book larnin' but not a whole lot of knowing how to do the work.". This statement is false. You don't need to not have an advanced degree in order to know how to get work done. I think what you're trying to imply is that there are a lot of things that are better learned through one-the-job experience, built up over decades. This is sometimes absolutely true. But you also need to be open to the possibility that sometimes it's not. It's not unheard of (or even uncommon) for businesses to have been doing things "how its always been done" and then a fresh set of eyes (maybe a young PhD) comes in and realizes a critical problem which changes everything. I'm going to speculate that you harbor these opinions because you yourself or people you know have worked hard the old-fashioned way, and feel threatened by the 'new lazy generations'. I think it's important to realize that while there is validity in that sort of viewpoint, it also contains false stereotypes which may not accurately reflect the optimal way to get shit done.
Just so that all the information is on the table:
It is true that in chemical lab research, non-PhD's often get put into 'technician' roles where they do simpler tasks and don't get to engage their brains as much. They will typically perform tasks designed by the PhDs. These technician roles are important and should be valued (not looked down upon), but there are some consequences to this. One is salary; their career trajectory is significantly different. Roughly expect 40-80K salary range over a career (in today's dollars) for a technician. For the PhD, expect 80K - 150K, and if they do exceptionally well it can go beyond that. Another factor to consider is automation (robots). The chemical industry started using robots to aid in the research process maybe 20-30 years ago. It is becoming more widespread. I don't know if this will eventually result in lower-level job elimination, but it is a factor to consider. So far, I would not say the need for technicians is less; they are often used to run the robots.
Finally, there absolutely is a need for high quality 'technicians' that work under the direction of the PhDs. Finding hard-working, smart, people with good lab hands is invaluable, and certainly in demand. My company has lost good technicians before, and it is hard to replace them. I think it is likely that being hard-working, smart, and pro-active will help anyone on any career track.
You can go a lot further on non-PhD education levels by being an engineer. There are also particular sub-fields of chemistry where it is more possible (discussed environmental science in a previous thread; there are others as well, but I don't think biochemical research is one of them). If your daughter might be interested in a different path (then biochemical lab research), it might be worth indicating to her that they might be more lucrative.
Your daughter might also be able to start out as a lab tech and transition out of research into parts of the industry where PhD's don't matter (e.g. business, supply chain, etc, marketing, etc...). Just want to give the heads up that there is a risk of being pigeon-holed. This is why there IS a risk when you don't get the PhD at the start.
You seem to be making the argument that careers require decades of invest (blood sweat and tears); They might, they might not. I would argue that the PhD part IS the blood, sweat and tears.