Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    As the title asks, at what point educationally would you say someone should be considered a scientist? Is it when they are awarded a PhD within the discipline or when they get a BSc or simply when you're conducting your own experiment for self discovery.

    What do you think personally?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CTLevers)
    As the title asks, at what point educationally would you say someone should be considered a scientist? Is it when they are awarded a PhD within the discipline or when they get a BSc or simply when you're conducting your own experiment for self discovery.

    What do you think personally?
    Not sure about Bio/chem, but I know Physics specifically requires a Master's to be a Chartered Physicist. So...I guess Master's?
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CTLevers)
    As the title asks, at what point educationally would you say someone should be considered a scientist? Is it when they are awarded a PhD within the discipline or when they get a BSc or simply when you're conducting your own experiment for self discovery.

    What do you think personally?
    I'd say at least at an MSc level.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    when i write down a hypothesisssssss
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S2M)
    I'd say at least at an MSc level.
    I'd say you're a scientist after BSc level. You are after all a Bachelor of Science, but I guess at MSc level you are more experienced in research methodology rather than just learning the facts.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Once I start my BSc Computer science degree :teeth:
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CTLevers)
    As the title asks, at what point educationally would you say someone should be considered a scientist? Is it when they are awarded a PhD within the discipline or when they get a BSc or simply when you're conducting your own experiment for self discovery.

    What do you think personally?
    According to bigwig scientists on Quora (which like a more academic and mature version of Reddit), they consider one a scientist after they've graduated with a PhD.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CTLevers)
    I'd say you're a scientist after BSc level. You are after all a Bachelor of Science, but I guess at MSc level you are more experienced in research methodology rather than just learning the facts.
    MSc degrees can be entirely taught with no research, it varies heavily by subject and uni
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say once a person starts to practise science rather than simply study it. Being a scientist is a career. Somebody with an degree in accounting isn't an accountant unless they're employed as one, right?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely PhD. I'm doing a physics degree and there's no way I consider myself a scientist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say if you're conducting original research then, that's the point you can maybe consider yourself a scientist? Perhaps MSc/mres material, definitely phd and post doc level.

    Like somebody above said, MSc could be entirely taught and your project/dissertation not particularly original.

    I'm still undergrad, and I'm doing 'original' research and if I make enough progress and I can do something with my data; I've been invited to co author a paper over summer after I graduate with my lecturer.

    Having said that, I still don't feel like a scientist. I just don't know enough. I'd agree with the above guys saying that you're a scientist when you're doing it for a living, or at least regularly practicing outside of the normal scope of just trying to pass exams.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=hezzlington;70063816. I'd agree with the above guys saying that you're a scientist when you're doing it for a living, or at least regularly practicing outside of the normal scope of just trying to pass exams.[/QUOTE]

    I agree but being devil's advocate, would you say scientists who have retired and no longer conduct original research themselves and therefore no longer technically employed as a scientist, lose the "title"?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I think if you've got your Masters and you're studying for your PhD then you're probably a 'scientist'. It depends though - you can be more accomplished and competent than someone who's more qualified than you on paper.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CTLevers)
    I agree but being devil's advocate, would you say scientists who have retired and no longer conduct original research themselves and therefore no longer technically employed as a scientist, lose the "title"?
    Yeah I guess so :dontknow:

    If I retired from a career in academia/science, I'd say "I was a scientist".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Good question.

    A scientist is someone who's a researcher and therefore adds to our knowledge of the world (not necessarily the natural world btw, social scientists can be, though they are often not, actual scientists in this regard).

    That would distinguish a layman, namely, someone who's only reading about science, someone who might even be quite knowledgeable about a scientific topic from an actual scientist who builds upon pre-existing research and knowledge to generate new ideas in a scientific discipline. So long as you publish your scientific work in journals and books, you're a scientist. If you only read about science and don't actually do it, you're not a scientist.

    My definition might exclude maths and physics teachers and I'm ok with that.

    P.S. Having a PhD doesn't make you a scientist. Working in a university doesn't necessarily make you a scientist. And certainly having a n undergrad degree in mathematics or physics or chemistry doesn't make you a scientist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    And certainly having a n undergrad degree in mathematics or physics or chemistry doesn't make you a scientist.
    Wait, so you mean having a BA in Japanese DOESN'T make me Japanese? :moon:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SkyRees)
    Wait, so you mean having a BA in Japanese DOESN'T make me Japanese? :moon:
    Hilarious. You can't be hilarious and Japanese so no.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I would say someone engaged in research.

    The problem with using a PhD as a requirement is it would exclude say the lab manager with considerable scientific expertise, several decades of experience and with their name on a few dozen papers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    When you're doing new research or contributing to existing research to advance the field.
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CTLevers)
    I'd say you're a scientist after BSc level. You are after all a Bachelor of Science, but I guess at MSc level you are more experienced in research methodology rather than just learning the facts.
    Yeah that's true to be honest, that's what a lot of people say.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

Featured recruiter profiles:

ICAEW logo

Merck

"Merck is a global leader in specialized pharma & chemicals – join us!"

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.