stormguy80

By all means, go for it. I would just recommend 1) having a backup plan and 2) deciding on what type job(s) you might want in the field and then getting the necessary preparation for it. Just be realistic. Are you willing to make some sacrifices, especially early in your career? If so, then stay the course.

you say there are "a good amount" of jobs out there. I'm not denying that there are jobs out there, even some good jobs, and that there still will be success stories like the ones are mentioning. You weren't reading very carefully about what it is that I have been saying but I've repeated myself waaaayyyy to many times by this point for me to say it again. I'll just leave it at this though, produces some evidence that shows that the number of jobs is roughly in balance with the number of grads, and not just once graduating class at one school, and then maybe you'll have a case. Even I'll admit this is getting old now.... Yes, I've said things that are pretty discouraging and I stand by them. But that doesn't mean that no one will get a job in meteorology or that it's ALL bad. If you work hard, get the neccssary skills for the job you want etc, and have a real passion for it and are willing to move than yes; go for it. you may have reasonable shot at success depending on your financial needs / desires and willingness to do shift work; I just think there is very little awareness of any of the negatives amoung high school age students interested in meteorology and that if they knew the whole story that those with somewhat less interest or who had unrealistic expectations about getting a forecasting job near their home town or in the NWS might think twice about going into the field - this awareness would bring the number of met majors down and more in line with the number of jobs. How is that a bad thing?

Wow. that's a quite a generalization to make about a whole profession....

no I do; but the people who are arguing against me are also saying the exact same stuff ("it's not all about the money" or "if you have drive you can be successful", etc), over and over again. It works both ways:)

My arguments weren't just about money though. Facts are fact and the issue is that there are only a couple hundred entry level jobs opening a year with the number of grads per year in the 600-1000 range ( see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2375.1 ) How does that make it a good time to be a met? I know my new posts are going to anger a bunch of people since they can't stand it if I have the last word on this issue. But sorry, I strongly believe I'm right - the facts unfortunately support my arguments. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The problem is that there are only so many mets that are needed and as a result the continuing growth in the number of graduates in unsustainable. In some fields, supply can create its own demand and/or there are good reasons that the field will grow. I think in the comming years growth in some sectors of meteorology will be roughly offset by the number of jobs lost to automation. If you have the time and money and have a real passion for meteorology the best bet is probably to do a double major in a related field, such as math or computer programming. This helps you in two ways: 1) you have something to fall back on 2) you will be that much more marketable since many jobs in meteorology are also looking for someone with these additional skills. It's tough. One question, have you had someone critique your resumes / cover letters? These things will make you or break you just as much or more than your actual qualifications - if its not written in the best possible format / wording you may not stand out. Good luck to you.

Ok. I’m not following your logic here…I stated that only the top qualified people will get “better jobs” but then you said no, these jobs will sometimes go to people right out of school since they can pay them “a lot less” Well if they are going to pay them a lot less then they are not exactly good jobs anymore.

Some other notable busts: 1) early March 94 storm - a couple days out this was forecast to produce 1-2 feet in the Boston area but ended up giving less than 6 inches with a change to rain. 2) Dec 30, 2000 storm. Another bust for E Mass. a couple days out 20-30 inches was forecast and right up until the day of it looked like at least 3-6 inches or more. Instead it was ALL rain right along the MA coast with areas to the west getting hammered. I remember going out that evening and they still had all the flashing blue lights on in my town for a snow emergency despite it being 35 degrees and pouring rain. I remember seeing cars driving in from the west on 110 though and that they were snow covered! just a couple degrees and a couple miles off. Like I said in the other recent post, I think in a lot of these cases the experienced mets at least cover themselves when they know there is bust potential by using words like "possible" accumulation or "potential storm" when its 48 hours out. the public doesn't get it though....

Well; this is weather and things are never certain. It's interesting to note that the title of the map was "potential" snow storm and that Paul Kocin used the word "likely" not definately. Bottom line is that with major snowstorms there is always some inherrent uncertainty and I think this uncertainty is even hinted at in this clip as he even says that rain may cut down amounts. The public doesn't get this though. They just hear potential blizzard / 2 feet of snow and intstantly interpret that as "expected" blizzard.

The '89 one was dec 15. Another classic bust (at least where I lived) was the early Feb '95 storm (4th and 5th I believe). This was supposed to track just off the outer Cape and give eastern Mass 12+ inches of all snow with mixing / rain confined mainly to the Cape. In the end the change to rain came all the way up at least to the NH border after 9 inches of snow fell. the 3-4 hours of rain and temps rising into the upper 30s near the storms end was, as per the usual, followed by a cold snap behind the storm which meant one big icy mess.

Funny you mention this storm! I have a really goog memory and remember a storm that occurred on the night of Fri dec 15 into early Sat morning that year. I lived about 40 minutes north of Boston at the time near the NH border. Anyway - yes, I remember this was supposed to be a foot of snow with maybe some mixing on the outer cape. That was what the 6 pm news was saying. In the end about 8 inces of heavy wet snow fell in 4-5 hours from roughly 10 pm - 2am any then it changed to sleet and freezing rain. When I had gone to bed the evening it was in the mid teens and every time I woke up it was warmer and warmer. Yes, that storm was a bit dissapointing..We had about a 1 inch thick crust of ice on top of the 8 inches of snow and behind that storm the great cold wave of late Dec 89 was ushered in...

The storm developed/tracked farther north than the models predicted several days out. So instead of NY city getting 2 ft of snow these amounts fell over interior New England and areas farther south had lighter precip and/or rain. Sometimes the models just bust..I'm sure there have been other times the models have had a bust of similar magnitude but its just that in this case the impact of the bust was so great since the models had incorrectly forecast massive snow for New York City as opposed to a more remote area where it would not have affected nearly as many people or if it were in the spring and it had been a forecast of 2 inches of rain that never materialized.

you would be far better off, in my opinion, to do comp science as a double major as opposed to broadcast met. like other jobs in the met field, broadcast jobs are extremely competive. Since you have the opportunity I strongly recommend not puting all your eggs in one basket with meteorology.

Yes, specifically that part of the equation has not changed too much. But the overall picture (salary, ect..) is far more challenging for mets today and when I was in school I was not given honest "straight talk" about the reality of the field. The realities have been mainly an underground thing known by insiders but not by those in the mainstream or on the fringes of the field (weather enthusiasts, prospective students, the media, etc). That is why it becomes up to us to make this known. Also remember, the truth is easy to "spin". That is the really frustrating part. One can say there are for more types of weather jobs and new opportunities today (private sector, environmental, cable tv, networks) compared to the past (mainly just NWS) even though the ratio of jobs:mets has decreased, as have salary outlooks for most new mets, which is conviniently ignored. When asked "do your graduating mets get jobs?", the way this is spinned is saying "oh yes indeed! We have mets doing all kinds of amazing stuff! This one fellow, he's working in Alaska, several are in the Air Force, and another grad from a few years back is doing ground breaking research in Antarctica! What isn't told is that the market essentially forced them into these non traditional type jobs if they wanted to utilize their degree as opposed to staying at home and working at McDonalds. Students should do their homework but most of the information you find is in the "spin zone". For example, meteorology being in the top 15 or whatever jobs of 2009 - this was debunked in the original post.

Yes, but as I've said elsewhere in this thread meteorology brings this problem to a new scale that matches few other professions since the field is so small and the number of jobs are orders of magnitude smaller. Generally speaking, most young people are looking to settle down in a particular area or have settled in an area and are looking for jobs roughly within roughly a 1 hr radius of where they live, and yes indeed it is very difficult finding a job in many if not most professions these days. With meteorology, finding a job in a particular region of your choosing is virtually out of the question unless you happen to be in a one of the few places there are multiple met jobs (DC area, Boulder, S Texas). Unlike most professions, it's a given mets have to open up their job search nation or even world wide right off the bat. A lot of mets don't realize this as they are making the decision to major in meteorology and it only comes as a rude awakening later on. Hence, the reason for this thread I started.

in theory you could but in practice its not always possible. For example, I took a job outside the country as I refused to do the sweatshop thing any longer.

regarding the find a job anywhere thing, you gotta remember some people are in committed relationships or have family responsibilities preventing them from wanting to do this. Hence my saying that unless meteorology is the most important thing in your life and your willing to do anything for it you should probably find a different field since you won't be able to pick where you live.

Its not an all or nothing argument here. I agree that the old school stuff is good too and shouldn't all be abandoned for the new stuff. It needs to be a mix of both. plotting soundings and hand analysis should be covered at the beginning of synoptic but it should not be the meat and potatoes of that course at the expense of learning the new stuff that you will need to know in the field. You may not agree with the way things currently are but that''s the reality and students need to be prepared for it. I work in an office with no windows to the outside and even if I did have windows it would only help with a small number of local clients. The days of just forecasting for your immediate local area are over

The original post about this was referring to difax charts so it is obvious that he was talking about synoptic or some other forecasting/ analysis type class, not theoretical meteorology. In my response I was also referring to the teaching of synoptic met and forecasting - the practical stuff that you need for most met jobs. Maybe that wasn't clear but that is what I meant. Yes, for some met subjects computers are not needed as much or even at all.

Ok, anyone who hates computers should be banned from teaching meteorology. Teaching the old school way and ignoring the modern techniques and skills needed which involves computers will make for some very unemployable met grads. Simply put; you need to know computers! Its the modern tool of the trade. Not saying printout difax maps are bad, I still use them to analyze, but you gotta know the computer stuff too. That said, best to have a double major if you are doing meteorology with the job market the way it is in the field.

Yes, there are indeed great mets from all backgrounds. My only point is that at this time white males still make up the majority of met grads, at least 70-80% I'd say. But if they are only getting 50% or so of the jobs because of affirmative action I don't think that's fair. Its like title 9 - If 70% of those wanting to play high school sports are boys simply because to this day boys are generally more into sports, then 70% of high school sports teams should be boys teams, not the 50% that title 9 tries to artificially enforce.

Then that goes even further to prove my point. Unless they (females) happen to be better qualified grads then they should only be getting 15-20% of jobs, not 40-50%.

exactly. Also issues like affirmative action rear their ugly head. I've heard females are getting about 50% of jobs when in fact they still only represent at best 30-40% of graduating mets. Logic would dictate they should only be getting 30-40 % or so of jobs .

wow.

top 'bin'? what does that mean? Basically just that to get the highest score for that question you have to have 18 published since that's what one of the applicants had?