baroclinic_instability

That brings up a question that's been in the back of my mind that maybe a Met could answer...does Chemistry ever come in handy in this field? I have a hard time thinking of a time where it would.

The atmosphere is a gas. We have to have a background in chemistry even if we don't use it much in meteorology. It is used quite often, however, in the fields atmospheric chemistry and climatological modeling, for instance.

I'm surprised the JMA hasn't completely removed humans from the field.

That, combined with the RUC for the near-term...who needs forecasters?

I think that people who get C-range grades in calc and complain about difficulty finding a job are being a tad willfully blind. When I was in grad school (for a related, but not precisely atmospheric science field), I helped review apps for our program: basically, they used grad students to make the first cut.

And here's what I learned: there are a lot of folks with strong interests in meteorology AND excellent grades in all classes, including the various core math classes.

I guess what I am trying to say is, if you don't have a 3.5 or better in your major AND core classes as an undergrad, you should find a different career, because there are literally hundreds of more qualified people in line ahead of you for grad school and jobs. Exception maybe if you went to MIT or something and got owned in a math class by a bunch of prodigies, but let me put it this way: if its not immediately apparent from your record why you are TALENTED in the field rather than just enthusiastic, you're going to get tossed in the reject pile before someone important even gets to see your applications/resume/CV.

Also, everyone gets good grades in their Masters programs b/c thats just how Masters programs are. There's no curve, no "winnowing out" classes, and showing any effort will get you a B. Employers know this and will take grades in a graduate program with a very large grain of salt. The two things that matter for finding a job or getting into another graduate or postdoc program are: (1) recommendation/word of a professor (2) undergraduate grades. (3) is probably how you interview, (4) is if the guy doing the hiring was in a good mood when he read your app, and bottom of the list is graduate grades. Everyone knows they are a joke.

Grades have nothing to do with how qualified you are. You should make the distinction between how qualified someone may be and how well they happened to perform in college. Thankfully employers look at other aspects including internship experiences, student projects, and forecasting/communications ability as opposed to simply basing qualification on grades. That would be silly. I think every undergrad student can name various students who had 4.0's and made the cirriculum look easy but couldn't forecast a lick or communicate with non-meteorologists without mentioning QG Omega/Chi.

Thankfully employers don't look at grades only or I never would have had a chance based off my below average Calc grades. I guess that means I am unqualified?

Moral of the story here to potential meteorology majors, don't quit just because your calculus scores happen to be low or you have a less than stellar GPA. It doesn't matter if you show dedication and hard work.

I also have to LOL at all of the C/D grade discussion going on... I would have abandoned ship if I was getting those kind of grades in calc. The last two years of your met degree involves quite a few advanced calc-based atmos courses, so you'd better know how to do it! Sure, you use very little of it (if any at all) once you're out forecasting, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to walk away with Cs and Ds in core classes and expect to be favored in the job market.

EDIT: Also, it CERTAINLY won't fly if you go on to grad school (if you can even get in with those grades). Most colleges require that you maintain a B average in your graduate courses... at least in atmos.

A bit OT, and certainly not a rule, but universities have a direct benefit in passing graduate students since they are performing research and working on behalf of the university. Most universities are quite generous in grading in graduate school for this reason. They have to have a strict standard, of course, but they also want students to succeed in the research they are doing.

Exactly. And it's getting exponentially worse.

The OP probably exaggerated some claims, and he clearly has a personal bias, but I think the same applies to a lot of the happy working meteorologists who are still encouraging people into the field. The truth is somewhere in between. Unfortunately, given the extreme negativity of the OP and the cautious wording from even the most gung-ho optimists, that middle ground is not too pretty.

Here's something every prospective met student needs to understand: hard work and good grades do not guarantee you a whole lot these days. The only thing that's a guaranteed pass to success is knowing and being cozy with the right people. In many cases, that trumps everything else.

Also, I think it's worth noting that this discussion seems very forecasting-centric. I went into school thinking forecasting was my calling, but now I'm working with numerical modeling as a grad student, and I've become more open to a career in research or model development. Even research and academia are very competitive in this field, since -- as others have noted -- the number of M.S. graduates is exploding now (vicious cycle: more kids can't get jobs after graduation, so they go to grad school as a last resort, deflating the value of an M.S.). But at least employment in research and modeling should continue to grow, whereas manual forecasting seems less certain, especially in the long-term. So if you're open to using numerical modeling or research as an outlet for your passion rather than just forecasting, the outlook is at least marginally better -- but it will, of course, require several more years in school.

Agreed 100%. Knowing people is most important, and good grades, internships, experience, and hard work alone don't get you in. A little luck and knowing the right folks (which of course happens through hard work as well) is needed to eventually score a job. A ton of those 1000 folks graduating per year work their butts off and have killer resumes yet still don't get in. I have a lot of good friends who never made it even though they had all the qualities needed. They eventually went to grad school and went into other fields like energy, modeling (like you said), and GIS. There is potential but one may have to go to school longer than they want.

From going on a few interviews in the private sector, I noticed every company was selling the fact that they've been growing or even "exploding in growth" from selling their services recently. I would definitely agree with your comment.

That says it right there, in bold. What are they going to say? We are really struggling and aren't showing much growth?

But yeah, I will also say with private weather experience of my own they are doing better as long as they can sell to their potential customers the cost/benefit and that paying now will save a lot later.

But because of this, competition is also growing a lot amongst private sector companies and therefore margins are generally down. A lot of state DOT contracts are bidded contracts, for instance, and often times they MUST take the lowest bid (regardless of quality of product as long as certain stipulations are met in the contract) from a private company. What does that mean? The lowest bidder wins and eventually even these private companies really aren't making a lot of cash. Throw in the massive supply of mets to the tiny demand and private sector companies can generally get away with paying much less with smaller benefits.

Thanks for the insight guys, I appreciate it. Yeah I see what you are saying Chagrin, if the attractive blonde with the certificate from MSU is more appealing than the nerdy guy from MIT then she is going to be hired for ratings. And you still go through the basic forecasting classes to get that certificate. I've heard the broadcast field is difficult to get into with the lack of openings and low starting salaries. Add that to the fact that you would likely have to move somewhere far away and it becomes a less than attractive option in the field. Personally, I don't think I am fit to be a broadcast meteorologist anyway since I am not a good public speaker...seems like going into the energy field is the best thing to do right now though I am sure that's very, very difficult to get into as well.

Generally they seek a M.S. degree. GIS and meteorology combined are a good combo as well as mathematics/meteorology. I have a number of friends who work in energy and that is generally the winning combos although various engineering degrees will get you in as well. Energy as a whole is a pretty broad field.

Do you think part of the problem is a lot of the on-air meteorologists don't have a B.S. in the field but rather they go to a university like Mississippi State that offers a "Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology" which, from what I understand, is basically the equivalent of getting a minor in meteorology. There are a lot of people out there who just want to be on TV and it seems like this program at MSU caters to that and screws over a number of people who have legitimate degrees.

TV is not meteorology, it is broadcasting. It should come as no surprise a full B.S. degree is not required for most openings in television. Even if you are considering on-air television, it is brutal. I had a number of friends who went that route and they hate it. Don't think you will start out in Chicago. A lot of on-air mets start in very small market locations such as Minot, ND for instance, where you will be working weekends to start and prolly making around 15-18000k a year. Moreover, from my friends in that part of the business, it is very stressful both because of the public demands on almost impossible perfection as well as inter-office competition and the fact everyone thinks the person coming in is looking to replace them.

I would think this would have the opposite effect of your warning? I think there will probably be many more people who will switch to meteorology now.

I give stormtracker credit for even reading this far in to that diatribe to find this typo.

"you will have a high risk of being laid unless you have well above average forecasting skills as companies prefer the cheap labour they can get from eager and willing new grads. "

Another route is M.S. degree, and a lot of students are now doing that to better diversify themselves. Problem with that is a lot of students are doing that, and nobody looks that much better on paper in the end, especially if they have no experience. A good example of this job market is, during an interview with an NWS office, the MIC told me two Ph.D's applied for the intern opening!

It is a real tough market right now, and meteorology is no exception. This market, for whatever reason, continues to explode and undergraduate rates are skyrocketing. It seems logical to believe hyped television shows such as Storm Chasers as well as the general fascination with extreme weather in general have driven this explosion, and I see no end within the next five years.

Matters what you want to do. Regardless, you need to be an over-achiever and show you can make it to potential empoyers. First jobs are key to get the experience, and having a lot of internships and undergraduate experiences will better the chance. A good example is the NWS...they hire about 70-80 per year for the various positions and about 800-1000 graduate per year! Private sector is another option but they generally pay a lot less (generally) and those openings aren't really growing very fast either. Simple fact is, without considering how good you are or who you know, 70+% will never get a job. Chew on that.