Reconsider majoring in meteorology!

[Terpeast]

If you really want to look into what kinds of private sector jobs are being offered, http://www.nwas.org/jobs.php is a really good place to start. (EDIT: It looks like that will be going to a paid service in January, so get your looking in now!)

Another good site is the AMS jobs page: http://careercenter....rch_results.cfm

Those are good sites to look for met jobs. I found mine through the Penn State jobs site (forgot the link).

[Ellinwood]

Those are good sites to look for met jobs. I found mine through the Penn State jobs site (forgot the link).

I had that link but the one I bookmarked is broken now I'm sure a quick search on PSU or Google would yield the correct page.

[H2Otown_WX]

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.

bump..

[Chagrin Falls]

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.

This seems to come up a lot, no?

My answer is "no". Nobody, I repeat, nobody, is entitled to any job, regardless of their credentials, experience, education, etc. Mississippi State is a legitimate degree program for broadcasting and some private sector work, but it isn't much more than that. However, the MSU program is not screwing over anyone (except maybe their own graduates, j/k). The result of current career climate is the result of free market forces and nothing more.

T.V. news is a declining medium, advertising revenue is down & consistent ratings are down. As much as those with meteorology/atmospheric science degrees have tried to control the broadcasting profession through seal and certificate programs it hasn't worked. If B.S. holders got paid a handsome entry level salary and T.V. stations instead chose cheap B.A. labor we could probably make the above argument legitimate, but that just isn't the case.

The fact is having a 4-year B.S. degree is not a requirement to be a good forecaster nor is it a requirement to make a T.V. presentation that attracts ratings. I believe success in forecasting is linked to attitude & aptitude and success in broadcasting is linked to ample cleavage.

From what I understand salary in the #1 market is down up to 40% since it's peak. That isn't the result of MSU, I think that is the result of technology.

[baroclinic_instability]

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.

[UNCCmetgrad]

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.

I agree strongly with this statement. Any of you in a meteorology program and is dead set on a job in the field need to go for a M.S. degree. It will give you a good advantage over the many other applicants. I knew three students that got their M.S degrees the same year I graduated with my B.S and they either had jobs waiting on them or found jobs shortly after. I know it a few years and a lot of hard work, but it will be worth it in the long run. Also many companies don't someone who can just forecast but someone who has experience in computer programming and so forth. I think my lack in computer science has hurt my chances of getting entry level positions so definitely try to diversify yourselves as much as possible.

[isohume]

The job opportunities aren't as bad as some may think, with options in air quality, broadcast, energy, fed gov, military, and the private sector. However, the competition for these jobs have always been high and will most likely always be that way...esp with newly and uneeded met schools emerging. I'm doing exactly what I wanted to be doing out of college...but if I had to do it over again, I would pursue a degree in chemistry. The reason being...no shift work, no need to move for advancement, and the ability to work just about anywhere in the country.

[SnowGoose69]

The NWS needs to open up airport offices again, thats my personal feeling...will it happen? highly highly unlikely but if it did and we could add even 5 spots at every major airport in the country with the warnings issued from there it would help alot.

[ohleary]

FWIW to those who are looking... I got a full-time entry level position last in Feb. 2010. I graduated with a B.S. in Atmospheric Science and minors in Math and Comp. Sci. in May 2009, and I spent one semester of graduate school in Fall 2009. I had the summer internship with the NWS, a summer research job in meteorology amongst a few other things. Having good communication skills is also very important in this industry. Before I got this job, I had had interviews with 4 other companies and could have had one with a 6th interview with another company, and all of those took place between October and January.

Get good grades, diversify yourself, and get as much experience as you can.

Completely agree. Because doing that WILL get you your first job, and once you get that first job, you can grow from there. My grades/internship got me my first job, and the experience I got at my first job got me my current position. Luck helps too.

[isohume]

The NWS needs to open up airport offices again, thats my personal feeling...will it happen? highly highly unlikely but if it did and we could add even 5 spots at every major airport in the country with the warnings issued from there it would help alot.

A return to a pre-modernization setup will never happen. It defeats the purpose of the 88-D network. If anything, I could see fewer offices in the future. I doubt the number of WFOs will go down in the near future...but the CWSUs already have plans for consolidation.

[skierinvermont]

BTW the BLS summary Don posted somewhat concurs with this statement stating that those in this field will face "keen competition" which is defined as job seekers growing faster than the number of available positions. It is one of 3 categories, the others being "good or favorable opportunities" (job growth and applicant growth in rough balance) and "excellent opportunities" (job growth outstrips the number of qualified applicants). It also says that those with graduate degrees will have better prospects (obviously).

The posters comments may be a slight exaggeration, as hard work will probably get you a job in the private sector at least, maybe even public. But the general surplus of met majors is a real phenomenon.

[H2Otown_WX]

This seems to come up a lot, no?

My answer is "no". Nobody, I repeat, nobody, is entitled to any job, regardless of their credentials, experience, education, etc. Mississippi State is a legitimate degree program for broadcasting and some private sector work, but it isn't much more than that. However, the MSU program is not screwing over anyone (except maybe their own graduates, j/k). The result of current career climate is the result of free market forces and nothing more.

T.V. news is a declining medium, advertising revenue is down & consistent ratings are down. As much as those with meteorology/atmospheric science degrees have tried to control the broadcasting profession through seal and certificate programs it hasn't worked. If B.S. holders got paid a handsome entry level salary and T.V. stations instead chose cheap B.A. labor we could probably make the above argument legitimate, but that just isn't the case.

The fact is having a 4-year B.S. degree is not a requirement to be a good forecaster nor is it a requirement to make a T.V. presentation that attracts ratings. I believe success in forecasting is linked to attitude & aptitude and success in broadcasting is linked to ample cleavage.

From what I understand salary in the #1 market is down up to 40% since it's peak. That isn't the result of MSU, I think that is the result of technology.

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.

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.

[baroclinic_instability]

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.

[SnowGoose69]

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.

I was told by a TV news director about 15 years ago that women have to be good looking to get on TV...men on the other hand either have to be good looking or butt ugly...in between will get you nowhere, as a male you need to stand out in one form or the other...in other words, generally its hard to break in if you consider yourself an average looking guy without much of a TV personality

[HKY_WX]

It doesn't matter what you majored in college(medical field the exception maybe), the job market is miserable currently. We're in a recession/depression environment. Hopefully things improve, but you have to put things in perspective. The job market hasn't been this bad in probably 70 years.

[SnowGoose69]

You were one of the few lucky ones. From what I gather, it only took you 5 months to get a job, and that's during the worst recession since 1930s. It took me 2 whole years to find a private sector job that pays well, and that was with a masters degree in met and a bachelors in IT... before the recession started. It's BRUTAL out there. Good grades and experience are not going to be enough. You're right on diversifying yourself - that will get you through the door if you have good computer skills, engineering skills, finance skills, or ______ skills that the company in question is looking for.

The Met sector is not really impacted by the economy, at least that has been my experience, as I posted in one of the met job section threads, I've had more than one person who's said they felt the market is better during bad econmic times because private sector companies get more business because in a fickle economy companies feel the need to cover the weather influence on their business because it could cost them money or clients if they blow something because they try to interpret a generalized non-specific NWS forecast or don't use any forecast at all. Remember, most private weather services don't charge much for their service, so its not like its going to make a dent in said company's bottom line paying the money for it.

[Thunder Road]

I'm too lazy to look up who said it, but someone commented about TV shows like Storm-Chasers

While the popularity of those shows is something to be considered, it seems like most people who only get turned on to the idea by popular media are usually the ones who either don't finish or do finish with a B.S. and don't get a job. I've talked to girls people (didn't mean to be gender specific there, sorry) at schools where I'm applying whose goal in life is to be a "storm-chaser". Obviously, unless you're Reed Timmer or a researcher then there's no money in that!

I know it's a hard field, and being a senior in HS this stuff worries me, but:

I plan on going to a school with a good Met rep (i.e. WestConn, Kean, California State of PA will get you nowhere)

I plan on getting a M.S.

I already have a good relationship with a few forecasters at my local WFO

I'm taking AP CompSci this year, and plan on minoring in CompSci

My grandfather own his own business (not at all related to Met though) and he always says he doesn't gire the applicants who tell him why he should hire them, he picks the ones who tell him why it would be a mistake not to hire them.

[H2Otown_WX]

I was told by a TV news director about 15 years ago that women have to be good looking to get on TV...men on the other hand either have to be good looking or butt ugly...in between will get you nowhere, as a male you need to stand out in one form or the other...in other words, generally its hard to break in if you consider yourself an average looking guy without much of a TV personality

Yeah, I definitely don't have the personality to be on TV..I'm not nearly outgoing enough.

[BillB]

The number of people who are majoring in meteorology has skyrocketed in recent years and is still increasing. As a result, the number of recent grads seeking employment greatly outnumbers the number of job openings and it gets worse each year. This issue was discussed in the AMS magazine June 2008 issue and at various conferences. I can tell you from first hand experience the problem is real.

[snip]

Finally, according to the “experts” who write these articles the stress level is “not too bad”. This may be true some of the time if you are in the NWS where the domain sizes are small but it is far from the truth in the private sector where you’ll be dealing with a very demanding workload spanning clients across the whole globe.

A final note, as bad as things are now, the future will be worse. That is almost a guarantee. Forecasting is becoming increasingly automated. Using graphical forecasting software, you can literally have just one desk at one building for forecasting the whole country, or at least a large portion of it. The grids in these graphical forecasts can be populated with model data that on many days doesn’t require much modification. The data then goes downstream and is formatted into icons and words via an automated process. So yes, the secret is out!..the icon or sentence forecasts you see today are not “hand crafted” in the format you are viewing. They are mass produced graphically and then converted. What does all this mean? It means increasingly few people are needed to do the job of forecasting. Think about it….ONE desk currently forecasts for a whole country at certain companies while the NWS has 122 offices, each with about 20 people, for forecasting across the US. This status quo in the NWS is almost guaranteed not to last too much longer and it’s already extremely competitive! It could literally get a hundred or more times worse.

　

I agree with some of what this poster has said. There are a lot of people graduating each year, more than I'd like to see, and there are a limited number of openings. There have already been several good posts in this thread about advanced degrees and flexibility in relocating.

I do take issue with a couple of points in the original post.

1. While I can't speak about stress in the private sector, I can say with some authority that the stress level at the NWS field level varies with location and time of day. At our office, it is low on "Big Bubble" days...and extreme on active weather days. It can be especially stressful in the short time we have between data availability and forecast/discussion/statement deadline time. The baseline stress level also goes up everytime Headquarters has a great new idea to add to the (already saturated) workload.

2. The Graphical Forecast Editior in the NWS is not a panacea. We aim to add value to the raw data, and that means doing more than simply "plug and chug". We go through the model data as thoroughly as we have time to do (see #1), and frequently find the best solution is a blend of two or more models or versions of models (00z vs 12z). Some of the time even this isn't enough, and we need to hand-massage the grid fields. Considering that there are roughly 40 different meteorological fields, many of which are hourly (24x7 = 168 hourly grids per field), that is a lot of data to cover. We also need to QC all of these grids to ensure we avoid "Mostly sunny with a 50 percent chance of rain." QC is not done automatically by the system...when we change even one grid, we need to check all the fields that grid may affect. So while the NWS domains may be "small", it is not accurate to imply they are easy. And the forecasts, while not hand-written, still require a heck of a lot of work.

3. An example on grid editing and workload: Our office has been working on grid-generated aviation forecasts (the last and most difficult forecast type to grid-ize). This will allow us to produce forecasts for many more sites than we already do...and we already forecast for 10 sites (second only to LOX in the lower 48 states). To be sure, we do spend less time typing aviation forecasts now. But when you add in all the grid editing and QC, it still takes the same amount of time to produce a forecast package as before. So automation has shifted the workload, but it hasn't reduced it.

3. Unless there is a very quiet weather day and week, we do not even consider having one desk handling the entire forecast. Too much detail is needed.

4. NWS staffing has 8 to 10 forecasters per office. On a technical level, the administrative team (MIC, SOO, WCM, Service Hydrologist) may be able to fill in...but some offices have local policies that discourage this. Some Service Hydrologists are degreed Hydrologists, not Meteorologists, and so do not staff a weather forecast desk. The Public Service Desk may have Interns, HMTs, or a mix of the two; while the Interns may be able to fill in from time to time, that is not what they are there to do. So quoting "122 offices, each with about 20 people" makes us sound a lot more flush with bodies that we really are.

The NWS hasn't been "easy" to get into since at least the mid '90s. So I urge everyone contemplating a career in Meteorology to think long and hard about it. And if you do feel a calling for this field, have a Plan B. Given the current economy, a Plan C and Plan D probably wouldn't hurt as well.

[H2Otown_WX]

I'm too lazy to look up who said it, but someone commented about TV shows like Storm-Chasers

While the popularity of those shows is something to be considered, it seems like most people who only get turned on to the idea by popular media are usually the ones who either don't finish or do finish with a B.S. and don't get a job. I've talked to girls people (didn't mean to be gender specific there, sorry) at schools where I'm applying whose goal in life is to be a "storm-chaser". Obviously, unless you're Reed Timmer or a researcher then there's no money in that!

I know it's a hard field, and being a senior in HS this stuff worries me, but:

I plan on going to a school with a good Met rep (i.e. WestConn, Kean Plymouth State University, California State of PA will get you nowhere)

I plan on getting a M.S.

I already have a good relationship with a few forecasters at my local WFO

I'm taking AP CompSci this year, and plan on minoring in CompSci

My grandfather own his own business (not at all related to Met though) and he always says he doesn't gire the applicants who tell him why he should hire them, he picks the ones who tell him why it would be a mistake not to hire them.

You got that right.

[NJwinter23]

The Met sector is not really impacted by the economy, at least that has been my experience, as I posted in one of the met job section threads, I've had more than one person who's said they felt the market is better during bad econmic times because private sector companies get more business because in a fickle economy companies feel the need to cover the weather influence on their business because it could cost them money or clients if they blow something because they try to interpret a generalized non-specific NWS forecast or don't use any forecast at all. Remember, most private weather services don't charge much for their service, so its not like its going to make a dent in said company's bottom line paying the money for it.

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.

[stormguy80]

I never said that the NWS couldn't be stressful. I simply said that the private sector is likely more stressful. Also, regarding what you do with the GFE I know you guys work hard to add a value and that the models are rarely perfect. But I do know that the Weather Channel uses a similar system and only has one person on a desk forecasting the whole country. But please don't think I was trying to downplay the work you guys do. I know that to do the job properly you need more than one desk but I'm just not sure certain factions in the US who want to downsize government would see it that way.

I agree with some of what this poster has said. There are a lot of people graduating each year, more than I'd like to see, and there are a limited number of openings. There have already been several good posts in this thread about advanced degrees and flexibility in relocating.

I do take issue with a couple of points in the original post.

1. While I can't speak about stress in the private sector, I can say with some authority that the stress level at the NWS field level varies with location and time of day. At our office, it is low on "Big Bubble" days...and extreme on active weather days. It can be especially stressful in the short time we have between data availability and forecast/discussion/statement deadline time. The baseline stress level also goes up everytime Headquarters has a great new idea to add to the (already saturated) workload.

2. The Graphical Forecast Editior in the NWS is not a panacea. We aim to add value to the raw data, and that means doing more than simply "plug and chug". We go through the model data as thoroughly as we have time to do (see #1), and frequently find the best solution is a blend of two or more models or versions of models (00z vs 12z). Some of the time even this isn't enough, and we need to hand-massage the grid fields. Considering that there are roughly 40 different meteorological fields, many of which are hourly (24x7 = 168 hourly grids per field), that is a lot of data to cover. We also need to QC all of these grids to ensure we avoid "Mostly sunny with a 50 percent chance of rain." QC is not done automatically by the system...when we change even one grid, we need to check all the fields that grid may affect. So while the NWS domains may be "small", it is not accurate to imply they are easy. And the forecasts, while not hand-written, still require a heck of a lot of work.

3. An example on grid editing and workload: Our office has been working on grid-generated aviation forecasts (the last and most difficult forecast type to grid-ize). This will allow us to produce forecasts for many more sites than we already do...and we already forecast for 10 sites (second only to LOX in the lower 48 states). To be sure, we do spend less time typing aviation forecasts now. But when you add in all the grid editing and QC, it still takes the same amount of time to produce a forecast package as before. So automation has shifted the workload, but it hasn't reduced it.

3. Unless there is a very quiet weather day and week, we do not even consider having one desk handling the entire forecast. Too much detail is needed.

4. NWS staffing has 8 to 10 forecasters per office. On a technical level, the administrative team (MIC, SOO, WCM, Service Hydrologist) may be able to fill in...but some offices have local policies that discourage this. Some Service Hydrologists are degreed Hydrologists, not Meteorologists, and so do not staff a weather forecast desk. The Public Service Desk may have Interns, HMTs, or a mix of the two; while the Interns may be able to fill in from time to time, that is not what they are there to do. So quoting "122 offices, each with about 20 people" makes us sound a lot more flush with bodies that we really are.

The NWS hasn't been "easy" to get into since at least the mid '90s. So I urge everyone contemplating a career in Meteorology to think long and hard about it. And if you do feel a calling for this field, have a Plan B. Given the current economy, a Plan C and Plan D probably wouldn't hurt as well.

[baroclinic_instability]

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.

[brettjrob]

BTW the BLS summary Don posted somewhat concurs with this statement stating that those in this field will face "keen competition" which is defined as job seekers growing faster than the number of available positions. It is one of 3 categories, the others being "good or favorable opportunities" (job growth and applicant growth in rough balance) and "excellent opportunities" (job growth outstrips the number of qualified applicants). It also says that those with graduate degrees will have better prospects (obviously).

The posters comments may be a slight exaggeration, as hard work will probably get you a job in the private sector at least, maybe even public. But the general surplus of met majors is a real phenomenon.

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.

[baroclinic_instability]

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.

[msp]

i had always wanted to go into meteorology, but when i started weighing my options a year or two ago, i decided i just couldn't/didn't want to risk not getting a job after college. i'm pre-med now largely because i know that all if i can handle the rest of the difficulties of getting a B.S., M.D., etc, job availability and decent pay shouldn't be an issue.

[stormguy80]

To be honest, I"m not in that bad of place right now but a lot of other people I know are. I told the story as close to honest truth as I could and the reality is it is in fact that bad. You can look up the stats (285 jobs per 600 - 1000 grads) for yourself if you doubt me.

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.

[LongRanger]

I suggest that all Met undergrads test the real-world market as soon as they can. For example, make your interests known to your professors, volunteer on grad research projects, seek out industry internships both public and private. This is a way to learn not only the science but also the level of demand for your skills.

When I was an undergrad, I learned the grad research projects already had more people than they needed, so my volunteer efforts were put to little use. I applied for internships, but got none. I did radio broadcasting, but rather than mention my forecasts people commented on my voice, and I got paying gigs for voiceovers that had nothing to do with weather. All that told me that Met demand was low.

So before it was too late I switched majors to computing, and again tested the real-world market. The difference in demand was stunning: very soon I was running a small computer business from my dorm room.

Even at the high school level those interested in weather can and should start checking out the market. In the process you'll also discover your other talents and interests. Don't wait until you graduate college to find out, or you might wind up settling for a job you don't like. Meteorology is fascinating, and I admire those who can make a career out of it. Start early learning if you can be one of those.

[stormguy80]

couldn't agree more. Bottom line is demand is low relative to supply and the market is sending a strong message in that the salaries are bad. "Mr. Market" is essentially saying to mets, "You guys are smart and we need people like you to be engineers, computer scientists, etc..I'm going to punish you with a low salary if you choose to go where you are not needed instead of where you are as a way to try to get more people to go where we really need them" The problem is, mets are not listening!

I suggest that all Met undergrads test the real-world market as soon as they can. For example, make your interests known to your professors, volunteer on grad research projects, seek out industry internships both public and private. This is a way to learn not only the science but also the level of demand for your skills.

When I was an undergrad, I learned the grad research projects already had more people than they needed, so my volunteer efforts were put to little use. I applied for internships, but got none. I did radio broadcasting, but rather than mention my forecasts people commented on my voice, and I got paying gigs for voiceovers that had nothing to do with weather. All that told me that Met demand was low.

So before it was too late I switched majors to computing, and again tested the real-world market. The difference in demand was stunning: very soon I was running a small computer business from my dorm room.

Even at the high school level those interested in weather can and should start checking out the market. In the process you'll also discover your other talents and interests. Don't wait until you graduate college to find out, or you might wind up settling for a job you don't like. Meteorology is fascinating, and I admire those who can make a career out of it. Start early learning if you can be one of those.

[Turtle]

For another perspective, one can read the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (2010-11 edition):

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos051.htm

I'm glad you posted this. They have updated the wording in this to include "applicants face keen competition" and "those with graduate degrees should enjoy better prospects than those with only a bachelor’s degree." Both these were not there only a year or two ago. I'm glad this has been updated.

Now some of my feelings on the original post:

For the most part I do agree. Yes, the AMS did publish an article which really tuned me into the ever increasing difficulty in newly graduated met students trying to break into the field. And I totally agree with this. I had seen this anecdotally for several years before it was quantified in the article.

Part of my job is to go out to career days at high schools to promote students going into science and meteorology. I make sure I include mention for students to go for advanced degrees or double degrees (two BS/BA degrees). Several of my classmates at Lyndon got their double degrees in meteorology and math. I almost got an AS in Physics. Another natural is computer programming. It broadens students' horizons when looking for employment after college.

I even have high school and college students into the office for "job shadow" opportunities. While it would be difficult for me to directly say, "Good luck getting a job with the huge backlog of people with met. degrees out there now!" I do stress how important to get all kinds of experience, volunteer (in our office, college students) internships or working part time at weather related locations (like Blue Hill Observatory in eastern Mass.).

Just my two cents worth.

--Turtle