(continued from part I)

I spent a couple of days wearing holes in my bedroom carpet while I tried to decide what to do. I modeled every possible graduate school to career plan I could think of, trying to find a path that excited me. Science or writing? Science or writing? But for all the quality time spent pacing, I kept returning to the same conclusion. I didn’t want to go straight into a PhD program in a single science–that didn’t get me anywhere near my dream job. But neither did I want to give up on doing science completely, there is still too much to learn. I’ve always been a scientist in my heart; I think and make decisions like a scientist, I enjoy exploration and discovery like a scientist. But I am also a writer and a communicator, and I love reaching out and sharing with the world what the scientist in me has discovered. I would rather be writing a great piece for a science journal for kids than sitting in a room staring at a computer screen while data rolls in.

Fortunately, there is a middle ground for almost any decision. In this case, the degree that lies between no science at all and a PhD in science is a master’s degree. But I was still unsure if I wanted to postpone going into a science writing program degree, since that was the most direct path to my dream career. So I did what I always do when I don’t want to make a decision: I made a list, this time of pros and cons of going to a science program first, or jumping straight into writing.

And once again the list made it clear. Most of the science writing programs I had found tended to value applicants with significant research experience, because these students tend to be better able to connect to and communicate with the scientists whose work they are presenting. A brief afternoon spent looking up student bios at such programs showed that a large portion of accepted students came in with a master’s in a science program. These students, like me, loved science and enjoyed doing science, and had taken the time to explore that interest before moving on.

In the end it all made sense: I’m more qualified to go into a science program right now (four years of physics doesn’t leave a lot of time for non-academic writing). Taking a couple of years to do a master’s in a science would also give me the time to boost my writing resume. A part-time job working for small newspaper or student publication would give me a leg up in applying to the science writing programs. I’ll also get to be the scientist for a little while longer, without having to bind myself into a PhD track. And if I am still uncertain at the end of two years, I will be equally well set up to continue on in the PhD of my chosen science, or switch over to science writing.

The point of this plan is that it keeps my options open. Over and over I have found that the more I write my fate in stone, the less happy I am. I am continually reminded by many wiser people in my life that there are many paths to a goal, and just because there is an infrastructure in place does not mean that it must be followed or that following it will make you happier. Every experience in life is a learning process, and everything you learn makes your life richer. So I’m not going off to be a science writer the day after graduation… I’ll be a science writer once I’ve experienced being a scientist and being a writer.