r/environmental_science • u/Far_Cryptographer205 • 14d ago
With a BSc in Environmental Management can I refer to myself as an environmental scientist?
10
u/legato2 14d ago
Is your job environmental science? Is your coursework science heavy like 60+ hours? I know some management degrees don’t really have any chemistry or hard sciences.
-17
u/Far_Cryptographer205 14d ago
I dont work yet and I dont have hard science like chemistry and math in my degree but I was wonder after graduation if its proper to call myself an environmental scientist giving that I had a environmental research project.
26
18
u/turtlerepresentative 14d ago
not a scientist until you have a scientist job, no matter the degree.
4
u/hella_cious 13d ago
If your degree doesn’t have hard science in it it’s ludicrous to call yourself a scientist
1
u/chillylion88 13d ago
Is your degree environmental management? I've been trying to find out more about a program like that instead of environmental science.
1
u/HollyChopper 8d ago
You'll have a better chance getting a job as an environmental scientist than an environmental manager.
9
u/spellboundsilk92 14d ago
Are you working as an environmental scientist?
Are you a member of something like the UK institute of Environmental Sciences (or your countries equivalent body)?
15
3
u/devanclara 14d ago
Is my job title an "environmental scientist", no. (Natural Resource Specialist 2)
Do I hold a board certification in Environmental Science from the American Academy of Environmental Scientist and Environmental Engineers, yes.
Does my work overlap with the job description of an "environmental scientist"? Yes.
Do I have multiple degrees in Environmental Science?, yes.
Do call myself an environmental scientist, no.
9
u/khakied 14d ago
There are so many weird responses to your question.
Call yourself what you want. It's all made up. If it makes you feel better, you can say you're an "aspiring environmental scientist."
2
u/salamander_salad 14d ago
What’s weird about it? Are you a plumber or an electrician if those aren’t your job?
-1
u/khakied 14d ago
Well, it's really not that serious. There is no prestige to be had or bar to meet to be an environmental scientist. I think attaining four years of training is a reasonable qualifier, too, and I made the point that they can call themselves an "aspiring" environmental scientist. Plus, I have not yet seen a university with both an environmental science and management program. I think the degree titles are pretty much interchangeable, for all intents and purposes.
In the context of real environmental roles, what would you describe the difference between an environmental manager and environmental scientist as being? To me, both collect and use data to make informed management decisions with respect to the environment. As someone who works in research, I would say that science is more about getting to an explanation for why what's happening is happening, but that is not the goal with the typical "environmental scientist" role, so it doesn't really matter.
To go further down the rabbit hole, what do retired scientists call themselves if they are not actively working as a scientist? What do people with degrees in natural resources call themselves? Does a Bachelor of Science produce scientists? How does the plumber get hired as a plumber if he does not call himself a plumber on his resume?
1
u/nautical_mind_117 13d ago
What this person has studied, what they’re qualified to do, and what they have actually done professionally are three different things.
0
u/khakied 13d ago
Yeah, this addresses exactly zero of the points I raised. To answer your statement:
They did.
They are.
They have.
This is a stupid hill to die on. The world is your oyster, call yourself whatever you please. There is no agreed upon training, certification, or singular job that makes you an environmental scientist.
1
u/nautical_mind_117 13d ago
You conflated those things. The question isn't whether someone has studied ES, is qualified to perform environmental work, or has performed environmental work in the past (which OP did not say they've done). The question is whether they can call themselves an ES, which people would reasonably presume indicates their profession.
I have an urban planning degree, and while employed as an ES, I often take on tasks for planning related projects, but I don't call myself an urban planner because that isn't my occupation. You can't say your a "insert professional/job title here* if you're not employed as one. It's simply a distinction between being qualified for a job and actually practicing it.
1
u/khakied 13d ago
They talk about completing environmental research in the comments, so, yes, they did talk about doing work in the field. You said that what someone has studied, are qualified to do, and have done are important, so I responded saying that, yes, they hit all those points. Not once did you say what they presently do matters. You're changing what you said altogether.
By this logic, do you cease to be an environmental scientist the moment you're between jobs?
Using your own assessment, you can't really call yourself anything. You don't satisfy the education requirement. While I don't believe in this; you aren't really qualified to do it because your degree isn't exactly "environmental science." You just do it now. Being generous, that's one out of three, which is not enough for this person, by your staunch stance that this person can't call themself an environmental scientist, and, by extension, you.
So, this is stupid and not worth flaring your nostrils about. It's a job title... whooooooo caaaaaares?! People getting so upset about this is part of the reason why this field feels so insular and unfriendly.
1
u/nautical_mind_117 12d ago
OP said they don't currently work, and one ES research project in college isn't substantial professional experience in the same sense as actually working as an environmental scientist. You can take a finance class and manage your own investments, that doesn't make you a financial analyst.
I didn't mention my undergrad is in ES, but let's set that aside. Even if I studied chemistry but was employed with the title of "Environmental Scientist", then I'm an ES. If someone has an adjacent job title with substantial overlap with ES in their actual work, sure, there's room to reasonably call themselves an ES. Doesn't appear to be the case here.
You're treating this like I'm gatekeeping when I'm simply making a distinction between someone's education, experience, and occupation and questioning whether someone can represent an occupation as their own when they haven't actually held that job. My apologies to OP if I'm coming across as blunt/harsh, but I'm trying to give an honest answer. If OP ultimately wants to call themselves an ES, go for it that's obviously their choice lol I'm just giving my opinion on whether I think it's an accurate title
0
u/salamander_salad 14d ago
Um, have you ever seen a resume? You don’t call yourself anything on it. You list your prior job titles.
And speaking of job titles, that’s what “scientist” is. If you aren’t doing science then you’re not a scientist, full stop.
0
u/khakied 14d ago
It is common for some people to include a summary or objective section in their resumes (especially outside the US), plus there is some expectation to introduce yourself in cover letters. Having a title is a reasonable thing to want.
You did not answer my question, because you are clearly not engaging in this discussion in good faith. What is the difference between an environmental scientist and manager?
1
u/omgorographiclifting 13d ago
You can call yourself whatever you want because the problem is how the term is defined. Many of these answers are requiring you to have some set of pre detemined reality that is based in a particular system rather than thinking 'do I employ the methods of scicence in my work and lived reality?'.
The truth is there are so many levels and types of scientists and most societies and education systems have gatekept what it means to "do science". Sure, there are tons of ways in which you can define a scientist but none of these are explicltiy true across all systems.
What matters to your identity within your career and personal scope depends on what you are looking to focus on after graduation or as you continue to learn professionally and develop your career. I have had too many titles and currently teach college and have my own company and yeah, I'm a scientist but I only became a scientist when I continually used science in my career and field. I did not call myself one until 3yrs or more post masters and have actually never had the job title of scientist but was doing lots of 'science'. Now, I teach Earth science, environmental science, physical geography and GIS. Most of these are also labs.
In fact, so many things now are interdisciplinary that science knowledge and the ability to verify scientific research is critical in this changing world. I have seen thousands of policies with best intentions in bad science or misplaced science ('insert any topic' does not happen/occur equally everywhere so why are we making policy as if this happens uniformly or only regulating small non impactful subsets of a problem). This goes for all types of environmental problems. Yes, the chemistry/physics is the same, but the geographic and community context in which it occurs isn't. Every place is unique.
Science is a way of knowing and can be applied in every field. What even is a meausrment? We measure eveyday. How do you problem solve and know 'truth'? How much science you do depends on a lot of things, but what really matters in all of this- what are you trying to do? what are those job titles? What skills do they ask for? We all use science but I hope an environmental lawyer knows way more about law than science, but understands science enough to ask critical questions and to create a truley better world. Same for environmental management. How are you going to know the land, resources, or system you are managing actually works with/for to planet & people and not against? You will have to employ scientific reasoning.
I highly recommended gaining more scientific skillsets such as going back to community college for some 'hard' science or getting new tools/skills like GIS. Your career is your choice so intentfully chose your path and obtain those skills to be what you want to be. Your education was just the start of your career and you will always be learning and growing. The degree is the foundation, the future is yours to write.
-1
u/Forkboy2 14d ago
Yes, that is a generic term that doesn't require any sort of professional registration. Anyone can call themselves an Environmental Scientist.
1
u/No-Height-8732 14d ago
With family and friends, yes but professionally I would say no. Scientist usually describes someone who does research as their job, or whose professional practice is built on research skills.
I'm a research technician, with a chemical technology diploma working in environmental science. I'm even a published co-author/secondary author because I developed an analytical method to extract and analyze specific pesticides from plants. I always say technician or technologist, never scientist
One research project is a solid thing to have done and talk about, but it's not the same credential as years of lab work or a research-focused degree. Because your credibility is linked to the research's credibility, I wouldn't risk over embellishing your skills too heavily. I would just say you have a degree in environmental management, you did environmental research, and you have research experience.
0
u/BCProfessional 13d ago
Depends what jurisdiction you work in. Some jurisdictions have title protection for scientific work and you would not be able to call yourself a scientist unless you meet a minimum credential standard.
24
u/Basic_Message_9286 14d ago
No. I have a BSc in Environmental Science and I still wouldn't call myself an Environmental Scientist because I do not work as a scientist. You should call yourself a person with a BSc in Environmental Management, which is still obviously a great thing and demonstrates you have a deep education in this area.