Historical interview: The following preserves the research experiences and personal views expressed in the original manuscript.
Historical discussion note: The following preserves personal accounts of study, income, and career choices. Salaries, company valuations, and industry expectations are experiences or examples from the interview, not current pay statistics or guarantees of earnings from choosing a major.
The PhDSciNet Interview Series
A Survival Guide to the So-Called Pit Disciplines
If unpopular majors were ranked by how strongly people warn against them, biology, chemistry, environmental science, and materials might be near the top—subjects people avoid at all costs.
Low pay, difficult job searches, overtime, and poor financial prospects: these are familiar prejudices about the four pit disciplines. Are they great fields that benefit humanity, or unrealistic academic ideals in decline?
What do the supposedly unlucky people who entered these fields think?
#1 The four pit disciplines: Who else could it be?
An unexpected choice of major, and suddenly you are in the pit
Escape the Pit: My undergraduate major was polymer materials science and engineering. Before choosing it, I had no idea what it involved. After the entrance exam, I was interested in chemistry, my strongest subject. But my score was not particularly good, and few chemistry departments at universities I liked had cutoffs I could reach. So I chose polymer materials science and engineering at the university I eventually attended.
Some high-school teachers told me it was essentially chemistry and that I would study chemistry every day, so I applied happily.
Phone Out of Power: My original undergraduate program was an experimental science class. In the second year, we chose a major. I wanted physics, so I joined a program in optical science, communication, and technology in the science faculty. They said it was physics too, so I chose it.
My PhD was also in science and engineering, but with biological applications. My postdoctoral work is in optics, again with many biological applications.
Before making those choices, I did not really investigate the fields or assess my own situation comprehensively.
Friday: My undergraduate major was pharmaceutical engineering. I had wanted medicine, but my entrance score was not high enough for the very high cutoffs. Pharmaceutical engineering seemed closely related, so I chose it. During my PhD, I worked on drug carriers, which is also materials science. Because the application is medicine, the work is closely connected with biology and chemistry too.
Soy-Sauce Tomato: We started choosing majors after the second mock exam in the final year of high school. Teachers gave everyone an enormous guide describing the subjects and each university's yearly cutoff scores. I looked at forest protection, turf management, pawnbroking, jewelry appraisal, and forensic medicine. My parents thought I should not decide on a passing enthusiasm without understanding my strengths.
My combined science marks were relatively high, so my parents suggested basic science subjects such as physics, chemistry, or biology. That is how I gradually ended up in chemistry.
Do not panic: Interest and persistence matter
Escape the Pit: The chemistry I encountered at university was quite different from what I imagined in high school. Looking back, high-school chemistry was like a shallow bowl of water, containing relatively little knowledge. Once you understood it, you could become good at solving exam questions.
At university, the depth rose immediately. There was so much to learn that it felt overwhelming. Chemistry already divided into analytical, organic, and inorganic branches, with even more to learn in a master's or PhD.
It was certainly more tedious than high school, but I remained interested. That may relate to my personality: the less I understand something, the more I want to understand it. I still believe interest is the best teacher. If you are truly interested, those difficulties are less of an obstacle.
Friday: Before university, I thought pharmaceutical engineering would be related mainly to biology, perhaps biopharmaceutical engineering. Then I found that it was closely connected with chemistry. I did not particularly like chemistry and had done poorly in high school, so I was confused to encounter it again. I remember scoring only in the sixties at university. My experience was not very good: I disliked chemistry but had chosen a chemistry-related major.
But our chemistry teacher was excellent. They were in the science faculty and taught chemistry across the university. When some of us struggled, they gave extra help after class, explaining everything again. Gradually, I developed fresh interest. My overall feeling about the course went from perhaps 60 out of 100 to 90 because of that teacher, so the experience became much better.
#2 Interest is what keeps you moving
If you could begin again, would you make the same choice?
Escape the Pit: If I were not in this field, I would love to study mathematics or history. Mathematics is called the queen of science and engineering, a central discipline, but I probably do not have the aptitude it requires.
Outside science and engineering, I would choose history. I disliked it in middle school, but looking back, I think people in technical fields need a stronger grounding in the humanities. China's history is so long and fascinating that studying it seems appealing.
Phone Out of Power: I do not regret physics, but the later connection with biology still bothers me. I feel I should have stayed away from biology.
Both my parents studied Chinese language and literature and wanted me to study the humanities. They thought reading and writing as scholarship would be interesting while also getting the work done. I was too young to think that way then. If choosing again, I might genuinely study the humanities. Law and history interest me, and I think that kind of work might suit me.
Friday: If I could truly start again and choose anything, I would still want medicine, so that I could become a doctor.
But pharmaceutical engineering is closely connected to medicine too. After the pandemic began, I felt medicine gained new developments and opportunities. So perhaps I would simply choose the same subject.
Soy-Sauce Tomato: From undergraduate study to a PhD, it can be roughly twelve years. Is that worth it? I considered giving up many times and changed fields twice: from food science to applied chemistry and then nanomaterials. Even a small change in direction required a great deal of new background learning.
Whether it is worthwhile depends on whether you truly like what you study now. Given another chance, however, I probably would not choose this major.
I am not someone who particularly enjoys long years working without visible results. I want what I do to be useful to society. I might choose something I personally find more interesting, such as forensic medicine or psychology.
Interest does not lie: Genuine enthusiasm is the strongest motivation
Escape the Pit: Studying one of these subjects does not mean you must get a master's or PhD, do a postdoc, or become faculty. Your interests matter most. I think all the other factors in choosing a major together cannot outweigh interest. If physics or music truly interests you, choose it.
Interest can help you overcome difficulties without dwelling on everything else. But for younger students considering these disciplines, I want to add a warning: after a four-year bachelor's degree, your income may well be lower than friends in computing or electronic engineering. Further study may gradually improve both income and enjoyment, in my view.
Phone Out of Power: I agree that interest comes first. But jobs for bachelor's and master's graduates often do not match their major closely. Some biology classmates became civil servants; some chemistry graduates became programmers. If your main aim is a degree, the range of employment can be broad. In that context, liking the subject is important.
Whether a field is a pit is dynamic over the long term. It may seem difficult for five or ten years and look different five or ten years later. Such changes happen across history, so your own interest remains central.
Friday: I agree that the label is dynamic. When we first chose bioengineering, there were very few companies and employment opportunities seemed close to zero. As times changed and biology connected with pharmaceutical work, more companies appeared. Do not judge a discipline only by today's situation.
When choosing a university major, consider your interests and make an initial assessment of yourself. If you are good at chemistry and like it, of course you can choose it. But if chemistry is your strength and history your weakness, choosing history merely to challenge yourself may not be wise. Combine interest with some planning for employment—we still need to make a living.
Even if you choose one of these disciplines now, it might prove a very good choice ten years later.
Soy-Sauce Tomato: Undergraduate study is an important period in shaping your outlook on life, the world, and values.
Basic subjects such as biology, chemistry, or physics can help develop your way of thinking and those outlooks. So studying them as an undergraduate is not necessarily a bad option.
#3 Discouraging you? No, no, no!
Perhaps the pit label does not fit
Escape the Pit: Whether these are pit disciplines depends on what you want from them. Subjects genuinely differ. If I just wanted a four-year degree and a quick route to earnings and a job, I would choose computing. In my view, it is among the easiest fields to turn skills into income.
But if I am genuinely interested in research and want advanced study, the so-called pit disciplines can be particularly suitable for research.
I think the label often comes from choosing without understanding the subject, as most of us did. Then someone discovers they have no interest, dislike experiments, and face experimental classes every day. To them, it becomes a pit.
I have also seen people who dislike computing—myself, for example. Had I chosen it, I would probably call it a pit. I find programming syntax demanding: commas, semicolons, brackets, and spaces can have strict rules. In some contexts, full-width and half-width characters behave differently. That precision does not suit me, so I dislike the discipline. This is about programming-language syntax, not a claim that every programmer writes directly in binary.
Phone Out of Power: I think these disciplines can still be difficult within academia, and the prejudice has some basis. In our group, where most people do some biology, we discuss how long biological work takes, how uncertain results are, and how slowly papers emerge. We mainly do engineering but also biology, and telling a biological story in an engineering paper can feel like walking on thin ice.
If someone does only biology, I personally feel their scientific training may not automatically become broad. The experiments take so long, with much waiting and repetitive work. You need initiative to develop abilities in other areas, but the repetition can consume your energy.
Friday: I feel there may be too many people in these fields relative to demand. Much of the research I see repeats or follows trends, done for the sake of doing research rather than purely exploring something new.
Many factors, including the number of people, affect development. Even in a pit discipline, doing the work seriously is possible. An applied direction can yield interesting work too. The question is whether you can concentrate, follow the scientific path, face the problem, avoid following the crowd, and develop something to a very high standard. If you truly reach the top of your field, it may no longer feel like a pit.
Soy-Sauce Tomato: One difficulty is that some frontier research is far from application. You cannot yet see what a particular project will contribute to society or what product it could become. Catalysis, however, is not a field without practical applications; established industrial processes such as ammonia synthesis use catalysts. The interviewee's point is better understood as the tension between a particular frontier project and its uncertain route to application.
If work cannot yet be applied, your salary may be lower than that of someone whose skills immediately produce value. Your own road is longer. As an illustration, compare finance work that could bring ten million in a day with research that could bring a hundred million ten years later: people may prefer the immediate return. I think the prejudice ultimately concerns money.
But someone still needs to make that commitment. If you have particular talent and enthusiasm, I recommend considering the field, because the future benefit could be substantial.
Judging a subject solely by income may be unfair
Escape the Pit: Speaking purely about salary, I am now in my thirties and have worked in the field for over a decade. Compared with others in the same field, I certainly earn more than many.
But classmates of the same age who studied computing and joined companies such as NetEase or Alibaba earn considerably more. If you insist on comparing your field with leading fields known for high pay, it will fall short. You need to decide how to approach that comparison.
Phone Out of Power: I am a postdoc, and the pay is low—an annual salary a little over 60,000 U.S. dollars. Compared with programmers in the same location, it is nowhere close. Even those with master's degrees rather than PhDs may earn more than twice that. Time spent working and studying is not proportional to today's return.
My current pay may not be representative, but even if I return to China for a faculty role, the salary may not be high.
Friday: Relative to more than ten years of study and research experience, our present pay seems low. But if we later secure stable positions, I think it can be acceptable and meet our expectations.
With a faculty role, the ideal is more control over your time and greater independence in research. You can pursue the questions you want, supervise students, and teach.
That is a different choice from others. Industry may offer higher pay, but projects may be more fixed. Pay is related to choices. Higher-paying options exist, including pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 or cancer treatments, where PhD graduates may earn reasonably well. For now, though, I think comparison with computing and some other fields remains difficult.
Soy-Sauce Tomato: My pay may be the lowest, so I am not a particularly good example of value for time invested. The job does not pay much. But I know a very successful example: someone in chemistry started a company based on their research, and it now has a valuation of one billion. In that sense, they have gained financial freedom.
So a pit discipline may be difficult for many people, but not necessarily for everyone. It still depends on your choices.
In a letter to prospective students and parents, Wuhan University's Professor Deng Hongbing wrote: Higher education does not merely teach us to make a living; it teaches us to create a life. If we all abandon basic disciplines or the so-called pit majors, who do we expect to do this work? If nobody does it, how can our country progress?
If biology, chemistry, environmental science, or materials happens to be your genuine interest, go forward with confidence. Enthusiasm can give you courage.
If you arrived there by accident, be patient for a little longer. Effort and persistence may help you find a way out of the pit.
Contributors: Escape the Pit (跳出天坑), Phone Out of Power (手机没电), Friday (星期五), Soy-Sauce Tomato (酱油西红柿)
Editors: Calorie (卡路里), Fantuan (饭团)
Audio editor: Honey Peach Oolong (蜜桃乌龙)
Interviewer: Honey Peach Oolong (蜜桃乌龙)
Recording: Honey Peach Oolong (蜜桃乌龙)
This article reflects the author's personal views, not those of this website. The original manuscript credits images to the internet and requests contact for removal if they infringe rights.
Restoration revision, 2026-10-10: All views, experiences, and credits are retained. Corrections address the overstatement that catalysis lacks practical applications and the conflation of programming syntax with binary. Income and career comparisons retain their historical context.
Supplementary references
Sources and editorial history
Restored from a complete historical article exported from the PhDSciNet Official Account.
Editorial revision: Restoration revision, 2026-10-10: All views, experiences, and credits are retained. Corrections address the overstatement that catalysis lacks practical applications and the conflation of programming syntax with binary. Income and career comparisons retain their historical context.
