Clinical Lab Science Still Competitive
According to an article in Money magazine, laboratory technologist (clinical laboratorian) ranks 46 out of the 50 best jobs.
This ranking is based on a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which makes projections of which professions--requiring at least a bachelor's degree--will grow at an above-average rate over the next 10 years. The Bureau uses a formula that factors in criteria such as starting and average salaries, growth rate, training required and even level of stress expected.
Given the current state of disillusionment among some in the profession, readers might be surprised that CLS made the list. It is instructive to visit the Money site, click on the various links and see how a CLS compares with other professionals like Physician Assistant (No. 5), Pharmacist (No. 9), physician (No. 30) and even a CEO. It might surprise you to know that nurse ranks below CLS at No. 47.
Given a dwindling workforce, closing programs, attrition, retiring baby boomers, stress, increased automation and the like, it's positive that CLS is a viable option for those looking for a "growth career"
There is some independent data that some older workers are choosing CLS as their second career when they make a career change. This will not address the aging profession, but might well bring in workers who are mature and motivated to join the profession. Interestingly in the nursing profession, some professional nurses claim "older newcomers" choose nursing simply as Plan B after burn out, or choose it simply because it pays relatively well.
Do you see the same thing happening in clinical lab science? More importantly, do you still see CLS as a competitive profession? Why or why not?