Improving Employability

[Jess_Greenwood]

Hi everyone

I was just after a bit of advice really for ways I could possibly improve my chances of getting a role within a zoo. Ideally as a keeper but I would be interested in education roles too.
I have previously worked at an aquarium with otters, I have volunteered at my local zoo for 8 months before that, I have an MSc in Zoo Conservation Biology and I'm an associate member of ABWAK.

The problem is now because of covid, a lot of zoos in my area aren't taking on volunteers. I am doing one day a week as a zoo ranger at my local, which I do enjoy, but there is no animal husbandry involved, it's basically doing mini talks for the public instead of one big talk, just chatting to people who are interested.

So long story short, is there anything at all I could be doing in lieu of getting more animal husbandry experience, cause I've emailed every collection within an hour radius, to make my CV look better/improve my chances. I know it's a bit of a long shot but if anyone could think of anything, it would really help.

Thanks in advance

 

[Valentinoamor]

Experience. Experience. Experience. Experience is crucial when working in zoos. They want someone that roughly understands what's going on, as they don't want to take the time to teach you if they don't have to.

Education is also important. Go to university! Bachelor Degrees tend to be the minimum requirement in the United States.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I highly suggest having a backup plan. Employment is zoos is limited and competitive. For as time-consuming and low-paying as the role is, lots of people want to do it. I always wanted to be a keeper growing up - I still have occasional urges to be a keeper now - but I have changed my career path. I'm not a person that strives to be rich, but a keeper's pay is hard to live on. There are lots of careers surrounding animals, so I suggest that you look into some alternatives as well.

 

[Jess_Greenwood]

Experience. Experience. Experience. Experience is crucial when working in zoos. They want someone that roughly understands what's going on, as they don't want to take the time to teach you if they don't have to.

Education is also important. Go to university! Bachelor Degrees tend to be the minimum requirement in the United States.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I highly suggest having a backup plan. Employment is zoos is limited and competitive. For as time-consuming and low-paying as the role is, lots of people want to do it. I always wanted to be a keeper growing up - I still have occasional urges to be a keeper now - but I have changed my career path. I'm not a person that strives to be rich, but a keeper's pay is hard to live on. There are lots of careers surrounding animals, so I suggest that you look into some alternatives as well.

Thank you for your advice
I did my bachelor's degree in psychology and I did my masters degree in Zoo Conservation Biology and got a distinction in that so I can't really do anymore university now! I did consider doing a PhD since I enjoyed my masters but the funding would be a nightmare in the current climate.

I do have a job currently in the mental health sector which is steady, laid back and very supportive colleagues and manager so I would only leave that if I had the opportunity to work with animals. I know it doesn't happen for everyone but I just want to feel as though I tried my best before giving up!

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Thank you for your advice
I did my bachelor's degree in psychology and I did my masters degree in Zoo Conservation Biology and got a distinction in that so I can't really do anymore university now! I did consider doing a PhD since I enjoyed my masters but the funding would be a nightmare in the current climate.

I do have a job currently in the mental health sector which is steady, laid back and very supportive colleagues and manager so I would only leave that if I had the opportunity to work with animals. I know it doesn't happen for everyone but I just want to feel as though I tried my best before giving up!

First of all Jess, do not "give up" and don't think of the taking of a break from pursuing a career in this field as "giving up" or you most likely will ( you studied psychology so you should know what happens with "goal disengagement" as an adaptive response to challenging circumstances and the mechanism of "learned helplessness").

Instead try to consider framing this time as a temporary break / set back but that you will get back on track eventually. Opportunities do come up even in adverse times (and you need to be ready to seize them the moment that you spot them) and actually plenty of people enter the field of conservation later in life and actually often make better / more well rounded professionals.

Second, why must it be within the zoo industry specifically ? I know you have a masters degree in Zoo Conservation Biology but this field of study is also largely relevant to conservation of biodiversity as a whole. You may be putting yourself in a bit of a self limiting box when it comes to looking for jobs / opportunities specifically within the zoo sector.

Third, your bachelors degree is actually within a very useful field for conservation and a strength because so much of this field relates to human psychology (how can we promote societal changes in the interaction of our species with biodiversity without understanding the fundamentals and drivers of human behaviour / psychology ?). The crossovers between these two fields are endless and the ability to merge these in a multidisciplinary way will put you miles ahead of the "competition" (I hate that word as the whole concept of cut throat competitiveness in conservation is totally mediocre and suicidally destructive for this field) who think that conservation is just about "saving animals", be sure to play to these strengths.

There is actually an emerging / widely growing field within conservation called "conservation psychology" and there are a lot of interventions that require people with experience and knowledge of psychology so when an opportunity comes up you should be sure to highlight this over and over again.

Be very wary of doing a PhD and going down the academic route as it can be a colossal waste of time and academia is largely a toxic and corrosive cult and navigating it while preserving your mental health is like scuba diving through a cesspool of raw sewage. If you do decide on this then at the very least do your research on your potential supervisor and the reputation of the institute absolutely thoroughly. Moreover you should pay a painstaking amount of attention to observing the organizational culture of the place and to any intuitive feelings / vibes that you might have that something might be wrong.

My advice is in the meantime continue what you are doing by working within your current job and volunteering at the zoo but keep eagle eyed in terms of opportunities that may be around (and don't limit yourself to conservation within zoos or a certain taxa as these are extremely self limiting and sabotaging) and when you spot one just pounce on it.

Don't lose hope, be stoic about setbacks but be tenacious.

Godspeed in reaching your personal goals.

 

[Jess_Greenwood]

First of all Jess, do not "give up" and don't think of the taking of a break from pursuing a career in this field as "giving up" or you most likely will ( you studied psychology so you should know what happens with "goal disengagement" as an adaptive response to challenging circumstances and the mechanism of "learned helplessness").

Instead try to consider framing this time as a temporary break / set back but that you will get back on track eventually. Opportunities do come up even in adverse times (and you need to be ready to seize them the moment that you spot them) and actually plenty of people enter the field of conservation later in life and actually often make better / more well rounded professionals.

Second, why must it be within the zoo industry specifically ? I know you have a masters degree in Zoo Conservation Biology but this field of study is also largely relevant to conservation of biodiversity as a whole. You may be putting yourself in a bit of a self limiting box when it comes to looking for jobs / opportunities specifically within the zoo sector.

Third, your bachelors degree is actually within a very useful field for conservation and a strength because so much of this field relates to human psychology (how can we promote societal changes in the interaction of our species with biodiversity without understanding the fundamentals and drivers of human behaviour / psychology ?). The crossovers between these two fields are endless and the ability to merge these in a multidisciplinary way will put you miles ahead of the "competition" (I hate that word as the whole concept of cut throat competitiveness in conservation is totally mediocre and suicidally destructive for this field) who think that conservation is just about "saving animals", be sure to play to these strengths.

There is actually an emerging / widely growing field within conservation called "conservation psychology" and there are a lot of interventions that require people with experience and knowledge of psychology so when an opportunity comes up you should be sure to highlight this over and over again.

Be very wary of doing a PhD and going down the academic route as it can be a colossal waste of time and academia is largely a toxic and corrosive cult and navigating it while preserving your mental health is like scuba diving through a cesspool of raw sewage. If you do decide on this then at the very least do your research on your potential supervisor and the reputation of the institute absolutely thoroughly. Moreover you should pay a painstaking amount of attention to observing the organizational culture of the place and to any intuitive feelings / vibes that you might have that something might be wrong.

My advice is in the meantime continue what you are doing by working within your current job and volunteering at the zoo but keep eagle eyed in terms of opportunities that may be around (and don't limit yourself to conservation within zoos or a certain taxa as these are extremely self limiting and sabotaging) and when you spot one just pounce on it.

Don't lose hope, be stoic about setbacks but be tenacious.

Godspeed in reaching your personal goals.

Thank you so much for your reply, you have really helped me to feel a bit more positive about the situation.

You would be surprised how many people have acted surprised or have even questioned why I did a psychology degree over doing zoology. I suppose because it isn't considered a 'hard science', a lot of people seem to think it is completely unrelated. I actually found, like you say, when I was doing my masters that the psychology behind conservation is actually something zoos are really interested in. I attended lectures at Chester zoo and I know they do a lot of research on visitor engagement and what makes people want to get involved in conservation. This was probably the first time I felt like my degree hadn't been useless, given that everyone else on my course studied biology or zoology prior to the masters. It is absolutely something I'm interested in but I just don't find a way to link it in to jobs I apply for, for example when applying for a zoo keeper role.

I probably should have said, I do look at roles at other conservation organisations, such as Wildlife Trust, RSPB etc but I usually can't apply due to not having hands on conservation experience, or field conservation experience. My dissertation was concerned specifically with ex situ zoo conservation so perhaps I should look at getting some voluntary experience with a conservation organisation.

I think you are right about a PhD, I've looked into it before and honestly the whole aspect of funding was so overwhelming. If I'm honest with myself, I was probably only considering it so I don't feel like I'm wasting my time right now. I think also because I'm approaching 30 and know other people have been in their keeping jobs for ten years by now, I often feel that I don't stand a chance compared to someone much younger who has been able to do unpaid internships etc.

Once again, thank you so much for your positivity, it's such a difficult field and it is very refreshing to not just feel like one of the masses occasionally. You have definitely given me a lot to think about.

 

[lintworm]

First of all Jess, do not "give up" and don't think of the taking of a break from pursuing a career in this field as "giving up" or you most likely will ( you studied psychology so you should know what happens with "goal disengagement" as an adaptive response to challenging circumstances and the mechanism of "learned helplessness").

Instead try to consider framing this time as a temporary break / set back but that you will get back on track eventually. Opportunities do come up even in adverse times (and you need to be ready to seize them the moment that you spot them) and actually plenty of people enter the field of conservation later in life and actually often make better / more well rounded professionals.

Second, why must it be within the zoo industry specifically ? I know you have a masters degree in Zoo Conservation Biology but this field of study is also largely relevant to conservation of biodiversity as a whole. You may be putting yourself in a bit of a self limiting box when it comes to looking for jobs / opportunities specifically within the zoo sector.

Third, your bachelors degree is actually within a very useful field for conservation and a strength because so much of this field relates to human psychology (how can we promote societal changes in the interaction of our species with biodiversity without understanding the fundamentals and drivers of human behaviour / psychology ?). The crossovers between these two fields are endless and the ability to merge these in a multidisciplinary way will put you miles ahead of the "competition" (I hate that word as the whole concept of cut throat competitiveness in conservation is totally mediocre and suicidally destructive for this field) who think that conservation is just about "saving animals", be sure to play to these strengths.

There is actually an emerging / widely growing field within conservation called "conservation psychology" and there are a lot of interventions that require people with experience and knowledge of psychology so when an opportunity comes up you should be sure to highlight this over and over again.

Be very wary of doing a PhD and going down the academic route as it can be a colossal waste of time and academia is largely a toxic and corrosive cult and navigating it while preserving your mental health is like scuba diving through a cesspool of raw sewage. If you do decide on this then at the very least do your research on your potential supervisor and the reputation of the institute absolutely thoroughly. Moreover you should pay a painstaking amount of attention to observing the organizational culture of the place and to any intuitive feelings / vibes that you might have that something might be wrong.

My advice is in the meantime continue what you are doing by working within your current job and volunteering at the zoo but keep eagle eyed in terms of opportunities that may be around (and don't limit yourself to conservation within zoos or a certain taxa as these are extremely self limiting and sabotaging) and when you spot one just pounce on it.

Don't lose hope, be stoic about setbacks but be tenacious.

Godspeed in reaching your personal goals.

I don't know what you have against academia, but the picture you draw is unfair, even if it has grains of truth.

It is mostly up to yourself whether a PhD is a useful investment. Academia can be tough and depending on the topic there can be a lot of competition. Quite a number of PhDs also have stress-related problems, but this is something that doesn't just happen to you, but is mostly due to personal choices.

A PhD is probably the job that gives you the most freedom (from working hours to what topic you work on) in the world. It is probably the best way to learn critical thinking and improving analytical skills and in many cases it will give you great networking and traveling opportunities and you will meet many likeminded and inspiring people. There are a million possibilities on what you can do in a PhD and all will come with their own set of specific skills you can acquire and can be handy in a later career (remote field work, intercultural communication, fundraising, writing, lab work, teaching etc). Fundraising can be tough, but it is a critical skill in conservation biology, so is a good place to learn it.

The most important thing in a PhD is that you would find a topic that fascinates you enough you can delve deep in it for 3-4 years and that you find the right supervisor (both on the topic, personality and time commitment). If you do there is no better place to learn new skills, that will come in handy in any follow-up career.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I don't know what you have against academia, but the picture you draw is unfair, even if it has grains of truth.

It is mostly up to yourself whether a PhD is a useful investment. Academia can be tough and depending on the topic there can be a lot of competition. Quite a number of PhDs also have stress-related problems, but this is something that doesn't just happen to you, but is mostly due to personal choices.

A PhD is probably the job that gives you the most freedom (from working hours to what topic you work on) in the world. It is probably the best way to learn critical thinking and improving analytical skills and in many cases it will give you great networking and traveling opportunities and you will meet many likeminded and inspiring people. There are a million possibilities on what you can do in a PhD and all will come with their own set of specific skills you can acquire and can be handy in a later career (remote field work, intercultural communication, fundraising, writing, lab work, teaching etc). Fundraising can be tough, but it is a critical skill in conservation biology, so is a good place to learn it.

The most important thing in a PhD is that you would find a topic that fascinates you enough you can delve deep in it for 3-4 years and that you find the right supervisor (both on the topic, personality and time commitment). If you do there is no better place to learn new skills, that will come in handy in any follow-up career.

I have quite a few issues with the academic system as it currently stands so admittedly my comment is biased and rather caustic / jaded but I do not think it is by any means unfair (well...maybe the scuba diving through sewage part was a little bit unnecessary ).

I agree with you that taking a PhD is ultimately a personal choice / investment and that it is ultimately down to the individual and this is precisely why I think it is critically important for early career conservationists to be informed. It is important for people to realise that the PhD route really isn't the only option in town (despite it being sold as a surefire ticket to success) and that there are considerable dangers and risks involved in taking such a decision.

It is possible to acquire near enough all of those skills that you have listed and more as an early career scientist / conservationist without ever having taken a PhD and that includes fundraising (which I agree with you is both a critical skill and a tough one to learn). Perhaps teaching is the only exception but then you would need to define exactly what you mean by "teaching".

In my own personal experience most of the PhD students who "taught" me as an undergrad were comically and cringeworthily bad at doing their job and didn't seem to give a damn either (not everyone is teacher material and I think good teaching is actually a very rare skill that takes years to hone and that very few possess, just plucking a doctoral student from the academy and dropping them in front of a classroom doesn't cut it, perhaps I just had bad luck in this regard, who knows.. ).

It is possible to network, acquire transferable kills, meet inspiring and likeminded people (and I don't mean in the "likemindedness" in the group think sense that is exceedingly common within the academy and that I find to be disturbingly cultlike), encounter possibilities of travel and improve your critical thinking and analytical skills without ever having to take a PhD. A PhD can give you all of those things, yes, ideally it should, but it isn't the only option and it is important that people realise this.

Once again I agree with you that if a person should choose to take a PhD then finding the right supervisor, an academic institution with a non toxic organizational culture and a suitably interesting topic is key. Anyway, this discussion is unfairly putting this thread on a wild tangent and we can carry it on via PM if you like.

Do you have any advice for @Jess_Greenwood ?

If so then why not offer it in a comment?

 

[lintworm]

Just one more post from my side on academia / PhD's

I agree with you that taking a PhD is ultimately a personal choice / investment and that it is ultimately down to the individual and this is precisely why I think it is critically important for early career conservationists to be informed. It is important for people to realise that the PhD route really isn't the only option in town (despite it being sold as a surefire ticket to success) and that there are considerable dangers and risks involved in taking such a decision.

I will be the last to claim a PhD is the only option in town and it isn't a ticket to success (though statistically speaking PhDers end up with higher payments and often in good positions).

It is possible to acquire near enough all of those skills that you have listed and more as an early career scientist / conservationist without ever having taken a PhD and that includes fundraising (which I agree with you is both a critical skill and a tough one to learn). Perhaps teaching is the only exception but then you would need to define exactly what you mean by "teaching".

Maybe I do not know enough of your background and where you have studied, but academia in Brazil and in W-Europe are two completely different environments that cannot be compared in many cases. Just as one tiny example, it is nearly impossible in Europe to be a career scientist and not have done a PhD. I have worked a lot with scientists/students/phd candidates from developing countries and while on a personal level this was great, it cannot be avoided that educational levels are lower (even though people themselves are not less smart), but that means many skills are of lower quality.

It is possible to network, acquire transferable kills, meet inspiring and likeminded people (and I don't mean in the "likemindedness" Orwellian group think of much of the academy), encounter possibilities of travel and improve your critical thinking and analytical skills without ever having to take a PhD.

I don't know where you have seen Orwellian "likemindedness" in science, but from my experience in a large number of fields (taxonomy, microplastics, invasion biology, social-ecological sciences) there is hardly anything that two scientists agree on and there are a lot of different opinions on a large number of topics. Off-course there is likemindedness on well-established facts like climate change and evolution are true, but on the details there is a lot going on.

Nor is a PhD the only place to acquire such skills, but it can offer a very complete set that is hard to match otherwise.

To come back to the original question of @Jess_Greenwood . The first thing to get clear is what kind of position you want to be in in the future. There seem to be various options and at a keeper position there is no use of having a PhD. If you want to move more to education or other managerial roles (of which there are only very few highly competitive positions), you will need another skillset, the same if you want to focus more on zoo conservation biology.

If education is the goal, a PhD is probably not the right track, but instead it would be better to focus on getting a job in the nature education sector to learn the right skill in a reasonably relevant sector. Based on the zoo educators I know this involves strong skills in designing/lay-outing/writing. Additionally you will need very strong knowledge on animal species and the role of zoos in general.

A PhD could be a good choice if you want to continue on the interplay of zoo and conservation (and you might end up in either place). They key is to find a topic that would be relevant to your future career and where you might find a university that might be willing to host you (don't look in UK only, Scandinavia, Switzerland and Germany also tend to have high quality places in a more favourable environment than the UK....). The key in getting funding nowadays is that the work you do has a strong applicability to a real world problem. If you can sell that, you are in a good position, especially if it can in some way be relevant for your funder... In a world of biodiversity loss/climate change ever higher on the agenda that shouldn't be a major problem. There is a lot of relevant research to be done there and looking in the literature who has worked on a topic of interest, is a good first step.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Just one more post from my side on academia / PhD's




I will be the last to claim a PhD is the only option in town and it isn't a ticket to success (though statistically speaking PhDers end up with higher payments and often in good positions).



Maybe I do not know enough of your background and where you have studied, but academia in Brazil and in W-Europe are two completely different environments that cannot be compared in many cases. Just as one tiny example, it is nearly impossible in Europe to be a career scientist and not have done a PhD. I have worked a lot with scientists/students/phd candidates from developing countries and while on a personal level this was great, it cannot be avoided that educational levels are lower (even though people themselves are not less smart), but that means many skills are of lower quality.



I don't know where you have seen Orwellian "likemindedness" in science, but from my experience in a large number of fields (taxonomy, microplastics, invasion biology, social-ecological sciences) there is hardly anything that two scientists agree on and there are a lot of different opinions on a large number of topics. Off-course there is likemindedness on well-established facts like climate change and evolution are true, but on the details there is a lot going on.

Nor is a PhD the only place to acquire such skills, but it can offer a very complete set that is hard to match otherwise.

To come back to the original question of @Jess_Greenwood . The first thing to get clear is what kind of position you want to be in in the future. There seem to be various options and at a keeper position there is no use of having a PhD. If you want to move more to education or other managerial roles (of which there are only very few highly competitive positions), you will need another skillset, the same if you want to focus more on zoo conservation biology.

If education is the goal, a PhD is probably not the right track, but instead it would be better to focus on getting a job in the nature education sector to learn the right skill in a reasonably relevant sector. Based on the zoo educators I know this involves strong skills in designing/lay-outing/writing. Additionally you will need very strong knowledge on animal species and the role of zoos in general.

A PhD could be a good choice if you want to continue on the interplay of zoo and conservation (and you might end up in either place). They key is to find a topic that would be relevant to your future career and where you might find a university that might be willing to host you (don't look in UK only, Scandinavia, Switzerland and Germany also tend to have high quality places in a more favourable environment than the UK....). The key in getting funding nowadays is that the work you do has a strong applicability to a real world problem. If you can sell that, you are in a good position, especially if it can in some way be relevant for your funder... In a world of biodiversity loss/climate change ever higher on the agenda that shouldn't be a major problem. There is a lot of relevant research to be done there and looking in the literature who has worked on a topic of interest, is a good first step.

Ok , so in turn , just one more on my side regarding the same matter and offering you a decent reply to some of the points you have made.

I know there are some marked differences between the two regions, however, I was actually specifically referring to academia within Western Europe in my comment and not Brazil. I was specifically drawing from my own and close friends experiences. Let me clarify, it is not "Orwellian likemindedness" in science that I have observed, quite the contrary actually, and I agree that scientific opinion whether in the hard sciences or the social sciences rarely converge. Science is not the issue here at all, that is the beauty and worth of the endeavour of scientific progress in this world, that it destroys and combats dogma and groupthink with the scientific method that reveals empirical truth.

What I was alluding to was actually more about the organizational cultures and dynamics of institutions and I agree that this is not uniform and will vary according to each institution. However, there are research institutes which undoubtedly have very toxic cultures. Let me be clear, I am not talking about toxicity in the absurdly overused "SJW" / "safe space" sense of the word where the true meaning has been utterly diluted to mean nothing very much at all. Rather I am using the word deliberately in what the phrase "toxic work environment" used to mean / constitute until relatively recently which is a hazard to health within the workplace.

A lot of very unethical things go on in academia, are normalized and sometimes explicitly encouraged, these become open secrets that go unchallenged and this is not only dangerous but very damaging. Judging from your comment you have spent a significant period time in academia or are currently studying for your PhD. I would imagine that you have already observed this or if you are lucky and have not (and I find that extremely hard to believe) then you will have invariably heard about these kinds of things through the grapevine.

The rest of your points I have no major disagreement with as they are mostly very well made IMO though I still believe that you are overestimating and inflating / aggrandizing the actual value of the PhD .