I'm 18 and about to apply for an undergrad program in chemistry. I've decided that I want to do something related to the fields pharmaceutical and/or psychiatric research, possibly involving psychedelic compounds. These are fields that I am very passionate about, and I know that I can put in the work to succeed when I'm working on something that I'm passionate about and don't have any massive life issues getting in my way. After Chem, I'd probably do a master's in Neuroscience or Pharmacology unless I decide to go into something else.
When you get to that point shoot me a message. You'll see why later in the posts, but my wife is very hooked into the correct path for this.
Local universities aren't cheap here but pricing isn't quite as bad as some places. I have a bit of money saved up, so money is at least not an issue for undergrad and not the biggest concern for graduate school since I have time to save up. I would like to ideally be earning about 100k/year by my early 30s in whatever career path I choose to go down so that I can be financially comfortable. I don't need drastically more than that, but FI/RE (Financial Independence/Retiring Early) is certainly part of my life plan.
Is a Chemistry undergraduate degree my best bet here as a next step, or should I reconsider?
Chemistry is a great start. My wife holds a PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology and started with a BS in Biology and Chemistry (dual major). She holds an MS in Analytic Chem as well. She has read through both of the big Shulgin books and could make any of the compounds in there given the right lab space. Currently she is at a major research university and is kicking ass.
You absolutely need to get into a lab during your undergrad to get the experience that will look good for grad school applications
@Skorpio is 100% correct about that. Good lab skills and good letters of rec from the people you work for in the lab go a long way. This is true with ANY graduate application. My graduate work was done in Communication Studies and my program (as well as my wife's) allowed admitted graduate students past a certain point to give their thoughts on applicants to the program.
If someone was coming into either of our programs with very little or poorly executed practical experience, they usually wouldn't get into the program unless they had AMAZING other stuff. I can think of several examples that stand out from both my own experience and my wife's. Because you're looking at the sciences I'll relay one of my wife's more recent student stories.
For the sake of time I will keep it to the point. Pre-Covid, now my wife had a student in her lab who she adored. She adores all of her students, but she really went above and beyond to try to get this student to a point where they would be a good candidate for a PhD program. I met the student several times when I would visit her in the lab. After a year and a half of working in the lab this student couldn't make basic solutions without needing to be double checked or watched. The student failed to grasp proper lab technique as well. My wife printed out and laminated a list of things that needed to be done. It was posted and gone over in great detail. Often, things on the list were done incorrectly and the student had to be retaught. After a while they got it, but it took much longer than it should have. At the same time, one of her other undergrads worked different days doing the same thing. That student never needed the list because they kept their own lab notebook and knew what needed to be done as soon as they checked in with my wife and what was going on that day.
The ability to organize, learn, and correctly repeat is something that is important. More than that... The ability to adjust to the lab and know that if activity A is being done there are certain things that need to be done, and that if activity X is on the roster instead the student needs to be able to switch gears and do or learn a different process... That is what I have observed to be extremely important. The first student mentioned asked her for a letter of rec and she encouraged them to ask their professors first. The second student didn't think they were fit for graduate school. However, my wife pushed them to apply to a couple of programs and they are now writing their dissertation. "Wet" lab time is very important and you should start doing it during your first term or certainly in your second.
This is very similar in the arts. In grad school and since then, I worked with many undergrads. The ones that I will write for are the adaptable students who don't hit their "cap" that is that they can continue to learn and apply what they are learning. Something that is very difficult to watch is a student hitting a point in knowledge or execution that they cannot surpass. As a debate coach, this is something that I have seen. A student has the desire and drive to be nationally competitive, but they cannot grasp the philosophic underpinnings of the competition (or the more intricate parts of common theory that appears in round) and for that reason they fail.
What I'm driving at is this: As a grad student, other grad students only want to work with the best. For example, I might have a class with one of the students I say yes or no to. I want to get the most out of the class as possible. As an undergrad, that means you have to not only bust your ass, but show that you are capable of getting to that next level. If you're wanting to study Toxicology you should message me. My wife would happily give you advice on that through my account. She would go into extreme detail about programs, requirements, and what they look for (and things I'm sure I cannot think of at this moment).
