Cosmology: a good career choice?

[jon_pan]

i find the study of cosmology very fascinating and now contemplating to study it. But is it a wise choice?

I mean, how practical is cosmology in everyday life? not that i really need it to be, i'm more than satisfied to have answers i've always been pondering about.

and is employment hard to find?

[ek]

I really don't know if it's a good career choice, but I would also like to be a cosmologist.

What is better than searching (and perhaps finding) for the answers to the most important questions?

[daifeili]

If you like,its the best of all! No much consideration should be exist to interrupt you!

[SpaceTiger]

I mean, how practical is cosmology in everyday life? not that i really need it to be, i'm more than satisfied to have answers i've always been pondering about.

Depends on what you're doing. Instrumentalists are very hirable in the corporate sector. If you're during numerical theory, you might also be valuable to certain interests. All in all, though, it's not something you do if you want a lot of money or employment opportunities. Make sure you enjoy it before you commit.

[jon_pan]

Depends on what you're doing. Instrumentalists are very hirable in the corporate sector. If you're during numerical theory, you might also be valuable to certain interests. All in all, though, it's not something you do if you want a lot of money or employment opportunities. Make sure you enjoy it before you commit.



you don't know where i can find employment statistics do you? and may I ask what you you did you study, and did you have trouble finding employment?

i dont mind not making alot of money in exchange for knowledge, just the thought of studying for 8+ years plus student loans then being unemployed.

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

In all honesty, you have to have a deep passion for science and mathematics to 'excel' in your desired field.

Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics really has to inspire you to learn things on your own before you can seriously consider it as a career choice.

It's not going to be fun unless you really enjoy those subjects.

If you study physics and mathematics, you will become employed. It just might not be a position allowing you to study space. That research might have to be conducted in your free time.

This is generalized though.

[ZapperZ]

you don't know where i can find employment statistics do you?

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/emptrends.html

I strongly suggest anyone thinking of going into physics/astronomy/etc. to start surfing the APS and AIP websites.

Zz.

[starfysmn]

I wanted to be a cosmologist, long time ago, as well, back when I was an undergraduate.

Cosmology is sexy. It makes for great documentaries on PBS. It's tantalizing to contemplate the origin of, well, everything.

Under no circumstances should you contemplate going into the field, however, unless you are smart enough that
(0) you began publishing research papers, oh, midway through college
(1) you taught yourself calculus long before college, say, and
(2) you've aced all of your physics classes,
(3) ...which were at a really top-notch school where you actually learned things like Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum perturbation theory, not some pu$5y-a$% program that teaches "quantum mechanics lite" or somesuch.
(4) you can do semi-Riemannian differential geometry with your medulla oblongata

Also, you need be
(5) a good people person
(6) a very good writer
(science, ultimately, is all about writing papers and writing grant proposals and going to meetings - sorry! - you thought we actually did research?!?!)

And, you need to be stupid enough so that
(7) you don't realize or care that time=money and it's going to take you the better part of a decade to get your phd once you've gotten your ba/bs, which is forfeited earnings during the most important years of your life for building up savings / nest egg
(8) you don't care that the dumb-a@# sitting next to you in physics 101 who you helped with all of the homework and who just squeaked by - he/she will be making three times what you make, ten years down the road, as a sci/eng manager or consultant for a defense contractor or some other big business, and will probably be your grant reviewer and/or boss to boot,
(9) you don't mind delaying having a family until you are old enough that you can't reproduce by the normal biological route,
(10) you are content moving to new states and/or countries every couple years or so, with no moving expenses provided
(11) you don't mind surviving dry spells by sucking off unemployment or credit card debt,
(12) you don't mind dealing with landlords most of your life (mortgage lenders don't like people who move a lot and change employers constantly, which you almost certainly will do if you are one of the few lucky ones to actually be offered jobs.....)

So yea, if that fits you, then by all means go into cosmology.

Of course this sounds terribly cynical, but every point I raised above is based on real-world experience. I got my PhD from a top-ten school. Flat out I can tell you that, of the friends of mine who entered the PhD program with me, only a very small fraction made it through. And of the ones who made it - and these are all very, very hard-working, smart people, mind you, not flunkies - I know just a couple who have permanent jobs. You know, things with reasonable salaries, benefits, etc. And they, in turn, by the way, were absolutely the LEAST competent of the ones who made it through. They are employed because (1) they aren't creative enough to come up with their own ideas, but they are very good at doing what is asked of them, (2) they were quite happy to work on creating weapons of mass destruction for the US gov't.

I have an older friend who just now got offered his first "real" job (tenure-track research professor) at the age of 50. Another friend - quite a famous researcher - has been on several of those da$% PBS documentaries, has done some fantastic research that one him all sorts of national awards and citations out the wazoo, and he still fights like heck for every dime he gets, living mainly off the salary of his lawyer wife. Speaking of which, I have two friends who went both to physics grad school and law school. They both assure me that law school is MUCH easier. The one who left physics entirely was making, oh, about $120k right out of law school (ca. 1998), while I was still getting $14k a year to teach dimwits how to do the right-hand rule. By the way, inflation-adjusted, that is more than you will EVER make in academia or a gov't lab. He was MUCH MUCH happier. Yes, being a lawyer isn't a walk in the park either, and ten years post-degree something like half of them aren't in practice anymore. So yea, it's hard. But if you do the numbers, it's far less competitive than physics, especially cosmology.

So, really, no, whatever you do, for chrissake, please don't try to get a PhD in physics or astronomy or whatever. Go take some engineering classes, or accounting, or law, or anything but physics/mathematics. Trust me. The real world is full of lots of fascinating problems waiting to be solved, problems that might not make for a good documentary on PBS but which should still provide enough intellectual stimulation to keep anybody intellectually fulfilled, and - heaven forbid - employed at that.

[JasonRox]

I wanted to be a cosmologist, long time ago, as well, back when I was an undergraduate.

Cosmology is sexy. It makes for great documentaries on PBS. It's tantalizing to contemplate the origin of, well, everything.

Under no circumstances should you contemplate going into the field, however, unless you are smart enough that
(0) you began publishing research papers, oh, midway through college
(1) you taught yourself calculus long before college, say, and
(2) you've aced all of your physics classes,
(3) ...which were at a really top-notch school where you actually learned things like Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum perturbation theory, not some pu$5y-a$% program that teaches "quantum mechanics lite" or somesuch.
(4) you can do semi-Riemannian differential geometry with your medulla oblongata

Also, you need be
(5) a good people person
(6) a very good writer
(science, ultimately, is all about writing papers and writing grant proposals and going to meetings - sorry! - you thought we actually did research?!?!)

And, you need to be stupid enough so that
(7) you don't realize or care that time=money and it's going to take you the better part of a decade to get your phd once you've gotten your ba/bs, which is forfeited earnings during the most important years of your life for building up savings / nest egg
(8) you don't care that the dumb-a@# sitting next to you in physics 101 who you helped with all of the homework and who just squeaked by - he/she will be making three times what you make, ten years down the road, as a sci/eng manager or consultant for a defense contractor or some other big business, and will probably be your grant reviewer and/or boss to boot,
(9) you don't mind delaying having a family until you are old enough that you can't reproduce by the normal biological route,
(10) you are content moving to new states and/or countries every couple years or so, with no moving expenses provided
(11) you don't mind surviving dry spells by sucking off unemployment or credit card debt,
(12) you don't mind dealing with landlords most of your life (mortgage lenders don't like people who move a lot and change employers constantly, which you almost certainly will do if you are one of the few lucky ones to actually be offered jobs.....)

So yea, if that fits you, then by all means go into cosmology.

Of course this sounds terribly cynical, but every point I raised above is based on real-world experience. I got my PhD from a top-ten school. Flat out I can tell you that, of the friends of mine who entered the PhD program with me, only a very small fraction made it through. And of the ones who made it - and these are all very, very hard-working, smart people, mind you, not flunkies - I know just a couple who have permanent jobs. You know, things with reasonable salaries, benefits, etc. And they, in turn, by the way, were absolutely the LEAST competent of the ones who made it through. They are employed because (1) they aren't creative enough to come up with their own ideas, but they are very good at doing what is asked of them, (2) they were quite happy to work on creating weapons of mass destruction for the US gov't.

I have an older friend who just now got offered his first "real" job (tenure-track research professor) at the age of 50. Another friend - quite a famous researcher - has been on several of those da$% PBS documentaries, has done some fantastic research that one him all sorts of national awards and citations out the wazoo, and he still fights like heck for every dime he gets, living mainly off the salary of his lawyer wife. Speaking of which, I have two friends who went both to physics grad school and law school. They both assure me that law school is MUCH easier. The one who left physics entirely was making, oh, about $120k right out of law school (ca. 1998), while I was still getting $14k a year to teach dimwits how to do the right-hand rule. By the way, inflation-adjusted, that is more than you will EVER make in academia or a gov't lab. He was MUCH MUCH happier. Yes, being a lawyer isn't a walk in the park either, and ten years post-degree something like half of them aren't in practice anymore. So yea, it's hard. But if you do the numbers, it's far less competitive than physics, especially cosmology.

So, really, no, whatever you do, for chrissake, please don't try to get a PhD in physics or astronomy or whatever. Go take some engineering classes, or accounting, or law, or anything but physics/mathematics. Trust me. The real world is full of lots of fascinating problems waiting to be solved, problems that might not make for a good documentary on PBS but which should still provide enough intellectual stimulation to keep anybody intellectually fulfilled, and - heaven forbid - employed at that.

I started reading, and I disagreed almost right away.

I don't think it is necessary that you know full blown Calculus before college, have published papers before graduating or even acing all your physics classes.

It should be a question you can answer yourself. After learning about physics and mathematics, you should realize how indepth cosmology is. Then you should ask yourself, can I do it?

Answer that question realistically. Do not answer it in such a way to get an answer you want.

I think the idea that you propose for someone to go into higher mathematics (cosmology) is absurd.

Note: If you possess the list ZapperZ made, there is no doubt that it is a good sign that you can do it. I just don't think the converse is true.

[starfysmn]

Jon-Pan,

That was rather forceful, I realize. I love physics and mathematics myself. And I am happy that I count myself among the few who understand relativity and quantum mechanics (such as is possible in the latter case). Those are two wonderful intellectual edifices of the last century.

But, I will be happy if I can dissuade you from following the PhD course unless it is something that you feel deep down in your bones, that it is your dream. And remember that, years later, when you can't afford to put your children in a nice school and you don't live in the nice part of town, it was because your dream was so important to you that you sacrificed having a life to do it. I am being perfectly serious here.

You have to realize that this is the flip-side of the coin that you will never hear if you just go to talk to professors in your department. Of course they would love for you to study physics. They are happy. They have jobs (usually b/c they got them long before the jobs crisis that kicked in in the mid-7o's and has never really gone away since then).

I have taught on the faculty of a few departments. It is my sincere feeling that most faculty are rather dishonest about career opportunities because they, like everyone else on the face of the planet, primarily are looking out for number one - ie, themselves. Physics and astronomy departments survive by doing good research, which brings in money. The research is performed and the budgets are balanced on the backs of graduate students. Once the department is done with students, ie they graduate, they are no longer of any use. Yes, departments want to brag about their job placement, but it is very very low down on the priority list, primarily because there aren't enough students who ask the right questions like you - ie, are there really any jobs? - and who demand answers before going to study in department X. And, any professor who regularly told the truth to prospective students about the job situation would risk getting a little talk from the department chair.

And when I say the job situation is bad, I mean it's bad. I mean consider that it's one in three that you actually make it to the PhD, and then another one in two that you have a job after the PhD, and then maybe another one in three that you have a job that actually makes use of your PhD, ten years down the line. And one in one that your job, unless you jump ship, will pay DISMALLY. Don't be misled by those salary surveys. I don't know where they get their numbers. For example, suppose you're in astrophysics. You are top-notch. So much so that you get a coveted Hubble Fellowship. (this is a big deal, by the way). Ok, you are making, what, $45k (last I recall) - and this is the BEST of the best, the creme de la creme of PhDs from *top* programs. If you hear of an astronomer making six figures, it's somebody who got their PhD in the 70's, or else a three-sigma deviation from the mean.

Everybody thinks cosmology is fascinating. What might make for a better career is to consider something else that you also think is fascinating, but that nobody else seems to think is so.

[starfysmn]

I started reading, and I disagreed almost right away.

I don't think it is necessary that you know full blown Calculus before college, have published papers before graduating or even acing all your physics classes.

It should be a question you can answer yourself. After learning about physics and mathematics, you should realize how indepth cosmology is. Then you should ask yourself, can I do it?

Answer that question realistically. Do not answer it in such a way to get an answer you want.

I think the idea that you propose for someone to go into higher mathematics (cosmology) is absurd.

Note: If you possess the list ZapperZ made, there is no doubt that it is a good sign that you can do it. I just don't think the converse is true.

Oh, I didn't mean to propose to go into higher mathematics. But you won't get very far in cosmology without an understanding of general relativity, which is, er, semi-Riemannian differential geometry. Ok, maybe you don't need to know a Bianchi type-9 universe from mud unless you're going to be a theorist, but that's my background, so I suppose I was tacitly assuming that we were talking about theory here. If you want to build a telescope to look at CMB anisotropies, that is another matter. And it's probably better for your job prospects long-term. But, even if you never want to touch theory with a ten-foot pole, you still have to understand the basics, unless you want to be one of those people who gives talks at conferences where they say "Oh, I don't know, some theorist said this should happen, I don't really understand it, but I thought I'd test it...." And then you won't be getting very far with your career anyway.

But, since you disagree right away, let me ask you:
How much experience do you actually have in getting a job after your PhD?

[Lewis]

Thank you starfysmn, that was a well needed reality check for me.



However, I am still very young and naive and quite content to be piss-poor [In fact, I think I'd rather like it :) ].

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Oh, I didn't mean to propose to go into higher mathematics. But you won't get very far in cosmology without an understanding of general relativity, which is, er, semi-Riemannian differential geometry. Ok, maybe you don't need to know a Bianchi type-9 universe from mud unless you're going to be a theorist, but that's my background, so I suppose I was tacitly assuming that we were talking about theory here. If you want to build a telescope to look at CMB anisotropies, that is another matter. And it's probably better for your job prospects long-term. But, even if you never want to touch theory with a ten-foot pole, you still have to understand the basics, unless you want to be one of those people who gives talks at conferences where they say "Oh, I don't know, some theorist said this should happen, I don't really understand it, but I thought I'd test it...." And then you won't be getting very far with your career anyway.

But, since you disagree right away, let me ask you:
How much experience do you actually have in getting a job after your PhD?

I have been thinking long and hard about what I want to do with my future.

My love and heart lies in physics (especially astrophysics/astronomy), however, I realistically understand that I do not possess the talent to become one of the world's top theorists.

If I still majored in astrophysics/astronomy, would I be able to get a masters/PhD degree in a different field of study? Or, If I am comfortable performing research and analysis of data at observatories/universities as a career, is that realistic?

I just want to study the universe on some level. I don't care what it is.

Or should I major in something more generic (physics) so I have a broader base and more chance of excelling in different fields in Grad school?

What path would you propose to a person wishing to make a career out of science?

[starfysmn]

I have been thinking long and hard about what I want to do with my future.

My love and heart lies in physics (especially astrophysics/astronomy), however, I realistically understand that I do not possess the talent to become one of the world's top theorists.

(deleted....)

What path would you propose to a person wishing to make a career out of science?

While I probably sound phenomenally pessimistic, I am just trying to let you know the real situation. If you still decide you want to do it, go for it, but don't make the leap until you are really informed. I too, at one time, was perfectly happy to be poor. I spent a good chunk of grad school living in the garage of a pest-infested house, I cooked my own meals, I rode a bike or the bus, etc etc. You know what? It gets old after a while. Really old. La Boheme is a great opera, but you don't want to emulate it in real life. A friend of mine racked up 50k in credit card debt after his green card ran out and he had no source of income for over a year. He finally got a job just before he was about to hang it up, so he's ok now. But do you want that to be you? Not really romantic, I'm afraid.

No, you don't have to have the talent to be one of the world's top theorists to be successful, unless, that is, you want to do theory at a top place. The thing to realize in that case is that you are talking about a whole different eschelon than anything that most people are exposed to as undergrads, even if you went to a top school (e.g. Harvard or Caltech). Being smart and working your a$% off is a necessary, but not sufficient, ingredient for success. Other factors come into play later in the game, one of the most important of which is luck, frankly.

Here are my recommendations:
(1) Read Feibelman's book, "A PhD Isn't Enough." Read it BEFORE you decide to go to grad school. Read it ten times.
(2) Look to the end results. That is, look at people who make it and do fine, and ask what it is that they did. Here are some hints:
(a) Do not do theory. There are no jobs doing theory, and there is no fallback. Exception: If you like writing computer programs, then you can do numerical theory, ie simulation. For example, experience with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a nice thing when looking for jobs. But if you do CFD in cosmology and then try to get a job in industry, you will still be at a disadvantage against engineers who just got their BS/MS.
(b) Do not do anything that does not have potential real-world applications (e.g., do not do particle physics of any type, or cosmology, etc, unless you don't mind making a huge gamble that will more likely than not fail to pay off)
(c) If you build things in the lab, you will be infinitely more marketable. For example, do work in AMO (atomic-molecular-optics), or build instruments if you are going into astronomy.
(d) If you want to do astronomy, find a niche. e.g., high-resolution stellar spectroscopy, etc. Stay away from fields that are really "hot". These tend to be trendy and burn out people in a heartbeat. Do something a bit off the beaten track, something useful, and do it well.

Other than reading Feibelman's book, my number one recomendation is this:
----> WHO you work for is the single most imporant decision you can make. Your choice of dissertation advisor is ten times more important than what school you go to, what your grades are, what area of physics or astronomy you study, etc.

In the department where I got my degree, the strongest correlators of success are these: (1) who did you work for, (2) did you do observation/instrumentation or did you foolishly decide to do theory.

So how do you decide who to work for? DO NOT decide b/c person X does cosmology and you think it's cool whereas person Y studies, oh, binary stars and you think that's boring. Sure that counts for something but the fact is that once you get into a research program your interests will change anyway. No, the way to decide is just as I said before: Look to the end results. Before deciding to work for professor X, find out how many students professor X has mentored, and what happened to them. Are they all gainfully employed, still doing research, or did they either drop out or just vanish out of sight after they got their degrees? Is professor X selective about who he/she takes on? (the correct answer is yes) Does professor X actually make time for his/her students, meeting with them on a regular basis, or does professor X think that his/her time is so valuable that he/she makes very little room for face time? Is professor X a nice person or a jerk? (this is very important, do not discount this!) Are students of professor X encouraged/provided with $ to go to conferences and "network"? Does professor X have a steady stream of grant money? Does professor X pay his students so they don't have to teach?

One very easy trap to fall into is to think that if you work for a real curmudgeon who doesn't have money to support you, that your personal sacrifice will be regarded as a sign of dedication.... ---> It doesn't work like that.<--- Don't be afraid to follow the money. If you can't get paid to do your research as a grad student, you'd better have a really good reason for not switching to work for somebody who will have at least enough respect for you to provide you with an income.

Hope that helps. Good luck!

[SpaceTiger]

starfysmn's rants smack of a bitterness that you won't get from every astronomer/cosmologist, even those who left the field, but there's much truth in it. The field is very competitive and the job opportunities are few and far between. You really should love it if you're going to try it. However, let me provide some more optimistic points to balance this thread's cynicism.

For starters, the failure rate in Ph.D. programs is low, almost across the board. There may be a few exceptions, but every school I visited (and they were all top schools) said that the majority of their students received a doctorate. At Princeton, we have someone kicked out of the program (with an MS) only once every few years and these are only the really lazy folks. We also occasionally have someone leave voluntarily, but the vast majority of entering students end up with a Ph.D.

As for job opportunities, it is difficult to get a faculty position. However, astrophysicists are quite desirable on the job market. At Princeton, when a student decides to leave astrophysics, it's usually because they've been offered a ridiculously high-paying job on Wall Street or in a consulting firm. In this respect, going for a Ph.D. in astro is not a waste of your time; in fact, you gain a lot of computer skills (something that might have changed since starfysmn's time) and you're viewed as a top-notch problem solver (good for consulting firms).

What about those that do make it? Are they scratching out a living? Absolutely not. Professors of astronomy and cosmology are very well paid and the fact that they don't all make $100,000 a year does not immediately put them in the low income bracket. If you're a reasonable spender and you don't have 15 kids, you'll be able to get by just fine on a cosmologist's salary. If, as a postdoc, you're not satisfied with 40 or 50k a year, I think you need to do a serious re-evaluation of your priorities.

Finally, a firm grasp of general relativity and quantum mechanics is not required for a cosmologist, just for certain types of theoretical cosmologists (especially early universe people). Most of the necessary physics is classical or semi-classical.

But it's true, if you're a very money-centered person and don't like teaching students, then I would say academia in general is a bad idea. Also, you have to work and you have to be a good at mathematics and physics. If you enter the field without these qualities, you only have yourself to blame when life becomes frustrating.

[starfysmn]

If I still majored in astrophysics/astronomy, would I be able to get a masters/PhD degree in a different field of study? Or, If I am comfortable performing research and analysis of data at observatories/universities as a career, is that realistic?



Sorry, complexPHILOSOPHY, I didn't answer your question!

I don't know about the first question, to be honest. It depends on what field you are talking about. Physics BA/BS is more flexible than an astronomy BA/BS, but other than that I can't help you.

As for performing research and analysis of data at observatories/universities: This requires a PhD in your field. The only real exception to this is if you have some astronomy background (say) but you also have a really good background in, oh, computer science, or some other engineering background if we are talking about building instruments.

For example, there is a huge amount of image/signal processing that goes into the analysis of, say, Hubble data, or CCD data from any other telescope for that matter. Setting up the data pipelines for these things is a task that sometimes takes more time and effort, all of it programming, than anything else that astronomers do. You need to understand things like what is a convolution and what is an FFT, but if you can do that and you're really good at programming fortran/c/idl, then you can probably get a job somewhere without a PhD. Still, most people who do this sort of thing DO have a PhD in astronomy or related field, and in most cases you would be competing against them.

If you are happy to work in an astronomy as a support person, I can tell you that most departments are in constant need of good IT/sytem administrators. You definitely don't need a PhD for that, but you won't actually be doing much if any research.

Mechanical/optical engineers are always in demand, for building new telescopes and instruments.

Telescope operators (at observatories that actually have permanent paid operators, as opposed to ones where the visiting astronomers operate the telescopes) don't need PhD's, but an MA/MS is probably a good idea (I could be wrong here). Observatory support people don't need PhDs.

One place to look to see who's hiring and for what, is:
http://members.aas.org/JobReg/Jobregister.cfm
This board is geared primarily for PhD track astronomers, but it's a place to start....

Again, good luck!

[starfysmn]

SpaceTiger,

You are right that I was spewing lots of venom. Whew! Just the frustration of my own current job search. And, you are right that people who get kicked out *often* are simply not hard workers, although I would argue that the correlation is actually rather weak, knowing several counter-examples in both directions.

And you are right that you don't really need to be a GR/QM whiz. Probably in the end, personality and resilience is probably more important.

Regarding the money thing, though:
NOBODY goes into physics/astronomy/cosmology for the money. Everybody who goes into these fields is willing to make huge sacrifices in this regard to do what they love. That point is absolutely unassailable. However, (a) most people who go into these fields are also willfully ignorant of just how large of a sacrifice we are talking here, (b) when you get old enough to be married and have kids, your sacrifices can have significant ramifications for those who you love, not just yourself. It's one thing to live on ramen. It's another to ask your children to. Something to consider.

My first postdoc was a 1-yr position that paid 30k with no benefits (ie no health insurance, relocation, etc). Big mistake accepting that. I would be happy making 40-50 a year if I had some measure of job security/benefits. I don't think my priorities are out of whack. Quite the opposite.

So here's one last bit of gratuitous advice: Have some self-respect. Don't accept the first job you get offered just b/c you are happy they selected you. Sure, you aren't in this to get rich, but there are limits!

Anyway, again, best luck to everyone. And really, read Feibelman's book. It's golden.

[Locrian]

Jon_pan,

I would like to give you the same advice the man who convinced me to get a physics gave me. You see, after all his talk about how wonderful it was, two years later (towards the end of his PhD) he was left desperately searching for a job. After one particularly bad day (he had a wife and child, after all), he pulled me to the side and said:

"Don't get a degree without checking to see if there are jobs first."

Good advice. He was in astrophysics, by the way.

You could believe Spacetiger, or starfysmn or me, but why not check for yourself? Call up a few Wall Street firms or consulting firms and ask them how employable you'll be half way through your PhD in cosmology (that should be enlightening!). Examine the data for employability in Universities. Read.

The best information you've been provided with so far was Zapperz's link, but you should look hard at other data as well. Listen to what people say, but in the end, care more about what future employers say.

Forget this talk of liking something and giving over to a life of poverty to study it. Liking something, being employable, and being paid well for it is even better.

[SpaceTiger]

And, you are right that people who get kicked out *often* are simply not hard workers, although I would argue that the correlation is actually rather weak, knowing several counter-examples in both directions.

I don't doubt that hard workers get the shaft from time-to-time, but honestly, I don't think the correlation is very weak. I can't really quote statistics on that, though, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


However, (a) most people who go into these fields are also willfully ignorant of just how large of a sacrifice we are talking here, (b) when you get old enough to be married and have kids, your sacrifices can have significant ramifications for those who you love, not just yourself. It's one thing to live on ramen. It's another to ask your children to. Something to consider.

Not having children, I'm hesitant to comment on the difficulties of raising kids on a salary like that, but as a grad student, I make about 30k a year and have more than enough money to support myself. In fact, I have a lot of money in the bank, spend a good bit on my hobby (making rock music :wink:), and I go out to eat pretty much every day. If I'm ever forced to eat Ramen, it's because of convenience, not cost. I know the situation can be different in some places, particularly those where the cost of living is high (e.g. Santa Cruz), but that's something the student should take into account when choosing their school.

On family issues, I can only tell you what I see in those that do have families. Two of the grad students here have kids and they are certainly not struggling to get by in the program. The kids are raised in apartments, to be sure, but they're fed well and given good care. The primary problem, or so I'm told, is that the parent or parents are limited in the amount of time they can spend with their child. Personally, I would not have kids during grad school, but I don't get the impression it's as much a problem for the postdocs, who are paid at least 40k (probably more like 50k, I don't know exactly).

It's not luxury, but I'm not sure I would want to raise my kids in luxury anyway.

[Locrian]

My first postdoc was a 1-yr position that paid 30k with no benefits (ie no health insurance, relocation, etc).

This is a bit of information cute blurbs about how much money tenured professors make do not convey. I have no idea what the average time spent as a postdoc is in astrophysics, but for all phd's its almost a decade. The salary is abysmal and the competition fierce. Once you're out, you can spend years more as associate/assistant professors. Finally, you'll be making what your friends were making fifteen years earlier.

Congrats.

That little piece of information I don't know - how long you'll be a nobody in a postdoc job before moving on - that's something anyone going into a phd program really needs to find out.

[Locrian]

I don't get the impression it's as much a problem for the postdocs, who are paid at least 40k (probably more like 50k, I don't know exactly).

Not true for most everyone. 32-42 is more like it, less right when you start. Your college might be a bit better. Many are probably worse.

[starfysmn]

Time in postdocs? Hmm. Some people pass them directly, but this is rare. 7-8 years is not unheard of. If you don't get a really good postdoc offer to begin with, it's probably best to go right into industry/national labs. I have many friends who build nuclear weapons, which, by the way, an astrophysics degree prepares you for excellently. Just as in all other employment avenues, selling your soul gets you better pay (this is not a judgement - I did it too!).

As for how long you survive on soft money, which means that every couple years or so you have to get another grant or you're toast, and you earn about half of the professors? Well, some people do this for their entire careers. Quite a lot, actually.

SpaceTiger is talking about Princeton, which is tops. My program was ranked, well, tied for number 11 on the most recent USNews & World Report rankings. Of course these rankings should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The point, though, is this: OK, maybe you don't have to be Einstein, ace all your classes, and do renormalization in your sleep. However, I'd say if you don't get into a program that's, oh, in the top 10 to 20 ranked, then you should seriously reconsider your options. Which means, by the way, that in most states, going to the top-ranked physics department in that state is a waste of your time. Chances are you would be much better served getting a degree in electrical engineering, which is almost the same thing anyway but markets much better.

SpaceTiger probably does ok on 30k/yr, but this is not typical for a grad student. Hmm, it was about 6 yrs ago, but the most I ever made was 14k, and that was a good year. And out of that I had to pay a few thousand in tuition/fees every year. That is just one difference between a top-ranked program and one that is just off the top-10 cusp.

[SpaceTiger]

However, I'd say if you don't get into a program that's, oh, in the top 10 to 20 ranked, then you should seriously reconsider your options.

This I would agree with, but it depends on how much you love the field. There are definitely stories of people picking themselves up from poorly ranked schools (much lower than 11) and getting high-profile faculty positions, but it requires even more work and dedication than from a top 3 school. It all comes back to what you really want in life and how hard you're willing to work to get it.


SpaceTiger probably does ok on 30k/yr, but this is not typical for a grad student. Hmm, it was about 6 yrs ago, but the most I ever made was 14k, and that was a good year. And out of that I had to pay a few thousand in tuition/fees every year. That is just one difference between a top-ranked program and one that is just off the top-10 cusp.

The statistics Zapper linked don't say, but I seem to remember the monetary offers for the different schools (ranks ranging 1 to 10) as comparable. I don't remember anything as low as 14k, so maybe things have changed. Also, my pay has increased with time -- I started at more like 25k.

[starfysmn]

Thanks for the comments, SpaceTiger. Careers/funding is on my mind since NASA's ATP program has NOIs due today. I've spent WAY too much time on this page but hopefully some people have benefited. Physics has sort of ignored its problem. You'll find lots of pages like this
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/servlets/signposts.DegreeServlet?mode=View_sheet&id=55
where they say, gee, congratulations on your PhD. Now, with a little additional training, you are qualified to teach High School! It's an insulting little band-aid on a pustulent wound.

But, as in all things, if you persevere and keep from wasting your time on the web (ahem!), you'll do ok. Just remember, (1) Top-5 or top-10 program, (2) Pick your advisor well.

Later, cats....

[SpaceTiger]

But, as in all things, if you persevere and keep from wasting your time on the web (ahem!), you'll do ok.

I don't consider all time spent on the web to be a waste, but I agree with the general sentiment. :wink:

[cscott]

How much of this carries over to PhD's in more "practical" fields like condensed matter physics?

BTW this thread is kind of a bring down. I want to do my PhD in physics :frown:.

[physicsgrad]

HI
I am a physics grad student. I would like to say my opinion on Cosmology as a career choice. What i feel is that this is a superb choice ....but one must be prepared to take up a job in someother field also even after obtainnig PhD in cosmology,in case he does not get a scientist position.
If somebody is terribly fascinated with cosmology and unable to obtain job.....should join a job may be computers fileld but still continue working on problems in cosmology......definitely he will reach a stage of publishing papers in reputed journals.....the satisfaction that brings can not be said in words....the advantage with cosmology is that all u need is a pen paper a computer with mathematica and brain!.....so whatever the job u do for food and shelter .....pursue cosmolgy as this is the grandest job of anyhuman being......so as long as u do PhD in cosmology enjoy every monmet of life,.....after that even u do not ghet job in cosmology.....do not worry......no body can stop u publishing papers.....continue ur touch with the professors and keep working ....IAM SURE BEFORE U(WE) DIE U WILL CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING TO COSMOLOGY!REMEBER U WILL BE THE MOST RESPECTED IN THE SOCIETY MORE THAN CEO OF BOEING OR ANY BECAUSE U R THE GUY WHO CAN ANSWER HIS QUESTOINS!
GOOD LUCK

[Locrian]

At Princeton, when a student decides to leave astrophysics, it's usually because they've been offered a ridiculously high-paying job on Wall Street or in a consulting firm.

Do you have some firms in mind that do this?

[SpaceTiger]

Do you have some firms in mind that do this?

I can't speak to the hiring practice of specific firms, I'm just going on what we've been told by the faculty here, as well as the employment opportunities given to ex-grad students from this department. Is there a particular firm you were curious about?

[Locrian]

Is there a particular firm you were curious about?

Nope. I have a suspicion that the statement you made about astrophysics/cosmology students getting drafted off to private financial firms is misleading. It isn't that I don't think individuals from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc are regularly hired by big finance or Wal Street firms. It's that I think it has nothing to do with their studies in cosmology.

I could be wrong though. So I asked for some suggestions of firms with the intention of contacting them and seeing what they said.

To be clear about my motivations and their relevance to this thread, I have a BS in physics, have worked in industry for the past couple of years, and am in the process of choosing between a PhD in physics (and the resulting area of study) and an MBA. I've spent the last few weeks examining information such as what is found in this thread.

[SpaceTiger]

Nope. I have a suspicion that the statement you made about astrophysics/cosmology students getting drafted off to private financial firms is misleading. It isn't that I don't think individuals from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc are regularly hired by big finance or Wal Street firms. It's that I think it has nothing to do with their studies in cosmology.

They did say it had to do with their studies in cosmology (or, more specifically, astronomy), particularly as concerns numerical modelling (similar models are used on the stock market, for example). This comes from the professors, who spoke to some of the people who hire for these firms. The information is third-hand, so I don't know which companies or how reliable the source is.

[chisholm]

Good career choice? Depends on how you define "good".

I'm in the middle of my first postdoc doing cosmology (theory), and I'll echo the sentiment above by saying:

a) That you definitely don't do it for the money. An office-mate of mine who graduated with a Ph.D. in cosmology went off to do consulting in NY for 120K+ starting. Me, I'm making mid 30s. I know I could be making more elsewhere, but I'm able to make money doing what I love.

b) The job market is really tough (if you're not the best). I applied for 80+ postdoc jobs, was on two short lists, and got one offer. I am not the best. But I was good enough. If you are the best, then you'll have no problems finding a job. If you're not good enough, well then...

It all comes down to -- how much do you love doing cosmology?

[agsastronomer]

i am a freshman in high school. i am in love with science/math, and am very good at them (all A's) i get all A's in all of my classes (im a nerd, what can i say) i really want to be a cosmologist, i am doing a research paper on the job right now, i have read all of these posts, blogs, replys, whatever you want to call them, and i love, and hate what i am hearing, and none of these (whatever you want to call 'ems) have answered my questions that i have been searching for. what is the best place to look for work if you are a cosmologist? is it possible to get a job at NASA if you are a cosmologist? (i doubt it, but even if there is a chance, i would love to know)... should you get a p.h.D., or higher (if possible) to become a cosmologist? how much does a cosmologist in the U.S. make? Should i become a cosmologist, or become something else as well? (stellar astronomer, astronomer photographer, asrtophysist, solar astronomer, ect...) what collage(s) should i go to, to get the best degree? should i also get a teaching degree? i would love if someone could please answer these questions, i have asked everyone i know, i have done research, and i have found either nothing, or misinformation....

[Catherwood]

i find the study of cosmology very fascinating and now contemplating to study it. But is it a wise choice?

I mean, how practical is cosmology in everyday life? not that i really need it to be, i'm more than satisfied to have answers i've always been pondering about.

and is employment hard to find?

Before we start, let me admit that I am somewhat bitter about higher level physics as practiced in North America. I did a Ph.D. in astrophysics - one of the most serious mistakes I ever made in my life.

It's all about the publication. Even if you don't have anything to say, publish. If you suspect you might have something to say, publish and trumpet your own self-importance. I got a real good look at several physics and astronomy departments, and there are egos there that you couldn't pack into Stanford Stadium. If you don't have a taste for character assassination, dirty infighting, and promoting your own self-interest, find something else to do.

Now about employment. General physics (with a good specialization, choose carefully) is very employable. But cosmology - and I agree that it is fascinating stuff, forget it. The only real employment is in academia, and academic politics is everything they say it is and worse. Your best bet for finding a job is to cosy up to your supervisor (sleep with him/her, if that is what it takes), choose the right political faction, and in short become a total whore. If you aren't willing to do that, get a good technical specialization and go into industry.

- Catherwood.

[sin2beta]

I know this is kind of old, but I wanted to give my experience and advice.

Study what you want. And if you can't get a job in that field, you can get one in a different one. I studied physics and math at CU-Boulder for undergrad. Once I was done. I had several job offers (this was only after a B.A.). Part of it is location. Boulder had a bunch of labs. I doubt I would of had a lab job offer if I wasn't local and had local connections. So, try to pick a school with a lot of industry/research labs close by. I also had a finance/actuarial job offer. This was insanely high paying for a starting salary. Probably slightly low paying for the field. But after eating ramen, I had no idea what to do with this amount of money (well except school loans). The trick is to know what type of finance jobs to look for. Forecasting or actuarial firms love mathematicians and physicists. These majors were picked over finance majors and we didn't have to study finance. While in school just take the first two actuarial exams, you at least won't have to worry about unemployment. I learned about this from a math Ph.D who went there during my time at CU.

So, from my experience, if I got a degree in something I didn't like, I wouldn't be any better off. I just wouldn't have learned what I wanted to learn. This is true for Ph.D students too. The actuary salary I was offered was more than my sister's law salary. So, just going to law school or some other field for employment prospects makes little sense to me.

And if you were wondering, I decided to go to grad school. And while in school am working to teach high school. I took a completely different path. But, I think there is something to be said about following your passion or jobs that you like. That is the best advice I ever got from a professor.

[sin2beta]

Oh, and get involved in research really early. I started freshmen year, and that helped me so much. And not just with job prospects. It let me get more of an idea of what I wanted to do with my life. And most of all, not to take life so seriously. :-)

[arunma]

(with a good specialization, choose carefully) is very employable.

Could I ask you to expand on this a bit? I'm a PhD student in particle astrophysics, and every couple of days I wonder if I should have done condensed matter for employability reasons (I'm third year, so it's a bit too late to switch). Am I right to be concerned? Should I switch to a different field for my postdoc in order to maximize employability, and if so, what field should I go into?

I'm also interested to know what industry jobs I could get that involve doing physics. Everyone says that physics PhDs get jobs somewhere or another, but I'd prefer not to be some programmer or financial analyst. Any suggestions would be helpful.

[Locrian]

Could I ask you to expand on this a bit? I'm a PhD student in particle astrophysics, and every couple of days I wonder if I should have done condensed matter for employability reasons (I'm third year, so it's a bit too late to switch). Am I right to be concerned?

Absolutely. That entire area is a career deathtrap. That doesn't mean you won't be one of the lucky ones to make it through it good shape; just be aware of your odds and maximize your available options.

Should I switch to a different field for my postdoc in order to maximize employability, and if so, what field should I go into?

It was my experience that, if employability over a broad area is your goal, following the industry funding is a reasonable route. Follow the money back to defense or technology firms and you have the potential for some useful networking. However, I don't have any broad statistics or good studies demonstrating that; just a few years of experience and lots of personal research.

I'm also interested to know what industry jobs I could get that involve doing physics. Everyone says that physics PhDs get jobs somewhere or another, but I'd prefer not to be some programmer or financial analyst. Any suggestions would be helpful.

That's really the rub, isn't it? I've been reading this forum for years, and you can go back as far as you want and find threads that go something like this:

Newtoforums: So what can one do with a degree in physics?
Randomposter: All kinds of stuff that isn't physics! Awesome, isn't it?

That being said, I generally feel that, if one specializes carefully (there's that helpful phrase again. . .), one has a reasonable chance of getting a job in industry doing something that is roughly phsyicsish. At least, that was my feeling in early 2008. I'm a little unsure what the market is like now (but have my worries).

[Locrian]

in school just take the first two actuarial exams, you at least won't have to worry about unemployment.

While I think sin2beta has some good advice, I'd like to temper their optimism just a touch. sin2beta had no trouble getting a "finance/actuarial" (I'm not sure what that means - was it a job as a student actuary or not?) job offer. Neither did I. The problem is that we're probably outliers.

Over the past year almost everyone else entering the actuarial field has had trouble getting those offers, including career changers from math & science backgrounds. The actuarial job outlook got very ugly in late 2008, but has improved considerably for everyone except new hires. It's my impression things have only marginally improved for those entering the field and that the qualifications expected are rising. One actuarial exam used to get you in the door; now two and an internship are more standard, and three + may be standard soon.

That's not a reason not to knock out those tests. I do agree that having options is good, especially in the current economic climate. However in the end you'll only have so much time and energy in your job search, and I'm not convinced you will be able to really put forth a strong effort looking for both physics and actuarial work. The standard advice to entry level actuaries is to send out 100+ resumes and spend a great deal of time networking. That advice isn't that different than for science; doing both will be hard.

I'd also like to note that I've looked through a lot of quant job offers (and never applied to any of them; I made a decision at some point to go actuarial instead, for better or worse). If you graduated from a good university with good grades, they probably aren't looking for you - they are looking for top students form top schools, most of the time.

What I'm trying to get across is that while keeping options open is wise, this impression that is often given in this forum that you can always just slip into banking/finance/insurance if physics doesn't work out is, to most students most of the time, misleading.

[Amanheis]

To me it is really surprising and discouraging to read this thread. And I just talked to my advisor today who is a professor in astrophysics, and I mentionend this exact problem, since I saw the thread a few days ago. And he said that physicists are always very employable, just because of their problem solving strategies that they acquired during their PhD or whatever.
I'm interested in cosmology or something similar as well, but I woudln't mind doing something other than physics later on. Priorities have shifted, and if I get a decent offer for a stable job instead an underpayed, limited postdoc position, I'd gladly take it.
And I always hear that physicists are wanted. Career deathtrap? This confuses me. I can even back it up, at least in germany the unemployment rate amongst physicist in 2008 was roughly 2% (compare to regular unemployment rate of 8.5%). And it's going down.

http://www.dpg-physik.de/pdf/arbeitsmarkt_2008.pdf

The plot shows the absolute unemployment rate, green is the total. So the 2% are exactly the cosmologists? And why should it be that different in the USA? Some official numbers would be interesting.

[Locrian]

Well your priorities are different - you are arguing that things are ok, so long as you're employed. And I'd certainly agree that things could be worse.

I think though that this is one of the "gotcha" moments in a grad student's life. It's hard to be unemployed with a physics background, but actually getting a job someone would want is a different matter. One of my friends from grad school finished his PhD - a grand total of 11 years of education - so he could teach a couple of labs and maintain the educational equipment. I think it comes out to be about $12/hour or so.

His work has the depth, difficulty and pay of a retail store job. I'll be the first to admit he's unlikely to get fired, but I'm not going to be the one to tell him that.

[creepypasta13]

Could I ask you to expand on this a bit? I'm a PhD student in particle astrophysics, and every couple of days I wonder if I should have done condensed matter for employability reasons (I'm third year, so it's a bit too late to switch). Am I right to be concerned? Should I switch to a different field for my postdoc in order to maximize employability, and if so, what field should I go into?

I'm also interested to know what industry jobs I could get that involve doing physics. Everyone says that physics PhDs get jobs somewhere or another, but I'd prefer not to be some programmer or financial analyst. Any suggestions would be helpful.

I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't too enthusiastic about Locrian's answer

[Locrian]

I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't too enthusiastic about Locrian's answer

Have no fear - someone will eventually give you an answer you're more enthusiastic about ;)

[Locrian]

On a side note, it's amusing looking back at spacetiger discussing quants earlier in the thread. At the time (2006) I didn't even know what one was. It doesn't appear he did, either.

[mal4mac]

I really don't know if it's a good career choice, but I would also like to be a cosmologist.

What is better than searching (and perhaps finding) for the answers to the most important questions?

Initially, finding out what *are* the most important questions?

So, perhaps, philosophy/positve psychology would be better subjects to study? At least initially? "How can I be happy?" is the most important question I can think of. And it has nothing, directly, to do with cosmology. "The How of Happiness" by Sonya Lyubomirsky suggests that any significant project chosen for its intrinsic interest to you is a likely path to happiness. So studying cosmology, mathematics or literature might work, depending on your interests. So might building a sailboat or learning Spanish.

Whatever floats your boat...

[Sankaku]

One of my favorites :-)
http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Insecurity-Alan-W-Watts/dp/0394704681

[comp_math]

i find the study of cosmology very fascinating and now contemplating to study it. But is it a wise choice?

I mean, how practical is cosmology in everyday life? not that i really need it to be, i'm more than satisfied to have answers i've always been pondering about.

and is employment hard to find?

While I encourage people to study things that fascinate them, I must tell you this - finding a subject fascinating doesn't mean that you will like studying it. To study cosmology, you first need to know all your physics, math, chemistry, etc. If you seriously want to do cosmology for a living, you need a PhD. Employment is hard to find because cosmology requires one to have access to expensive facilities (if you are doing experimental work) to do serious work - you need some good connections. Good luck.

[mal4mac]

I'm also interested to know what industry jobs I could get that involve doing physics. Everyone says that physics PhDs get jobs somewhere or another, but I'd prefer not to be some programmer...

You will not be saying that when you are queuing at the soup kitchen...

[Entropee]

What I'm about to say just screams "CLICHE", I don't know about you guys but I'm not 100% sure Ill be alive in the next year, month, week, day, etc. Don't spend even a second getting a degree in engineering if you want to do cosmology, who cares if finding a cosmology related job is hard? Lifes too short to not enjoy what your doing, regardless of the consequences.

[MPWoods]

Hi, i am about to enter yr 12. I have done accelerated 2u math and i will do 4u next year. I have always loved physics and i was wondering if i should do cosmology. i am very good at the maths side of physics, but am not very good at writing essays. Is cosmology more mathematical or theoretical. from what i have heard it sounds really interesting, but i do not want it to turn out to be a subject like history.
BTW the subjects i am going to do are: 4U math, English, Physics, and either chemistry or cosmology....

please help me decide...

[quantumkiko]

I think not having a PhD is not an end-of-it-all for those who love cosmology (or for other physics fields in general). I want to talk of two groups that people who have interest can mostly belong to:

The first group are those people who can be contented just to know the technical or mathematical details behind the scientific topics that interest them. Well of course, this still requires quite a lot of mathematical maturity on their part. But if you have a knack for knowing such things, then this requirement should somehow be already given. With this attitude, people in this group don't have to force themselves to pursue a PhD and publish or do original research. This way, they can be like watchers or spectators, while still keeping interest and fascination with the frontiers of scientific research. This group is the audience. For them, there is nothing wrong to feel secure in their own seats and be intellectually stimulated at the same time.

The second group are the actors. These are the active scientists, those who abide by the publish or perish motto. As an analogy, they are the ones who would go hours on end just to keep themselves in shape for the acting on stage. They would go for the gamble and would definitely go for a life in scientific research, even if there's a chance of not being financially contented. But they are the ones who will have their own body of research work, who will be blessed to have advisers who can lead the into making new discoveries.

If you are really interested in science, I think it really helps to reflect on what group you belong to. If you belong to the first group, then you don't need to feel bad by not pursuing a PhD. Live your life as you would financially want it while still keeping your interest in science. As was said by starfysmn, "don't be afraid to follow the money". On the other hand, as Entropee would say, "Life is too short to not enjoy what you're doing, regardless of the consequences."

I belong to the 1st group, and this only came upon me while reading this thread. Some (or maybe most of us?) want to belong to the 2nd group. In my opinion, the most important point of this thread is that we really have to be honest about our capacities. We have to admit if we're not as good as we think we are. But if we somehow are, then it's a wise decision to pursue a PhD. What are you waiting for? Go create the next revolution in physics. :rolleyes:

Whichever group we belong to, we can still keep interested in science. And being interested, be an audience or an actor, is always a good thing. Isn't it? :!!)

[Sankaku]

Is cosmology more mathematical or theoretical.
If it is a high-school course, make sure you know what kind of 'cosmology' it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology

I can only think that, even if it is physical cosmology, at high-school it could only be a 'historical overview' type course. I could be wrong, though!

[Locrian]

What I'm about to say just screams "CLICHE", I don't know about you guys but I'm not 100% sure Ill be alive in the next year, month, week, day, etc. Don't spend even a second getting a degree in engineering if you want to do cosmology, who cares if finding a cosmology related job is hard? Lifes too short to not enjoy what your doing, regardless of the consequences.

So you have some terminal illness (or other serious difference in your force of mortality) that's going to knock you out before you hit the workforce and - for reasons that aren't apparent to me - want to spend your last remaining years studying in a school rather than out in the world doing something fun or useful or helpful or hurtful - or whatever. That's your choice and I'm glad you've made it and are sticking to it.

However the typical student entering college has an extremely high probability of being alive to graduate and find a job. They should weight their decision making with the appropriate probabilities, since not considering the consequences will probably have, well, negative consequences.

In short, the above advice is really, really bad advice for almost everyone.

[Proletari@t]

This is a great thread with outstanding insight. Thank you all for your input. I had no idea there was so much dedication (and math!) required just to cut hair and make people pretty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetology)!

But seriously... I just recently quit my relatively lucrative IT job to finish my undergrad and become a cosmologist so I could "ponder the mysteries of the universe." However, I received some sage advice from a working Astrophysicist at my school who said (and I paraphrase), "Go find something in Astro that you enjoy doing on a day-to-day basis and then ponder the mysteries of the universe in your free time."

I have thought long and hard about this advice she gave me, and I have realized that its some of the best advice one could possibly give an undergrad. Coming from working in corporate america for years, I realize the perils loving and industry and hating the details (or vice versa, for that matter). I am almost positive I will not be working in cosmology (or theory, for that matter) as my career, and I am still deciding what track to pursue. However, I now view her advice as a much-needed course correction that was necessary for me to realistically reach the goal of an Astro PhD.

[Entropee]

So you have some terminal illness (or other serious difference in your force of mortality) that's going to knock you out before you hit the workforce and - for reasons that aren't apparent to me - want to spend your last remaining years studying in a school rather than out in the world doing something fun or useful or helpful or hurtful - or whatever. That's your choice and I'm glad you've made it and are sticking to it.

However the typical student entering college has an extremely high probability of being alive to graduate and find a job. They should weight their decision making with the appropriate probabilities, since not considering the consequences will probably have, well, negative consequences.

In short, the above advice is really, really bad advice for almost everyone.

Well thats your opinion but id rather enjoy what time I have, you seem to take most everything for granted, not saying thats a bad thing.

[xcualquiera]

Well, I'm in the same picture. My dream is to study Cosmology. I have taken Math and Physics majors in order to study Cosmology. After reading this thread over and over and once again, I decided I will spend a year in a MS in England doing what I love and then spend another year in doing an actuarial studies MS...if needed. Does this make any sense to anyone?

[mal4mac]

What is better than searching (and perhaps finding) for the answers to the most important questions?

Beating your head against a brick wall? :)

[pjudge]

I just think it's ironic that the people that are out of the jobs and bashing dedicated future physicists just so happen to be the ones who are most on this single forum. Need I say more? Getting a phd and job in physics requires more than just a mental attitude towards dedication, it requires a lifestyle of it. If you really care about physics, why need consideration beyond that? If you really care about it, it ceases to be a career. It's a philosophy of life. If it's not a philosophy of your life, you should work towards that end because pursuing physics will require it.

[xcualquiera]

I just think it's ironic that the people that are out of the jobs and bashing dedicated future physicists just so happen to be the ones who are most on this single forum. Need I say more? Getting a phd and job in physics requires more than just a mental attitude towards dedication, it requires a lifestyle of it. If you really care about physics, why need consideration beyond that? If you really care about it, it ceases to be a career. It's a philosophy of life. If it's not a philosophy of your life, you should work towards that end because pursuing physics will require it.


Yes, I step back with my comment. I agree it is a philosophy of life. I can't imagine anyone who has passionately devoted so many years to physics starting a completely different job in public relationships and the private sector without a painful cost of living style.

[twofish-quant]

Yes, I step back with my comment. I agree it is a philosophy of life. I can't imagine anyone who has passionately devoted so many years to physics starting a completely different job in public relationships and the private sector without a painful cost of living style.

I can since I've done it.

One thing that you do learn once you get into graduate school is the politics of science, and the political skills that you learn doing physics are pretty much the same as the political skills that you need anywhere else in the world.

Among the people that are doing physics, *no one* is unemployed, and everyone ten years post Ph.D. is living at middle class or in some cases upper class standards of living. Don't go into physics for the money, but don't avoid it because you think that physics means a life of poverty because it doesn't.

[FarFromHome10]

I've been waiting sixteen years to follow my dreams of studying space professionally.
What major can I follow in college to pursue that?
(without the fear-installation of the previous comments)

[petergreat]

One thing that you do learn once you get into graduate school is the politics of science, and the political skills that you learn doing physics are pretty much the same as the political skills that you need anywhere else in the world.

Too true. I only recently realized that even grad students need to give talks everywhere to advertise their work, otherwise few people bother to look at their papers. I also realize how much popular science (which I read avidly when I was in school) is written not intending to educate people, but to create hype about their subfield to attract public funding.

[twofish-quant]

Nope. I have a suspicion that the statement you made about astrophysics/cosmology students getting drafted off to private financial firms is misleading.

I have some first hand experience in this sort of thing. :-) :-)

It isn't that I don't think individuals from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc are regularly hired by big finance or Wal Street firms. It's that I think it has nothing to do with their studies in cosmology.

Harvard, Princeton, and Yale cosmology Ph.D.'s tend not to get hired by Wall Street firms because they can usually find a job in a national lab or academic post. The astrophysics Ph.D.'s that tend to get hired in finance are Ph.D.'s from other schools, because they are locked out of the academic job market.

I could be wrong though. So I asked for some suggestions of firms with the intention of contacting them and seeing what they said.

You'll probably reach the wrong people. One problem with getting a physics Ph.D. job in finance is that if you talk to someone in HR or someone that does general recruitment, they are usually pretty clueless. Also the firms that hire physics Ph.D.'s are the firms that you've heard in the news. Morgan-Stanley, Goldman-Sachs, JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Credit Suisse, and those are just the investment banks. There are also hedge funds (Blackrock, DBShaw, RenTech, and probably fifty others that I haven't mentioned.)

There aren't a huge number of jobs, but there aren't a large number of applicants. In a good year, a bank may hire about a dozen or so physics Ph.D.'s, and your typical investment banks will have about 100 or so STEM Ph.D.'s in a head count of 30,000. But a 100 Ph.D.'s is a lot of hiring.

I have a BS in physics, have worked in industry for the past couple of years, and am in the process of choosing between a PhD in physics (and the resulting area of study) and an MBA. I've spent the last few weeks examining information such as what is found in this thread.

Do what you love. If your primary consideration is career, the MBA will be better. If you are totally committed to learning physics, then go with the Ph.D.

[twofish-quant]

IAM SURE BEFORE U(WE) DIE U WILL CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING TO COSMOLOGY!REMEBER U WILL BE THE MOST RESPECTED IN THE SOCIETY MORE THAN CEO OF BOEING OR ANY BECAUSE U R THE GUY WHO CAN ANSWER HIS QUESTOINS!
GOOD LUCK

No you won't. :-) :-) :-)

That's when you figure out whether or not you really have passion, when you realize that people don't look up to you for what you are doing. This is particularly a problem in industry. I do all sorts of cool semi-physics stuff, but I can't take credit for any of it. They don't even like for me to talk about what I'm doing.

So no credit. But sometimes it's cool to discover something interesting, even if no one else knows or cares that you did it.

[twofish-quant]

Before we start, let me admit that I am somewhat bitter about higher level physics as practiced in North America. I did a Ph.D. in astrophysics - one of the most serious mistakes I ever made in my life.

One of the ironies here is that I think my getting a Ph.D. in astrophysics was one of the best decisions that I've ever made. I think one reason I love my Ph.D. is that I got out of academia as quickly as I did. I work in a big financial firm, and the irony is that my work is much closer to my ideal of academia than a lot of people that stayed in the university, which is one reason I left.

[twofish-quant]

And he said that physicists are always very employable, just because of their problem solving strategies that they acquired during their PhD or whatever.

That's been my experience.

Also, it is hard to get a job with a physics Ph.D. However, it's even harder to get a job without a physics Ph.D.

The other thing that helps is not to be picky about the job that you do. If you just want to get a job. That's easy. If you want to get a job in which you do "interesting things." That's also not to hard. If you have some very set ideas of the type of job that you want, then it gets harder. For example, if you absolutely refuse to do programming, then closes a lot of doors.

The plot shows the absolute unemployment rate, green is the total. So the 2% are exactly the cosmologists? And why should it be that different in the USA? Some official numbers would be interesting.

No one that I know of with a physics Ph.D. is unemployed, and everyone is doing something upper middle class. I know of some physics Ph.D.'s that aren't thrilled with their job, but that's something different.

[twofish-quant]

If you really care about physics, why need consideration beyond that? If you really care about it, it ceases to be a career. It's a philosophy of life. If it's not a philosophy of your life, you should work towards that end because pursuing physics will require it.

However, if physics is a philosophy of life, then you may find yourself happier outside of academia. If someone offered me a job as a professor teaching astrophysics at $80K, then I'd take it in a second. Except that those jobs aren't there so I have to get as close as I can to what I want to do.

The problem with working as a post-doc for $30K is that they just will not let you do post-docs for the rest of your life, so you have to figure out what to do once that ends.

[twofish-quant]

The information is third-hand, so I don't know which companies or how reliable the source is.

I can answer questions first hand. :-)

Essentially, the equations that describe option prices are random walk which your basic diffusion equation. (Look up Black Scholes equation). That's one game. Another game is algorithmic trading. Suppose you go into your discount broker and sell 1000 shares of Exxon. At that moment, it's unlikely that at that very moment, someone wants to buy 1000 shares of Exxon. So what you do that you sell your shares to a trader that hopes to keeps it around hoping to resell the shares when someone that really does want 1000 shares of Exxon shows up.

Except that nowadays, you can automate that with a program that buys and sells shares using some algorithm that someone wrote. This involves people that model these sorts of things, and then someone else that programs the computers.

Also every investment bank and hedge fund has this big giant supercomputer in the back room and you need thousands of people to babysit those computers.

[PhysDrew]

I looked up the black scholes equation and it looks fascinating. I'm currently studying a double degree in maths and physics (astrophysics), and was thinking of taking mathematical modelling, computational maths (primarily MATLAB) and some statistical modelling/applied statistics subjects, in your experience would these be adequate to move into the finance industry?

[twofish-quant]

I looked up the black scholes equation and it looks fascinating.

Glad you think so. The interesting thing about the black-scholes model is that it's wrong, and the black-scholes model doesn't work for any financial derivative, and hasn't worked since 1987.

So what does work? Well it changes, and that's why they are looking for people with physics backgrounds.

I'm currently studying a double degree in maths and physics (astrophysics), and was thinking of taking mathematical modelling, computational maths (primarily MATLAB) and some statistical modelling/applied statistics subjects, in your experience would these be adequate to move into the finance industry?

There are lots of different ways in, and lots of different jobs. It so happens that a few of those jobs need people with astrophysics skills.

Curiously enough, if you are interested in going into finance through physics, you are better off focusing on physics rather than finance. There are some "hard core simulations" in finance in which the type of experience that people are looking for are people with deep computational fluid dynamics experience.

[PhysDrew]

Thanks for the info, yeah I've got some CFD coming up in my comp maths units, so looks like I'm on the right track at least.
Thanks again

[twofish-quant]

Thanks for the info, yeah I've got some CFD coming up in my comp maths units, so looks like I'm on the right track at least.
Thanks again

Something else to remember is that you can only learn so much in a classroom. At some point (and the earlier the better), you'll need to go out and figure out stuff that no one else has figured out. Something that is worth doing is to try to download some astrophysics code from the internet and try to get it running, Also, some of the knowledge that is valuable is "procedural" rather than "declarative" (i.e. you can't learn how to ride a bike by reading about it.)

This makes it pretty hard to answer the question "what should I learn to get into finance?" It turns out that the bits of knowledge that are really high value are things that people haven't quite figured out, and haven't been written down.

[jellyfr]

Wow... I'm currently studying in France (where research is very underpaid compared to the US)... I'm in first year of "Maths Sup" or "prepa" as we call it. It's basically 2 years of intense Maths/Physics (my section) or Physics/Chemistry *** whooping, where you have about 35h of class per week, a 3-4h exam every Saturday morning and about 2-4h of work needed every day afterclass to be well graded. (Well graded means 10-12/20 is that like a C or D in the US?), most of the students get 5-7/20 (E?)... So basically it's to train you for numerous exams to enter the TOP engineering schools (and some not so top actually...) and it's a fierce competition between students...

I really can't take it anymore, especially because I don't want to be an engineer. My dream is Physics, Astro or Cosmology, even theoretical... The good news that prepa gives the equivalence of the first 2 years of Maths Physics bachelor with an automatic B, and and A for students who had 10/20 or more on regular basis (or showed great progress).
I was hoping to be able to transfer to a UK/US/CA faculty (I'm a Canadian citizen) to finish my bachelor, gor for a Physics Msc and Phd... But after reading this my dreams seem crushed.

But I really want to be close to the cosmology/astrophysics field... Now that I am aware of how improbable my dream will come true, and fully conscious that I'm not in the top 500 students that will get access to the TOP French engineering schools, I am asking:
What specific area of engineering will I be able to stay close to the physician's world, I mean... What kind of engineers designed the LHC? Electronics? Electric? There are lot's of lesser engineering schools that are specialized in particular domain, like nano-technologies, encryption... And basically all of our professors are only able to give us information on the top 30 "A+ and A schools" I know they want us to get into the best, but they really suck.

[mal4mac]

If you have some very set ideas of the type of job that you want, then it gets harder. For example, if you absolutely refuse to do programming, then closes a lot of doors.

No one that I know of with a physics Ph.D. is unemployed, and everyone is doing something upper middle class. I know of some physics Ph.D.'s that aren't thrilled with their job, but that's something different.

I enjoyed my first non-physics programming job a lot more than my MSc in Astronomy, even though Astronomy had been my all-consuming hobby since I was about 10. Funny old world...

[Entropee]

It would be cool to start this thread up again. I'm starting to have some "fears" that a double major in physics / astronomy will still leave me with a low chance of doing actual physics and astronomy as opposed to banking and or computer programming. O__o

[twofish-quant]

It would be cool to start this thread up again. I'm starting to have some "fears" that a double major in physics / astronomy will still leave me with a low chance of doing actual physics and astronomy

What are your chances of doing actual physics and astronomy if you don't double major in it? :-) :-) :-)

as opposed to banking and or computer programming. O__o

There is a pretty good chance that you will be doing banking or computer programming. However, if you are curious you'll find that you are doing banking and computer programming things that are like physics things.

[Entropee]

Explain please haha. I fail to see how banking relates to physics. Programming I could see I suppose.

[jspenuk]

Explain please haha. I fail to see how banking relates to physics. Programming I could see I suppose.

I think twofish-quant meant quantitative analysis, where you could be using some of the advanced maths skills acquired when studying for a physics degree. You will not be doing physics per se, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_analysis_(finance)

[twofish-quant]

Explain please haha. I fail to see how banking relates to physics. Programming I could see I suppose.

Here is a random paper that gives you an idea of what I do

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344959

[Entropee]

Thats actually pretty cool. As long as I am using my brain. I would however like to be working with something science related too. If possible of course.