- #36
RestlessMind
- 173
- 0
If you go through the years of work to get a PhD, can you earn more money as a physicist outside of the university than other physicists who may only have a bachelor's or master's?
TMFKAN64 said:Did Ed Witten really get a Ph.D. in two years, or did he get it in five years (with an MA along the way)?
And somehow I doubt if he works 30 hours per week, anyway...
I am immersed in science and really enjoy such immersion, working - i.e., doing what I enjoy (well, almost; there are also administrative duties which I only do because it is demanded or needed) 70-100 hours a week, most weeks of the year, even during holidays, for many, many years now. And I regret not having twice the time for it.Ryker said:I wonder how many people that are immersed in science really enjoy such immersion and how many just do it in hopes of a better tomorrow.
A great post, and I guess the "problem", at least for me personally, is that the answer to the second question in your first point is yes, but I can't come up with one to the first question yet. I guess at this time, if hard-pressed, it would be no, but that isn't just doing science for 80 hours per week, it's doing anything for such an amount of time (I'd probably even get bored of hockey, if I had to watch that much of it, and that says a lot ). Now if that disqualifies me from research, then it seems I'm going to either have to develop an even stronger interest in the coming years or change my expectations.G01 said:1. Instead of asking yourself if you would be happy doing science 80 hours a week, you should ask yourself if you would be happy doing science, regardless of how many hours you needed to work. Because in grad school, you just don't know, and that is the truth.
2. If you want a job that gives you steady, definite hours with a steady amount of time, every week for other activities, then you do not want to be a grad student. If you don't want to build your schedule around your job, then grad school is not for you. If you want a job that pays you well for your time, then you do not want to be in grad school.
I agree, sometimes I do tend to idealize things and think about how things should be, instead of how things are. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, though. If everyone always just took things for what they were and never tried to change them, then there would never be any progress or change. Then, on the other hand, I know it doesn't make much sense fighting against the windmills.twofish-quant said:You have to distinguish between how things are, and how things should be.
I guess your answer applied to undergraduate programs, if I gather correctly. But the thing I heard was for graduate studies, so would you agree with that, as well? And I do realize this is a gross simplification, and that the relationship isn't as straight-forward, even if there is some truth to it.twofish-quant said:There's a bit of truth in this. On the other hand, neither Harvard or MIT have weed-out classes in physics, and one thing that MIT faculty are always trying to get students to do is to *relax*. In most public state schools, the faculty are trying to push the students to do the work, whereas the culture of MIT is such so that the faculty are trying to keep the students from doing too much. I remember seeing a big poster next to the physics turn in boxes saying "GET SOME SLEEP." The thing that the faculty were always telling us was "don't worry about grades, things will work themselves out."
The other thing is that you have to be careful with samples. I can say that the average UT Austin undergraduate is less hyper-competitive than the the average MIT student. On the other hand, I think that the average UT Austin physics or CS major is either as competitive or in some cases more so than physics or EECS majors at MIT.
When I was talking about top schools, I guess I actually meant "top schools" then. I just meant schools with the highest reputation and rankings, I didn't want to go into whether they offer superior education or not.twofish-quant said:Also this talk of "top schools" is pretty bogus. The major state schools have physics programs that are as good as the big names. Having worked at both, I don't think that I got an inferior education (or would have worked less) at UT Austin than at MIT. One reason why it was good for me to have gone to UT Austin was that so that I could see first hand that the quality of the graduate education is about the same and in some areas much better.
Yeah, again I agree, and the reason I ditched my original career and am now doing a second degree in Physics is exactly due to the realization that work constitutes a huge chunk of everyone's life, so I want(ed) to work with something that I see as an important and satisfying part of my life anyway.twofish-quant said:People talk about work-life balance, but in order to get it, you have to basically change the whole system. I don't think about work-life balance because ***my work is my life***.
I guess you're right, but then again, what is the center of one's life? Does it mean that if something is the center of your life that you are prepared to forego everything else? I don't know, I think it doesn't, so maybe we disagree here.twofish-quant said:Also, we have to distinguish between what "is" and what "should be." What I'm saying is that if physics is not the center of your life, then you really should reconsider whether or not graduate school is a good thing for you.
twofish-quant said:Also, the reason that I didn't end up tenured faculty is that I like thinking about things other than physics. Because I took things other than physics seriously, I didn't get into my choice of graduate school, and because I thought family was more important than physics, I got out before doing a post-doc. This means that the people that did get those jobs are more insane than I am.
The other thing is that there is a trade-off. I spent some serious time learning computer programming and economics. This meant that I was in good shape when I got knocked out and had to find a job, but it pretty much doomed any chance of getting an academic career through the traditional route.
Physics is the center of my life. Getting a research professorship isn't, and that knocked me out of the game.
Alright, that's a fair assessment and a good explanation. I guess my problem is I tend to want it all, to be the best I can in everything (that is, not the best when compared to others, but just to be at my best), and get frustrated when I can't due to time constraints.twofish-quant said:They don't. You have to make some decisions.
Based on what you've written, I would perhaps be happier taking a route akin to yours, as well. That is, taking a route, which makes, as you say, physics and maths the center of one's life, but still allows pursuit of other interests.twofish-quant said:It took me a while to figure it out, but my life really revolves around "figuring out cool things about the universe" and that may or may not conflict with other things. In particular, once I took a look at what it involved, I really didn't want a "career in physics."
However, getting a Ph.D. was useful. Also the fact that I had to *focus* helped me a lot. The problem with the universe is that there are too many cool things about it, and I usually need some external force to keep me from getting too distracted.
You don't have to watch science - but to do it. If hockey were your life interest, you'd watch, play, discuss it with others, practice, get tuition, learn new practices, read stories about great players, great matches, and the history of the subject, buy equipment, prepare for special occasions, win medals, give interviews, etc. -- more than enough to give you a varied and fulfilling life.Ryker said:it's doing anything for such an amount of time (I'd probably even get bored of hockey, if I had to watch that much of it, and that says a lot ).
You love something only if you are prepared to sacrifice a lot for it.Ryker said:what is the center of one's life? Does it mean that if something is the center of your life that you are prepared to forego everything else?
You love something only if you are prepared to sacrifice a lot for it.
I advocate learning science and doing science with love, and keeping the eyes open for all the things that are needed to do that well, which includes finding out how to see and get the opportunities to do it, finding supportive friends, and figuring out how to remain mentally balanced in the ups and downs of one's life.deRham said:True, but a career in science is not the same as doing science. You probably knew this while posting, but not everyone reading likely gets the sharp distinction.
Diracula said:I'd like to note that I'm of the opinion that the very best researchers have a variety of interests and don't spend all of their waking hours on physics. Read some cognitive science/neuroscience articles on the modern view of how creativity works to see why.
G01 said:I'll ask the question again, Are you will to put in the time needed or just the time you think optimal?
As someone living the life of a Ph.D. student right now, I'll say I honestly think the degree should require this type of immersion. If we remove that immersion, lessen it, or take some of the workload away, aren't we taking away the meaning of the degree with it?
Diracula said:Everyone works at different rates and efficiencies. It also of course depends on the department, your advisor, and your project.
But, put someone with Ed Witten's brain and personality in a really supportive environment with a project on the low end of the distribution in "time required to complete" and you can probably do the minimum to complete a PhD in like 30 hours a week and 2 years. Put someone of average intelligence on a harder project and crappy environment (department + advisor) and a very thorough worker (i.e. doing the "maximum" rather than the "minimum" to complete the PhD) and you could probably get someone that works like 80+ hour weeks for 8+ years before they are done.
Basically, I think it's clearly true that certain individuals in certain circumstances can complete a PhD without putting in crazy hours. (Disclaimer: not a PhD student nor graduate)
And I do think it would be useful for those deciding on graduate school or not if some organization kept stats not just on average completion time, but also average hours per week worked and overlay that with the distribution for completion time. It would give a clearer picture of "what it takes" to get a PhD.
ParticleGrl said:This same relationship has made it impossible to continue in academia. I don't think I am alone in this- the people I know who had the most balanced lives in graduate school are the ones who are leaving the field, both voluntarily and involuntarily.
Diracula said:I'd like to note that I'm of the opinion that the very best researchers have a variety of interests and don't spend all of their waking hours on physics. Read some cognitive science/neuroscience articles on the modern view of how creativity works to see why.
Diracula said:I don't know how long he took. I was just using him as an example of someone at the relative "peak" for someone with the mind and personality to succeed in physics
hypothesized that someone like him could get a PhD in a really short amount of time in the right situation if he/she wanted to.
Diracula said:II can't speak for OP, but what I think he was getting at was that "total immersion" for a lot of people, maybe him, is perhaps spending 40-45 hours a week, occasionally 50-60+ when necessary, at work/school/lab/office with a lot of time outside of this arena (perhaps at home) studying, reading, and thinking about your work.
I don't think spending <60 hours a week at the office necessarily means you are not immersed in the PhD environment.
I do think once you start expecting (and it is necessary to complete the degree) an average of 70-80+ hours a week at the office/lab
I also think OP may have been asking if it is possible, for some people, to do a PhD putting in something like 40-50 hours a week. My answer is that yes, this almost certainly has to be true, because as I said before there is a distribution of "physics ability" among physicists.
It is dangerous to assume you are one of those people though without some kind of evidence, so don't go to graduate school expecting you can complete a PhD with these hours if it is a necessary condition for you to matriculate.
fss said:American PhDs are usually 5-6 years of intense study and research for your thesis. PhD students typically do not have other jobs while in their course of study.
Reshma said:Nice posts twofish-quant and G01!
If it helps, one can read this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=407096883&ids=0Mdj4Pd38McjgIcPwUdzAMdP0Qb3kVdPAOejsMd2MUd3cTcjgUc3gId34UczAPcj4Q&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=yiaag-68
fatra2 said:I don't know about America, but I thought PhD students normally have an assistant position with their professor. Either as a teaching assistant or a research assistant are both possibilities.
Is it really that you have to work 60h/weeks on your personal research?
twofish-quant said:I don't think Ed Witten has been particularly successful at physics at all, and I'm curious why you think he is. He is a brilliant mathematician, but he has been spectacularly unsuccessful at physics.
hypothesized that someone like him could get a PhD in a really short amount of time in the right situation if he/she wanted to
Wrong. It's like saying someone really smart could make it rain if they wanted to. When you are doing your Ph.D. you *will* run into unexpected and time consuming difficulties. This *will* happen because you are doing something original, and if you knew what all of the issues were, then it wouldn't be research.
twofish-quant said:And I'm saying that this is totally wrong. Physics ability has nothing to do with it.
And it's not just me. Everyone else in this thread that has actually gotten a Ph.D. is saying pretty consistent things. This is one reason I think it's essential to get a Ph.D. if you want to do research, because it let's you see what physics research is like.
It's even more dangerous to think that you will spend less time if you are smart. Smart has nothing to do with it.
Also a lot of the really time consuming parts of physics aren't the parts that require a lot of brilliance. About 80% of my time was spending finding the @#$@#$#@ bug in the #@$@#$#@ program. The key "ah-hah" moment was something I figured out in a weekend. The next *two years* was spending debugging FORTRAN code.
Diracula said:(Disclaimer: not a PhD student nor graduate)
elfboy said:seems like too much work
Mobusaki said:I want to say that they would, but the cult-like impression I'm given from this thread makes me think not.
Mobusaki said:Unless UK physicists are sub-scientists because their phd's take less time to get.
Mobusaki said:I'm curious if the scientific community would pay any mind to someone who while tinkering in their garage discovered some new physical phenomena, researched it, and tried to publish their results. I want to say that they would, but the cult-like impression I'm given from this thread makes me think not.
Vanadium 50 said:I think the phrase you are looking for is ""self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
There is a long history of contributions made by amateur astronomers. However, these amateurs have put the time into become experts. There is no substitute for that.
UK students are at a definite disadvantage over their US, German and other colleagues in applying for postdocs. STFC has in the last few years allowed for longer PhD-studentships, so it sounds like they have decided the UK should be more like Germany rather than the first.
elfboy said:it's too bad , not much can be done about it though
It seems the USA, in particular, is prone to cultist behavior.
Mobusaki said:I'm curious if the scientific community would pay any mind to someone who while tinkering in their garage discovered some new physical phenomena, researched it, and tried to publish their results. I want to say that they would, but the cult-like impression I'm given from this thread makes me think not.
Mobusaki said:What if UK students are at a disadvantage not because the quality of their phd education is any worse, but only because people think it is, or want to punish them for getting it done quicker when they think it should have taken longer?