About Astronomy — do you think this is pointless?

[Alex_Sanders]

The situation is, a lot ppl that studied Astronomy in universities did at last not get a job that very much relevant to their specialities, but, if not some but most of them, had to choose a career in relatively Mathematics oriented field, like market analysis.

The payscale is good, not much doubt can be put, but it really isn't the point is it? Anyone chose to study astronomy really wouldn't care how much they would be paid, but what they would do after graduation, however there are only very limited few institute and observatory that can grant them the opportunity to work in, so it would always be the "winner takes all", the best of the best can live their dreams while those who didn't quite got out of the shade will be flushed far away from their ideal.

Your thoughts?

 

[phyzguy]

How is it different from many other fields? Suppose you like to sing - would you expect people to pay you to sing no matter how good you are at it? No - in fact only the very, very best singers will be able to make a living at it. So if you like to sing but aren't good enough at it to make a living at it, what do you do? You get a job doing something else, and you join the church choir. Astronomy is the same way. If you are good enough at it to make a living doing it, great. If not, find another way to put bread on the table and do it as a hobby.

We should be thankful that our society is rich enough to pay anyone to do pure science. In the past, the only people who could afford to do it were people that were wealthy through other means.

 

[eri]

It's nice to say you don't care about how much you get paid, and if you're making 16k as a grad student in the middle of nowhere where rent is cheap it's easy to imagine, but then you find out the job you can get is in a major city where rent alone will cost you 20k a year, you're deep in credit card debt from all those conference trips that took forever to get reimbursed for, and you have to pay back your student loans - and now money actually does matter.

If you really love astronomy, go for it. I thought I did, even got the PhD and a postdoc in the field, but whether or not I'll still be in it in 5 years is still up in the air. I might eventually decide to take job security, not moving around as much, only working 40 hours a week, and a much higher salary over moving every few years to places I don't want to live where I'll be paid less than I'm making as a postdoc to work 80 hours a week.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

It's nice to say you don't care about how much you get paid, and if you're making 16k as a grad student in the middle of nowhere where rent is cheap it's easy to imagine, but then you find out the job you can get is in a major city where rent alone will cost you 20k a year, you're deep in credit card debt from all those conference trips that took forever to get reimbursed for, and you have to pay back your student loans - and now money actually does matter.

Wait a minute, 16k a year for a grad student? Are you kidding? No grads makes that little, you meant 16k a month.

If you really love astronomy, go for it. I thought I did, even got the PhD and a postdoc in the field, but whether or not I'll still be in it in 5 years is still up in the air. I might eventually decide to take job security, not moving around as much, only working 40 hours a week, and a much higher salary over moving every few years to places I don't want to live where I'll be paid less than I'm making as a postdoc to work 80 hours a week.

I'd say forget anything unpleasant about it, I mean c'mon, you made it that far, you are quite academically successful, and you have no idea how many ppl are dribbling for a life like yours. How many scientist ppl would remember eventually? Brian Greene, Edwin Hubble, Carl Sagan, Lee Smolin, Steven Weinberg, George Zweig... all in the websites for famous Jewish americans... and how many wallstreet analyst you can recall?
... None, there isn't even a page dedicated for them.

Just what kinda life it must be! You don't have to worry about mundane matters, all you need is working tirelessly in front computer screens processing seas of information on celestial bodies, appreciate the profound poetry and beauty of the universe... fly from places to places to meet best minds this once green and cool planet can give...observe into the space beyond the limit of any optical devices using most sophisticated mathematical tools...Why choose putting your feet back to the ground while you can live a life of dreams?

 

[Alex_Sanders]

How is it different from many other fields? Suppose you like to sing - would you expect people to pay you to sing no matter how good you are at it? No - in fact only the very, very best singers will be able to make a living at it. So if you like to sing but aren't good enough at it to make a living at it, what do you do? You get a job doing something else, and you join the church choir. Astronomy is the same way. If you are good enough at it to make a living doing it, great. If not, find another way to put bread on the table and do it as a hobby.

We should be thankful that our society is rich enough to pay anyone to do pure science. In the past, the only people who could afford to do it were people that were wealthy through other means.

Yes you got a point there... but I think it is particularly cruel for this field.

 

[SpiffyKavu]

Wait a minute, 16k a year for a grad student? Are you kidding? No grads makes that little, you meant 16k a month.

No, that number is accurate. I just got accepted into graduate school this past semester, and one of my offers was $16k. You could pick up an additional $3k if you teach or do research over the summer. I ended up going somewhere else, but the pay isn't much more.

 

[Redbelly98]

Wait a minute, 16k a year for a grad student? Are you kidding? No grads makes that little, you meant 16k a month.

Grad students do not make much. In the 1990's I made about 12k (USA $) per year as a grad student, so 16k seems about right for these days.

It's very different than a college graduate working in a company, is that what you mean when you say "grad"?

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Grad students do not make much. In the 1990's I made about 12k (USA $) per year as a grad student, so 16k seems about right for these days.

It's very different than a college graduate working in a company, is that what you mean when you say "grad"?

Yea, sorry about the misunderstanding. I mean postgrad, but this one doesn't mean anything much different but you get the point, ... oh well.

 

[JaredJames]

Grad, post grad, it doesn't really matter. None of these people are going to walk into a $200,000 per year job. 16k/month is the most unrealistic figure I've heard put out there.

 

[dsanz]

Grad, post grad, it doesn't really matter. None of these people are going to walk into a $200,000 per year job. 16k/month is the most unrealistic figure I've heard put out there.

Lol, I reacted the same way about the $16k/month... not even a full professor.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Now I'm completely lost folks, just what do you mean by 16k is unreal? It's too much or too little?

I think it is fair to say after you graduate from grad school, you are almost destined to get a six figure pay job, right?

 

[dsanz]

Now I'm completely lost folks, just what do you mean by 16k is unreal? It's too much or too little?

I think it is fair to say after you graduate from grad school, you are almost destined to get a six figure pay job, right?

There is a chance that you are just joking now, but assuming you're not...

I suggest that you investigate on the salaries of physicists, there are some good websites out there. 16k/month is out of the question for academic physicists, at least normal positions. 16k/YEAR is a very reasonable stipend for a physics grad student.
Getting a physics Ph.D. is VERY different from say an MBA. Your statement about being almost destined to get a six figure pay job after grad school is VERY wrong. Your statement would only sound a little vague if you graduated from Yale's business grad school, but your statement is simply ridiculous if you're referring to physics grad schools (any school and any subfield). Again, I recommend that you look up some numbers.

 

[JaredJames]

Now I'm completely lost folks, just what do you mean by 16k is unreal? It's too much or too little?

16k per month is not going to happen. Per year, certainly.

I think it is fair to say after you graduate from grad school, you are almost destined to get a six figure pay job, right?

No, no you're not. As per dsanz, unless you leave a very prestigious school and walk into a very, very good job you aren't going to get anywhere near that.

Reality check required. I don't know where you get your figures from, but you're not even close to what you are likely to get paid.

A graduate, depending on degree is looking at anything from $15,000 to $60,000 per year. But you'd be lucky to get that $60k straight out of school.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Thank you dsanz and jarednjames, I think I'll be more realistic then.

Now it really sounds like a tough choice to go for an education in natural science — not only you would not get the chance to do what you desired, but also would less likely to make a dandy income.

1.5K a year is just... it's just wrong. You might even make more working at a diner.

 

[JaredJames]

1.5K a year is just... it's just wrong. You might even make more working at a diner.

Where are you getting your figures from?

$1.5K a year = $1500 per year. That is also an unrealistic figure for someone working full time.

You realize k = 1000 so you multiply the figure ahead of the k (1.5 in this case) by 1000?
(e.g. 16k = 16*1000 = 16000)

EDIT: Do you mean per month? 1.5k per month is an average starting salary for most I'd say. As a graduate aerospace engineer I will earn around $2000 per month.

 

[George Jones]

Where are you getting your figures from?

$1.5K a year = $1500 per year. That is also an unrealistic figure for someone working full time.

Well ...

A graduate, depending on degree is looking at anything from $15,000 to $60,000 per year. But you'd be lucky to get that $60k straight out of school.

 

[JaredJames]

Well ...

Mr Jones, how does what I wrote translate to what he wrote?

$1.5K per year is not "$15,000 to $60,000 per year". I even bolded "per year".

 

[George Jones]

Mr Jones, how does what I wrote translate to what he wrote?

$1.5K per year is not "$15,000 to $60,000 per year". I even bolded "per year".

Alex_Sanders will have to speak for himself, but he might have meant that $15K is very low. It does seem low to me. New Brunswick, Canada (where I live) has a legislated minimum wage of $9 per hour, regardless of education. This minimum wage is slated to rise to $10 per hour in less than a year. Consequently, anyone who has full-time, steady employment should make at least $20,000 per year, and university graduates could hope for a higher minimum annual wage.

 

[JaredJames]

Alex_Sanders will have to speak for himself, but he might have meant that $15K is very low. It does seem low to me. New Brunswick, Canada (where I live) has a legislated minimum wage of $9 per hour, regardless of education. This minimum wage is slated to rise to $10 per hour in less than a year. Consequently, anyone who has full-time, steady employment should make at least $20,000 per year, and university graduates could hope for a higher minimum annual wage.

What he meant and what he said are two different things. Given his previous posts, I don't know if this is an error or not.

I also noted the error he may have made in my post.

I also said depending on degree, some degrees really are "a dime a dozen" and having them doesn't really mean anything so far as pay goes.

I will admit my answers are based on UK salaries and they really can be between the figures I quoted. But it does come down to the degree.

 

[George Jones]

Where I live, less than one-third of the population gets a university degree of any kind, so I don't think that 'some degrees really are "a dime a dozen"', and $15k is impossible for a high school drop-out who has full-time steady employment.

In the UK, do you think that $60k is as far into the (high) tail of the distribution as $15k is into the (low) tail of the distribution of starting annual salary for university graduates?

 

[JaredJames]

Where I live, less than one-third of the population gets a university degree of any kind, so I don't think that 'some degrees really are "a dime a dozen"', and $15k is impossible for a high school drop-out who has full-time steady employment.

$15K may be impossible where you live, but it isn't in the UK. I'm just giving answers based on this. I have no idea where the OP is and I don't recall it being specialised to a certain country. Especially given the original $16K per month figure.

In the UK, do you think that $60k is as far into the (high) tail of the distribution as $15k is into the (low) tail of the distribution of starting annual salary for university graduates?

I know a number of people who have left university and are now working for around the $15k mark.
I simply gave some rough figures for leaving salaries (that I have observed). However, the average is around the £20,000 area.

 

[George Jones]

Especially given the original $16K per month figure.

Yes, Alex needs a reality check

The situation is, a lot ppl that studied Astronomy in universities did at last not get a job that very much relevant to their specialities, but, if not some but most of them, had to choose a career in relatively Mathematics oriented field, like market analysis.

The payscale is good, not much doubt can be put, but it really isn't the point is it? Anyone chose to study astronomy really wouldn't care how much they would be paid, but what they would do after graduation, however there are only very limited few institute and observatory that can grant them the opportunity to work in, so it would always be the "winner takes all", the best of the best can live their dreams while those who didn't quite got out of the shade will be flushed far away from their ideal.

Your thoughts?

From another thread:

Life isn't so simple, and there are no guarantees.

I tell high school students that if they have real passion and ability for a subject, be it physics, math, history or philosophy, then they should study it at university with peers who have the same passion, and with experts in the field guiding them. Sometimes students major in something marketable with the intention of studying their passion, either formally or informally, after graduation. I tell them that even with the best of intentions, this usually won't happen. Picking up a spouse, car payments, mortgage payments, and kids make life too hectic for it to happen. I tell these students that marketable subjects like business and computer programming should be considered seriously as options, though, since everyone has to earn a living. I also say that it might turn out that what they think is their passion isn't really their passion. There are no guarantees.

The above advice is meant for a minority of students. Students who can't decide what they're interested in, or who are interested in a number of areas, might be better suited studying something marketable.

Finally, students that study physics often end up working in jobs that are not related to physics, but they usually end doing OK for themselves. And they had the chance to experience their passion for at least four years.

Is this such a bad thing?

 

[twofish-quant]

The situation is, a lot ppl that studied Astronomy in universities did at last not get a job that very much relevant to their specialities, but, if not some but most of them, had to choose a career in relatively Mathematics oriented field, like market analysis.

Quantitative finance (which is not market analysis) is very relevant to astrophysics. Look at universe, figure out some complicated equations that try to explain said universe, put on massive supercomputer, see how you did, go back to step one.

More or less the same thing.

Anyone chose to study astronomy really wouldn't care how much they would be paid, but what they would do after graduation, however there are only very limited few institute and observatory that can grant them the opportunity to work in, so it would always be the "winner takes all", the best of the best can live their dreams while those who didn't quite got out of the shade will be flushed far away from their ideal.

We live in an imperfect world, and no one ever gets exactly what they want (and it would really boring if you did). The question isn't whether you get what you want (and you never do), but what you do with the card that you manage to get.

 

[twofish-quant]

I suggest that you investigate on the salaries of physicists, there are some good websites out there. 16k/month is out of the question for academic physicists, at least normal positions.

I should point out that $16K/month is something that people with physics Ph.D.'s routinely make on Wall Street.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'd say forget anything unpleasant about it, I mean c'mon, you made it that far, you are quite academically successful, and you have no idea how many ppl are dribbling for a life like yours.

Things are always greener on the other side. One thing about careers is that different people want different things. Heaven for me is hell for you and vice versa. Personally, I *hate* being successful. No mountains to climb = total boredom.

Just what kinda life it must be! You don't have to worry about mundane matters

Just because you are a scientist doesn't mean that you don't have to worry about things like car payments, day care, and medical bills.

all you need is working tirelessly in front computer screens processing seas of information on celestial bodies, appreciate the profound poetry and beauty of the universe...

Poetry and beauty involves pain and agony, and reducing data or debugging code is a rather painful and agonizing process. Also more often than not, you look at your data, and you see just nothing useful.

observe into the space beyond the limit of any optical devices using most sophisticated mathematical tools...Why choose putting your feet back to the ground while you can live a life of dreams?

You talk as if we really had much of a choice in the matter. There are the code hard numbers, you have X Ph.D.'s and X/2 post-docs available and then X/5 faculty positions available. Someone is going to be left standing when the music stops.

 

[the_house]

Alex_Sanders will have to speak for himself, but he might have meant that $15K is very low. It does seem low to me. New Brunswick, Canada (where I live) has a legislated minimum wage of $9 per hour, regardless of education. This minimum wage is slated to rise to $10 per hour in less than a year. Consequently, anyone who has full-time, steady employment should make at least $20,000 per year, and university graduates could hope for a higher minimum annual wage.

I should mention that being a graduate student (which is the context of the original $16K figure) is not full-time employment. Typically, you are a full-time student with an additional part-time TA or RA position. Where I went, the graduate student stipend was technically payment for 20 hours per week of teaching or research. The rest of your time was considered as part of your schooling (whether you're spending that extra time attending classes and doing homework or just doing more research).

If you add in a tuition waiver and health insurance, and divide by the 20 hours that you're technically being paid for, you are nowhere near running afoul of minimum wage laws.

Of course at the end of the day you're putting in more hours than a full-time job and taking home only a small amount of money, so perhaps it's not an important distinction. It's certainly different than other graduate degrees, however, where you acquire a large amount of debt instead of actually taking home a net amount.

Oh, and getting a physics PhD does not guarantee a 6-figure salary. I would say it's not even likely. I'm pretty sure you can be a full professor at a top university and make less than that.

 

[JaredJames]

I should point out that $16K/month is something that people with physics Ph.D.'s routinely make on Wall Street.

I wouldn't call that a representative group of people with Phd's.

In fact, I'd say that's something of a unique group. The majority of people will never reach this figure and I'd say that although you can aim for this, it isn't a realistic wage for the majority.

 

[Redbelly98]

Another example from cold, hard reality:

When I was in grad school, in physics, I had a few friends who were astronomy grad students. After 2 years, it was time for the Ph.D. qualifier exam. I forget the exact number, but a surprising number of the astronomy students were not passed on their exam. It might have been 1 out of 6 or 8 that were passed. Contrast this with the physics department, where more like 2/3 to 3/4 of us made it through the qualifier exam. I wondered at first why the astronomy department routinely admitted way more students than they knew would pass the qualifier exam, and believe the simple reason was they needed most of those students for a couple of years to do TA work.

Bottom line: there really are a scarcity of jobs in astronomy, so you'd better be really really smart, passionate, and hard-working in that subject if you're going to make a career in it.

 

[twofish-quant]

I wouldn't call that a representative group of people with Phd's.

There's too much diversity within the group to talk about anything being representative, but there are enough astrophysics Ph.D.'s that are working on Wall Street so you can't ignore them.

In fact, I'd say that's something of a unique group. The majority of people will never reach this figure and I'd say that although you can aim for this, it isn't a realistic wage for the majority.

Judging from personal experience, I think it's much, much more realistic for an astrophysics Ph.D. to expect to make $15K/month than it is to expect to get a tenured faculty position at a major research university.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Another example from cold, hard reality:

When I was in grad school, in physics, I had a few friends who were astronomy grad students. After 2 years, it was time for the Ph.D. qualifier exam. I forget the exact number, but a surprising number of the astronomy students were not passed on their exam. It might have been 1 out of 6 or 8 that were passed. Contrast this with the physics department, where more like 2/3 to 3/4 of us made it through the qualifier exam. I wondered at first why the astronomy department routinely admitted way more students than they knew would pass the qualifier exam, and believe the simple reason was they needed most of those students for a couple of years to do TA work.

Bottom line: there really are a scarcity of jobs in astronomy, so you'd better be really really smart, passionate, and hard-working in that subject if you're going to make a career in it.

This contrasts with my experience, and I'm not sure you can say that just because your school was the way it was, that it's an effect for the whole discipline. If anything all you're saying is that your school had trouble attracting quality astronomy students.

PhD level and actual career paths are different too - that's why there are far more PhD students (in ~all) discplines than there are researching academics. Astronomy is a strange thing, because to study astronomy you pretty much need to become an academic - this doesn't say anything about studying it at PhD level, however. Getting a PhD in something technical like astronomy opens up many, many career possibilities - in an industrial setting, exactly the same ones that will be open to physics PhD graduates. So, I would say that aiming for a PhD in astronomy isn't unreasonable, but expecting to get a career directly related to it probably is - but then the same can be said for many fields in physics.

 

[JaredJames]

There's too much diversity within the group to talk about anything being representative, but there are enough astrophysics Ph.D.'s that are working on Wall Street so you can't ignore them.

There will be a mean earning for the group as a whole and I find it hard to believe it would come close to $15k per month (or $16k as per the OP).

Judging from personal experience, I think it's much, much more realistic for an astrophysics Ph.D. to expect to make $15K/month than it is to expect to get a tenured faculty position at a major research university.

Which of the above two options they are more likely to get is irrelevant. It is which of all possible options for someone with a Phd that matters (we broadened it slightly by looking at graduates in general).

It is safe to say that a wage of $16K per month is highly unlikely for a graduate (or Phd etc in any subject). When looking at all graduates, people earning that figure really is a small and unique group.

Just looking at this site for astrophysicist salaries (I know it's not perfect, but it gives some ball park figures):
http://www.schoolsintheusa.com/careerprofiles_details.cfm?carid=350

Entry Level Salary: $30,220
Average Salary: $60,200
Maximum Salary: $92,430

 

[twofish-quant]

There will be a mean earning for the group as a whole and I find it hard to believe it would come close to $15k per month (or $16k as per the OP).

The mean is likely to be quite high. The median is a more useful statistical measure, but even then the median is not that useful.

It is safe to say that a wage of $16K per month is highly unlikely for a graduate (or Phd etc in any subject).

That's plain wrong.

If you have a physics Ph.D. and you want to make $180K total comp, it's likely that you will be able to. Starting salary for a Ph.D. quant on Wall Street is $120K, and with three to five years of experience, total comp will exceed $200K. I don't know of anyone that has *tried* out for one of the positions that has been unable to make $200K after three years.

Now money isn't everything, and lots of people hate the lifestyle, but that's a personal choice.

Just looking at this site for astrophysicist salaries (I know it's not perfect, but it gives some ball park figures):
http://www.schoolsintheusa.com/careerprofiles_details.cfm?carid=350

Wrong job title. Look for quantitative analyst.

 

[JaredJames]

I'll tell you what, you provide me with a source that says the chances of a graduate getting 16k/month is likely, and I'll let it go.

So far, all you've done is repeat the same job position over and over. The majority of graduates do not end up on wall street and don't make anywhere near that figure.

The majority of graduates don't earn fantastic sums of money straight out of school.

Some websites showing average salary for a Phd:
US - http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Doctorate_(PhD)/Salary
UK - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/phd.do
http://www.ehow.com/about_6626574_average-starting-salary-ph_d_.html

I'm not denying there are jobs you can go into that pay exceptional amounts, but for the majority that just simply isn't the case.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'll tell you what, you provide me with a source that says the chances of a graduate getting 16k/month is likely, and I'll let it go.

I'm the source. I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics. I work as a quant in a major financial institution. I can tell you what the experiences is of the people I know with astrophysics Ph.D.'s.

You might argue that I'm biased. My sample is statistically invalid, and of course, you really have no way of completely verifying that what I'm saying is true (although if you contact me by PM, I'll give names, dates, and numbers). These are all valid points, but it's still useful information since it's first hand, and you can cross-examine me.

The majority of graduates do not end up on wall street and don't make anywhere near that figure.

In my personal experience, about 15% or so of astrophysics Ph.D.'s actually do end up in Wall Street. What's more significant is that everyone that I know of that has *tried* to get a job on Wall Street has gotten one and ended up making about $180K after three years. (Also note that $180K in NYC-dollars is less than you might think.)

The majority of graduates don't earn fantastic sums of money straight out of school.

That's because astrophysics Ph.D.'s are particularly sought after by Wall Street, and most astrophysics Ph.D.'s end up doing post-docs right after they get their Ph.D.

One other thing is that $180K on Wall Street is considered a rather low salary. One might argue that this is a sign that society is totally screwed up, and that may be the case.

I'm not denying there are jobs you can go into that pay exceptional amounts, but for the majority that just simply isn't the case.

And I'm saying that this is because most astrophysics Ph.D.'s don't really want to get paid $180K/year.

The jobs are there. The US graduates about 200 astrophysics Ph.D.'s each year, and if you subtract the number of people that want to do other things, you have maybe 50 or so entering the market. Your average investment bank employs several dozen physics Ph.D.'s.

 

[JaredJames]

OK, twofish. I'm not going to argue further, I've made my points.

So to conclude:

I don't deny your wall street claims.

You are still stuck with one Phd subject and one job type, not referring to "the majority" or "all" as per the discussion.

The OP's claim was "no grads makes that little, you meant 16k a month." which is clearly BS. Your claim doesn't have much bearing on this as it is only indicative of a very small minority of overall graduates (although damn I wish I was one of them).

The OP was asking about astronomy originally (which became "all graduates") and I'm not certain that is astrophysics anyway.

On the basis of the above, I wouldn't consider a salary of $16k per month a realistic figure for a graduate, especially in astronomy.