Is Pursuing a PhD in Organic Photovoltaics a Smart Career Move?

[armis]

I am finishing my ph.d in experimental condensed matter this fall the thesis defense is basically scheduled. So I can't say that I can directly answer your question directly but I can offer my 2 cents at least. I think that often times when people choose to get a ph.d in physics it feels like some sort of calling and many of the graduate students I meet have no idea why they are really doing it, many just tell me "I love physics and I had to continue to learn more about it".

I was definitely like them when I started, I wanted a sense of accomplishment and I only got that from doing research. There no feeling like having a very nice results that explains something that was previously unknown. Its extremely addictive and gratifying. However, the problem is that getting to that feeling often times takes years, at least in my case. The other side if the coin is that most first year graduate students don't really realize what they are committing too and often times fail to think of the personal and economic ramifications of graduate school.

On the plus side the University will pay your tuition, so at the end of your degree you will not be in debt as you would have been had you attended law school or medical school. However, professional schools are typically 3-4 years in length, in graduate school you are signing up for 5-7 years on average. You will get paid during this time, but on average you will make 15-25k a year depending on school and research group, it sounds like you are on the high end of this bracket. You can also make more money if you have and NSF or similar fellowship, but the high end on those is 40k. The reason I bringing money up is because an average graduate student won't be able to save for retirement for example, and you are also unlikely to make the amount of money you are going to lose over a ph.d compared to if you go in the work force after college. Me and a friend worked it out one day and in order to make up the amount of money lost during your ph.d you would need a starting salary of nearly 250k after graduation, and that's based on average salary of physics B.S that chose to go into industry.

Also keep in mind you will be working 60-80 hour weeks for the next 5-7 years regularly, sometimes more. You will rarely have weekends off, and most of your time will be spent either coding, instrument building, baby sitting your experiment, or designing electronics.

Having said all that I would probably do it all over again, I have no idea why. I think there a sense of accomplishment that comes with a ph.d degree that for some people is difficult to attain in other avenues of life.

In terms of job prospects, I am currently looking for my next move. I am very interested in the financial sector and there was in fact a firm that was recruiting in the last meeting I attended. I handed them my resume and I got pretty far in the interview process, however during the second technical interview the quant I was talking with said "You sound pretty enthusiastic about your research are you sure you want to do this" that and coupled with some really hard technical questions led to me receiving an e-mail that said " we think you are qualified for this job but we don't think there is a match in our current research team". I don't know if that was code for we think you are stupid or if I was too excited about my research. I also applied to Intel and got and interview there but completely bombed it because I really wasn't interested in micro processor manufacturing. Currently I am going through the interview process at Hitachi, have no idea how it will turn out but I figure most of this is just practice since I still have another 8 months until graduation.

My bigger point is that, at least in my experience, there seem to be people hiring physicist out there. Maybe I am just not what they are looking for. But, I got the sense from talking to recruiters and from my interviews that anyone with semi conductor, graphite, or polymer physics experience would be a of great value in the industrial sector. I think you would have great opportunities if you did you ph.d in photovoltaic. There are also post doc opportunities, which I am personally considering because I could transition into a field that has more application to the industrial sector, even do I love superconductors and have become very intrigued by topological insulators.

I don't how much this opus will help you, I apologize for the length but this has been my thoughts on my ph.d degree.

Thanks! This was most helpful. I didn't mind the length and I wished it was twice as long!

Did you do your PhD in your home country or abroad?

 

[Mr.Fermion]

Yes I did my Ph.D in my home country, but not in my home state

 

[Robert1986]

First of all, let me say that I do not have a Ph.D. and I wonder the same things that the OP wonders. I am beginning grad school in August - M.S. in Math. Now, my plan is to "seamlessly" (ok, so I don't know how seamless it will be, but a guy can dream, right?) transition into the Ph.D.

But, why didn't I apply directly to the Ph.D? I sort of straddle the "traditional student" and "not traditional student" fence. I started college when I was 21 (at a community college). I have had a full time job since I was 19; I am now 26 and I am graduating this May. Now, most people are finishing up their Math Ph.D.s at this age (or are VERY close), but I am, in essence, just starting mine. Now, I think that nearly everyone who is older than about 24 would agree that you are a MUCH different person at 19 than at 22, and a (slightly less) different person at 24 than at 22. What does all this matter? Well, I have about 4 extra years of maturity over your average 22 year old college grad. Right now, all I want to do is to be a mathematician. HOWEVER, I realize that a Ph.D. is a HUGE commitment; one that lots of people (most?) who start are not able to finish. The M.S. is a way to get my feet wet with doing actual math but without the risk of starting a Ph.D. and not being able to finish it. I am fairly confident that I will be able to complete the M.S., but at this point, I am not that confident about my abilities to complete the Ph.D. (doing research is a little different than learning stuff other people have researched.) If I don't have the talent to get the Ph.D. I will at least have a M.S. in math and I am fairly confident that I will be able to find a job doing something. Now, I know this might make some people mad (it certainly did in another thread, though I got snippier than I needed to), but do you see one common problem among the people who either said the Ph.D. wasn't worth it or who aren't sure? I think everyone of them cited some sort of student debt issues. For example, one is taking classes JUST to avoid having to repay the loan. Particle Girl can't take a job as a postdoc partly because she makes more money as a bartender and needs this money to repay loans. This is a very stressful situation to be in. I know, I was once buried in debt (no more, thought). So, if you decide to get the Ph.D. do so WITH OUT debt. Now, hopefully I will get a Ph.D. and will get to do a postdoc somewhere. This will be much easier since I don't have debt to repay. Now, there are certainly some disadvantages to this, as I said I am 26 and have worked full time on my way through college. This has majorly sucked; it has taken me 5.5 years to finish a B.S.!

But, let me say this again: Don't Do Debt. Many people will say something like "Well, I know I'll be able to pay it off quickly because of X and Y and Z." However, I would imagine that every single person who is buried in student debt, and whose career is suffering because of debt said the same exact thing.

So, to answer the initial question, I would say I don't know if mine is going to be worth it, but I do know that debt will not play a role in this decision, and I suggest the same thing for anyone else.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Particle Girl can't take a job as a postdoc partly because she makes more money as a bartender and needs this money to repay loans.

Its more then needing money to repay loans though- its the desire to make more money than a first year college grad with my phd. 35k a year when you are highly skilled, in your late 20s is simply awful. I paid off my debt in full in less than two years of bartending. But what I wanted is an ability to save and the modicum of security needed to settle in and start a family. A postdoc can't provide that. Bartending DID.

And now that I've moved on and I'm doing data analysis for an insurance company I still don't particularly feel like my phd was worth it. I make decent money at a decent job, but nothing a learned in graduate school is useful for my work. I have all this knowledge that I can't do a single thing with.

I know, I was once buried in debt (no more, thought). So, if you decide to get the Ph.D. do so WITH OUT debt. Now, hopefully I will get a Ph.D. and will get to do a postdoc somewhere. This will be much easier since I don't have debt to repay. Now, there are certainly some disadvantages to this, as I said I am 26 and have worked full time on my way through college. This has majorly sucked; it has taken me 5.5 years to finish a B.S.!

I'm three years older than you. I have a phd, I'm debt free (and have actually saved quite a bit) and I'm working the same sort of research job (in insurance) that the majority of physics phds I know are also doing. My student loan debt did nothing to hinder my career.

Also, I went to one of the best physics graduate schools in the country, which I was able to do in part because I took out loans in order to attend one of the best undergraduate institutions in the country.

My disillusionment is that I thought a phd in physics mostly would lead to a career doing science or engineering and I've discovered instead that it mostly leads to a career in finance,insurance, management consulting, etc.

 

[Pyrrhus]

My disillusionment is that I thought a phd in physics mostly would lead to a career doing science or engineering and I've discovered instead that it mostly leads to a career in finance,insurance, management consulting, etc.

I definitely can sympathize with this. In my case, that is the direction a PhD in Econ will lead, so I am ok with that. It must be tough for a PhD in physics not to end up in physics or engineering.

 

[Robert1986]

The next strongest is probably pay- I'd take home significantly less than half of what I make bartending as a postdoc. I'm at the stage in my life where I need to start paying off school loans and trying to get myself to a more sound economic footing- I'm hoping to start a family in the next few years.

This is really what I meant when I was referring to you; this was your answer to "why don't you get a post-doc" (or something like that.)

I think you and I are in sort of similar positions in life. We are both married, so we are pretty geographically constrained (right?). However, I won't have to worry about the debt thing when deciding if I want a post-doc. That is all I was saying.

One last thing: I am also at a very good undergrad school, but I have done so without debt. The point being that it is possible to go to a good school without debt.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I think you and I are in sort of similar positions in life. We are both married, so we are pretty geographically constrained (right?). However, I won't have to worry about the debt thing when deciding if I want a post-doc. That is all I was saying.

Right- but you WILL have to worry about saving for retirement, uprooting your significant other (and possibly kids) to move to a foreign country, etc. Yes, you'll be debt free, but you are also be older- which adds its own substantial difficulties to the low-pay, no-benefits, relocate-across-the-globe postdoc lifestyle. Can you take a postdoc in a foreign country if your wife can't get a work visa,etc? These are concerns a younger person might not have.

 

[Sheets]

I think the PhD was worth it for me. But barely.

Somehow I've stayed in science despite going to an unremarkable 2nd tier small private college and getting a PhD at another 2nd tier university. Partly this was a calculated effort on my part--I recognized an area where the hiring prospects were decent and moved in that direction while in graduate school. And a good bit of luck helped me too.

The worthwhile part of the PhD is having a job I somewhat enjoy and getting to sit around and think about interesting things & solve interesting problems. This is exactly what I wanted when I was 20 years old & for a lower middle class boy from the rural midwest it feels like I've come a long ways.

The problem is that I'm not the same person I was when I was 20. Working crazy long hours no longer appeals to me (even though I still do). When you hit your early 30s the opportunity cost of going to grad school is much more apparent. If you stay in science your job prospects are geographically limited & while I feel I could make the transition to industry fairly easily it would take me closer to someplace I don't want to live.

 

[SaraSmith]

I think PhD in physics was somehow worth for me as I enjoyed 10 years of my life (phD+postdoc) doing research, learned new things, and met so many interesting people within international research collaborations. But in terms of job prospect which is now my concern, as I am older and cannot work as hard, it was not worth. For sure a master in engineering would have taken me to a much better situation in terms of career in industry that I am interested in now.

 

[jesse73]

The good part about physicists doing finance is that those physicists actually learn how compound interest works and why saving money for retirement/etc earlier in your life span is so important and therefore why with a high paying job they are barely catching up with people who started to save for retirement earlier(MEng, BEng).

 

[analogdesign]

The good part about physicists doing finance is that those physicists actually learn how compound interest works and why saving money for retirement/etc earlier in your life span is so important and therefore why with a high paying job they are barely catching up with people who started to save for retirement earlier(MEng, BEng).

I was wondering how long it would take to read a sarcastic reply...

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

The good part about physicists doing finance is that those physicists actually learn how compound interest works and why saving money for retirement/etc earlier in your life span is so important and therefore why with a high paying job they are barely catching up with people who started to save for retirement earlier(MEng, BEng).

If (almost) everyone were with Engineering diploma then the competition would be fierce than it is now in industry, and they'll become a cheap working force.

You should thank them physicists.

 

[moontiger]

I got my PhD in theoretical condensed matter physics from a Big 5 university. I did a postdoc and spent a year as a liberal arts college faculty member before leaving for industry, as the liberal arts college was in a small rural town and my life prospects there were nil.

The PhD was absolutely not worth it for me. I work for engineers with Bachelors and Masters degrees who have been in the workforce a decade longer than me. I work with doctors who spent the same amount of time training as I did, but have total job security and earn about twice as much as I do.

The PhD, postdoc, etc. forced me to push marriage and motherhood into my mid-30s, which had all kinds of bad life consequences that I realize only now.

The time I spent in school/postdoc, I could instead have spent saving up sick leave and funds for retirement, or building up a career so I could have taken some time off when I had a baby instead of returning after 12 weeks.

So no, my physics PhD--even from a Big Five institution--was not worth it. It's hard to admit that, but there it is. A PhD in engineering, CS, or another field with better job prospects might have been. I think an MD definitely would have been. I'm not saying it might not be worth it for other folks, but for me it was not.

Best of luck.

 

[jesse73]

If (almost) everyone were with Engineering diploma then the competition would be fierce than it is now in industry, and they'll become a cheap working force.

You should thank them physicists.

There is a really small amount of phd physicists graduating for year compared to other majors.

 

[ChrisVer]

I haven't yet started a phd, however from my point of view, you cannot appreciate physics except for if you do some research by your own... otherwise, why studying and getting so much knowledge if you won't try to do something by yourself?

 

[ParticleGrl]

I haven't yet started a phd, however from my point of view, you cannot appreciate physics except for if you do some research by your own... otherwise, why studying and getting so much knowledge if you won't try to do something by yourself?

The problem is, post phd you've studied and gained even more knowledge, but now you are left without any way to use it. Your question is basically "why study for 4 years if you won't get a chance to use it?", but push it forward "why study for 6 more years if you won't get a chance to use it?"

 

[ChrisVer]

starting being a researcher won't stop necessarily ...plus phd is not the same (boring) study you have prior to it... i mean it's like a job (that's why you are getting paid) and you can be creative/innovative on the field you chose...Before phd you are not asked to be creative, but learn...of course this depends on the student, but it's a personal thing.. Nevermind, because of that, I cannot follow the idea "study 6 more years", they are totally different...

 

[moontiger]

It's true, the PhD is different than undergrad...that said, getting a PhD just so you can use your BS is not necessarily the best idea. ParticleGrrl is right: academic jobs are scarce and industry jobs typically do not use the specialized knowledge you acquire in a physics PhD, so the odds are that you will never directly use the PhD either.

There are other good reasons to do a PhD. Namely, if you really want to do research, are aware of all the long term consequences and opportunity costs of spending six or more years without a real salary or retirement benefits, etc.

Somebody above noted that people who said the PhD wasn't worth it tended to have student debt. For college I attended my state university on full scholarship plus some, and had no debt at all. It still wasn't worth it. The issue for me was the amount of time it took and the fact that those specific years (20's) were critical to one's personal or career development, especially for me as a woman who did want kids someday.

Your mileage of course may vary, and I have friends for whom it was worth it. Typically those people got their personal life in order during the PhD, had a spouse who was willing and able to move anywhere, and were in a hot experimental field--often doing something related to biology or EE. Those folks ended up as R1 faculty, though often not in physics departments.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Let's clarify the question posed in this thread -- when we're asking whether a PhD is worth it or not, are we talking only about a PhD in physics, or pursuing a PhD more generally? Because as is conceded by a number of posters here, a PhD in a different discipline (e.g. engineering, CS, statistics, economics, applied math, operations research) may well possibly be more marketable and employable than a physics PhD (I say "possibly" because marketability of these fields may well change ).

 

[ChrisVer]

First of all, a phd is not just for academic career... In fact I believe that the times change, and the way to get into academia changes as well... I think working in [independent] research groups can be more positively judged than following the old-school's way (phds, post phds etc etc)...But both ways are considered to be phds :) I mean in both you call yourself a researcher.
So...
I don't understand how could someone who is interested in the subject, call it a waste of time (of their 20s')... You can however consider it as a job so it's not a waste of other opportunities . Am I wrong?
So I don't see it as anything else than the natural continuation of studies together with having a job. Of course it's better to "waste 6 years than 4", if it will help you to be creative for once...And of course, you can always keep searching for extra possibilities (during your phd and after).
What would a better choice be ? finish your bachelors/masters and then get a job that has nothing to do with what you studied so far?

 

[StatGuy2000]

As an aside, I found this link about the experience of someone who had earned a humanities PhD who is working in the marketing field and is arguing why marketing and a humanities doctorate is a good match.

http://www.jessicalanger.com/?p=114

 

[Lavabug]

I don't understand how could someone who is interested in the subject, call it a waste of time (of their 20s')... You can however consider it as a job so it's not a waste of other opportunities . Am I wrong?

The problem is that most people's priorities change. A good portion of the people that regret their decision seem to have changed their life priorities half-way into their phd programs. At some point, having a family and living a cozy life acquire greater importance than putting out the next article or going to the next conference and a post-phd career does not leave much room for a traditional work/life balance.

The time spent in a PhD also fails to qualify as a job for most due to the relatively low financial compensation (if you come from a borderline 3rd world country like I do, it's actually a huge step up).

If you're the type of person that doesn't change their life goals around much (if you're past that magic threshold in your 20's or 30's) and aren't set on settling anywhere geographically, living a lavish lifestyle or starting a family very soon, a PhD + the ensuing career or career change will probably not seem as uncomfortable. The argument for having a good retirement plan in lieu of a phd is starting to look a little tenuous though, it doesn't look like the present generation is going to have a comfortable retirement the way things are going.

I think the age-old saying about PhD's carries a lot of truth. You have to be a little bit of a weirdo to think getting a PhD is a good idea, most phd's I've met are proud to admit this.

 

[ParticleGrl]

What would a better choice be ? finish your bachelors/masters and then get a job that has nothing to do with what you studied so far?

Nearly every single person I know with a physics phd, myself included, has a job that has absolutely nothing to do with their phd. Getting a phd tends to leave you applying for the same jobs you could get after a bachelors, just 6 years later. If you are going to get a job that has nothing to do with what you studied,best to do it earlier rather than later.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Nearly every single person I know with a physics phd, myself included, has a job that has absolutely nothing to do with their phd. Getting a phd tends to leave you applying for the same jobs you could get after a bachelors, just 6 years later. If you are going to get a job that has nothing to do with what you studied,best to do it earlier rather than later.

Heh, nearly every person I know with a physics BS has a job that has absolutely nothing to do with their BS. That is, except for those still going for a PhD...

 

[ChrisVer]

I am sorry, I guess I didn't write it down correctly and it got misinterpreted ...
I meant that "at least for 3 years, do something that covers the reasons you followed physics"...since it was most of ours choice to study physics, at least once we should do that in research level. Rather than spending 4 years, just to go to an irrelevant field's job with one extra degree...
At least from the eyes of a masters student, I see phd as something during which, I will be able to create by myself and use what I have learned for soooo long in real up-to-date action. Otherwise, I wouldn't even think of doing a masters, I wouldn't even think of going in the university, I would've just seek for a real job (because I guess most of us have done part-time jobs during our studies) right after school... I don't know maybe I'm totally wrong...

 

[moontiger]

I am sorry, I guess I didn't write it down correctly and it got misinterpreted ...
I meant that "at least for 3 years, do something that covers the reasons you followed physics"...since it was most of ours choice to study physics, at least once we should do that in research level. Rather than spending 4 years, just to go to an irrelevant field's job with one extra degree...

If you want to go for the PhD, go for it. Just make sure that you have a reason to do it which seems solid (to you). That way a few years from now, regardless of whether it turned out to be the right decision or not, you know that you thoroughly considered the costs vs. the benefits, and made the best decision you could at the time.

In my case, hindsight is 20/20. If I could have seen my future career prospects and what a struggle life was going to be, I would have gone to graduate (or professional) school in some other field. But it is too late for that now, so I have to just do my best to find a future that makes me happy.

 

[elkement]

I graduated nearly 20 years ago in Europe. My PhD was in laser physics / materials science / thin films.

Though I left academia I think it was worth it - but mainly because it was a job, probably as good as any other job that gives you some transferable skills. We didn't have that notion of "graduate _school_" - I was paid mainly for working on an international research project with partners from industry, and there were no student fees.

I was "forced" to do also project controlling and management which I actually hated at that time - but it was the combination of that experience plus having acquired a set of experimental skills (... working with device X to measure Y ...) that made it rather easy to land my first job after the PhD.

 

[mdxyz]

I don't understand how could someone who is interested in the subject, call it a waste of time (of their 20s')... You can however consider it as a job so it's not a waste of other opportunities . Am I wrong?

I think a lot of people have an incomplete appreciation of the richness of the world in which they live. There are many interesting things to do elsewhere that do not carry the drawbacks of academia.

I don't think a PhD is necessarily a waste of time, but I think the academic career path as a whole is a waste of time for most. As others have pointed out, a funded PhD is essentially a job and can give you useful skills and experience, while you are young enough to apply them elsewhere. Academia is a career in which 90% of people will never make it to the entry level, and won't find out they've failed until their mid 30s or early 40s.

At that point, your experience needs to be very industry-specific, or else tilted to management or finance. Hence the problems many report here, of finding it very difficult to switch field at that stage.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Nearly every single person I know with a physics phd, myself included, has a job that has absolutely nothing to do with their phd. Getting a phd tends to leave you applying for the same jobs you could get after a bachelors, just 6 years later. If you are going to get a job that has nothing to do with what you studied,best to do it earlier rather than later.

Of course, one could argue that all of the people you know with a physics PhD, including yourself, ended up getting the job that they have because of their PhD, in spite of the fact that the job itself has nothing to do with their PhD. For example, many companies advertising for data science/data mining positions (such as yours) often hire physics PhDs or cognate quantitative degrees like math, CS, statistics or operations research because of the analytical skills gained as part of their PhD training). Those positions may not necessarily be open for those without a masters or a PhD (many of the advertised data science positions states that a minimum of a masters degree in a quantitative field like math, physics or statistics is a requirement).

 

[ChrisVer]

I think a lot of people have an incomplete appreciation of the richness of the world in which they live. There are many interesting things to do elsewhere that do not carry the drawbacks of academia.

I don't think a PhD is necessarily a waste of time, but I think the academic career path as a whole is a waste of time for most. As others have pointed out, a funded PhD is essentially a job and can give you useful skills and experience, while you are young enough to apply them elsewhere. Academia is a career in which 90% of people will never make it to the entry level, and won't find out they've failed until their mid 30s or early 40s.

At that point, your experience needs to be very industry-specific, or else tilted to management or finance. Hence the problems many report here, of finding it very difficult to switch field at that stage.

That is true, however you don't have to do just your PhDs and nothing else (real world needs flexibility). For example I know PhD researchers who at the same time start a new Masters course (for example on mathematics). It depends on the person. For example, because my plan's to do PhD on phenomenology of supersymmetry (something that is far away from "industry"), at the same time I'll try to start a masters on economics and model-making (which is good for the real market and easier than doing a masters on mathematics)... the costs will be less than the money I can take from a PhD salary...

 

[bigfooted]

The problem is, post phd you've studied and gained even more knowledge, but now you are left without any way to use it. Your question is basically "why study for 4 years if you won't get a chance to use it?", but push it forward "why study for 6 more years if you won't get a chance to use it?"

Why play golf for 10 years when you're not going to become a professional golf player?

I did a PhD because I wanted to dive into the wonderful world of mathematics and physics to a depth that I knew could only be achieved during a PhD research. I wanted to know more about the subject and actively contacted professors to ask if they had a PhD project in this field (turbulence and combustion). I ended up basically getting money for satisfying my curiosity.
I'm now working in R&D in my PhD research field, and it's a job that you can't do without a PhD. But statistics from my university showed that 5 years after their graduation, around 5% of the graduated actually worked in the field they were studying for. Are the other 95% all failures? I don't think so. I think it doesn't really matter that much what specific topics you study, the main thing you should learn is thinking. Company X doesn't need an expert in numerical analysis of the Maxwell equations, they just need a smart guy, with a certificate of smartness.

From a financial perspective, on average a PhD does not have the best return of investment. Maybe it's better to study for dentist or something similar. But I don't see myself looking into other people's mouths for the next 30 years - boring!

What a PhD does give you is the ability to start a career path that doesn't involve doing the same thing for the next 30 years. I actually advise people to do something completely different immediately after their PhD. It makes you more open-minded and shows that you are a 'homo universalis', a smart guy that can do anything, and not just An-Expert-In-Theoretical-Laser-Diagnostics.

I see a PhD degree as an initial condition that can take you to places you cannot reach if you just do a masters.
In some cases it might be a necessary requirement to reach a certain goal, but it is never a sufficient requirement.

 

[mdxyz]

Why play golf for 10 years when you're not going to become a professional golf player?

This is a good analogy.

Imagine that a PhD is like someone paying you food and board to play amateur golf for 5 or so years.

I can see the appeal of that.

But bear in mind that many people with physics PhDs were Type A overachievers in school who saw their degree as a ticket to the very top, not a scratch-card where the prize is to get paid to do your hobby for a few years, then have to get a mediocre job.

And I am quite sanguine about the proportion of physics PhDs who earn more at 30 than they would have done without a bachelor's, when considering student loans and foregone income.

From a financial perspective, on average a PhD does not have the best return of investment. Maybe it's better to study for dentist or something similar. But I don't see myself looking into other people's mouths for the next 30 years - boring!

I'm with you on those trade school professions. They are just technician jobs with inflated salaries due to licensing. However a lot of physicists see themselves being dumped into jobs that aren't much more exciting, but also carry worse pay and social status, like accountancy or programming.

 

[jesse73]

I see a PhD degree as an initial condition that can take you to places you cannot reach if you just do a masters.
In some cases it might be a necessary requirement to reach a certain goal, but it is never a sufficient requirement.

The only cases for a necessary requirement of a PhD are for technical research positions which the rest of the comment acknowledges is unlikely position to get.

There is also the demeaning look at a lifetime of dentistry while acknowledging that phd physicists arent going to work in physics. Seems odd.

 

[jesse73]

That is true, however you don't have to do just your PhDs and nothing else (real world needs flexibility). For example I know PhD researchers who at the same time start a new Masters course (for example on mathematics). It depends on the person. For example, because my plan's to do PhD on phenomenology of supersymmetry (something that is far away from "industry"), at the same time I'll try to start a masters on economics and model-making (which is good for the real market and easier than doing a masters on mathematics)... the costs will be less than the money I can take from a PhD salary...

Are you planning on having your advisor pay for your economics masters or masters on "model making??" . I don't think your advisor would be happy with a student starting out with one foot out the door and paying for it too?

 

[ChrisVer]

I am not going to be paid for my masters, I am going to do my PhDs and parallel a master...there's a difference (I'll be paid for my work)