Being a professor where you want

[Lelephant]

Whenever I look at the careers of famous physicists, current and past, they seem to only attend prestigious universities. They graduate with a PhD from some great physics school and immediately start teaching somewhere very well regarded, whether it's Princeton or MIT. I've also read "So You Want to Be a Physicist," where zapperz mentions that the majority of physics jobs are posted in Physics Today.

I searched in Physics Today's Jobs just today and found one postdoc opportunity at Princeton. No matter when I search, I can't seem to find any assistant or associate professorships at any highly ranked physics universities. I assume that all of these great physicists do well, are known in their field, etc.

My question is, how do these people snag jobs at universities like MIT, Caltech and Princeton if those universities never seem to publicize those jobs?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Virtually none of what you wrote is true. Many successful physicists got degrees at places other than "Princeton and MIT", most do not go straight from PhD to faculty, and faculty jobs are advertised - although usually not in July.

 

[Lelephant]

By "Princeton and MIT" I mean to say, large, big name, very prestigious schools where a faculty member could find lots of funding for research.

I'm aware that it isn't typical to go straight from PhD to faculty, I'm asking how this small percentage of physicists prove themselves in order to achieve faculty positions at schools like these.

I'm also asking how, even though big name universities don't typically have openings for professorship every year, these physicists seem to immediately find a job there -- is it their research? Their professional contacts?

 

[jtbell]

Advertisements will appear this fall (September or October onwards), for positions that start in fall 2014.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Its important to remember that the career of physicist was very different before the second world war, and the period between the end of WW2 and 1970 (Goodstein called this the golden age of physics) was also very different then today.

When you read a biography of a famous physicist, odds are their career path was very different then the standard career path today.

For a few telling examples of the differences- peer review in the pre-WW2 period was non-existent. Only one of Einstein's papers was ever peer reiviewed in the sense we think of it today. In the post-WW2 period, postdocs were rare, and most grant proposals were funded (funding was growing fast enough to accommodate the growing number of physicists). Post-1970, the field entered its big-crunch phase (also borrowing from Goodstein).

Many of the famous scientists you read about had careers during that golden period when funding was plentiful and universities were expanding. That world, that career path, doesn't exist anymore and its not coming back.

 

[Bipolarity]

Its important to remember that the career of physicist was very different before the second world war, and the period between the end of WW2 and 1970 (Goodstein called this the golden age of physics) was also very different then today.

When you read a biography of a famous physicist, odds are their career path was very different then the standard career path today.

For a few telling examples of the differences- peer review in the pre-WW2 period was non-existent. Only one of Einstein's papers was ever peer reiviewed in the sense we think of it today. In the post-WW2 period, postdocs were rare, and most grant proposals were funded (funding was growing fast enough to accommodate the growing number of physicists). Post-1970, the field entered its big-crunch phase (also borrowing from Goodstein).

Many of the famous scientists you read about had careers during that golden period when funding was plentiful and universities were expanding. That world, that career path, doesn't exist anymore and its not coming back.

Not that I disagree with anything else you said, but what makes you think "it's not coming back." ?

BiP

 

[jtbell]

In the US at least, during the post WW2 period, universities in general were expanding rapidly, and new universities were being built, because more and more students were going on to university from high school. Also, there was some political urgency in competing with the Soviet Union to produce more scientists and engineers, and expand research in various fields. A related phenomenon was the "space race" which led to putting men on the moon. That growth had to stop at some point. Also, I think there was an economic recession around 1970.

When I was in college in the early 1970s, one of the physics professors left and the college hired a new guy. He told us that when he started graduate school, jobs for new PhD's were easy to get, but by the time he finished, he considered himself lucky to get a small-college teaching job. He did end up finding a research position at Oak Ridge a couple of years later.

I suppose it's possible that a new reason will emerge for compelling urgency to expand science and engineering, but it's kind of hard to predict things like this. Maybe China will become more belligerent... (but that's a topic for the P&WA forum, not here!)

 

[Vanadium 50]

By "Princeton and MIT" I mean to say, large, big name, very prestigious schools where a faculty member could find lots of funding for research.

Consider HEP: the six "Snowmass" conveners, who are six of the most important people in US HEP at the moment. They are graduates of Aachen, Carnegie-Mellon, Cornell, Iowa State, Stanford and Wisconsin.

If you pulled a half-dozen people out of a good department, that's also the sort of distribution you would see.

I'm aware that it isn't typical to go straight from PhD to faculty, I'm asking how this small percentage of physicists prove themselves in order to achieve faculty positions at schools like these.


I'm also asking how, even though big name universities don't typically have openings for professorship every year, these physicists seem to immediately find a job there -- is it their research? Their professional contacts?

They don't. Not any more. Can you give any modern examples?

 

[ParticleGrl]

Not that I disagree with anything else you said, but what makes you think "it's not coming back." ?

How would you imagine the glory days returning? We currently create many more physics phds then their are jobs for physicists. If you double the number of physics faculty overnight, everyone currently a postdoc has won the lottery and will get a faculty position, but then the problem immediately starts over again.

All of our science institutions grew-up and make sense in a world of increasing funding (look at peer review- its great for vetting work, but when you use it to allocate scarce resources you open the door for all sorts of unethical behavior). When the NIH budget doubled, there was very little new faculty hiring, but the number of graduate students and postdocs increased.

 

[StatGuy2000]

How would you imagine the glory days returning? We currently create many more physics phds then their are jobs for physicists. If you double the number of physics faculty overnight, everyone currently a postdoc has won the lottery and will get a faculty position, but then the problem immediately starts over again.

All of our science institutions grew-up and make sense in a world of increasing funding (look at peer review- its great for vetting work, but when you use it to allocate scarce resources you open the door for all sorts of unethical behavior). When the NIH budget doubled, there was very little new faculty hiring, but the number of graduate students and postdocs increased.

The natural response, therefore, to handling an oversupply of physics PhDs (and the consequent devaluing of the value of said PhD) is to do one of two things: (1) direct these physics PhDs outside of academia or research (their preferred area of work) to industry or to cognate work (e.g. in your case, working in statistical analysis); or (2) reduce the number of physics PhDs.

Option #1 is the current default for many PhDs, but the consequence is that the majority of said PhDs are essentially unhappy that they have invested so much time and effort into pursuing a research field that ultimately for the majority did not pay off in related work.

Option #2 is doable by the following: (a) limiting the enrollment of physics PhDs in leading universities, (b) cutting funding even further for basic research, (c) discouraging students from pursuing physics as a field of study through counselling or through social media, (d) restricting the # of international students intending to study physics, and (e) closing down the # of physics departments in the US, possibly even closing some colleges/universities.

 

[bardeen]

The natural response, therefore, to handling an oversupply of physics PhDs (and the consequent devaluing of the value of said PhD) is to do one of two things: (1) direct these physics PhDs outside of academia or research (their preferred area of work) to industry or to cognate work (e.g. in your case, working in statistical analysis); or (2) reduce the number of physics PhDs.

Option #1 is the current default for many PhDs, but the consequence is that the majority of said PhDs are essentially unhappy that they have invested so much time and effort into pursuing a research field that ultimately for the majority did not pay off in related work.

Option #2 is doable by the following: (a) limiting the enrollment of physics PhDs in leading universities, (b) cutting funding even further for basic research, (c) discouraging students from pursuing physics as a field of study through counselling or through social media, (d) restricting the # of international students intending to study physics, and (e) closing down the # of physics departments in the US, possibly even closing some colleges/universities.

And I have never understood why physics departments do so much advertising for physics. Why do they want more and more physics PhDs if there aren't enough appropriate jobs for them? I don't think the field would die if not for their advertising, since there will always be people that go into physics for the love of it. I find it really dishonest on their part. Even if they do it to increase the pressure on the government for more funding, I don't think it's the way (assuming that somehow having more PhDs means they can pressure the government into spending more money on them).

 

[Rika]

And I have never understood why physics departments do so much advertising for physics. Why do they want more and more physics PhDs if there aren't enough appropriate jobs for them? I don't think the field would die if not for their advertising, since there will always be people that go into physics for the love of it. I find it really dishonest on their part. Even if they do it to increase the pressure on the government for more funding, I don't think it's the way (assuming that somehow having more PhDs means they can pressure the government into spending more money on them).

Because without students who pay tuition fee and wannabe PhDs who are basically free labour, they won't survive. It's all about money.

 

[Rika]

Option #2 is doable by the following: (a) limiting the enrollment of physics PhDs in leading universities, (b) cutting funding even further for basic research, (c) discouraging students from pursuing physics as a field of study through counselling or through social media, (d) restricting the # of international students intending to study physics, and (e) closing down the # of physics departments in the US, possibly even closing some colleges/universities.

It's not such a bad idea. If we want effective higher education, only 10-20% of society should be enrolled in it. Rest should get solid general education and then high quality vocational training. Otherwise everything will go "boom".

 

[jasonRF]

And I have never understood why physics departments do so much advertising for physics. Why do they want more and more physics PhDs if there aren't enough appropriate jobs for them? I don't think the field would die if not for their advertising, since there will always be people that go into physics for the love of it. I find it really dishonest on their part. Even if they do it to increase the pressure on the government for more funding, I don't think it's the way (assuming that somehow having more PhDs means they can pressure the government into spending more money on them).

I am an electrical engineer, not a physicist. But I often evaluate resumes and interview physics PhDs. It is usually hard to see how they would work out unless they have something like unusually good experience designing, building and testing hardware, on top of doing serious statistical data analysis. Most PhDs have some of this, but few are at "the next level."

I think that Physics departments could keep the number of grad students that have perhaps, but they would need to confront all first year PhD students with actual statistics on employment, and encourage students (perhaps even force, via breadth requirements) to expand beyond physics for at least part of their formal education and maybe even for a several month project. Perhaps a minor in electrical engineering or statistics or computer science or whatever. When I interview a physics PhD that has elected to take a few engineering courses (this does happen once in awhile) I can say that it really makes a difference. Finally, and this may seem like a little thing but it isn't, every physicist (undergrad even) should take a serious course on probability theory, preferably followed by a course on statistics. I have seen physicists not get hired for this single reason. Departments are doing wrong by their students if they do not require it for graduation, in my opinion.

jason

 

[StatGuy2000]

I am an electrical engineer, not a physicist. But I often evaluate resumes and interview physics PhDs. It is usually hard to see how they would work out unless they have something like unusually good experience designing, building and testing hardware, on top of doing serious statistical data analysis. Most PhDs have some of this, but few are at "the next level."

I think that Physics departments could keep the number of grad students that have perhaps, but they would need to confront all first year PhD students with actual statistics on employment, and encourage students (perhaps even force, via breadth requirements) to expand beyond physics for at least part of their formal education and maybe even for a several month project. Perhaps a minor in electrical engineering or statistics or computer science or whatever. When I interview a physics PhD that has elected to take a few engineering courses (this does happen once in awhile) I can say that it really makes a difference. Finally, and this may seem like a little thing but it isn't, every physicist (undergrad even) should take a serious course on probability theory, preferably followed by a course on statistics. I have seen physicists not get hired for this single reason. Departments are doing wrong by their students if they do not require it for graduation, in my opinion.

jason

At the risk of getting off-topic, given that statistical mechanics makes heavy use of probability theory, it never ceases to amaze me that physics majors (or physics PhD students) often do not take serious courses in probability theory. It reminds me of this lament from Cosma Shalizi, a physicist-turned-statistician now at Carnegie Mellon University on his blog back in 2004:

http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/297.html

 

[ZapperZ]

Because without students who pay tuition fee and wannabe PhDs who are basically free labour, they won't survive. It's all about money.

This needs to be corrected, because it is false.

Most physics graduate students DO NOT pay tuition and fees. In fact, at some of the most expensive schools in the US (Stanford, Cornell, Princeton, etc.), most of the students accepted into their PhD programs receive some form of assistantships, predominantly from the schools. The amount of actual tuition and fees from full-paying students in these physics programs amount to almost nothing when compared to the departments' budget. So the enticements for graduate students in physics is DEFINITELY not about the money these schools get from tuition and fees.

Secondly, and as a consequence of the above, schools simply don't want to attract PhD students for "cheap labor", because you can't create cheap labor without having funds to pay for them. What this means is that there is already work and projects that need to have such students. In the US, grant agencies such as the NSF often REQUIRE or mandate that part of the money be used to train future physicists in that particular area or with those particular skills. So the grant recipients will have slots open to hire PhD candidates as Research Assistants. In other words, there is a clear NEED for such work force other than just having warm bodies as "cheap labor". That is why one often sees advertisements for PhD students to work in such-and-such area.

Zz.

 

[Rika]

This needs to be corrected, because it is false.

Most physics graduate students DO NOT pay tuition and fees. In fact, at some of the most expensive schools in the US (Stanford, Cornell, Princeton, etc.), most of the students accepted into their PhD programs receive some form of assistantships, predominantly from the schools. The amount of actual tuition and fees from full-paying students in these physics programs amount to almost nothing when compared to the departments' budget. So the enticements for graduate students in physics is DEFINITELY not about the money these schools get from tuition and fees.

But I wasn't talking about graduate students but undergraduate who pay tuition fee. If you want to have PhDs, first you need to lure undergrads. So faculties lure young people with "physicists are great problem solvers and fast learners so Physics degree is very marketable yada yada ********". Later on those people are forced to do PhD because getting a job with bachelor only is almost impossible. At least you in USA can take engineering/statistic classes but in Europe you need to take all classes from Physics curriculum so if you want to learn sth about engineering/statistic you are forced to double major.

Secondly, and as a consequence of the above, schools simply don't want to attract PhD students for "cheap labor", because you can't create cheap labor without having funds to pay for them. What this means is that there is already work and projects that need to have such students. In the US, grant agencies such as the NSF often REQUIRE or mandate that part of the money be used to train future physicists in that particular area or with those particular skills. So the grant recipients will have slots open to hire PhD candidates as Research Assistants. In other words, there is a clear NEED for such work force other than just having warm bodies as "cheap labor". That is why one often sees advertisements for PhD students to work in such-and-such area.

Zz.

But isn't it all about money? After all if NSF project required good scientists rather than PhD students cost would be greater (I can't see 35-40 years old working for 20k$ per year). It's not like there is real need for PhDs, rather NSF forces universities to produce more PhDs as cheap labour rather than taking care of already existing ones.

 

[Aaronvan]

I'm not sure about university jobs but I read (somewhere) that about 90% of all employment positions are never advertised; rather, they are filled via word-of-mouth.

That old saying "It's not what you know; it's who you know" certainly has some validity in higher education.

 

[Locrian]

I roughly agree with Rika. Physics departments seek undergraduates because it maintains their undergraduate programs financially, and graduate students are cheap labor for the department (whether they are cheap for society is another question entirely).

However I also agree with Zz that there is a demonstrated need for this work force. Inexpensive educated employees who demand little in the way of benefits, require no job security, expect weak long term career prospects but nevertheless work amazingly hard, are very valuable to their employer.

 

[ZapperZ]

I roughly agree with Rika. Physics departments seek undergraduates because it maintains their undergraduate programs financially, and graduate students are cheap labor for the department (whether they are cheap for society is another question entirely).

Please note that Rika was responding to Bardeen's comments about PhD students, not undergraduates. Undergraduates tend to not have direct financial support from their institutions (i.e. the student loans, financial aids, etc. often do not come from the schools), and thus, the schools do take in tuition and fees there, even though they still do not cover completely the full financial expenses of the school. This is not the same situation for Physics PhD students, who often do receive direct financial assistantships from the schools themselves, either from the department via TAships, or from individual professors via RAships.

However I also agree with Zz that there is a demonstrated need for this work force. Inexpensive educated employees who demand little in the way of benefits, require no job security, expect weak long term career prospects but nevertheless work amazingly hard, are very valuable to their employer.

The problem here is that research work done when one is a graduate student isn't the same as jobs in the work force. Think about it. The students are actually PAYING (whether directly or indirectly) to do that work via the research course that they enroll in. In other words, the research work is PART of the students' coursework and training. The students pay for the number of credits enrolled for that thesis research course.

In turn, the supervisor, or the school, will underwrite the students' tuition and fees, and pay a stipend to the student. This is not a job. In real work force, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will TAX the tuition and fees waver (in fact, the IRS did try to do that until Congress had to rewrite the law). So the work done as part of the students' PhD research work is considered as part of an educational training (which it is!), and is considered as part of the academic curriculum. It is just that it benefits both parties, you, and the supervisor/school. Thus, the supervisor/school award you financial incentives in return. It is not a job!

Zz.

 

[Rika]

The problem here is that research work done when one is a graduate student isn't the same as jobs in the work force. Think about it. The students are actually PAYING (whether directly or indirectly) to do that work via the research course that they enroll in. In other words, the research work is PART of the students' coursework and training. The students pay for the number of credits enrolled for that thesis research course.

In turn, the supervisor, or the school, will underwrite the students' tuition and fees, and pay a stipend to the student. This is not a job. In real work force, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will TAX the tuition and fees waver (in fact, the IRS did try to do that until Congress had to rewrite the law). So the work done as part of the students' PhD research work is considered as part of an educational training (which it is!), and is considered as part of the academic curriculum. It is just that it benefits both parties, you, and the supervisor/school. Thus, the supervisor/school award you financial incentives in return. It is not a job!

Zz.

PhD is sort of apprenticeship but after job training you are expected to get a job in your field. That's not a case in physics.

 

[f95toli]

It is perhaps also worth mentioning that "big names" in science are sometimes headhunted. It is not at all unusual for a univeristy to decide to rectruit one or more well known names in a field they've decided to invest money in.
If for example a university/institute decides to start up a new experimental facilty or a centre of some sort it makes sense for them to then go after a big name that can form the core of the new activities and later help attract more funding.

 

[atyy]

The problem here is that research work done when one is a graduate student isn't the same as jobs in the work force. Think about it. The students are actually PAYING (whether directly or indirectly) to do that work via the research course that they enroll in. In other words, the research work is PART of the students' coursework and training. The students pay for the number of credits enrolled for that thesis research course.

In turn, the supervisor, or the school, will underwrite the students' tuition and fees, and pay a stipend to the student. This is not a job. In real work force, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will TAX the tuition and fees waver (in fact, the IRS did try to do that until Congress had to rewrite the law). So the work done as part of the students' PhD research work is considered as part of an educational training (which it is!), and is considered as part of the academic curriculum. It is just that it benefits both parties, you, and the supervisor/school. Thus, the supervisor/school award you financial incentives in return. It is not a job!

Zz.

Isn't this a rather formal argument given that graduate students do research - ie. work in the field?

 

[ZapperZ]

PhD is sort of apprenticeship but after job training you are expected to get a job in your field. That's not a case in physics.

I got a job in physics. So how is that not the case?

You are missing my point. Look at what I was addressing in your comment that I quoted. I'm not arguing about what happened AFTER. I'm clarifying the errors in what you stated as the nature of Ph.D training.

If we want to discuss employment in physics, we can open another thread, or, better, yet, look at other posts that I've made on this topic. For example, see the thread I made about employment in Accelerator Physics.

Isn't this a rather formal argument given that graduate students do research - ie. work in the field?

I don't understand. What is a "formal argument", and what's the issue with graduate students do research work?

Zz.

 

[George Jones]

PhD is sort of apprenticeship but after job training you are expected to get a job in your field. That's not a case in physics.

This is not the case in most disciplines.

 

[atyy]

I don't understand. What is a "formal argument", and what's the issue with graduate students do research work?

First, graduate students are paid stipend on which they are taxed.

Even if they were not taxed, that does not imply that it is not a job. Companies receive tax breaks. Why can't the non-taxation of the tuition waiver be considered a tax break?

On the research end, research is the job of professional scientists. How much of this job would be accomplished without graduate students?

Also, many senior scientists consider graduate students to be their colleagues. Is that unjustified?

 

[ZapperZ]

First, graduate students are paid stipend on which they are taxed.

Even if they were not taxed, that does not imply that it is not a job. Companies receive tax breaks. Why can't the non-taxation of the tuition waiver be considered a tax break?

On the research end, research is the job of professional scientists. How much of this job would be accomplished without graduate students?

Also, many senior scientists consider graduate students to be their colleagues. Is that unjustified?

I don't understand all this on how that relates to what I wrote.

Consider this fact: how many of you who have jobs, actually PAY your employer for you to do your job? Think about it. Students actually PAY the schools for the research courses. It is only through the tuition waves that this money does not come out of their pocket.

And how the tuition wavers relates to "tax breaks" for corporations, I have no idea. These are individuals, not corporations. Note that if you receive say, free accommodations by your employer as part of your job, you have to pay taxes on that! The IRS did tax tuition and fees for a year many years ago, and that law was repealed with the provision that these are not considered to be similar to what I wrote above.

What senior scientists consider their graduate students is of no relevance here. Not sure how "feelings" come into this.

A lot of the work that I was involved in had zero graduate students. We hired a lot of postdocs. So I'd say that we certainly accomplished quite a bit without even a single graduate student. Why this is relevant, I have no idea.

I just wish just you'd come right out and state the point you're trying to get across here, rather than hide behind all these series of puzzling questions.

Zz.

 

[atyy]

I just wish just you'd come right out and state the point you're trying to get across here, rather than hide behind all these series of puzzling questions.

I don't agree that any of the criteria you use are sufficient to establish that being a graduate student is not a job, except in certain formal senses, which is distant from common usage.

The fact that senior scientists consider graduate students colleagues supports the common usage.

 

[Lavabug]

It was to my understanding that graduate stipends in the US were taxed. Irrespective of this fact, I fail to understand how what grad teaching or research assistants typically do does not qualify as a job. The only differences I can see is that they don't adhere to strict hours and the remuneration is not strictly monetary (tuition waivers are part of the salary).

In most of Europe, phd studentships are job contracts under the strictest sense in the eyes of the law, at least this is what is stated in practically every phd advert I've seen.

How many grad students in physics actually PAY to do research work? (past the qualifier stage?) I recall an AIS statistic on the matter, and if I recall correctly it was less than 4%.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't agree that any of the criteria you use are sufficient to establish that being a graduate student is not a job, except in certain formal senses, which is distant from common usage.

The fact that senior scientists consider graduate students colleagues supports the common usage.

That last part is a fallacy.

1) Graduate students cannot hold NSF/DOE grant fundings, i.e. they never control the money or able to allocate such fundings.

2) Graduate students are not Principle Investigators (PIs) in any research projects.

That "formal sense" is what DEFINES the position, regardless of how one feels about it.

Zz.

 

[Rika]

bardeen couldn't understand "dishonesty" - universities that produce physicists that can't find a job afterwards. Education is big business. As long as people are willing to pay for a degree, unis will lure new students. As long as people are willing to sacrifice 4-6 years of their lifes for a slim chance of getting permanent job in academia, unis will gladly welcome them. And because Obama is donating this business, bubble is getting bigger and bigger. I'm curious what will happen when it explodes.

What I wanted to say is that regardless of PhD formal status, current education system is one, big lie. Not only in USA but also in Europe. It's a lie because there is no way that 41% of young (18-24 years old) people can get a job that truly requires higher education. No matter how rich or advanced in terms of technology your country is, you still need more plumbers and technicians than scienstists.

Someone was whining about "2 years of experience" for entry level job - that's one of the side effects of mass-producing people with degree. There is only one field where you can mass-produce for now - it's IT because supply/demand ratio is far too good. For now.

 

[ZapperZ]

bardeen couldn't understand "dishonesty" - universities that produce physicists that can't find a job afterwards. Education is big business. As long as people are willing to pay for a degree, unis will lure new students. As long as people are willing to sacrifice 4-6 years of their lifes for a slim chance of getting permanent job in academia, unis will gladly welcome them. And because Obama is donating this business, bubble is getting bigger and bigger. I'm curious what will happen when it explodes.

Snide comment aside, YOU are benefiting for this so-called "big business". Open PRL from 10 years ago, and tell me how many of the papers and advancements made back then out of universities that you are USING now!

I've heard this so many times before, and it never cease to amaze me how hypocritical such a comment can be! I mean, how ignorant can one get to severely criticize these institutions on one hand, and then on the next, pick up devices and use the advancement that CAME OUT of work done at these institutions. Don't believe me? Go look at where advancement in NMR/MRI came from, for example!

The fact is, you and society as a whole has benefited from work done out of these institutions! Period! Now whether the students that went into these line of studies found jobs afterwards does NOT diminish the importance of the work done out of these institutions. Rather, what is lacking is a comprehensive dose of reality that should be conveyed to these students so that they know what they are getting into. I've lost count how many students on this forum alone who simply ignored my advise of opening up their interest beyond just the sexy fields of "high energy physics", "string theory", etc. and into areas that have a higher degree of employability. You simply can only lead a horse to water, and if *I* can't tell them to wake up and assess the situation, no one and no institution can! At some point, the responsibility and the inability to find a job in the area of interest falls on that person itself!

Rather than making a blanket accusation that only reveals your bitterness, one should instead figure out if there are ways to do physics and yet, make one very employable beyond just the confines of academia! This is WAY more than possible, because there are tremendous range of fields under physics that continue to have good employment rate even in these trying times!

Zz.

 

[Choppy]

And I have never understood why physics departments do so much advertising for physics. Why do they want more and more physics PhDs if there aren't enough appropriate jobs for them? I don't think the field would die if not for their advertising, since there will always be people that go into physics for the love of it. I find it really dishonest on their part. Even if they do it to increase the pressure on the government for more funding, I don't think it's the way (assuming that somehow having more PhDs means they can pressure the government into spending more money on them).

I'd like to respond to this.

First, you have to remember that studying physics is different from vocational training. A physics department is not set up to train students to a specific level of compentancy in the trade of physics professorship. It's set up to teach physics. Eventually, if you master the subejct enough, you may have the opportunity to pursue it academically as a career. More often you will take that knowledge with you into whatever vocation you take on.

Second, what is "so much advertising for physics" anyway? Maybe it's different in the US, but most of the advertising that I've seen that is physics-specific is either (a) on equal footing with every other department in the faculty of science, or other departments for that matter, or (b) specificially targeted at groups that are under-represented in the field (ie. women). And it's far far less than advertising for schools that provide specific vocational training.

Departments need to advertise their programs to some degree. I don't think anyone wants a world where studying physics becomes a secretive pursuit available only to a small subsection of society.

 

[atyy]

That last part is a fallacy.

1) Graduate students cannot hold NSF/DOE grant fundings, i.e. they never control the money or able to allocate such fundings.

2) Graduate students are not Principle Investigators (PIs) in any research projects.

That "formal sense" is what DEFINES the position, regardless of how one feels about it.

Zz.

I don't agree with the formal argumentation. But let me ask about it.

What is your view on whether graduate researchers are doing jobs in the cases in which graduate research assistants are unionized? The Northwest Labor Press reported earlier this year: "Last year, they turned in union authorization cards signed by nearly 500 graduate research assistants, but the OSU administration argued that they’re students, not public employees. The Oregon Employment Relations Board disagreed, and scheduled an election." Another case reported by the Nature Jobs website says: "Research assistants at the Research Foundation of the State University of New York (SUNY) in Stony Brook have decided to unionize... In 2004, the federal National Labor Relations Board ruled that research assistants are students, not employees, and so could not be represented by a union. But a 2007 board ruled that those at the SUNY Research Foundation in Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse were fundamentally employees."

I don't think anyone wants a world where studying physics becomes a secretive pursuit available only to a small subsection of society.

I very much agree with this sentiment.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't agree with the formal argumentation. But let me ask about it.

What is your view on whether graduate researchers are doing jobs in the cases in which graduate research assistants are unionized? The Northwest Labor Press reported earlier this year: "Last year, they turned in union authorization cards signed by nearly 500 graduate research assistants, but the OSU administration argued that they’re students, not public employees. The Oregon Employment Relations Board disagreed, and scheduled an election." Another case reported by the Nature Jobs website says: "Research assistants at the Research Foundation of the State University of New York (SUNY) in Stony Brook have decided to unionize... In 2004, the federal National Labor Relations Board ruled that research assistants are students, not employees, and so could not be represented by a union. But a 2007 board ruled that those at the SUNY Research Foundation in Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse were fundamentally employees."

I don't know why this would matter.

Our technicians here are unionized. They are employees. In many cases, I consider them as my colleagues because when I want to design something, I consult them. They attend our weekly meetings as everyone else. But just because I consider them "equal", they still have different pay grades, they are still not PIs, and we each have formally different titles.

Want more examples? Many faculty members don't distinguish themselves among each other. Assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, senior professors, etc...etc. We all consider ourselves equal. Using your logic, there should be any difference. Yet, the reality is, no matter how you feel about it, there are distinct differences, especially between tenured and non-tenured faculty! The reality is, there ARE significant differences in the status that the institution has granted, and what other agencies have granted, regardless of how you "feel" about it.

These graduate assistants can be unionized, or not. But they still do not hold the research grants, and they still are not PIs in the research initiated by their supervisors! That doesn't change no matter if you call Pluto a planet or not!

Zz