Theoretical Physics PhD worthless nowadays?

[twofish-quant]

1. Whole world still sees US as science paradise.

That's because it is compared to anywhere else. The problem with the US, is that we have too many Ph.D.'s for academic jobs. Most other countries don't have this problem since it's practically impossible for most people to get a Ph.D.

2. People can work effecitvely only at "healthy" stress level. This stress level is too high and sometimes "non-optimal" people can be more creative than perfect hypergeniuses. I don't think that current system is good for science.

Your not the only one that has made that point. It's just extremely difficult to think of another one. Part of the problem is that like most power structures the people that make the decisions as to whether to change the system or not tend to be the people that won at it.

3. It seems that science is more competitive than showbiz or sports.

I don't think that it is. The number of people that get tenure track is 1 in 5, but I think that's higher than the "success rate" for showbiz or professional sports. One thing that these fields have in common is that feast or famine. Tiny differences in inputs make huge differences in outcomes. If you are slightly better or luckier, then there is a positive feedback cycle that pushes you up or down.

 

[Rika]

That's because it is compared to anywhere else. The problem with the US, is that we have too many Ph.D.'s for academic jobs. Most other countries don't have this problem since it's practically impossible for most people to get a Ph.D

That's true but then if other countries do not produce too many PhDs then why do they have the same problem with rare academic positions as US?

I don't think that it is. The number of people that get tenure track is 1 in 5, but I think that's higher than the "success rate" for showbiz or professional sports. One thing that these fields have in common is that feast or famine. Tiny differences in inputs make huge differences in outcomes. If you are slightly better or luckier, then there is a positive feedback cycle that pushes you up or down.

I don't know about US but generally you need to for example run under X seconds in order to join professional team. It's not true for academia, right? Skills and results are not enough because you don't need 5 scientist more. But you always need skilled sportsman or showman. The more, the better because every single sportsman will bring $$$. That's my guess but it may be wrong.

 

[Choppy]

I don't think that it is. The number of people that get tenure track is 1 in 5, but I think that's higher than the "success rate" for showbiz or professional sports. One thing that these fields have in common is that feast or famine. Tiny differences in inputs make huge differences in outcomes. If you are slightly better or luckier, then there is a positive feedback cycle that pushes you up or down.

I agree completely.

Say for example, you have to roughly equal undergrads. Both do a reseach internship in their first summer. One ends up on a project that turns into a hot area over the next decade. Even though she's essentially turning the crank in the lab, she does enough work to produce some good results that a post-doc on the project quickly writes up. She ends up with three solid publications before entering graduate school. The other works his butt off that same summer on a very similar project, but the results aren't quite so successful because hey, it's research. He ends up with some good experience, but no publications.

She receives a prestigious scholarship for graduate school. She doesn't have to TA and can focus on her project full time. She also has the advantage of already having experience in a hot field. She wins a young investigators award at a conference.

He gets into graduate school, but gets no additional funding beyond a standard stipend. As a consequence, he has to TA and take on a part-time job. It take him longer to finish, and he has no funding to attend conferences.

She gets a prestigious post-doc. Her field is now super-hot and she's a leading expert in it. She earns a few decent grants which demonstrate a clear ability to bring income into a department, which then make her a prime candidate for a tenture-track position.

His field is quickly becoming obsolete and when he eventually graduates, there are no post-doctoral positions for him, so he has to compete with others with more experience for a post-doc in an area that's brand new for him.

And these are solid, tangible examples. I think there can be a psychological effect there as well. People with a history of doing well are often treated better than those with a mediocre history, even when their current performance is the same. Anyway, you get the idea - subtle, arbitrary differences in initial conditions can make huge differences in outcomes.

 

[DrRocket]

Programming and a basic ability to look at a problem/issue and tell whether or not the answer was physical in nature.

This is an interesting and most surprising observation. How is it possible for someone with a solid background in physics to lack this capability.

This strikes me as similar to statements that I have heard to the effect that "he understands the theory but cannot apply it", which is really an oxymoron. Anyone who actually understands a theory, not who simply can parrot derivations, can most certainly apply it -- that is what theory is all about. Similarly, anyone who actually understands even basic physics should be able to look at a problem and determine not only whether the problem is physical, but what subdisciplines apply.

What I have encountered are people who understand the theory very well but seem unable to make simple approximations and produce quick and accurate approximate answers -- you don't need a full-blown solution to the Navier-Stokes equation in order to determine and approximate pressure drop sufficient to determine if something is about to explode.

I am also a bit surprised by the criticism of programming ability. Most of the younger physicists of my acquaintence are extremely good programmers. The experimentalists tend to also be very competent at circuit design.

Was there something unusual about this particular instance ?

 

[akhil999in]

Ideally there would be no one-to-one link between education and making a living.

A free people would be able to study whatever subject they feel without having to use it as the means of earning a livelihood. Something like aristocracy.

 

[DrRocket]

Ideally there would be no one-to-one link between education and making a living.

A free people would be able to study whatever subject they feel without having to use it as the means of earning a livelihood. Something like aristocracy.

Free people are most certainly able to study whatever subject they feel without having to use it as means of earning a livelihood. There is no one-to-one link between education and making a living, and never was.

That has nothing whatever to do with a link between education and making a living. It is also most certainly true that education increases one's capability to produce things of value. And there is clearly a link between the ability to earn a livelihood and the ability to produce things of value -- especially in a free society. In a totalitarian or socialistic society things are a bit different and there the connection is more rigid.

I know very few people who earn a livelihood doing exactly those tasks specifically related to their education. That applies especially to those with the highest incomes.

Eugene Wigner was educated as a chemical engineer. Randolph Scott was a voice coach. Lindsey Lohan has apparently talent only for inheriting wealth. Bill Gates dropped out of college.

 

[Dr Transport]

This is an interesting and most surprising observation. How is it possible for someone with a solid background in physics to lack this capability.

This strikes me as similar to statements that I have heard to the effect that "he understands the theory but cannot apply it", which is really an oxymoron. Anyone who actually understands a theory, not who simply can parrot derivations, can most certainly apply it -- that is what theory is all about. Similarly, anyone who actually understands even basic physics should be able to look at a problem and determine not only whether the problem is physical, but what subdisciplines apply.

What I have encountered are people who understand the theory very well but seem unable to make simple approximations and produce quick and accurate approximate answers -- you don't need a full-blown solution to the Navier-Stokes equation in order to determine and approximate pressure drop sufficient to determine if something is about to explode.

I am also a bit surprised by the criticism of programming ability. Most of the younger physicists of my acquaintence are extremely good programmers. The experimentalists tend to also be very competent at circuit design.

Was there something unusual about this particular instance ?

This particular university required no programming expertise/competency in any of their physics degree programs as a prerequisite for graduation.

As for the inability to look at a solution and judge its physical reality, the program didn't give a solid background in physics. As an example, after I was admitted to their graduate program (I was changing fields from QED to Optical Physics) I found that all of the graduate courses I was required to take were taught a lower level than the previous university I attended for my masters and if they were comparable, they didn't cover the same amount of material, i.e. I had to fight to not take Jackson's E&M again, it took my bringing in my course notes and comparing them and my worked homework solutions to the syllabus and the previous years instructors notes to convince them that I actually had more of Jackson than they taught traditionally. I had courses at my previous university that they had no comparable course, for example, computational methods, Advanced QM, QED, Quantum Theory of Fields... My only challenges were in the pure optics courses, but I was willing to live with it because I was entirely changing fields of study.

 

[DrRocket]

This particular university required no programming expertise/competency in any of their physics degree programs as a prerequisite for graduation.

As for the inability to look at a solution and judge its physical reality, the program didn't give a solid background in physics. As an example, after I was admitted to their graduate program (I was changing fields from QED to Optical Physics) I found that all of the graduate courses I was required to take were taught a lower level than the previous university I attended for my masters and if they were comparable, they didn't cover the same amount of material, i.e. I had to fight to not take Jackson's E&M again, it took my bringing in my course notes and comparing them and my worked homework solutions to the syllabus and the previous years instructors notes to convince them that I actually had more of Jackson than they taught traditionally. I had courses at my previous university that they had no comparable course, for example, computational methods, Advanced QM, QED, Quantum Theory of Fields... My only challenges were in the pure optics courses, but I was willing to live with it because I was entirely changing fields of study.

It sounds as though your comments are completely justifiable. But also that the situation is rather unique -- you might read that as weird.

I am rather taken aback at your having to fight not to take some introductory graduate E&M course given your background. I am in fact surprised that ANY classes were rigidly required. At the level of a PhD program what I am accustomed to is the only hard and fast requirement being an acceptable dissertation, with great freedom to select appropriate course work -- or take only research seminars which amount to formal classes at all.

As to the statement that the program dis not give a solid background in physics -- it speaks volumes. I would advise anyone in such a situation to go elsewhere post haste.

 

[Dr Transport]

I am rather taken aback at your having to fight not to take some introductory graduate E&M course given your background. I am in fact surprised that ANY classes were rigidly required. At the level of a PhD program what I am accustomed to is the only hard and fast requirement being an acceptable dissertation, with great freedom to select appropriate course work -- or take only research seminars which amount to formal classes at all.

There were hard and fast rules about the courses that had to be taken towards a graduate degree. I already had a Masters from another university and had taken E&M once during a normal course sequence, I had also taken a comps/prelim review course where I had an abbreviated course in Jackson (i.e. about 75% of the normal 2 semester sequence in ~10 weeks).

Another funny aside, the courses had no alignment in course numbers at all between the two places, this is normal, but in my case E&M was for grins we'll say, Phy 514 & 515. At the other university, it was Phy 550 and Phy 730 and they had the audacity to claim that neither of my original courses was taught at as high a level and I had to write a letter to the registrars office and get my previous masters adviser to write a letter detailing the course content so that I could graduate. Even with my background, I could not be allowed to register as a PhD student until after I passed my comprehensive exams even though I had for the most part taken every course they offered at a higher level previously.

Hind sight is 20/20, the only fond memories I have are of my adviser and another couple of my professors whom I still talk/email fairly regularly. My adviser taught me three things, good physics, fine wines and Manhattans (a powerful drink which if you're not careful will put you on your butt for a couple of days).

 

[filegraphy]

I have a problem. Can somebody help me solve it?

Here it is: I want to be a theoretical physicist. I love physics both on the quantum scale and on the macroscopic scale. See the problem is that physicist do not make that much money. Can I get anyone's advice on this? Please anything works. Thank you.

 

[filegraphy]

Theorectical Physics vs. Money

I love theoretical physics. I read and learn of it all day. It is so mystifying. The problem is that this job does not make a lot of money. I am stuck. Please help me.

 

[mgb_phys]

The problem is that this job does not make a lot of money. I am stuck. Please help me.

Actually theoretical physics tend to make more money than any other branch
Just head to Wall St / the city (london) / Grand cayman

 

[filegraphy]

How much money are we talking?

 

[Leptos]

How much money are we talking?

I'm guessing that most probably, you're still in grade school. In any case, your job prospects will depend upon how good you are and not just what you've studied.
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/salary/salary06.htm

Physics major performance on MCAT and LSAT:
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/mcat2009.pdf

 

[Academic]

Actually theoretical physics tend to make more money than any other branch
Just head to Wall St / the city (london) / Grand cayman

? You are suggesting doing finance rather than theoretical physics.

 

[filegraphy]

The problem is that the salary a year is not enough. The salary a year is going to be about 60,000(approximately) a year. My family depends on me more than that.

 

[Mathnomalous]

What kind of equipment or support would your "random" theoretical physicist require to perform her/his job? My impression is that a chalkboard, a quiet space, and perhaps a computer would be sufficient, no?

 

[filegraphy]

Yes that would be nice, but I prefer paper.

 

[some_dude]

Actually theoretical physics tend to make more money than any other branch
Just head to Wall St / the city (london) / Grand cayman

Wait... There are quant jobs in the Cayman Islands?