Are you happy being a Physicist?

twofish-quant

That's not true. Everyone that I know with a physics Ph.D. makes either decent or in some cases totally absurd salaries. I don't know of anyone outside of academia that would be considered "poor".

One funny thing is that because physics warps your mind, you don't find making large sums of money to be particularly pleasurable. I don't think money really matters. It's social approval. In some societies, money==social approval, but it doesn't work that way in physics.

In fact there isn't. What happens is that as your definition of "comfortable life" changes. I think that I probably worry as much as if not more about financial issues now than I did in college. There is some interesting neuropsychology going on, and I think it has something to do with how addiction works.

One thing interesting about addicts to heroin is that they don't derive any pleasure from heroin, but they feel miserable without it. This is because their brain receptors change. I think the same sort of neuropsychology happens in your daily life. Once you are used to traveling in business class, your brain rewires to consider it "normal."

It makes sense when you realize that people aren't after money, but rather social status or social approval.

You standards of "decent" will change a lot. Also a lot depend on who your social peers are. If you make 25K, but everyone you know makes 20K, you feel rich. My guess is that most college students estimate what is "decent" based on how much the richest people they have standard social contact with make (i.e. college professors). The trouble is that once you reach level X, you see level X+1, and then you feel poor.

bpatrick

Keep in mind your own words there about "who your social peers are." I must say that I DO know many people with masters and PhDs (some in math, some in physics, some in music) who ARE "poor". I think it depends on where you are. You might not know any, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. I don't know many people who make as much money as you probably do (most likely just a few doctors I know), and I don't live in New York (but do live in a big city). I doubt we'd ever associate with the same people, go to the same restaurants, travel to the same places for recreation, be active with the same social clubs, etc... it's totally different social circles.

I'm "poor" and I tend to run into and associate with more "poor" people. Being well educated, I also generally associate with intelligent and well educated people. When those two populations intersect, and you live in that social circle, you find that there are a decent amount of science PhDs who are struggling, underemployed, and unemployed.

Both of our statements really have nothing to say about the overall status of PhDs, since both sets of people we are talking about are small portions of the total population, so I really don't want this post to make a huge deal about that ... I just wanted to highlight that you (and me too) should avoid gross generalizations based on our limited social interactions.

twofish-quant

Exactly. But the fact that we are both physics Ph.D.'s and *don't* associate with the same people, go to the same restaurants, etc. etc. is a bit scary.

I don't know of any science Ph.D.'s that are struggling, underemployed, or unemployed.

I know of a few humanities Ph.D.'s in that situation. Part of it might be that the Austin, Texas economy is pretty decent, and so all of the UT Austin graduates that I know of have been able to get jobs, and the all end up in suburbia.

It could also be an age issue. My peers mostly graduated in the "dot-com" era when jobs were plentiful. Even after the crash, people that worked for a dot-com that blew up were able to get marketable work experience.

Also, I *feel* poor, because I see a social strata of people above me (i.e. my bosses boss) that makes a ton more money and has a much better lifestyle than anything I can afford. It's really scary.

Sure, but it's important to compare notes.

But once we start comparing notes, then you can start making generalizations. One generalization appears to be geography is important. There's a bit of self-selection since I seem to have less resistance to moving than most people. Moving is painful and difficult, but in the end I grit my teeth and did it.

Also what *really* worries me is generation gap. I know that the situation for people that graduated in 2008 is worse than 1998, the question is how much worse is it. It doesn't seem that bad, but that might be because Texas isn't in bad shape economically speaking.

Something that really disturbs me is that it wasn't supposed to turn out this way. After the Soviet Union fell, we were supposed to move into a world of plenty, and in 1999 people were talking as if the dot-com boom was permanent.

One thing that I noticed is that a lot of the books that are young adult fiction (Hunger Games) are about worlds in which adults have royally screwed everything up and that people are killing each other just to survive. It's really scary to think about *why* this sort of fiction is popular.

twofish-quant

Also if it turns out that we are each in disjoint social circles that don't interact, then things get really scary. One of the things that I am terrified of is social revolution, and this is partly because my family ended up in the US because they were at the wrong end of the revolution.

The other thing to point out is that "I'm not that old". The world clearly went "off track" some time between 1995 and today, and I'm trying to piece together what exactly happened. The good news is that whatever pushed things off track could push things back on track. Then again maybe not.

However, I do think that whether you will be "happy" or not will depend on historical events that are largely out of your control.

chill_factor

how about this: they will not get positions dealing with astronomy or particle physics directly and must retool their skillset more than people who did something more directly applicable. I will find it hard to argue that someone who did research on particle physics is more applicable and more employable than someone who did research on say, semiconductor processing or optics.

Also I think you have selection bias due to your specific field, method of research, personality, school of graduation and time of graduation.

gbeagle

I have no experience of New York, but twofish's description of working at a startup mirrors the experiences of a lot my friends and me. I don't personally know anyone that is in a tech field in my area (Silicon Valley), who doesn't work hours longer than 9to5. Note that it's after 3 am in California as I write this...

twofish-quant

I didn't have to do this. Part of it involved trying to sell myself as a "numerical dynamicist" rather than an "astrophysicist".

I don't know about "more applicable." But most of computational astrophysics involve baby-sitting large numerical codes, and those are very common in the world. People that do "pencil and paper" theory are going to have a hard time with it, but a lot of particle physics involves "hard core" numerical programming.

Sure, but the numbers are small enough, and the experiences are varied enough so that it's hard to talk about a "representative sample." I can say that among the 50 or so people that graduated from my department around the time of my Ph.D., I'm not that unusual. There's a professor that tracks these things.

Also trying to figure out what the biases are is interesting.

There are some generational effects. One thing that I've heard people mention is that the quality of programmers declined quite sharply around 2000, and I think that part of it has to do with the fact that the generation of people that grew up programming BASIC on the TRS-80 from age six disappeared.

chiro

Your previous posts of yours mention that you read things like Karl Marx, but I wonder if you have studied empires in great detail.

Look at what happens when empires build up and what leads to their collapse and I think you'll find at least one part of the puzzle you are trying to solve.

Rika

It's funny how people can be so different from each other. Mundane and boring work drives me crazy. After few months of doing research I was sure I'll go insane.

What is more I really hate programming and when I see another bug I just want to throw my Pc outside the window. I'm happy that I could say "goodbye" to programming after I graduated.

It really depends. I have always wanted to have a work which uses my creativity and imagination to the greatest extend. Science turned out to be bad for that.


Yes but most people study physics because they want to do physics (if not in academia then in industry). If they wanted to do finance/programming they would study it. You like working in finance because it's similar to physics in some aspects but there is no guarantee that somebody else will enjoy working in finance/oil and gas because he/she is physics major.

I think that there are many people like ParticleGrl who would prefer engineering/applied physicist jobs over finance. If they knew that getting HEP PhD leads them to finance they would choose different field or branch of physics.

So yes there are well-paid jobs* that you can get with physics degree

*but they often have nth to do with physics




This one you can learn during undergraduate degree

If you do research afterwards then yes - it's not a waste of time. But if you spend 7+ years to master the skill which you won't use for the rest of your life it is. Life is too short for that.

If you don't go standard route you are always considered to be a failure. It's the same for me since instead of doing "serious" and "intellectual demanding" job like engineering or programming/doing some "real art" like oil painting I'm drawing pictures and write story and mechanics for video games (which is considered to be stupid pop culture for shallow people by some PF useres). But since I'm happy I don't give a **** about it.

You are right. From what I understand OP said he works hard "to be ahead of his peers" which means for me that he wants to be on top of his field.


It really depends. Not getting PhD was one of the best decisions in my life.

Yes, people who have graduated/will graduate 10-15 years after you are generally screwed.

Strange. Most people in my country go for technical positions because you can get stable 9-5 job with nice income. Have in mind that we don't have any industry besides IT and maybe that's the reason.

More or less in startup you must work really hard in order to get stable position in market so I guess it's quite normal.

I don't. That's why I have chosen a work which is my passion. Because when I'm having fun I'm getting sucked into the work and don't mind if it's hard.

My country is poor, most people are poor and they don't feel rich because they earn a little more than they peers.

Locrian

Maybe this is true if we take it litterally, but I think the quotations are meant to suggest a type of job, not the literal hours. In that case it's wrong; there are lots of actuaries who work regular business hours and whose work can be described as technical.

I'm not one of them, but there are plenty out there.

Locrian

Then clearly there aren't any.

Certainly no one fitting these descriptions have ever posted on this forum.

FACEPALM

Mépris

Curiously, my personal "happiness" does not come before "what am I doing to make the world a better place?" (by the standards of the people around me and my own) and I wonder whether this has anything to do with the "math/physics culture"!

Maybe it's just *me* and as such, extrapolating to everyone who likes math and physics is a bad idea, but the richest people I know (and I know quite a few of 'em) are rich enough to afford boats and beach houses. That's quite rich. Nevertheless, my idea of "decent" is just a one-room apartment (with kitchen and bathroom separate from bedroom) and having enough money to buy food and a library subscription with. It never increased as I started seeing richer persons on a more regular basis.

As bpatrick pointed out, maybe it's just because of the limited number of people I interact with, but everyone I know who does have a job (and/or employs people) has been talking about the financial crash as if it were permanent.

StatGuy2000

There is no denying that the impact of the financial crash is serious across many countries around the world, but to state that the effects are somehow permanent is both needlessly pessimistic and is not backed up by history. It may take many years, but the majority of developed nations with stable political institutions who have experienced financial crashes in the past do eventually recover from them.

One can look at the US example, where the economy is slowly recovering with more jobs being made available. The pace of recovery may be slow, and job creation may not be sufficient to lower the unemployment rate substantially as of this time, but the US will recover economically.

George Jones

This is all I needed as a bachelor, but financial needs increase when one decides to have a family.

ParticleGrl

But for people who graduated during these bad years, the effects on job/income will be permanent. If you've ever talked with people who came of age during the great depression, it cast a shadow over their entire lives.

Also, at the rate we are going, its something like a decade to full employment, and if Europe falls apart it could drag the US down with it which just further delays 'recovery'. The US may well be in an awful labor market for my entire 30s. Thats bound to hurt tons of people's early careers.

StatGuy2000

ParticleGrl, I agree with you that for those graduates entering force during these past few years will possibly face long-term effects due to the fallout of the financial crisis of 2008 (in a manner not dissimilar to those who came of age during the Great Depression). What I'm arguing is that if we look at a long-term view, the financial crisis will not have a permanent negative effect on the US economy as a whole.

There has been much press lately about an increasing pessimism and negativity within the US, how American civilization is disintegrating, how the US is "losing its place" in the world (a pessimism that I see reflected even here in Physics Forums). What I'm arguing is that the pessimism underlying these statements are unwarranted. There has been numerous periods (including the 1930's) when people have predicted the decline of the US, only to see the nation not only recover, but take strong leadership in all spheres of the world. Frankly, I don't see how the current situation is any different.

The resources available to the US -- the enormous creativity of the people, a culture that is accepting of experimentation, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, the great universities, the resilience of the nation as a whole -- are considerable, and I am fundamentally optimistic that the US will once again rise up to its challenges, and with it new opportunities for future students.

Now as far as when this will occur, or at any rate when we will reach full employment -- well, it could take a decade, or it could be sooner, and this will partly depend on events in Europe, as well as other events in the world, and I do not wish to hazard a guess of when that would be.

turbo

I am not a physicist, but my happiest years as a consultant were when I was troubleshooting systems in pulp mills and paper machines. The hours were sometimes brutal, and required travel and absences from home, but the work was stimulating.

Part chemistry, part mechanical engineering, and part physics. I was not degreed in any of those disciplines, but 4 years in a brand-new pulp mill as a process chemist and 6 more years as the top operator of a very sophisticated high-speed paper machine teaches you stuff you can't possibly learn in college.