Physics What options are available for a physics graduate struggling to find a job?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bjj8383
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    B.s. Physics
AI Thread Summary
A physics graduate is struggling to find job opportunities, feeling limited by the lack of positions specifically related to their degree. Despite being open to any job requiring a four-year degree, they face challenges in being recognized by employers as qualified candidates. Suggestions include broadening the job search, utilizing career services, networking, and considering additional training or degrees to enhance marketability. The discussion highlights the competitive job market and the perception that a bachelor's degree in physics may not be sufficient for many employers. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the need for proactive job searching and skill development to improve employment prospects.
  • #51
Rika said:
But I can't understand how people can be so clueless when they graduate.

How come that during those all years people:

- didn't learn any usefull skills
- didn't do any networking
- didn't do any job market research (the best quotes of this thread are question like this: "what's job market research? how do you do it?" or "what is conference?")
- didn't learn about interships.

Want to hear something really funny? When I was an undergrad I actually thought that progressing through my Universities undergrad physics curriculum was teaching me useful skills! Like "critical thinking". I thought that getting to know the various professors and meeting professors from other universities was networking! And I believed all those people when they told me that employers needed people with the background I was building.

God I was stupid. The idea that professors and universities have their student's interests at heart seems so naive it's making me blush just writing it.

So I get where you're coming from, but I'm not in any position to throw stones.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Locrian said:
Want to hear something really funny? When I was an undergrad I actually thought that progressing through my Universities undergrad physics curriculum was teaching me useful skills! Like "critical thinking". I thought that getting to know the various professors and meeting professors from other universities was networking! And I believed all those people when they told me that employers needed people with the background I was building.

God I was stupid. The idea that professors and universities have their student's interests at heart seems so naive it's making me blush just writing it.

So I get where you're coming from, but I'm not in any position to throw stones.

This is where co-op programs (such as those offered at the University of Waterloo in Canada, or in Drexel University in the US) or other similar external internship programs (including the Professional Year Program offered at my former alma mater) are so meaningful and valuable, since these programs give the opportunity for undergraduate students to work with various employers in fields at least tangentially tied to their field of study. Furthermore, these early experiences also provide future references and sources for networking, allowing these students a leg up in terms of seeking employment.
 
  • #53
bjj8383 said:
I'm fully aware of all this, I have a high school teacher in my immediate family, and I have one of those "we'll certify you in 5 weeks because we're desperate" organizations in my bookmarks. Frankly it sounds like hell but this year's last deadline is in Feb, I'm considering it. It's at the bottom of the pile.

bjj8383 said:
I THOUGHT I knew what I wanted to do with my life, I've always loved science. It's honestly not my fault if the progression of education in the US didn't give me an accurate view of what being a professional physicist actually entailed.

I'm having a hard time figuring this out. The first quote seems to indicate that you have a good job prospect for a job that a bachelor's degree in physics qualifies you for ... but you're complaining that you're stuck working at Target. The second quote refers to being a "professional physicist," but to be a professional physicist you need a PhD. I can't believe that your school failed so badly to give you an "accurate view" that you somehow got the impression that a bachelor's in physics qualified you to be a professional physicist. Similarly, a bachelor's degree in history doesn't qualify you to be a professional historian.

bjj8383 said:
The thing is, I'd happily work at any real job that requires a 4 year degree. It doesn't need to be physics related.
This is hard to reconcile with your other statements above.

bjj8383 said:
Today, Careerbuilder literally returns one result within a 50 mile radius of me.
Why are you restricting yourself to jobs within a 50-mile radius? It sounds like, in addition to having unrealistic expectations about what kind of jobs a B.S. qualifies you for, you have unrealistic expectations about being able to drastically restrict your job search geographically.

Another issue that we have no information about is what school you went to and what your GPA was. Since you're posting pseudonymously, why not tell us that information? There's a huge difference between graduating from UCLA with a 4.0 and graduating from Cal State Dominguez Hills with a 2.0. At this stage, the school and your GPA are the only concrete information prospective employers have about your level of ability.

You may want to consider taking work that doesn't require your physics training but that does offer an environment in which you can prove yourself to an employer and move up. For example, after I graduated with a B.S. in physics, I didn't get into any of the grad schools I applied to the first time around, so I had a year out of school. I got a couple of part-time jobs, one of which was working in a factory doing mind-numbing work. But there were opportunities for advancement there that I could have taken advantage of if I hadn't been planning to go back to grad school. For example, while I was there they hired an army veteran with not that much formal education to be in charge of keeping all the production-line machinery going. If I'd applied for that job, I probably would have gotten it. It still wouldn't have been a job that I would have wanted to spend my life doing, but it would have been a step up, and a chance to demonstrate that I could take responsibility, supervise other people, use some quantitative skills, etc. You have to realize that many people who graduate from college are utterly useless as employees. They're irresponsible, passive, don't have good reading and writing skills, need constant supervision, and don't take the initiative to learn new skills. Employers need to have it demonstrated to them that the person I'm describing isn't you. No, just obtaining a degree doesn't demonstrate that.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
spamctor said:
What did your peers/friends that majored in physics end up doing?

I probably should have clarified, i meant to ask the OP this. Or more to the point, are they having the same problems as you?
 
  • #55
StatGuy2000 said:
This is where co-op programs . . .

Yea, but that would require effort by the school. Most physics dept have no interest in such a thing, and in my opinion, many would frown on it. I prefer a solution in which students enter into the university with a more critical (and cynical) view of what they're told by the university and their professors.

I like to think (pretend?) that threads like this may play a small part in just such an outcome.
 
  • #56
bjj8383 said:
Today, Careerbuilder literally returns one result within a 50 mile radius of me.
bcrowell said:
Why are you restricting yourself to jobs within a 50-mile radius? It sounds like, in addition to having unrealistic expectations about what kind of jobs a B.S. qualifies you for, you have unrealistic expectations about being able to drastically restrict your job search geographically.

I agree with Ben.

Fifteen months ago, for work, I moved from one side of Canada to the other, 4100 kilometres (2550 miles) as the crow flies, 5500 kilometres (3420 miles) by road (hopefully, my last move). I have worked in five Canadian provinces, two U.S. states, and one U.S territory.

I think that many people would be unwilling to make the number of moves that I have, but I also think that 50 miles is extremely restrictive.
 
  • #57
Is it possible, bbj, that you could just go back for those key classes that engineering majors have to take - the idea that you have to go back for 4 MORE YEARS doesn't make any sense to me. Most engineering majors have to take a handful of general education requirements, and math that you've probably all ready taken.

Why not just go back and try to just take the engineering classes? Out of the 130 credit engineering degree - around only 60-70 credits of those are in engineering classes. Universities are in part a business - they want you to stick around for 4 years and pay tuition the whole time. I would just go back and take the classes. If I had known this, I wouldn't have listend to some of my advisors. I would take 3 or 4 engineering classes / semester while working at target (if that's manageable - maybe work part time?) and then in a year or two apply for some internships/jobs - it might even make you more marketable - they'll view you as closer to a double major...
 
  • #58
bcrowell said:
I'm having a hard time figuring this out. The first quote seems to indicate that you have a good job prospect for a job that a bachelor's degree in physics qualifies you for ... but you're complaining that you're stuck working at Target. The second quote refers to being a "professional physicist," but to be a professional physicist you need a PhD. I can't believe that your school failed so badly to give you an "accurate view" that you somehow got the impression that a bachelor's in physics qualified you to be a professional physicist. Similarly, a bachelor's degree in history doesn't qualify you to be a professional historian.


This is hard to reconcile with your other statements above.


Why are you restricting yourself to jobs within a 50-mile radius? It sounds like, in addition to having unrealistic expectations about what kind of jobs a B.S. qualifies you for, you have unrealistic expectations about being able to drastically restrict your job search geographically.

Another issue that we have no information about is what school you went to and what your GPA was. Since you're posting pseudonymously, why not tell us that information? There's a huge difference between graduating from UCLA with a 4.0 and graduating from Cal State Dominguez Hills with a 2.0. At this stage, the school and your GPA are the only concrete information prospective employers have about your level of ability.

You may want to consider taking work that doesn't require your physics training but that does offer an environment in which you can prove yourself to an employer and move up. For example, after I graduated with a B.S. in physics, I didn't get into any of the grad schools I applied to the first time around, so I had a year out of school. I got a couple of part-time jobs, one of which was working in a factory doing mind-numbing work. But there were opportunities for advancement there that I could have taken advantage of if I hadn't been planning to go back to grad school. For example, while I was there they hired an army veteran with not that much formal education to be in charge of keeping all the production-line machinery going. If I'd applied for that job, I probably would have gotten it. It still wouldn't have been a job that I would have wanted to spend my life doing, but it would have been a step up, and a chance to demonstrate that I could take responsibility, supervise other people, use some quantitative skills, etc. You have to realize that many people who graduate from college are utterly useless as employees. They're irresponsible, passive, don't have good reading and writing skills, need constant supervision, and don't take the initiative to learn new skills. Employers need to have it demonstrated to them that the person I'm describing isn't you. No, just obtaining a degree doesn't demonstrate that.
This has a lot of good advice. I think searching for "physics" in career builder with BSc isn't the right way to go about searching for a job. When employers put physics in their ads they tend to be looking for "professional" physicist which really means at least a PhD. As a physics BSc you don't have a professional degree which means you are going to have to learn how to market your skill set instead of expecting a "check here for qualified" situation.
 
  • #59
One thing I've noticed from my EE degree is that realistically, the "engineering" only comprises about half of the credits an engineering requires. I took about 15 engineering classes - 50-60 credits. Yes I had other technical classes (math- which you've had enough of I'm sure), but the skills that are directly applicable to an engineering position mostly come from engineering classes.

I'd suggest taking a handful of engineering classes, particularly the less theoretical ones like circuit design and embedded systems. These are extremely marketable skills regardless of the education level. After just 5-10 classes of engineering, you should be able to get some type of an internship.

Another option is programming - a large portion (~1/3 I believe) of programmers in industry are self taught - there is no reason so many kids with high school diplomas can teach themselves something a B.S. Physics kid couldn't. I'd start making C++ projects (learn to use as many libraries and IDES as you can!).
 
  • #60
I'm going to go into this with one disclaimer that everyone needs to face. The economy sucks, especially for new graduates with no practical experience. Things being what they are, it's simply not the best time to be looking for work. For anyone. That said, if it's a field that interests you, I can provide my 20 years of experience in the "computer" field in the hopes that you find the information useful, or even inspiring if you're feeling as hopeless as you sound. If the field (programming, sysadmin, etc) does not appeal to you, well, maybe just the inspiration then.

I have no college education. In fact, I'm a HS dropout with a GED. Everything beyond that level is self taught. I make very good money though, and have for most of my life. The easy hiring during the dot-com boom made up for my lack of initial experience and formal education, and eventually experience made up for the lack of all of that.

In this field in particular, almost every degree is useless from a practical standpoint. This is a benefit to you, the new job seeker, because you aren't starting from a worse position in any IT job when compared to someone with a CS degree -- many people think this is mandatory or that it will help. The first one is bogus no matter what the job description says -- I've had jobs with *insane* paper requirements that were disregarded simply because my development skills and personality were a better fit than the guy with the degree(s) they interviewed before me. If your non-IT degree is not directly related to the business, then all it tells us (your potential employer) is that you have an amount of stamina and focus. It's worth something vs. a dropout like me, but not as an indicator of knowledge or skill.

If you are moderately computer savvy, then breaking into the field in a seemingly unrelated entry level position is easier than you probably think; IT departments do a lot of internal cross hiring and promotions, and experienced people can perform any role in the department at a basic level of competence. Long gone are the days when you had a group of programmers, a group of admins, a group of DBAs, and so on. That model has been dying for a while, and although there are some monolithic holdouts, for the most part it's a dead system.

This means that you (yes, YOU!) can probably get a job very easily in the IT department, or a department related to it, and then work your way "over and up" to what you really want to do -- once you figure it out. Which is another beauty of the field. You get exposed to so much as you work that you can dabble in a lot of different things, and pursue the ones that are the most interesting. The first place to look are support departments, be that telephone support for software or desktop support for the non-technical staff (read: sales and management people). These jobs are usually annoying, but require no expert skill level, and the pay is not horrible.

From there you'll be exposed to a lot of different technologies and have plenty of opportunities to learn and grow your skills -- if you seize on them! If you find yourself visiting the same guys computer every day to fix the same problem, you find a way to prevent the problem -- or to fix it remotely. Tada, new skills. If you overhear one of them complaining that they wish _______, you look into what you can do to make it happen. If everything is running smoothly you'll find yourself with plenty of time to do things like watch youtube videos and post on them thar internet forums -- don't do it! Use that time to find and solve other problems. Not because you're gunning for worker of the month and a worthless plaque, but because for most of us in this field, we only really learn new things when we're solving problems. Real problems.

After a year or two in that sort of environment, you should have developed the skills required to do at least one other job at a basic to intermediate level of competency, and then it's time to decide if you're happy where you are, or if you want to change departments (or even companies). The first year is the hardest. It's difficult to break into the field through the front door, and you'll spend a lot of time doing busy work that you think is stupid, and dealing with stupid requests. At all costs resist the urge to look either annoyed or complacent. Don't huff and puff that Bob has asked you to refill the paper in his printer 50 times if that's your job, or that Brenda can't keep the viruses off her computer. Do the jobs with a smile, and LEARN while you're at it.

Network, network, network! The face to face kind and the linkedin kind, not the facebook or ethernet kind. Develop contacts. Make friends. Find people who can teach you stuff, and whom you can impress with how quickly you pick up what they're throwing down.

I started out doing exactly this kind of stuff, and today, I consider myself very successful and am proud of that success. It was easier to break in when I started than it is today, but believe me, it's not impossible. We just fired a guy a few weeks ago because he just "couldn't cut it". Not because what we were asking him to do was hard, but it just wasn't sinking in, and he was unable to solve problems on his own or follow instructions unless they were laid out explicitly step by step -- it takes longer to write the instructions down than for me to do them, so if he's not figuring things out on his own after a while, it's not going to work out.

Hope this wasn't too long, and hope it was somewhat useful. If it was too short, believe me, I can expound. ;)
 
  • #61
justsomeguy, are you actually doing programming/serious software engineering or whatever or are you more of a "lab tech" kind of person? I'm not sure how to define the distinction but are you doing really interesting stuff or just maintenance? I missed it in your post...
 
  • #62
Arsenic&Lace said:
justsomeguy, are you actually doing programming/serious software engineering or whatever or are you more of a "lab tech" kind of person? I'm not sure how to define the distinction but are you doing really interesting stuff or just maintenance? I missed it in your post...

I'm a serious coder. Not desktop support or a dilettante if that's what you mean. I've done everything from tiny websites to huge multiuser n-tier enterprise apps shoveling millions of dollars a day around. For a while I was writing EM (RF and IR) simulation management software for a fortune 500 defense contractor.

Solving problems is what I find interesting, so I'm happy no matter what space the company is in as long as the problems are an intellectual challenge, but that's not always the case, in any job. Once the big mysteries are solved in any project, you're left with the mundane task of actually implementing the myriad tiny details, which is always boring.
 
  • #63
Want to hear something really funny? When I was an undergrad I actually thought that progressing through my Universities undergrad physics curriculum was teaching me useful skills! Like "critical thinking". I thought that getting to know the various professors and meeting professors from other universities was networking! And I believed all those people when they told me that employers needed people with the background I was building.

God I was stupid. The idea that professors and universities have their student's interests at heart seems so naive it's making me blush just writing it.

So much this- I relied on what I thought were the experts to know more than I did about the field. It wasn't until I asked my adviser where his former students had ended up, and he knew where everyone did their postdoc, but had no idea where they had gone after that I realized what a horrible mistake I had made.
 
  • #64
Consider a trade certificate at a community college or look into a local union. A friend of mine was a sheet metal grunt fabricating all kinds stuff when he was recruited from within to the engineering dept. Many unions and some employers will train or pay for your (additional) schooling. HVAC and electrical certificates or AAS degrees could get you making $25-30k in about 5 years. This approach would require you to apprentice (slave :P ) for a bit, but with some hands-on plus your education you would see more doors open. Most union trades pay really well if you stick around and climb the ladder. Www.payscale.com shows a pipefitter topping out at $84k. Same for a sheet metal worker, master electrician, or HVAC engineer.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Locrian said:
Want to hear something really funny? When I was an undergrad I actually thought that progressing through my Universities undergrad physics curriculum was teaching me useful skills! Like "critical thinking". I thought that getting to know the various professors and meeting professors from other universities was networking! And I believed all those people when they told me that employers needed people with the background I was building.

God I was stupid. The idea that professors and universities have their student's interests at heart seems so naive it's making me blush just writing it.

So I get where you're coming from, but I'm not in any position to throw stones.

I have learned all that stuff from Physic degree. I knew that I need to do research interships, network with other scientists, present stuff during conference etc.

I did it in physics field so I didn't have any problem with doing it in any other field.

That's why I find it strange. If OP did what I did he shouldn't have any problems with transfering his skills to the job market.
 
  • #66
Can someone please give me a easy-to-understand good-advice summary of this thread?

I read it all, but I'm so confused because it seems no one can agree with each other. I'm a first-year computer engineering student.

From what I understand so far, co-op and internships are really important, right?
 
  • #67
Many people have suggested grad school.

Have you considered certification for a specific positions that might interest you? As a physics major, certification in medical/radiological/health physics could be an option if you're interested in maintaining diagnostic imaging equipment (NMR, CT) as a medical physicist. It's a good-paying job and uses your specialized skillset in physics to solve technical problems and help diagnose patients along-side doctors. Some universities even offer a 4-year degree in medical physics, or at least a medical physics track. The flip side to medical physics is radiological/health engineering. (Word of caution however, many medical physicists have at least a masters, but its not uncommon for them to have a bachelor's with supporting education such as certification and/or addition courses.)

Have you considered certification for Nuclear Power? Many community college and universities offer 12-credit-hr programs for nuclear power technology. You'll learn reactor physics and engineering/design/operations aspects of BWR and PWR reactor plant designs. This sets you up as a great candidate for entry into the nuke field as a non-license reactor operator, as most applicants only have a high school diploma, some college, or an associates degree... and you'll be more than equipped to ace the qualifying exams.

Just a couple of things to think about.
 
  • #68
geophysics10 said:
Have you considered certification for a specific positions that might interest you? As a physics major, certification in medical/radiological/health physics could be an option if you're interested in maintaining diagnostic imaging equipment (NMR, CT) as a medical physicist. It's a good-paying job and uses your specialized skillset in physics to solve technical problems and help diagnose patients along-side doctors. Some universities even offer a 4-year degree in medical physics, or at least a medical physics track. The flip side to medical physics is radiological/health engineering. (Word of caution however, many medical physicists have at least a masters, but its not uncommon for them to have a bachelor's with supporting education such as certification and/or addition courses.)

Just a side-note: if you're looking at becoming a medical physicist today, graduate school is a must, and an accredited graduate program is a must if you want board certification. It's not really a profession you can enter with only a bachelor's degree these days. That said, you can work as a medical physics assistant or a health physicist with a BSc.
 
  • #69
tahayassen said:
Can someone please give me a easy-to-understand good-advice summary of this thread?

I read it all, but I'm so confused because it seems no one can agree with each other. I'm a first-year computer engineering student.

From what I understand so far, co-op and internships are really important, right?

For an engineer Internships are EVERYTHING. I'm not garbageting you when a 2.5 GPA with good internships / Co-ops will make you more competitive than 3.5GPA+ without them. When I graduated 2010 Chemical Engineering jobs were on the downturn and literally despite having a great GPA and working at a professors company for 2 years doing optimization for Oil refineries I can tell you it meant squat. I thought saying **** like I traveled to foreign companies doing real work and whatnot would mean something but the refining companies at the career fair looked down on it just because if I was so good why didn't I get an internship with Shell or Chevron? You need an internship from a reputable company if you want to do well in engineering out of the gate. Else your going to have to take the slower route of going to a small company getting the 3-5 years experience then moving to a better company and starting out near where you could have been 3 to 5 years ago in your life.

I went into the oil field and only reason they gave me a job was that I got a recommendation from someone really high up in the company that was a family friend. Fact I had been doing research / working with computers most of the time was pretty much universally looked down upon in my job search to be honest (wouldn't be the same for a CS degree, but chemical engineering in the non-academic areas is actually still pretty old school in how they take care of things). Now I'm going back to get my masters in petroleum engineering next year since that's where my work experience is and will make me more competitive in the industry I started working in.

Honestly though it was probably a blessing in disguise because I'm making more money doing this then I ever could as a chemical engineer (without like 20 years experience and a PHD).
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Maybe this has been pointed out. I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread:

Does your resume explicitly state the skills that you have received with your degree? A lot of employers just don't know what a physics B.S. means. They are not aware that someone with a B.S. in physics might have programming and electronics experience. Do you have any experience with AutoCAD, MATLAB, LabVIEW, C++ FORTRAN, Java? What equipment did you learn how to use in your Advanced Lab class? Get any machine shop experience along the way? This is important information! List it!

Many people think a Physics degree means you spent four years talking about particles in a square well and twins on spaceships. If your resume doesn't explicitly mention the applicable skills you've acquired in pursuit of a physics degree, of course they are not going to consider your for a job. Tailor your resume to the employer and the job!
 
  • #71
G01 said:
Many people think a Physics degree means you spent four years talking about particles in a square well and twins on spaceships.

And you are implying this is not the case? Or rather you are suggesting that one should list marketable skills gained outside the curriculum?
 
  • #72
ModusPwnd said:
And you are implying this is not the case? Or rather you are suggesting that one should list marketable skills gained outside the curriculum?

I am implying that it is not necessarily the case that a physics degree is all about twins on spaceships.

Also, The skills I mentioned can most certainly be gained from within a good physics curriculum. I learned MATLAB, Mathematica, and Java in core and cognate courses from my degree. I learned how to use oscilloscopes and lock in amplifiers during advanced lab. I learned circuit analysis from an engineering elective. I learned how to write technical papers from a required writing intensive course. During my undergrad research experience I learned LabVIEW, how to solder, and how to do basic optics alignment, and how to use an AFM and STM. I also did my fair share of twins on spaceships and particles in wells.

It's quite possible that one could go through a different physics program at a different university and not gain these skills. It could be that your university allows students freedom to ignore the courses in which one would gain these skills, or perhaps one could have professors that never considered these things important. It's also possible that students did not get sufficient research experience as an undergrad.

However all of the issues mentioned above are issues with the student, the program, or the educators, NOT the degree itself. A physics B.S. is not a free ticket to a high paying job. However, it's increasingly apparent that no college degree is. Like any other college degree it what you and your program put into it.
 
  • #73
In my experience nearly all of that is learned outside of the physics curriculum. I see what you mean by explicitly listing your skills rather than the umbrella term of "physics", particularly since most of it has nothing to do with physics but deals with STEM areas in general.

A physics BS is nothing without the student, the program, or the educators behind it so I fail to see why such a distinction should be made. I think the "issue" is with the degree itself. Its an academic degree, not technical training for a job or career. And that's ok, because we have engineering and the like for technical job and career training. One should not expect many marketable skills from any academic degree, what you should expect is to gain an esoteric knowledge base. Marketable skills have to be acquired in addition to the curriculum and in many cases, in spite of it. I know there where many times where I could have been working on my curriculum requirements of twins and particles in a box, but I was instead working on my research or TAing/Tutoring. Each of which are the only places I got marketable skills, neither of which was part of the curriculum and each competed for time and took time away from my curriculum.
 
  • #74
I agree with ModusPwnd- one of the major problems with the standard physics degree is that all of the most useful stuff is either packed into one senior lab class, or only taught as part of optional research projects, and even there it's mostly self-taught anyway. The core of what physics classes actually teach you is classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and electrodynamics- basically "twins and infinite square wells". Very important knowledge if you eventually become a physicist, but completely useless in any other job.
 
  • #75
classical mechanics is not that useless. EM is not that bad either. parts of both classes can be reasonably applied to real life.

however QM is just totally useless the way it is taught in physics and it is basically inapplicable.
 
  • #76
chill_factor said:
classical mechanics is not that useless. EM is not that bad either. parts of both classes can be reasonably applied to real life.

however QM is just totally useless the way it is taught in physics and it is basically inapplicable.

How would you apply classical mechanics or EM to a real job situation? It's hard to think of any realistic situations(referring specifically to junior/senior level physics classes here, not the basic freshman level classes that engineers take).
 
  • #77
pi-r8 said:
How would you apply classical mechanics or EM to a real job situation? It's hard to think of any realistic situations(referring specifically to junior/senior level physics classes here, not the basic freshman level classes that engineers take).

For whatever it's worth, I have a friend who worked for a defense contractor on satellite related work. (Security clearance meant he really couldn't give details.) They hired him specifically because he had a physics background and through his physics degree learned programming and had knowledge of orbital mechanics, which he learned in an upper level mechanics class.
 
  • #78
pi-r8 said:
How would you apply classical mechanics or EM to a real job situation? It's hard to think of any realistic situations(referring specifically to junior/senior level physics classes here, not the basic freshman level classes that engineers take).

Design of specialized waveguides, modeling of peculiar magnetic materials, applying negative index metamaterials in new industrial applications, designing specialized plasma deposition systems. . .

Are those the kinds of examples you’re looking for?
 
  • #79
Locrian said:
Design of specialized waveguides, modeling of peculiar magnetic materials, applying negative index metamaterials in new industrial applications, designing specialized plasma deposition systems. . .

Are those the kinds of examples you’re looking for?

People get hired with a physics BS to do those jobs? I doubt it. Thats EE and MSEE work.
 
  • #80
ModusPwnd said:
People get hired with a physics BS to do those jobs? I doubt it. Thats EE and MSEE work.

You're wrong, Northrop Grumman mentions physicists by name when stating the degrees they hire specifically for satellite design work.
 
  • #81
ModusPwnd said:
People get hired with a physics BS to do those jobs? I doubt it. Thats EE and MSEE work.

See my above post:
G01 said:
For whatever it's worth, I have a friend who worked for a defense contractor on satellite related work. (Security clearance meant he really couldn't give details.) They hired him specifically because he had a physics background and through his physics degree learned programming and had knowledge of orbital mechanics, which he learned in an upper level mechanics class.
 
  • #82
Locrian said:
Design of specialized waveguides, modeling of peculiar magnetic materials, applying negative index metamaterials in new industrial applications, designing specialized plasma deposition systems. . .

Are those the kinds of examples you’re looking for?
None of those topics is taught in an undergrad EM class (or a grad class either, for that matter). You would need a lot of training to get from the basics taught in undergrad EM to the level of being able to design modern devices, and companies these days aren't exactly keen on paying for a new hire to take long training classes.

I searched Northrop Grumman new hires section for the keyword "physics" and couldn't find anything like this. The closest I could find was a job doing software modeling, for which they preferrede engineering degrees but "would consider" math or physics.

I don't know the details of GMs friend of course, but I think he must have been very lucky to get that job.
 
  • #83
pi-r8 said:
None of those topics is taught in an undergrad EM class (or a grad class either, for that matter). You would need a lot of training to get from the basics taught in undergrad EM to the level of being able to design modern devices, and companies these days aren't exactly keen on paying for a new hire to take long training classes.

I searched Northrop Grumman new hires section for the keyword "physics" and couldn't find anything like this. The closest I could find was a job doing software modeling, for which they preferrede engineering degrees but "would consider" math or physics.

I don't know the details of GMs friend of course, but I think he must have been very lucky to get that job.

Do engineering degrees teach you the exact topic you will work on in your job?
 
  • #84
pi-r8 said:
None of those topics is taught in an undergrad EM class (or a grad class either, for that matter).

Are you serious?? Jackson alone should get you ready to start with a few on that list, and the others can be found in elective courses.

As for undergrads, if they got a good background in E&M and took some advanced lab courses, they should be able to work in a job in those areas and pick up the specialized knowledge they need, so long as they're working with other people.

Go back and read the post I quoted to be sure you know where I'm coming from. E&M and CM provide great knowledge bases that are useful in many jobs. That's just not enough to get hired. We probably agree about the quality of the typical BS in physics. However, we definitely disagree on why the degree isn't very useful.

And I have no idea what they're teaching at your grad school.
 
  • #85
FWIW, I did see some practical stuff like transmission line theory and waveguides/resonant cavities, and antennas in a junior EM course, but it comprised of <10% of the whole syllabus. E. Engineers at my university have entire courses dedicated to these subjects.
 
  • #86
Rika said:
But I can't understand how people can be so clueless when they graduate.

How come that during those all years people:

- didn't learn any usefull skills
- didn't do any networking
- didn't do any job market research (the best quotes of this thread are question like this: "what's job market research? how do you do it?" or "what is conference?")
- didn't learn about interships

ModusPwnd said:
I was too busy doing research, keeping my GPA high, working and preparing for GREs. Y'know, the things you do in physics undergrad...

How can you be do "research," but not learn any useful skills?! If this is the case, I think you're doing "research" wrong…

Too busy? You can't spend 10 minutes going online and seeing who hires physics graduates and reading the job descriptions to see if your qualifications line up? You never thought "maybe I should get an internship"? Maybe your college's career services center sucks, but these seem like common things that every college student does. You can't be expected to be spoon-fed everything. You have to be a "self starter" and figure things out on your own.

Also, if your GPA is high, you have "research" experience, and did well on the GREs, you'll surely get into graduate school somewhere. Why are you complaining about not being prepared for industry if you're going into academia?

I don't know what all this crap is with "physics departments don't want to prepare students for industry and blah blah blah." I've studied numerous physics departments for graduate school, and I've picked up on some of their undergraduate school philosophy as well. I frequently see that departments want to prepare students for academia and industry.

To Physics B.S. holders looking for a job: Try looking into government/military labs. The military is always looking into cutting edge/obscure technology and they want physicists working on them. I did an internship in the DoD and I was told that I was hired because I was a physicist. They told me an engineer wouldn't have the background necessary.

Another good industry to check out is nanotechnology. Can't do nanotechnology without knowing quantum mechanics.

I think the greatest trait of a physicist, is their broad knowledge base. Sell this quality! Engineers (especially at the B.S. level) are specialized and don't know much outside their specialty. Ask a chemical engineer about circuits and they'll likely draw a blank. An electrical engineer how a refrigerator works? Probably have no idea. This broad knowledge base means that even if a physicist doesn't know something technical, they can probably figure out the basics in a much shorter time than an engineer.
 
  • #87
rhombusjr said:
How can you be do "research," but not learn any useful skills?! If this is the case, I think you're doing "research" wrong…

Nah, there's lots of research that's just useless. Anything that's theory and doesn't include computational work may fall into that category. My grad school roommates were great examples - non-comm geometry and string theory. They learned zero useful skills in their 7 years.
 
  • #88
Locrian said:
Nah, there's lots of research that's just useless. Anything that's theory and doesn't include computational work may fall into that category. My grad school roommates were great examples - non-comm geometry and string theory. They learned zero useful skills in their 7 years.

Exactly, a physics degree is what you make it. If you want an industry job after your degree, focus your courses around optics, lasers and electronics (which are taught in physics departments too by the way: http://physics.bu.edu/courses/schedule/371) and perhaps a computational methods course (again physics departments offer these too: http://physics.bu.edu/courses/schedule/421)

On a graduate level, if you focus your thesis work around ultrafast spectroscopy, you will be much more employable outside academia than someone who focuses their work on string theory. The degree is what you make of it, and knowing what type of job you want after its all said and done really helps.

We all agree that the standard bare minimum physics curricula do not emphasize the important industry skills as much as they should. However, Locrian is correct when he says this is not to be blamed on the subject of physics.

Also anyone who thinks that having the word "Engineering" in your degree will result in companies throwing jobs at you is sorely mistaken. I know quite a few engineers who floundered for years trying to get a job. Believe it or not what held them back was bad interview skills, lack of internships,experience and other things that were not a core requirement of their Engineering degree.
 
  • #89
rhombusjr said:
How can you be do "research," but not learn any useful skills?! If this is the case, I think you're doing "research" wrong…

Too busy? You can't spend 10 minutes going online and seeing who hires physics graduates and reading the job descriptions to see if your qualifications line up? You never thought "maybe I should get an internship"?

No, I never thought that because physics undergrads don't do internships. Physics departments and professors rarely have much in terms of industry contacts. And physics programs never organize internships. They are organized by the engineering department for engineers.

BTW, if you read carefully you will see that I was too busy to get useful marketable skills rather than doing some 10 minute search... Too busy with my physics curriculum to try crashing the engineer's party and get one of their internships.

rhombusjr said:
Also, if your GPA is high, you have "research" experience, and did well on the GREs, you'll surely get into graduate school somewhere. Why are you complaining about not being prepared for industry if you're going into academia?

Good point. Physics is academic. One shouldn't expect it to be marketable for industry.

rhombusjr said:
I don't know what all this crap is with "physics departments don't want to prepare students for industry and blah blah blah." I've studied numerous physics departments for graduate school, and I've picked up on some of their undergraduate school philosophy as well. I frequently see that departments want to prepare students for academia and industry.

Now this is confusing, because you just before this acknowledged that a physics degree is academic and doesn't prepare you for industry. Now you are claiming it does? I don't think you have your thoughts straight. Physics does not prepare you for industry, it prepares you for academia. Its not crap, that the philosophy that the departments have. Unless you are doing some type of applied physics or engineering physics... Otherwise, no, the dept does not care about industry. Nor do most of the physics students, that's why they are in physics rather than engineering...

rhombusjr said:
I think the greatest trait of a physicist, is their broad knowledge base. Sell this quality! Engineers (especially at the B.S. level) are specialized and don't know much outside their specialty. Ask a chemical engineer about circuits and they'll likely draw a blank. An electrical engineer how a refrigerator works? Probably have no idea. This broad knowledge base means that even if a physicist doesn't know something technical, they can probably figure out the basics in a much shorter time than an engineer.

I don't believe this is true at all. This is the hubris of physics. Physicists do not have a broader knowledge base than engineers. They have a more esoteric knowledge base. A chemical engineer most certainly knows a bit about circuits and an electrical engineer most certainly knows about a refrigeration. Studying physics does not make you smarter or a faster learner than an engineer.
 
  • #90
ModusPwnd said:
No, I never thought that because physics undergrads don't do internships. Physics departments and professors rarely have much in terms of industry contacts. And physics programs never organize internships. They are organized by the engineering department for engineers.

Do you really have experience with enough physics departments to make these statements or do you think you might be overgeneralizing a bit?

BTW, if you read carefully you will see that I was too busy to get useful marketable skills rather than doing some 10 minute search... Too busy with my physics curriculum to try crashing the engineer's party and get one of their internships.

This statement is patently absurd. You were so busy that you couldn't attend even one job fair, colloquium, apply for internships, or take the initiative to ask your professors for help? It is your job to network, regardless of your major.


Good point. Physics is academic. One shouldn't expect it to be marketable for industry.

Yes, physics is academic, but it can form a marketable degree with the right focus and initiative on the part of both the student and the program, as I've been describing above. I don't doubt that your program was lacking in this regard. Yet, your over-generalizations accusing all physics programs of having the same faults is uncalled for.
 
  • #91
G01 said:
Do you really have experience with enough physics departments to make these statements or do you think you might be overgeneralizing a bit?

No, I don't think I'm overgeneralizing at all. I have of course interacted with many physics majors and professors in under grad and grad school. Why not offer some counterexamples instead of unsubstantiated criticism? Which physics departments do organize industry internships? I'd love to know, I have never heard of a one. Not from my peers, not from my students and not from my professors. I did work with some chemists briefly and they did internships in their program. Physics depts resist this IME.
G01 said:
This statement is patently absurd. You were so busy that you couldn't attend even one job fair, colloquium, apply for internships, or take the initiative to ask your professors for help? It is your job to network, regardless of your major.

Thats not what I said. You are twisting my words. I attended job fairs, I attended colloquium every week. Neither of those get you marketable skills. I did not apply to any internships, I was in physics so I did undergrad research. Physics departments and professors don't organize internships. I don't know what you think asking my professors for help would do? Ask them for help in what? How to get marketable? For the most part they never had a nonacademic job. My graduate adviser was a rare one that actually did have a industry job once, he left physics for chemistry. lol


G01 said:
Yes, physics is academic, but it can form a marketable degree with the right focus and initiative on the part of both the student and the program, as I've been describing above. I don't doubt that your program was lacking in this regard. Yet, your over-generalizations accusing all physics programs of having the same faults is not called for.

I think it is called for and I don't think its an over generalization at all. You may call them faults, I think that's just the way they are. I think it might be a fault if we try to turn physics into an industry marketable degree just like engineering. Then we have two engineering degrees with different names and no academic physics degree. There is no reason to have that set up. Its good to have engineering for industry jobs and careers and physics for academic jobs and careers. Yes that means all the failed physicists will have to struggle, but that is the case for all academic degrees.

edit - Also, I don't think my undergrad program was below average at all. It was at a PAC-10 university and from my discussions with other students it was typical for the most part.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
ModusPwnd said:
Why not offer some counterexamples instead of unsubstantiated criticism?

I have offed several counter-examples, on multiple occasions in this very thread, within the past two pages. I've offered examples of physics majors getting industry positions with physics degree, for jobs where the employer preferred a physics degree: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4230204&postcount=77

Along the same lines, I have multiple other friends from undergrad who got internships. One turned his undergrad optics research experience into an internship at Thor Labs, which he turned into a full time position. I also have multiple other friends who were physics majors who now work for defense contractors. They cite their undergrad research (experimental) as being useful in the job application process. I think you're underselling the relevance of the research experience physics students gain, at least on the experimental side of the aisle.

I've also given examples of physics departments offering courses that do teach "marketable" skills within their course curriculum : https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4232373&postcount=88
I did not apply to any internships, I was in physics so I did undergrad research.

Which is not necessarily a useless experience to have on an industry resume, depending on the research topic. See above.

Physics departments and professors don't organize internships. I don't know what you think asking my professors for help would do? Ask them for help in what? How to get marketable? For the most part they never had a nonacademic job. My graduate adviser was a rare one that actually did have a industry job once, he left physics for chemistry.

Your professors work in academia. However they have met people or gone to school with people who have left and got industry jobs. They also almost certainly have connections that a student does not. Networking is as important to a successful career as well. Even in the sciences, it can boil down to "who you know" as well as "what you know."


I think it is called for and I don't think its an over generalization at all. You may call them faults, I think that's just the way they are. I think it might be a fault if we try to turn physics into an industry marketable degree just like engineering. Then we have two engineering degrees with different names and no academic physics degree.

I do agree with you here. However, I think there is a difference between turning a physics degree into an engineering degree and offering students a curriculum that is flexible and prepares students for careers other than academic research. My program did, and we were better off for it, even those of us who decided to go the academic route.
Also, I don't think my undergrad program was below average at all. It was at a PAC-10 university and from my discussions with other students it was typical for the most part.

I'm sure your experience was typical. I disagree that this is the way it should be though. There is a middle ground between completely academic, esoteric physics curricula and turning physics into an engineering degree.
 
  • #93
I really want to stay out of the debate here and hopefully get back to the OP, I'm an EE but wanted to relay back the many non-traditional opportunities I have seen phys grads - technical field services, financal analysist, insurance investigators, and a number of them are in the renewables market. Rarely will they say they are looking for physics but the degree shows the ability to approach things tecnically and analytically.
Also get on linked-in and network.
But aways be working and if you can do some vounteer work, it can go on the resume.
 
  • #94
ModusPwnd said:
No, I never thought that because physics undergrads don't do internships. Physics departments and professors rarely have much in terms of industry contacts. And physics programs never organize internships. They are organized by the engineering department for engineers.

Really, Where are you pulling this information from?

I do theoretical condensed matter and know professors including my advisor with contacts in finance/ Oil companies / national labs and NASA and other experimental professors who own companies or are founders of startups in nano tech. These contacts include former students who have went to work in these other industries.

The same I could of said of undergrad institute professors

And as a physics BS before grad school I worked or interviewed at
Music Software Start up
Foreclosure/Real Estate software company
Online Ad company
Financial software company
Defense contractors

Although some of those jobs didnt have "physics" in the job description/ad. I realized I had the skills to do them so I applied and framed my skill set to apply what the job role is.
 
  • #95
G01 said:
Your professors work in academia. However they have met people or gone to school with people who have left and got industry jobs. They also almost certainly have connections that a student does not. Networking is as important to a successful career as well. Even in the sciences, it can boil down to "who you know" as well as "what you know."
Its impossible to not make contacts. In any PhD granting institution professors are advising students of which about half are going into industry (AIP statistics) therefore half their students become viable industry contacts. This is assuming they arent networking other places like conferences ie the assumption of professors in a bubble composed of only themselves and their grad students.
 
  • #96
Locrian said:
Nah, there's lots of research that's just useless. Anything that's theory and doesn't include computational work may fall into that category. My grad school roommates were great examples - non-comm geometry and string theory. They learned zero useful skills in their 7 years.
So being good at math is not marketable? Then how do math BS graduates get jobs? Why do financial companies hire math majors for internships and full-time jobs, even those with no computational or finance knowledge? I know that the NSA specifically hires mathematicians who study pure subjects such as algebra and number theory.

ModusPwnd said:
…physics undergrads don't do internships. Physics departments and professors rarely have much in terms of industry contacts. And physics programs never organize internships. They are organized by the engineering department for engineers.
This is not true. I reply to this with something that I already said:
rhombusjr said:
I did an internship in the DoD and I was told that I was hired because I was a physicist. They told me an engineer wouldn't have the background necessary.
I wasn't working on something esoteric like loop quantum gravity, I was working on fielded technologies with direct impact to the US military. They wanted a physicist and not an engineer for the job. Physics majors do do internships, just maybe not the ones at your school. At my school, nearly every physics major has done some kind of internship in industry. Most of these internships were organized by the department. This is what I meant before when I said that physics departments don't only care about academia and that they are aware that some students want to enter industry. Their focus is on academia, but they don't completely throw industry out the window.

I do think that physicists have a broader knowledge base than the typical engineer (my employers at the DoD also thought so, that's why I was hired). Show me where in the standard EE curriculum students take a course in thermodynamics or rigid body mechanics. Physicists are simply exposed to more subjects than most engineers are.

It's important not to confuse "you can market a physics degree to get a technical job" with "any physicist is qualified for every single technical job out there". A physicist getting an industry job depends on both the skills of the physicist and the requirements of the job. Some jobs (like mine at the DoD) only need the broad knowledge base of a physicist, some require more specific knowledge. Physics is a very broad discipline and you can't expect to be spoon-fed everything you need for a particular industry job. Saying physics can be marketable, doesn't mean that a physics degree is ready made for industry. If you're trying to get a specific industry job, it's up to you to go beyond the bare minimum and gain that specific skill set.

If you're intentionally training to enter academia and not industry (doing research instead of internships, studying for stdzd tests instead of reading job postings, etc.) then you shouldn't be complaining you're underprepared to enter industry. If you were training to run marathons, would you complain about being a poor swimmer? It is possible to do both BTW. I did research and industry internships. It's not that hard to do; it's not an either/or situation.

My point here is to say that a physicist can get an industry job (since this is the problem faced by the OP). I will concede that if you want the most marketable degree, there are better options than physics (which is not the topic of this thread).

Off the top of my head, here are some jobs that make use of "esoteric" physics topics like quantum mechanics and relativity: medical imaging, GPS satellite design, semiconductor development/manufacturing, nanotechnology development.
 
  • #97
rhombusjr said:
So being good at math is not marketable?

By itself? Not really. You'll want some programming, statistics, data mining, etc. experience, too. It's hard not to get some useful skills studying math, but there are areas of physics (and math!) that somehow manage it.
 
  • #98
rhombusjr said:
So being good at math is not marketable? Then how do math BS graduates get jobs? Why do financial companies hire math majors for internships and full-time jobs, even those with no computational or finance knowledge?

I'm a math major. I've worked in software development & moved to consulting.

You need to market yourself in the job market as a 'problem solver', and a very good one. People with math degrees tend to be very smart & they tend to progress fast.

And they can provide solutions to finance problems (ie business problems) in ways the accounting grads can't.
 
  • #99
rhombusjr said:
So being good at math is not marketable? Then how do math BS graduates get jobs? Why do financial companies hire math majors for internships and full-time jobs, even those with no computational or finance knowledge? I know that the NSA specifically hires mathematicians who study pure subjects such as algebra and number theory.

Being good at math alone won't really help but it won't hurt either. Something that was always stressed when I was an undergrad was gaining at least basic CS skills, which is why the first discrete math class had some programming assignments within it even though it wasn't the main focus. I do know a couple of math undergrads that got into NSA or NSA-type jobs and they were no chumps when it came to CS stuff, they knew CS (algorithms, computation theory, etc) just as well as they knew math.

I hope you aren't implying that finance, NSA, or whatever hires math majors just because they know math. Math and physics will always need some sort of platform to do their work in industry, on the theory side it's CS and on the experimental side it's engineering/lab work.
 
  • #100
SophusLies said:
I hope you aren't implying that finance, NSA, or whatever hires math majors just because they know math. Math and physics will always need some sort of platform to do their work in industry, on the theory side it's CS and on the experimental side it's engineering/lab work.

You are correct. I was merely trying to indicate that being good at math is not a completely useless skill w.r.t. industry. The job applicants with a stronger CS background were probably first pick, but the ones with only string math credentials probably weren't thrown out right off the bat either.

Math is a marketable skill, but it still is only one skill. Having only one marketable skill is seldom enough to land a job (unless that job only uses that one skill). You can be a master welder, but if the job calls for someone who can also operate a lathe, someone who only knows how to weld isn't likely to get the job.
 

Similar threads

Replies
80
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Back
Top