Programs Should You Pursue a Physics PhD? Advice from Brian Schwartz

[imy786]

Dont Do Phd In Phyiscs!

http://www.phys.psu.edu/~endwar/jobs/schwartz.html
Brian Schwartz (Brooklyn College and American Physical Society)
"Is There Life After the Physics PhD?"
Physics Colloquium, Oct. 10, 1996, 3:30 PM, 101 Osmond.
and some associated meetings.

[Removed rest of text the one can read in the link]

 

[imy786]

well does anyone agree with this artile??

should they do a phd in physics or not??

 

[ZapperZ]

1. This is from a 1996 article/speech.

2. He's using statistics "... By 1992".

So how up-to-date do you think this is?

I and several others have given the link to the AIP job statistics webpage that has LOT more recent information that does match what you just quote.

BTW, this is from a link and we much PREFER that you do not copy-and-paste it verbatim. Just give the link and that would be sufficient.

Zz.

 

[imy786]

how did you manage to eidt my post?

 

[ZapperZ]

how did you manage to eidt my post?

I wiggled my nose.

Zz.

 

[mr_coffee]

moderators have this special ability.

haxxxxxxxed!

 

[Ki Man]

That paper is outdated, I'm sure we're in a much better situation now

 

[L62]

It depends on your field. most of my colleagues who are physics postdocs in academia say no, the employment situation for physicists in general is not any better in fact it is far worse now. Just as it is for all PhDs in general. Faculty positions are scarce and highly competitive. Staff positions in national labs are not that common either as most federal agencies are experiencing budget cuts, many physicists are languishing as postdocs waiting indefinitely for academic or research positions to open up, or else are getting out of research and going into industry. Nothing wrong with going into industry, but in my experience most of us do a phD in science because we want to be research scientists. Then again, your field or specialty heavily influences the options available to you and how "transferable" you can be to other sectors or to being able to get in on the current and every-changing "hot" fields which is where there are positions available. My personal advice: don't do a PhD unless you are prepared for a difficult job search afterward.

 

[imy786]

L62 - are you currently doing a phd in physics?

 

[L62]

No I got my phd in mechanical engineering but my thesis was more material science. Most of my grad school friends went straight into industry after their phds, but I wanted to continue in research so I went to a national lab and sort of switched fields. Several of my friends, and most of my current set of colleagues, got their Phds in physics, many are having a tough time finding jobs beyond the postdoc. How about you?

 

[thebluelagoon]

I think it is important to keep your options open. So far I have only decided on a masters in maths and physics. Maybe seeing what job openings there will be after your PhD and where they are likely to be could be a good idea. And there are always positions for physics lecturers - especially here in New Zealand.

 

[mjsd]

i think all fields today... engineering, conmmerce, science, law... etc. have this problem of "over-production" where there are more graduates than job positions... exception: GPs and medical practitioners are short in supply. Govt.'s wish to push for a "knowledge nation" and that 90% or more of population should go to college or is encouraged to go, as a result, standard at uni/college is falling and usually only the better graduates will get a job.

every year we get yet another "record high" enrolment numbers to gradute school, does that mean PhD gives ppl a better a career flexibility or better future? Does that means now we have more reserach/academic jobs available? ...doubtful... more like faculty wanting more money and down grading requirements.

 

[thebluelagoon]

Another exception for people with degrees is town planning. There used to be a lot of uni grads going through Beca Carter, seven years ago there were ten new graduates, and this year there was one. How can we have a "knowledge nation" without the menial labourers?

 

[Dr Transport]

As a PhD Physicist in industry, there are not any jobs here either, to the best of my knowledge we have not hired anyne with a PhD in a while (don't ask for whom I work because I won't say). My friends in other industries are saying the same thing as well as government employees.

 

[leright]

Dr. Transport, do you think a person with an engineering PhD would be better off than a physics PhD? I want to go to graduate school to study solid state device physics, and I could study this through a physics PhD or an EE PhD. What would you say is my best bet? If I did the EE PhD I would surely takes lots of physics, and vice versa, so either way I think I would have the opportunity to study what I enjoy.

 

[CPL.Luke]

hmm I wonder if the situation is similar in other countries outside of the US/UK that could potentially be a big place to start a job search.

I'd imagine a lot of chinese schools would hire an american with a phd.

 

[Chele]

As a PhD Physicist in industry, there are not any jobs here either, to the best of my knowledge we have not hired anyne with a PhD in a while (don't ask for whom I work because I won't say). My friends in other industries are saying the same thing as well as government employees.

I'm following this quite carefully because I am at a crossroads myself as to major in mathematics or in physics. In the physics department at my college, "nearly all" of the full-time graduate students receive full financial support. However, I'm wondering what I could do with it.

I plan to do research this summer as I love within 30 minutes of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the NASA Langley Research Center. There's GOT to be work there for a PhD!

 

[Astronuc]

I think in industry there is pressure to pay a little a possible (keep costs down), and a PhD is assumed to expect higher salary than an employee with a BS or MS.

Then there is the argument about being 'over-qualified', which I feel is total nonsense.

I think the key thing is to be diversified. PhDs may tend to be very specialized - or perhaps over-specialized - or rather that is the perception.

I look at a PhD as being qualified to do independent research and one who can push the envelope on the state-of-the-art. That is the way to be and the way to present oneself - but be diversified in one's skills and talents.

 

[gravenewworld]

As a chemist with a BS working in industry, i would have to agree with a lot of what the article says. PhDs are a dime a dozen these days, especially since PhDs come from over seas to the US in search of jobs. After one of our postdocs time was up at our company he ended up having to work at an amusement park as a cashier because he couldn't find any jobs. You don't need a PhD to work in industry, you only need 1-2 PhDs to look over 20-30 BS and MS chemists and still have a successful program. Companies would much rather higher a BS or MS to do lab work than a PhD because it is cheaper. The question that always comes up is "Why don't they just higher PhDs and pay them as much as a BS?"

Because PhDs all think that they know everything. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RUN A PROGRAM WITH JUST ALL PHDS. A room full of phds will just argue to no end about all the theory/best way possible to synthesize something. A Phd has a much much harder time taking orders from a manager who has the same level of expertise as them. Case in point- We highered a temp PhD to do some synthesis for us and he was given a procedure to make a compound that was already known to work, however the problem was the fact that the procedure only produced a 20% yield of desired product. This PhD thought he could come up with a better way to synthesize the same product with a better yield so he changed the synthetic route without asking first. Needless to say, although the theory said the reactions should have worked, they didn't and he ended up wasting 1000s of dollars in chemicals and 2 weeks of work for garbage. Sorry, but in industry time=money, if you don't produce results you get fired. The only thing that is important in industry is the end result and how fast you can get there, no one cares about the theory behind it. A PhD who manages 10-15 MS and BS almost always gets desired results faster than when they have to manage other phds. If you want to work in industry, companies will be wayyyyyyyyy more impressed with 10-20 years experience than they ever will be with a PhD.LOL we are just talking about organic chemistry PhDs here too. If you decided to get a PhD is say something like Physical Chemistry magnify the problem by 100. You would die of old age before you ever found a job with that degree.

 

[Dr Transport]

Dr. Transport, do you think a person with an engineering PhD would be better off than a physics PhD? I want to go to graduate school to study solid state device physics, and I could study this through a physics PhD or an EE PhD. What would you say is my best bet? If I did the EE PhD I would surely takes lots of physics, and vice versa, so either way I think I would have the opportunity to study what I enjoy.

You'll have a chance in the semiconductor industry.

 

[Dr Transport]

I'm following this quite carefully because I am at a crossroads myself as to major in mathematics or in physics. In the physics department at my college, "nearly all" of the full-time graduate students receive full financial support. However, I'm wondering what I could do with it.

I plan to do research this summer as I love within 30 minutes of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the NASA Langley Research Center. There's GOT to be work there for a PhD!

First, you have to get hired. From my experience, you will need a post-doc or two and then you might get a chance. The govt labs are not hiring as many people as they used to and are being very selective.

 

[leright]

You'll have a chance in the semiconductor industry.

Ideally, I would like to be in academia, and both an EE PhD and physics PhD would open some doors for me here...however, if the opportunities are scarce in academia I would like lots of opportunities in industry, especially the semiconductor industry. An EE PhD would be more employable than a physics PhD in this regard?

 

[Dr Transport]

I'll say this much, the job market for a PhD is limited no matter where you go. If you truly want a PhD, why not get your BS then find a position where you can go back part-time either company paid or self funded and get your Masters and PhD. You get it on you own time-table and get experience. Your company may reward you with an advanced promotion schedule.

When you get your advanced degree, you may be able to choose problems of your own and you can always teach on the side. My co-workers are pushing me to do just the, teach at night because I have too much knowledge to let it lie and not be used.

 

[leright]

As a chemist with a BS working in industry, i would have to agree with a lot of what the article says. PhDs are a dime a dozen these days, especially since PhDs come from over seas to the US in search of jobs. After one of our postdocs time was up at our company he ended up having to work at an amusement park as a cashier because he couldn't find any jobs. You don't need a PhD to work in industry, you only need 1-2 PhDs to look over 20-30 BS and MS chemists and still have a successful program. Companies would much rather higher a BS or MS to do lab work than a PhD because it is cheaper. The question that always comes up is "Why don't they just higher PhDs and pay them as much as a BS?"

Because PhDs all think that they know everything. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RUN A PROGRAM WITH JUST ALL PHDS. A room full of phds will just argue to no end about all the theory/best way possible to synthesize something. A Phd has a much much harder time taking orders from a manager who has the same level of expertise as them. Case in point- We highered a temp PhD to do some synthesis for us and he was given a procedure to make a compound that was already known to work, however the problem was the fact that the procedure only produced a 20% yield of desired product. This PhD thought he could come up with a better way to synthesize the same product with a better yield so he changed the synthetic route without asking first. Needless to say, although the theory said the reactions should have worked, they didn't and he ended up wasting 1000s of dollars in chemicals and 2 weeks of work for garbage. Sorry, but in industry time=money, if you don't produce results you get fired. The only thing that is important in industry is the end result and how fast you can get there, no one cares about the theory behind it. A PhD who manages 10-15 MS and BS almost always gets desired results faster than when they have to manage other phds.


If you want to work in industry, companies will be wayyyyyyyyy more impressed with 10-20 years experience than they ever will be with a PhD.


LOL we are just talking about organic chemistry PhDs here too. If you decided to get a PhD is say something like Physical Chemistry magnify the problem by 100. You would die of old age before you ever found a job with that degree.

Ha, well, I would like to be the PhD managing the 20-30 BSs and MSs. To get this manager position, generally one needs a PhD, right? Unfortunately, these positions are scarce.

 

[leright]

I'll say this much, the job market for a PhD is limited no matter where you go. If you truly want a PhD, why not get your BS then find a position where you can go back part-time either company paid or self funded and get your Masters and PhD. You get it on you own time-table and get experience. Your company may reward you with an advanced promotion schedule.

When you get your advanced degree, you may be able to choose problems of your own and you can always teach on the side. My co-workers are pushing me to do just the, teach at night because I have too much knowledge to let it lie and not be used.

*sigh*

I honestly didn't think the job opportunities for PhDs was THAT bad...especially from what some of my professors have told me.

 

[Dr Transport]

Ideally, I would like to be in academia, and both an EE PhD and physics PhD would open some doors for me here...however, if the opportunities are scarce in academia I would like lots of opportunities in industry, especially the semiconductor industry. An EE PhD would be more employable than a physics PhD in this regard?

Yes. but then again, you have to get hired and for every PhD position available, there are 10 for a lower level degree and they get filled before advanced degreed positions do because they usually are at a lower salary level.

Think about this, finish your degree and spend the 3-5 years as a post-doc befoer you get your first chance at a permanant position, you are 35 or so if you are lucky. If you get tenure before you are 40 you have lost 15 years in the job market making reasonably decent money and saving for a future. If you wait until you are tenured, you are not going to make the same amount as in industry and will most likely never make up the ground you lost in the long run. My friends in academia who got their degrees at the same time I did make between 25 and 50% less than I do, yes the have tenure but guess what, they will never keep up with me or pass me in the salary colunm or retirement column. I may get laid off tommorow, but I'll find another position. If they don't get tenure, they eirther get another post-doc, try to work in industry or learn the phrase "you want fries with that??". A friend of mine who didn't get tenure is still looking 6 years later without finding a permanant position because no one wants to touch him.

An academic career is noble, but unless you are one of the top 1% I'd not even try.

 

[gravenewworld]

Ha, well, I would like to be the PhD managing the 20-30 BSs and MSs. To get this manager position, generally one needs a PhD, right? Unfortunately, these positions are scarce.

Not only are they scarce, but as soon as you leave school with your PhD, you are competing against PhDs with 10+ years experience. The ones with more experience will get the job 95% of the time regardless of where you went to school or whoever your adviser was. It really is a catch 22, companies want people with plenty of experience, but it is extremely hard to get the experience when you come right out of school because it is so hard to get hired.

Industry---> MS is by far the best way to go

Academia---> PhD. Hats off to those who put themselves through the horrendous process of trying to get tenure.

 

[leright]

Yes. but then again, you have to get hired and for every PhD position available, there are 10 for a lower level degree and they get filled before advanced degreed positions do because they usually are at a lower salary level.

Think about this, finish your degree and spend the 3-5 years as a post-doc befoer you get your first chance at a permanant position, you are 35 or so if you are lucky. If you get tenure before you are 40 you have lost 15 years in the job market making reasonably decent money and saving for a future. If you wait until you are tenured, you are not going to make the same amount as in industry and will most likely never make up the ground you lost in the long run. My friends in academia who got their degrees at the same time I did make between 25 and 50% less than I do, yes the have tenure but guess what, they will never keep up with me or pass me in the salary colunm or retirement column. I may get laid off tommorow, but I'll find another position. If they don't get tenure, they eirther get another post-doc, try to work in industry or learn the phrase "you want fries with that??". A friend of mine who didn't get tenure is still looking 6 years later without finding a permanant position because no one wants to touch him.

An academic career is noble, but unless you are one of the top 1% I'd not even try.

I can see how getting a permanent position and getting tenure at a big 10 university, or an ivy, would be very difficult, but aren't there many opportunities at smaller liberal arts colleges and whatnot?

 

[Ki Man]

This post should be turned into a poll on whether or not a PhD is worth it

So, PhD in physics = many years of pain just to probably get turned down? this thread isn't very encouraging

 

[^_^physicist]

I want to add to all of this, that according to my professors (I have not yet checked any statistics so this is should be taken with a spoon of salt), that many in Academia are approaching retirement, and the next generation of professors are going to be needed pretty soon.

For instance, I know that if I manage to finish my undergrad and graduate work before the end of the next decade, at least three of my professors will be retiring, while at the same time the department should be expanding.

So with that in mind, there might be hope still for the few people who actually stuggle themselves through their PhD work.

 

[Ki Man]

most of our current professors in most univerisities right now are baby boomers, which are starting to retire from the job market by the masses, so in a few years university positions will open up

 

[Werg22]

Hummm while the prospect of a Phd is inviting to me, I don't want to be naive... personally I am bit skeptical about this "retiring professors prediction".

 

[ptabor]

What about opportunities in other nations?

I'd be willing to immigrate to China :)

 

[Dr Transport]

I can see how getting a permanent position and getting tenure at a big 10 university, or an ivy, would be very difficult, but aren't there many opportunities at smaller liberal arts colleges and whatnot?

They still want between 3 and 5 years post-doc'ing and a track record of funding...

I honestly didn't think the job opportunities for PhDs was THAT bad...especially from what some of my professors have told me.

What do they know, they are not part of the real world and honestly what do you think they are going to tell you, "the job market sucks for PhD's, but stay in school and live like a slave"...Their job is to produce PhD's and Masters degrees, they are not going to drive you away with reality.

 

[leright]

What do they know, they are not part of the real world and honestly what do you think they are going to tell you, "the job market sucks for PhD's, but stay in school and live like a slave"...Their job is to produce PhD's and Masters degrees, they are not going to drive you away with reality.

I consider academia to be very much "the real world", and a was referring to what they have said about job opportunities in academia.

 

[Dr Transport]

I consider academia to be very much "the real world", and a was referring to what they have said about job opportunities in academia.

After tenure, I would not agree with you. The real word is where you have to produce to keep your job and where your company can relieve you of your duties and walk you out the door, the chances of that happening in academia is slim to slimmer unless you commit a felony.

 

[Astronuc]

A slightly different perspective.

The CEO/founder of the company where I work has a PhD. The president has a PhD. Both are leaders in analytical methods and constitutive modeling.

I know quite a few PhD's who started their own companies, and I work and interact with many PhD's who are managers in industry, and moreso, many who work for NASA or a DOE lab.

Having a PhD is not necessarily a constraint.

 

[Dr Transport]

A slightly different perspective.

The CEO/founder of the company where I work has a PhD. The president has a PhD. Both are leaders in analytical methods and constitutive modeling.

I know quite a few PhD's who started their own companies, and I work and interact with many PhD's who are managers in industry, and moreso, many who work for NASA or a DOE lab.

Having a PhD is not necessarily a constraint.

I agree totally, the point I am trying to make is that if you think that by getting a PhD you automatically get a better job you are wrong. It is difficult to get a job with a PhD at this time. As I have said before, to the best of my knowledge my company has not hired a PhD in the past couple of years. My advisor was forced out of academia because he was an untenured research professor who lost his funding stream. He has been unemployed for the past 5 years. Who wouldn't hire him, he has over 35 years experience at multiple levels of mangement and research from research professor to lab manager to president of his own company (which he sold for a nice chunk of change).

 

[gravenewworld]

If you have a science degree, go into law. Law firms kill for people with a science background and that are trained in patent law. Hell, I know my company pays our patent lawyers $500/hr. The best part is the fact that you hardly ever have to go to court and you aren't one of those slimy ambulance chasing type lawyers.

 

[Locrian]

It's my conclusion that this paper, despite being over a decade old and using data 15 years old, is very much a good description of the way things are now. I consider the AIP data deeply flawed - I dispute both its methods and the rosy interpretation its given. I've not seen any data to suggest the disturbing growth in time spent as postdocs has dropped - on the contrary.

I used to have a nice blog post with lots of links to references in it (including this one), but it's gone. It doesn't matter, it's all on the web for anyone wanting to find it. For two semesters I've sat in my office listening to people about to graduate with PhD's gradually lower their standards until they're talking about what community college they hope to teach at. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I'm really beyond arguing over whether I'm right - I can just walk around a few departments and strike up some uncomfortable but key conversations to affirm my position any day I wish.

I believe there are jobs out there for physicists with specific backgrounds and very exceptional skills - I think at least one optimistic person (Zz) in this thread fits that bill. However, unless you, too, fit that description, you'll very likely get screwed bloody in the long run by getting a PhD in physics. Go ahead, get your PhD in non-comm geometry, experimental HEP or some obscure area of astrophysics. You might win the lottery and end up with a good job. I hope you enjoy gambling.

In case you are wondering, I have not gotten burned by getting a PhD - yet. I got burned by getting my bachelors and decided I could beat the system when I came back for more. So far I believe it's working. However I'm less convinced every day the prize is worth threading this series of needles.

For those of you considering a PhD, the information is out there. Go look. And don't say you weren't warned.

 

[Locrian]

If you have a science degree, go into law. Law firms kill for people with a science background and that are trained in patent law.

In the end of the 90's there was a large number of engineers and scientists who did just this, only to find the market unable to absorb them. If you read IP forums (and I have been) you'll find mixed reviews about the job situation. I'm not saying you can't get one, I believe you can, that the job prospects are at least as good as those for PhD's in the sciences, and that it can be a rewarding career. . .

. . . But it will behoove you to stop being optimistic and start being crafty sooner rather than later. Your company pays patent lawyers $500/hr. The lawyer doesn't get $500 an hour, and the pay for a patent agent is a fraction of what a patent lawyer gets.

 

[ZapperZ]

One of the things that I have always tried to emphasize during one's academic years is to get as wide of an experience and skills as possible. I've mentioned this in my So You Want To Be A Physicist essays, and in various threads in this forum. I have also mentioned the "employability" factor and have asked the student to start considering such a thing when choosing what they want to do. I have seen, during the early/mid 90's where, when there are reports of PhD's in physics driving cabs to make a living, there are still students clamoring to do string theory and various other esoteric theoretical subject area! Then they complain that they cannot get employed! At the same time, I have personally seen people who have yet to defend their thesis getting employment offers from Hewlet-Packard and various medical facilities.

What you choose to specialize in dictates very much on your employability. One can argue about statistics being accurate or not, or job market sucks or not, but that is the one thing that cannot be denied. The skill you posses by the time you graduate will determine how wide of a job market that is available to you. So if you have no or limited skills, then no matter what degree you graduated in, it would be foolish to expect that you have a large degree of employability.

Basic sciences have been battered in terms of funding in the US since the 90's. It appears that there is now an effort in congress, and in the president's budget, to double the research funding for DOE and NSF in 10 years, the same way that was done to the NIH during the last decade. If this occurs (and there's every indication that this funding increase, even if not doubled, might come through), then there WILL be a significant job opportunities in the physical sciences. However, that may still not change much if you still insist on doing string theory.

Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

or you can still get your PhD and become a high school teacher. With enough experience and if you live in the right area, some high school teacher make over 70 grand a year. and you still get the summers off, never have publishing requirements, and don't have to fight for grants. the only draw back is that you probably won't have the facilities to do research, but if you can live without that, but want to go into academia, become a high school teacher because they are definitely needed.


honestly ask yourself, "Do I really need a PhD?" In industry you get to do PhD level science everyday with a BS or MS without ever needing a PhD. Sure you might not come up with the experiment (the PhD will), but you are the one who gets to do it. No one is saying don't study science, you can do that on your own time, but do you really need a few letters after your last name to prove to everyone that you are special? A few guys where I work that just have a BS are insanely incredible at chemistry, all just from working in industry long enough. They are by far and away much much better than some of the PhD candidates from places like UPenn, UC, Harvard, Michigan, etc. we interviewed for a post doc position that we were offering before.

 

[ZapperZ]

or you can still get your PhD and become a high school teacher. With enough experience and if you live in the right area, some high school teacher make over 70 grand a year. and you still get the summers off, never have publishing requirements, and don't have to fight for grants. the only draw back is that you probably won't have the facilities to do research, but if you can live without that, but want to go into academia, become a high school teacher because they are definitely needed.

honestly ask yourself, "Do I really need a PhD?" In industry you get to do PhD level science everyday with a BS or MS without ever needing a PhD. Sure you might not come up with the experiment (the PhD will), but you are the one who gets to do it. No one is saying don't study science, you can do that on your own time, but do you really need a few letters after your last name to prove to everyone that you are special? A few guys where I work that just have a BS are insanely incredible at chemistry, all just from working in industry long enough. They are by far and away much much better than some of the PhD candidates from places like UPenn, UC, Harvard, Michigan, etc. we interviewed for a post doc position that we were offering before.

But you also can't assume that people who pursue a Ph.D simply want to have those extra letters after their name. That's presumptuous and insulting to those who do. In physics, if you do it simply for the "prestige" and standing, you'll never get it, because it is just way to difficult and demanding to do it for the wrong reason.

And if we want to do anecdotal evidence of what someone with a Ph.D can or cannot do versus someone with just a B.Sc can and cannot do, I can come up with boatload of examples as well. That proves nothing. The fact is that

(i) there are jobs that require a Ph.D in physics
(ii) there are jobs that do not require a Ph.D in physics
(iii) there are jobs that don't give a damn what you have, but rather that you can DO

As some point, we simply can no longer make blanket statements about such things. Just look at the issue of employability and job opportunities for experimentalists versus theorists alone. I can easily say that one should consider those two separately. If you are a theorist and hoping to get good academic or research position, then you'd better have gone to a very prestigious institution, and have a strong "pedigree", because chances are, with your limited employability, the schools that are looking to hire will pay more attention to you if you came from a well-known mentor. If you came from a not-so-well-known institution, then there is a very good chance that you won't find your ideal job. The competition is just too great, and your employability is just too limited! That is the nature of the job market!

I have been categorized as an optimist AND a pessimist many times over. And guess what? That is quite accurate. I'm an optimist when it comes to certain area of physics and graduates with certain skills. I'm a pessimist when I see people stubbornly pursue a certain line of study with very rigid, single-minded goal without any consideration whatsoever on what they can do after they graduate. In my years in physics, I've seen both extremes, and everything in between. To this very day, I've seen people languishing in one post-doc position after another, unable to find a permanent job, while another had barely finished the first year of a postdoctoral appointment before being snapped up by a terrific position. Considering the huge variety of expertise that is available in physics, I don't see how anyone can make any kind of a blanket statement about the employment status in physics.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

.. and just in time to address this issue further, the April edition of Physics Today has this article:

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_4/28_1.shtml"

Zz.

 

[PhilosophyofPhysics]

This thread is so depressing. The reason I'd want a Ph.D has to do with gaining more knowledge of Physics. :( But this all costs time and money. Lately, I've been thinking that I should attempt to get a job rather than go to grad school.

 

[Quaoar]

If you're going to get a PhD in ANYTHING, you got to do it because you love the subject. If you don't love the subject, its going to show in your work and you might suffer as a result.

Also, whenever Zapper uses Zz to end his post, it looks like he's snoring... :P

 

[ZapperZ]

Also, whenever Zapper uses Zz to end his post, it looks like he's snoring... :P

But I am!

Zzzzzzz...

 

[L62]

They still want between 3 and 5 years post-doc'ing and a track record of funding...



What do they know, they are not part of the real world and honestly what do you think they are going to tell you, "the job market sucks for PhD's, but stay in school and live like a slave"...Their job is to produce PhD's and Masters degrees, they are not going to drive you away with reality.

This is very true. Professors depend on grad students to do their research for them, and to churn out publications and data for new grant proposals to build their empires with. Of course they are going to encourage you, they don't want you to quit halfway because then who will do the work for them? Also, professors get evaluated based in part on how many Phd students they produce, and on how many of their students go on to become professors themselves.

Also, see www.phds.org for more articles on career issues for phds and more updated statistics on the job market

 

[Dr Transport]

My advisor had three goals for me

1. Get my PhD.
2. Enjoy what I was doing.

Most importantly
3. Have the skills to be employable when I was done.

Having worked in industry himself, he knew that #3 was the most important. He knew that the other majors in my department were not getting jobs but were just working from research contract to research contract without any chance at full-time permanent employment. Numbers 1 & 2 were worthless if you could not find a job and support yourself.