Academia: Exponential Growth & Post Docs Till 40?

[gravenewworld]

If professor x graduates 5 students and those 5 students graduate 5 more, and so on and so forth won't we reach a point where there will be complete oversaturation? Professors don't retire fast enough to compete with exponential growth. Should faculty start telling more of their students to turn away from academia instead of pursuing post docs until they are 40?

 

[daveyinaz]

Yes to answer the post's title...but in my mind for entirely different reasons.

 

[DivisionByZro]

So...every student that graduates from professor X tries to get back into academia? I think not. In my experience, a lot of undergraduates steer away from grad school as their bachelor's was hard enough.

 

[Choppy]

I think we reached that point somewhere around 1972.

I don't think it's a scam though. It is what it is. The shortfall lies in the assumption that the only thing a student with a PhD should be doing is trying to work as a purely academic professor. The world is better off with more educated people in it, in my opinion.

The solution perhaps, lies in exploring ways in which schools can assist students (and students can assist themselves) into the transition out of academia.

 

[gravenewworld]

So...every student that graduates from professor X tries to get back into academia? I think not. In my experience, a lot of undergraduates steer away from grad school as their bachelor's was hard enough.

Of course not, but many professor xs graduate more than 5 students too. Why are there so many post docs these days that are in their late 30s?

 

[daveyrocket]

If professor x graduates 5 students and those 5 students graduate 5 more, and so on and so forth won't we reach a point where there will be complete oversaturation? Professors don't retire fast enough to compete with exponential growth. Should faculty start telling more of their students to turn away from academia instead of pursuing post docs until they are 40?

Yeah it's a scam. Not just because of the rate at which students get trained, but because professors know that if they were honest about job prospects, then they wouldn't have any postdocs to do their work.

 

[Pengwuino]

How is it a scam? At what point during a BS or PhD are students told they have to go into academia and become professors? A scam, by definition, must tell its targets of an attainable position/result when in fact, that position/result is impossible or nearly impossible to reach.

Thus, it is not a scam, despite some people deciding on their own that the only job they should be going for is a professorship.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

It is no more a scam than anything else that reaches an economic peak.

The real question is whether the education one receives in schools these days can truly make one a better, more productive person. And there is no easy answer to that question because it is too open ended. Certainly some educations are better at this than others.

And though I'll admit a very strong bias on this issue, I tend to think that educations in Science and Engineering tend to do just that. Some educations such as those that include philosophy, and classic literature can also go a long way toward that goal. Beyond that, I think that schools should ask themselves why the feel that such degrees are relevant...

 

[Vanadium 50]

but because professors know that if they were honest about job prospects, then they wouldn't have any postdocs to do their work.

I tell every postdoc applicant who the previous postdocs were, and where they are now. Furthermore, I don't understand how anyone can get a PhD and not be able to do gravenewworld's calculation.

 

[Mépris]

@Jake
If you say philosophy and classic literature (you mean a broad literature course or one focused on Ancient Greece and Rome?) degrees are worthwhile, then I'd take that a mile further and say that most academic disciplines in the arts have some kind of "academic value". Even Women's Studies...although I definitely wouldn't be paying any of my $$$ to major in that!

People just shouldn't expect that their university degree is a trade school diploma (as Vanadium 50 would say). There's a few degrees like physiotherapy (an undergraduate course in many countries), accounting, actuarial science or social work, that I just cannot understand the existence of. Those should be in trade schools. Heck, one doesn't even need an accounting/actuarial science degree to get that kind of job. Not sure about the US, but elsewhere, one needs to do take a set of exams by an external body, say the ACCA. The thing I'm not certain of is whether someone with a major in accounting can get an accounting gig without being certified by something like the ACCA. Likewise for an actuary.

 

[Pengwuino]

People just shouldn't expect that their university degree is a trade school diploma (as Vanadium 50 would say). There's a few degrees like physiotherapy (an undergraduate course in many countries), accounting, actuarial science or social work, that I just cannot understand the existence of. Those should be in trade schools. Heck, one doesn't even need an accounting/actuarial science degree to get that kind of job. Not sure about the US, but elsewhere, one needs to do take a set of exams by an external body, say the ACCA. The thing I'm not certain of is whether someone with a major in accounting can get an accounting gig without being certified by something like the ACCA. Likewise for an actuary.

Next thing you know, getting Microsoft's A+ certification will require a 2 year AS

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

@Jake
If you say philosophy and classic literature (you mean a broad literature course or one focused on Ancient Greece and Rome?) degrees are worthwhile, then I'd take that a mile further and say that most academic disciplines in the arts have some kind of "academic value". Even Women's Studies...although I definitely wouldn't be paying any of my $$$ to major in that!

Yes, I'm speaking of a classical education in the arts. However, many courses in the arts take a post-modern approach without demonstrating why such an approach is required. The rigor of a classic education is important even if that rigor is not used for following studies. One should at least understand what assumptions their post-modern thinking comes from. Sadly, very few schools seem to be teaching that.

People just shouldn't expect that their university degree is a trade school diploma (as Vanadium 50 would say). There's a few degrees like physiotherapy (an undergraduate course in many countries), accounting, actuarial science or social work, that I just cannot understand the existence of. Those should be in trade schools. Heck, one doesn't even need an accounting/actuarial science degree to get that kind of job. Not sure about the US, but elsewhere, one needs to do take a set of exams by an external body, say the ACCA. The thing I'm not certain of is whether someone with a major in accounting can get an accounting gig without being certified by something like the ACCA. Likewise for an actuary.

I entirely agree. However, there is a stratification that I'm starting to see among many professional societies where they demand their specific club card of education. Heaven forbid that you should start with a degree in, say, Library Science, and move on to manage a zoo, or run a multi-billion dollar company.

That said, there are also many fools who believe that they're good at anything. These are the morons who think that a good manager can manage anything. If that's true then why do we not see more coaches of figure skating managing basketball teams? If a good manager can manage anything than I guess a good coach can coach anyone on anything, right?

We should seek a good education so that we can learn how to pursue the things we love to do. That is the point. If one can get there by attending classes in Women's Studies, so much the better. I tend to think, however, that more technical classes and more rigor in study are good things. We can always loosen up later; but if we don't start from the classics, very little that comes afterward will have a context against which one can understand it.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Furthermore, I don't understand how anyone can get a PhD and not be able to do gravenewworld's calculation.

Honestly, I was told over and over again up until maybe two years into my phd how good the career prospects were in science. I trusted the people advising me to know more than I did. The big surprise for me wasn't the poor prospects in academia- it was the poor prospects outside of academia. I got a phd in physics because I wanted a job that used some physics, and just sort of assumed that was normal for phds in physics.

I later found out that my undergraduate research advisor purposely kept his postdocs from interacting with his undergrads because he thought it was scaring undergrads away from the field. Both my undergraduate and grad institutions provided very misleading numbers in their information packet for potential physics majors,etc.

Do I think academia is a scam? Not fully, but I do think that there is a concerted effort to "sell" the major and the phd program, regardless of whether or not its a good idea for an individual. There is a huge moral hazard- every person in a position to offer advice to a student has an incentive to bring them into the program.

People just shouldn't expect that their university degree is a trade school diploma

BUT a phd is NOT a broad education. Its EXTREMELY narrow training in a specific discipline. In terms of the focus, its more like a trade school than a bachelors degree.

 

[mal4mac]

If professor x graduates 5 students and those 5 students graduate 5 more, and so on and so forth won't we reach a point where there will be complete oversaturation? Professors don't retire fast enough to compete with exponential growth. Should faculty start telling more of their students to turn away from academia instead of pursuing post docs until they are 40?

Any 12 year old who hangs around physics forums for five minutes soon knows the score! If someone want to pursue post docs until they are 40 then then that's their choice. I've met some like that, they are happy with their lot..., or at least reconciled..., or at least no more angst ridden than they would be in any other walk of life...

 

[ZapperZ]

If professor x graduates 5 students and those 5 students graduate 5 more, and so on and so forth won't we reach a point where there will be complete oversaturation? Professors don't retire fast enough to compete with exponential growth. Should faculty start telling more of their students to turn away from academia instead of pursuing post docs until they are 40?

There's a serious flaw with this assumption. It assumes that EVERY single person who goes through this process WANTS to go into academia. This is FALSE.

Only about 10% of the students that go through the program that I'm apart of go into academia. The rest go into private sectors or national labs. This alone should sufficiently destroy that assumption.

Zz.

 

[cdotter]

There's a serious flaw with this assumption. It assumes that EVERY single person who goes through this process WANTS to go into academia. This is FALSE.

Only about 10% of the students that go through the program that I'm apart of go into academia. The rest go into private sectors or national labs. This alone should sufficiently destroy that assumption.

Zz.

How competitive is permanent employment at a national lab?

 

[gravenewworld]

An interesting article to ponder:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472280a.html

"Most of them are not going to make it." That was the thought that ran through Animesh Ray's mind 15 years ago, as he watched excellent PhD students — including some at his own institution, the University of Rochester in New York — struggle to find faculty positions in academia, the only jobs they had ever been trained for. Some were destined for perpetual postdoctoral fellowships; others would leave science altogether.

Within a few years, the associate professor was in a position to do something about it. A stint in a start-up company in California had convinced him that many PhD graduates were poor at working in teams and managing shifting goals, the type of skills that industrial employers demand. So he started to develop a programme that would give students at Keck Graduate Institute (KGI) in Claremont, California, these skills. "I was determined not to have to keep watching scientists struggle to find the jobs they were trained to do."

“I was determined not to have to keep watching scientists struggle.”
Ray is one of a number of researchers and administrators who are attempting to reshape graduate training. They want to save young scientists from falling into the postdoc holding pattern or taking jobs below their station. Here, Nature presents five approaches to shaking up the hallowed foundations of academia. They range from throwing scientists deep into independent study, to going interdisciplinary, to forgoing the PhD altogether.

Maybe institutions should start enforcing mandatory retirement after the age of 60 to give other people the opportunity to find work.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How competitive is permanent employment at a national lab?

Many labs have two tracks, with various names: staff/senior staff, physicist/applications physicist, etc. The fundamental difference is that the former usually gets to direct his or her own research, and the latter does not (although there are obviously shades of gray here). For the former, it's at least as competitive as a faculty position at a major research university, and possibly even more so. These are coveted positions: 100% of your time for research, and the full resources of a national lab behind you.

For the latter, it's "easier" in the sense that the skill set is broader. For example, people who are highly skilled in particular technologies can get lab positions, but are likely to be seen as too narrow or too specialized for a university position. But they are still very competitive. If you are the best guy in the world at making niobium RF cavities, you can write your own ticket. If you are the third best guy in the world, you can get a job. If you are the 10th best guy in the world, you will have a hard time.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Maybe institutions should start enforcing mandatory retirement after the age of 60 to give other people the opportunity to find work.

First, that's illegal in the US.

Second, it doesn't solve your problem: it just slightly changes the exponent.

Third, how does the field as a whole benefit from this? It's a myth that there are no faculty jobs. There are maybe 150 new positions opening up in PhD-granting universities yearly. Your system would allow 50 people who wouldn't be able to get faculty positions under the old system to get positions. Why is this better? Why is it better to force someone who is 61 and still effective to retire in order to hire someone who wouldn't be able to get a faculty job if there were only 150 of them?

 

[pi-r8]

I have to say I think the job statistics for science majors are a bit of a scam. Not that they're lying... they're just very, very deceptive.

For example, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm says that the median wage for physicists is $102,890. Wow, right? Good money! But you have to look reaaaaally carefully to find this little nugget:

Physicists and astronomers held about 17,100 jobs in 2008. Physicists accounted for about 15,600 of these, while astronomers accounted for only about 1,500 jobs. In addition, there were about 15,500 physicists employed in faculty positions; these workers are covered in more detail in the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.

So they're not counting professors, post-docs, or graduate students as physicists, even though those people are the ones doing the vast majority of physics research. Heck, even Albert Einstein wouldn't count as a physicist according to that measure. They are taking data from a very narrow subsection of physicists, and reporting that as if it's representative.

Or perhaps we look at http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/phds1later.pdffrom the http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bach2010.pdf. They tell us that people with either a bachelor's degree or a PhD in physics have only a 4% unemployment rate, and that http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp2010.pdf of people with a bachelors degree get a job in a STEM field with a good salary. In this economy, that's fantastic! Economists would say that we're at full employment, so basically everyone who wants a job can find one quickly. There should not be any long-term unemployment except for very rare cases.

Except, again, we have to look at the fine print. Reading the survey methodology reveals that only 40% of new physics grads actually answered their survey. They do have data for 54% of new PhDs, but 31% of that came from their advisors rather than the PhDs themselves. Of course 40% is fine if this were a truly random sample... but it isn't. The people who voluntarily self-report will tend to be the people who have jobs that they can be proud of. I know that, for me, I didn't answer my university's career survey because I was too ashamed of being unemployed.

The best numbers I think come from Andrew Sum. He used US census data, which is important because it tracks everyone. He calculated that only 67.9% of new physical science grads are employed (!) 11.4% were employed in jobs that don't require any college degree at all. The median wage was only $14,607 or $20,687 depending on if you had a job that required a degree, which is frankly pathetic. Note that physical science majors earn less than almost all other fields of study, including humanities.

I know I wouldn't have bothered to work through a physics degree if I'd been told employment data like that. Should have just learned programming instead. But of course the schools want to make sure they have a plentiful supply of new graduate students available to do all the research and teaching work for a paltry salary...

Looking at these misleading statistics, I can't help but be reminded of what's happening at law schools. Law students take on an outrageous amount of debt, because they think that once they graduate they'll make a high salary as a lawyer. It turns out that the "official" statistics from law schools are utterly worthless. Some law school graduates end up swamped with debt that they are literally committing suicide. The law schools hide this with the same kind of basic methodology mistakes that the AIP does, like relying on self-reported data with a very low response rate. (Ironically, it's my training in science that teaches me to identify what a huge error that is! I wouldn't have understood when I was a freshman how important a random sample is.)

If you want to encourage students to study science, make sure you're giving them accurate and clear information that won't mislead them. If the only defense is "caveat emptor- they should have done better research before they commited to this!" well that's pretty much the universal defense of scammers.

 

[Choppy]

An interesting post, Pi-r8.

Most of the time when people challenge the statistics they come up with some pretty lame arguments that aren't supported by anything more than anecdotal evidence. Here you have presented something a little more concrete.

Of course you have to be just as suspiscious with the census data. For example, does it consider someone who is currently in graduate school or professional school unemployed?

There is also the implication that being employed in a position where a degree is not necessary equates to underemployment. It doesn't require a degree to be an entrepreneur, or to be a programmer or to work in network admimistration, for example. For a while I really wanted to be a cop before I started my PhD. If that would have worked out, I wouldn't have considered myself underemployed even though I had a master's degree because that education would have been useful in gaining promotions. I'm not saying that underemployment doesn't exist though. I knew one guy with a physics MSc who was driving cabs.

And then there's the theory that self-reporting is skewed because only people who are proud of their jobs report. One, admittedly anecdotal piece of evidence against this is that if you spend a fair amount of time reading the posts on these boards it would seem that the people who aren't happy with their job prospects after a physics degree are quite vocal about it. Further, what about a skew the other way - that people who are busy with fullfilling jobs don't have time to fill out surveys?

What is interesting is that the data you've provided seems to be a little more recent than the numbers I've seen from the AIP, ie. we're comparing pre- and post-recession data.

 

[pi-r8]

To be honest, Choppy, the main reason I distrust the official statistics is simply that they don't match up with my own anecdotal experiences. Just judging by people I've talked to, it seems hard to believe that we're really in a 4% unemployment labor market. But I know that anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing, and I've spent a long time thinking about how to find real evidence.

According to the BLS, "people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week." and "Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."

To be honest, I'm not sure how grad students would fit into that definition, and I can't find any details that address grad students specifically. It might be up to the individual to decide how they choose to report themselves to the census taker.

You're right that it's hard to neatly classify all jobs as "college" or "not-college" but the news article says they decided based on if the job "typically requires a college degree" which should be good enough for a general picture. I would assume that programmer and network administration are considered college jobs, in that report.

There's definitely a lot of different possibilities for skew, which is why self-reported data is so unreliable. But if you read any surveys of the psychological affects of unemployment, they all agree that it tends to make people become depressed, lose energy, and lose their normal connections to society. Especially when people have internalized the idea that they should have succeeded because "everyone else in my field has a good job", but something was wrong with them. Again I think the law schools scamblog movement is interesting in this respect, because it seems like so many students were being silently ashamed of themselves until they made contact through the internet and realized that many others were in the same situation- that's when they finally began to speak out.

 

[twofish-quant]

I have to say I think the job statistics for science majors are a bit of a scam. Not that they're lying... they're just very, very deceptive.

It's also because the reality is complicated. One problem with statistics is that people have this idea that one number will tell you everything, when in fact it won't.

themselves. Of course 40% is fine if this were a truly random sample... but it isn't. The people who voluntarily self-report will tend to be the people who have jobs that they can be proud of. I know that, for me, I didn't answer my university's career survey because I was too ashamed of being unemployed.

On the other hand, that number "makes sense" to me. Among the physics Ph.D.'s that I know of, I don't know of anyone that is unemployed, and since I know 20-30 personally, that's consistent with an unemployment rate of about 5%.

He calculated that only 67.9% of new physical science grads are employed (!) 11.4% were employed in jobs that don't require any college degree at all. The median wage was only $14,607 or $20,687 depending on if you had a job that required a degree, which is frankly pathetic.

That's also mixing apples and oranges. If you count physics bachelors, you are likely to see a huge number of people in graduate school which pulls down salary figures.

I know I wouldn't have bothered to work through a physics degree if I'd been told employment data like that. Should have just learned programming instead.

I did both.

Looking at these misleading statistics, I can't help but be reminded of what's happening at law schools.

Yes, and one thing that I think that you'll find is that the statistics for physicists are *less* fudged than statistics for most other fields. That's an important thing to keep in mind when choose major and buying used cars. Yes, the salesman is probably lying to you, but the question is whether or not they are lying to you more or less than the person across the street.

If you have to choose people physics and law, and you "unfudge" physics stats but don't "unfudge" law stats, then you looks bad, but if you "unfudge" both, physics starts looking good again.

It's fine to be cynical, but you have to be even handed.

If you want to encourage students to study science, make sure you're giving them accurate and clear information that won't mislead them.

Sure, but the person getting that information has to realize that accurate information is more complicated than just one number.

One big problem with salary data, is that what you really want to know is median salary in 2016, and *no one* has that information.

 

[twofish-quant]

To be honest, Choppy, the main reason I distrust the official statistics is simply that they don't match up with my own anecdotal experiences. Just judging by people I've talked to, it seems hard to believe that we're really in a 4% unemployment labor market.

For physics Ph.D.'s it matches my experience. Note that most Ph.D.'s I know are in their 30's, and I don't know the current situation for people fresh out of school. But the unemployment rate for Ph.D.s is substantially lower than people without Ph.D.'s.

But I know that anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing, and I've spent a long time thinking about how to find real evidence.

We can compare anecdotes. If you know large numbers of unemployed physics Ph.D.'s, I'd be interested in knowing more. We can compare notes to see what is going on.

Again I think the law schools scamblog movement is interesting in this respect, because it seems like so many students were being silently ashamed of themselves until they made contact through the internet and realized that many others were in the same situation- that's when they finally began to speak out.

On the other hand seeing the agony that law students are going through now makes me thank my stars that I went into science and engineering.

 

[twofish-quant]

First, that's illegal in the US.

Second, it doesn't solve your problem: it just slightly changes the exponent.

It also kills my career plans. One thing that gives me a lot of hope is that I've seen productive physicists in their 80's and 90's, so my "worst case scenario" is that I work until I'm 59 1/2, at which point my 401(k) and IRA's open up, and then I spend the rest of my life doing astrophysics.

 

[Pyrrhus]

One important difference is typically no debt after grad school for Science and Engineering graduates. Also, for some social science graduates like Econ.

 

[pi-r8]

On the other hand, that number "makes sense" to me. Among the physics Ph.D.'s that I know of, I don't know of anyone that is unemployed, and since I know 20-30 personally, that's consistent with an unemployment rate of about 5%.

Bear in mind that statistic is only for people who got their degree in the previous year. Do you really know 20-30 people that got a physics PhD last year?

That's also mixing apples and oranges. If you count physics bachelors, you are likely to see a huge number of people in graduate school which pulls down salary figures.

Well that data is basically just for new bachelors degrees (including all physical sciences, not just physics). There's so many more bachelors compared to PhDs that they get swamped. And I guess I should mention that I only have a physics bachelors myself, so that's mostly what I'm concerned about. Besides... I know that having a BS in physics is nothing special on this website, but to most people it is. Everyone says like "wow that must have been really hard! You must have been so smart!" And hey, it was really hard. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that most people who get a physics BS (or any kind of science BS really) should be able to quickly find a decent job once they're done.

Anyway, since the reported salary is actually lower than what most grad students get as a stipend, wouldn't they actually be pulling the salary figures up?

I did both.

That's probably what everyone should do. It just feels like such a kick in the pants to hear that all the core classes you take to get a physics degree are almost totally unrelated to any kind of job. It's like "Oh we forgot to tell you that if you want any money you need to teach yourself programming in your spare time."

Yes, and one thing that I think that you'll find is that the statistics for physicists are *less* fudged than statistics for most other fields. That's an important thing to keep in mind when choose major and buying used cars. Yes, the salesman is probably lying to you, but the question is whether or not they are lying to you more or less than the person across the street.

True. I'm annoyed at the AIP for not having better data, but I have to admit that they are far better in this respect than almost any other major. Most departments just give the exact same spiel "we teach you critical thinking that will prepare you for absolutely any job. And even if the job numbers are tough right now, don't worry, because any minute now a whole bunch of baby boomers are about to retire and then you'll find a great job in our field easily."

For physics Ph.D.'s it matches my experience. Note that most Ph.D.'s I know are in their 30's, and I don't know the current situation for people fresh out of school. But the unemployment rate for Ph.D.s is substantially lower than people without Ph.D.'s.

Well again, their data is only for people with a fresh PhD, and they don't have much data for post-recession. Also, they don't track what happens after the post-doc, which seems like a major problem. Right now the main career path in physics seems to be:

Bachelors -> PhD -> postdoc -> ?

Being a postdoc is fine, but you can't stay a postdoc forever. At some point you have to transition to a permanent job, and that's the really hard part.

We can compare anecdotes. If you know large numbers of unemployed physics Ph.D.'s, I'd be interested in knowing more. We can compare notes to see what is going on.

I'm too young- pretty much everyone I know is still in grad school (geez, academia is slow!). What really worries me is that grad school just seemed like the default choice for every physics student who had halfway decent grades. I went for a while, but quit after I realized I had lost interest in it.

Of the 13 people that I can think of who graduated in my class, eight are in grad school, three of us were unemployed for a long time before finding (not very good) jobs, one is still unemployed, and one is a ski instructor (admittedly that sounds like a lot of fun).

On the other hand seeing the agony that law students are going through now makes me thank my stars that I went into science and engineering.

Ain't that the truth. Apparently there's such a "critical shortage" of scientists that the government was willing to pay for my studies so I could graduate debt-free. I'm only now starting to realize how amazingly lucky I was in that respect. It just seems bizarre that they'll pay for people to learn science, but not to actually do[i/] science.

On a personal note, twofish, I've read a lot of your other posts in this forum and I think they're gold. Thanks a lot for some very insightful advice. I don't always agree with you but it's still very helpful.

 

[pi-r8]

It also kills my career plans. One thing that gives me a lot of hope is that I've seen productive physicists in their 80's and 90's, so my "worst case scenario" is that I work until I'm 59 1/2, at which point my 401(k) and IRA's open up, and then I spend the rest of my life doing astrophysics.

One possibility (for everyone) would be to just work a part-time job to pay the bills and work on science research the rest of the time. I know that people who try to submit physics research from outside academia are usually cranks- especially the ones for theoretical astrophysics- but this really might be feasible in the future. If you've got a PhD you've got all the training you need, the internet let's you collaborate with everyone else in the field, and a theorist won't need much equipment. Is there anything impossible with that plan?

 

[twofish-quant]

Bear in mind that statistic is only for people who got their degree in the previous year. Do you really know 20-30 people that got a physics PhD last year?

No, but there is a professor in my department that keeps track of these things. A 4% unemployment rate among Ph.D. seems reasonable, and I don't see any reason to question that number.

Besides... I know that having a BS in physics is nothing special on this website, but to most people it is. Everyone says like "wow that must have been really hard! You must have been so smart!" And hey, it was really hard. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that most people who get a physics BS (or any kind of science BS really) should be able to quickly find a decent job once they're done.

It's not unreasonable, but you happen to have had the misfortunate of graduating into the aftermath of the worst economic calamity in the last eighty years. You are screwed. The question is "how screwed are you" and I think that you are less screwed with a physics bachelors than with most other degrees.

Your demand are not unreasonable, but sometimes reality turns out to be unreasonable.

Anyway, since the reported salary is actually lower than what most grad students get as a stipend, wouldn't they actually be pulling the salary figures up?

I don't think it is lower.

That's probably what everyone should do. It just feels like such a kick in the pants to hear that all the core classes you take to get a physics degree are almost totally unrelated to any kind of job. It's like "Oh we forgot to tell you that if you want any money you need to teach yourself programming in your spare time."

Not just programming, but there are about a thousand other skills that you have to teach yourself. School is just part of your education. Now if you thought that a degree was just a meal ticket, in which you do what you are told, and then at the end there is a nice job waiting for you. That's not the way that it works.

One of the things that I very strongly tell people is to take humanities very seriously. Learn history and economics and philosophy and art. The reason for that is that those also give you about a dozen skills that you need for the workplace.

Something that you have to realize is that sometimes no one has the answers. We are in an economic mess and no one knows the way out, but the point of a college education is to give you enough background so that you can figure out what to do next.

True. I'm annoyed at the AIP for not having better data, but I have to admit that they are far better in this respect than almost any other major. Most departments just give the exact same spiel "we teach you critical thinking that will prepare you for absolutely any job.

Which is more or less true. Now we have the problem that the jobs aren't there, and no one seems to know what to do about it. *That's* when the critical thinking skills really need to kick in.

Well again, their data is only for people with a fresh PhD, and they don't have much data for post-recession. Also, they don't track what happens after the post-doc, which seems like a major problem. Right now the main career path in physics seems to be:

Bachelors -> PhD -> postdoc -> ?

I know people that have done tracking. One thing that I think is cool about physics is that there *ISN'T* a main career path. I've figured out something that seems to work for me. It probably won't work for you.

Once you get to the level of Ph.D.'s, everyone is different. Also one thing that you learn when you do Ph.D. tracking over a long period of time is that the path changes from decade to decade. If you are starting graduate school right now, I haven't the foggiest clue what your career path will look like. So you better be prepared for anything, either good or bad.

Being a postdoc is fine, but you can't stay a postdoc forever. At some point you have to transition to a permanent job, and that's the really hard part.

No you don't. You never have a permanent job. I've switched fields every five years or so. There is no such thing as a permanent job. I hear rumors that they existed once before, but that was before my time. I've never had a permanent job. My current job pays well, but I could be out the door tomorrow.

It just seems bizarre that they'll pay for people to learn science, but not to actually do[i/] science.

It depends on how broadly you define science.

 

[twofish-quant]

One possibility (for everyone) would be to just work a part-time job to pay the bills and work on science research the rest of the time.

Thought of that myself. It doesn't work.

The problem is that high paying jobs are invariably not part-time, and jobs that are part-time don't pay enough to allow any surplus. If this were viable, I'd be doing it.

I know that people who try to submit physics research from outside academia are usually cranks- especially the ones for theoretical astrophysics- but this really might be feasible in the future. If you've got a PhD you've got all the training you need, the internet let's you collaborate with everyone else in the field, and a theorist won't need much equipment. Is there anything impossible with that plan?

I haven't gotten this to work, because:

1) the key thing to do science to to have professional networks, Those are very hard to build up, and it's being physically outside of a university makes things difficult.
2) library/books are a problem. In astrophysics the journal articles are online, but some of the major books are not
3) the basic unit of research is a paper, and in order to write a paper you need to have several months free, and you can't carve that out easily when you are working full time

All of these are "engineering" problems and there is no law of physics that keeps people from restructuring the system to make it more friendly to part-time physicists, except that there isn't any political or economic incentive to do so. Right now there is a "glut" of scientists. Making it easier to do science will just increase the "glut" with no economic or political benefit that I can see.

When you are an undergraduate, you are money-poor but time-rich, once you get to age 40, you have more than enough money, but no time. I'm hoping things will change when I hit 50 or 60.

 

[Mépris]

^
If a reasonable number of physicists work together outside of universities, build their own internet community - an online department, if you will - and everybody meets on a fixed date and time, would problem 1) not be fixed?

 

[twofish-quant]

Also the fact that everyone can talk to everyone on the internet doesn't solve things. The problem with having everyone talk to everyone is that it results in a many shallow personal networks, whereas science research depends on having a few *deep* relationships. The other thing is that sometimes in order to have a conversation, you have to keep people out of the conversation.

Again, this is an "social engineering" problem, but it's not a trivial one to solve.

 

[twofish-quant]

^
If a reasonable number of physicists work together outside of universities, build their own internet community - an online department, if you will - and everybody meets on a fixed date and time, would problem 1) not be fixed?

Easier said then done. One problem is that if you have two professors from different universities swap ideas on their latest research online, this is considered good, and all non-trivial scientific collaborations go between different universities. If you have two people from competing companies do that, they'll get fired, assuming the regulators don't investigate you for anti-trust violations.

In order to have a department you need money and staff. And what's the point? It's not incredibly difficult to get an adjunct position once you have some status and reputation.

 

[Biosyn]

How is it a scam? At what point during a BS or PhD are students told they have to go into academia and become professors? A scam, by definition, must tell its targets of an attainable position/result when in fact, that position/result is impossible or nearly impossible to reach.

Thus, it is not a scam, despite some people deciding on their own that the only job they should be going for is a professorship.

Exactly what I was thinking.
Why would it be a scam? Students should do their due diligence. It's their choice. I don't think it's a scam.

 

[pi-r8]

Also the fact that everyone can talk to everyone on the internet doesn't solve things. The problem with having everyone talk to everyone is that it results in a many shallow personal networks, whereas science research depends on having a few *deep* relationships. The other thing is that sometimes in order to have a conversation, you have to keep people out of the conversation.

Again, this is an "social engineering" problem, but it's not a trivial one to solve.

That doesn't sound so hard to me. I've personally worked on several different kinds of projects with people that I've met through internet sites (it's a millenial thing- you old folks wouldn't understand :P). And after reading forums for a while, I start to get a feel for who is worth paying attention to and who I can safely ignore. You even have that special medal image to give you special recognition on this forum! I honestly think the only reason that nobody does "serious" science outside of academia is cultural inertia. We've internalized the idea that the only people outside academia who write science articles are cranks, and therefore the only people who do that tend to actually be cranks, which justifies our belief in ignoring those people.

 

[pi-r8]

Exactly what I was thinking.
Why would it be a scam? Students should do their due diligence. It's their choice. I don't think it's a scam.

"You should have done your due diligence" is not a valid justification of anything. Especially not when students are getting their heads filled with romantic advice like "follow your dreams", "trust your gut", and "just do what you love and don't worry about the money". I still say that it's unreasonably difficult for science students to get a realistic understanding of what a career path through academia is like.

One interesting thing I read recently is that higher education is in sort of a bizarre legal situation. They can't directly say that a college degree will help you get a job, because that would open them up to lawsuits if it doesn't. They also can't say that it won't help you get a job, because that's the main reason most people go to college. So instead they have to do sort of a "wink wink, nudge nudge" and let 3rd parties make the case that a college degree will get you a job.

 

[twofish-quant]

That doesn't sound so hard to me.

It's one of those things that sounds easier than it is. I do think that social networking will change the dynamics, but someone still needs to put the pieces together. Part of the reason that I'm telling people that the problems are X, Y, and Z is that I'd like to see someone work around X, Y, and Z.

You can writing someone an e-mail, but they don't have to reply.

I've personally worked on several different kinds of projects with people that I've met through internet sites (it's a millenial thing- you old folks wouldn't understand :P).

About 75% of the people that I work with, I've never met face-to-face. Everything at the office is instant messaging, e-mail, telephones, with the occasional teleconference.

I honestly think the only reason that nobody does "serious" science outside of academia is cultural inertia.

I don't think so. I haven't found any resistance at all from my peers toward me writing papers on my research. The problem is finding the time. If the *only* thing that was keeping me from publishing is "cultural inertia" then I would have done it already.

We've internalized the idea that the only people outside academia who write science articles are cranks, and therefore the only people who do that tend to actually be cranks, which justifies our belief in ignoring those people.

Who is "we"?

There is some internalization involved. From time to time, I get these crazy ideas about how I've solved the deep mysteries of the universe. However, usually I take a deep breath, get a good nights sleep, and in the morning I realize that my idea was crap. So if I have a new idea, I'm going to spend a few weeks kicking it to pieces before I even think of uploading to Archvix, and since I know what quality looks like, that keeps me from publishing something that I know is bad. And getting something good takes time and effort.

The thing that I could easily get at the university which I don't have now is a bunch of people to bounce ideas off of. So I have this crap idea that doesn't work. I mention it to someone else who agrees that it is crap, but then it might solve this other problem that they are working on, at which point we try to mold it into something interesting.

 

[twofish-quant]

"You should have done your due diligence" is not a valid justification of anything. Especially not when students are getting their heads filled with romantic advice like "follow your dreams", "trust your gut", and "just do what you love and don't worry about the money".

A bit of history. What happened in 2008 was not supposed to happen. In 1991, the Soviet Union fell, the web was invented and with technology and democracy, we were supposed to march to utopia, and what people put in your head (and in my head) was based on the assumption that we understand how economies worked and that recessions were impossible.

It didn't work out that way. One reason I never bought into this idea completely was that I knew enough history to look at the last dozen times people promised utopia. Also, you don't have to look far. The 1950's were one of those periods. The other thing is that a lot of the "romantics" came of age in the 1960's.

I still say that it's unreasonably difficult for science students to get a realistic understanding of what a career path through academia is like.

Sure, and part of it is that no one *knows* what a career path through academia looks like. You are asking for someone to package the future and give it to you, and this is just not possible. I can't tell you what you'll be doing in ten years, because I can't tell you what I'll be doing in ten years.

If you want an answer, the answer is "I don't know."

So instead they have to do sort of a "wink wink, nudge nudge" and let 3rd parties make the case that a college degree will get you a job.

Which is pretty common in business. The other thing that's a problem is that often the people that tell you these sorts of things actually believe them.

Also sometimes its true. As bad as the situation is, do you think that you would be better off without a college degree? Yes, most jobs that people get *could* be done without a degree, but a lot of times the first resume pass gets rid of people that don't have a degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Does anyone have the actual paper by Sum? I keep reading how wonderful his methodology is, but can only find things in blogs. I'd like to see what his methodology actually is, rather than judge it by how near I think he comes to the "right" answer.

 

[D H]

Does anyone have the actual paper by Sum? I keep reading how wonderful his methodology is, but can only find things in blogs. I'd like to see what his methodology actually is, rather than judge it by how near I think he comes to the "right" answer.

I've looked. I can't find it.
Not here: http://www.northeastern.edu/clms/publications/
Not here, either: http://www.employmentpolicy.org/people/andrew-m-sum

I can find lots of blogs that quote these wonderful statistics, but not one that references the source of these statistics in the form of a white paper or journal paper. The only references provided are links to Sum's home page.I am very curious: How did he count graduate students? A good percentage of physical science (physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, ...) undergrads proceed on to graduate school rather than getting a job armed only with their undergraduate degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Exactly one of the questions I have. Note that the difference between the two sets of numbers is approximately the number of people who go on to graduate school.

 

[daveyinaz]

"You should have done your due diligence" is not a valid justification of anything. Especially not when students are getting their heads filled with romantic advice like "follow your dreams", "trust your gut", and "just do what you love and don't worry about the money".

True dat homie! Like someone said...the tenet of all those too afraid to admit they are scamming someone.

 

[Locrian]

There's a few degrees like physiotherapy (an undergraduate course in many countries), accounting, actuarial science or social work, that I just cannot understand the existence of. Those should be in trade schools. Heck, one doesn't even need an accounting/actuarial science degree to get that kind of job. Not sure about the US, but elsewhere, one needs to do take a set of exams by an external body, say the ACCA. The thing I'm not certain of is whether someone with a major in accounting can get an accounting gig without being certified by something like the ACCA. Likewise for an actuary.

In the US you really can't get most accounting jobs without an accounting degree, and the majority will require a CPA for any real progression. There are some accounting jobs that are little more than book keeping that one can get without an accounting degree, but those are best avoided.

The only requirement to work as an actuary in the US are the actuarial designations, which do not require a college degree. However, they do require a lot of mathematical background. No one I know has ever heard of anyone becoming a credentialled actuary without a college degree.

IMNSHO, neither of those professions belong in trade schools in the US.

 

[nickyrtr]

A thought about postdocs ...

The money is not great, but it's enough to live on, and anyone who has chosen a career in science isn't in it for the money anyway. The work itself can be quite interesting and rewarding. Not so much if you have a bad boss, but the same is true of any profession. One could be a postdoc indefinitely and count it as a satisfying career if only a couple of things changed:

- Change the view in our science subculture that a postdoc is just an apprenticeship for something else. Modern science apparently needs lots of people doing what postdocs do, and far fewer doing what tenure-track faculty do. The former should therefore be viewed as a worthy career destination for most science PhD's.

- Give the postdoc role some measure of temporal and geographic stability. One should not have to move halfway across the country (or world) every couple of years to stay employed. Lifetime employment at one institution is probably too much to hope for, but at least give science workers as much job stability as in other professional fields.

 

[Locrian]

The money is not great, but it's enough to live on, and anyone who has chosen a career in science isn't in it for the money anyway.

False.

But what do you expect from statements like these? It would be miraculous if it were true.

 

[Choppy]

A thought about postdocs ...

The money is not great, but it's enough to live on, and anyone who has chosen a career in science isn't in it for the money anyway. The work itself can be quite interesting and rewarding. Not so much if you have a bad boss, but the same is true of any profession. One could be a postdoc indefinitely and count it as a satisfying career if only a couple of things changed:

- Change the view in our science subculture that a postdoc is just an apprenticeship for something else. Modern science apparently needs lots of people doing what postdocs do, and far fewer doing what tenure-track faculty do. The former should therefore be viewed as a worthy career destination for most science PhD's.

- Give the postdoc role some measure of temporal and geographic stability. One should not have to move halfway across the country (or world) every couple of years to stay employed. Lifetime employment at one institution is probably too much to hope for, but at least give science workers as much job stability as in other professional fields.

I'm not sure what Locrian is disagreeing with. I think Nickyrtr's opening statement is reasonable. There are situations where a high cost of living or supporting a large family or extravagant lifestyle would be impractical on a post-doctoral salary, but for the most part "enough to live on" is a fair statement, in my opinion. It is also fair to assume that most scientists are not primarily driven by earning potential. There are some..., but they usually become scientist-entrepreneurs.

With respect to NickyRTR's second point giving stability to the postdoc role - it's a nice idea, but the implementation is the difficult part. HOW would you propose we do this? Post-docs are generally hired to work on specific, time-limited projects. Once a project is completed, keeping a post-doc is just an extra cost with no added value. When new projects come up, often people with different skill sets are needed and you have a pool of newly trained, freshly graduated students who can walk in and start working on day one with little to no investment in training on your part.

 

[deRham]

No you don't. You never have a permanent job. I've switched fields every five years or so. There is no such thing as a permanent job. I hear rumors that they existed once before, but that was before my time. I've never had a permanent job. My current job pays well, but I could be out the door tomorrow.

This leads/relates to one of my questions for a long time, which is why there is a chasm between truly permanent jobs in academia and purely temporary ones. Someone brought up that they pay for people to learn but not to do (at least not in the exact same sense they learn - that is, if you learn theoretical topics in QFT, you have a high chance of ending up not doing QFT).

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if there were an intermediate, non-permanent position between a postdoc and a full professorship, and maybe even fewer "tenure" positions...but someone can feel free to vehemently object, provided a good reason is given. The reason is that I daresay a fair number of individuals leave academia not just because it's hard to find a job, but rather that it's hard to find a job you have *any* reasonable likelihood of keeping. Nothing is permanent. Even full professorships aren't, because you can die. But the point is an expectation of a reasonable chance at some security.

on specific, time-limited projects. Once a project is completed, keeping a post-doc is just an extra cost with no added value

Presumably when someone is hired, he/she has some long term tasks to perform. I imagine what would happen is you have some senior faculty member with whom you discuss what you plan to do in the future after some reasonable stage of time (maybe a year), and you get to stay if you've made good enough progress to convince the faculty member of your ability to follow through.

 

[LogicX]

So, this thread is making me very worried. How hard are chemistry jobs to come by compared to physics? I feel like chemistry has a lot of industrial application, or are all those jobs populated by chemical engineers?

 

[JDoolin]

Well, what do you love? If you love money, you'll probably find a way to make money, whatever you do. If you love chemistry and money, you'll find a way to make money doing chemistry. If you love chemistry, and don't love money, you'll probably enjoy doing chemistry, and not make a lot of money.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Salary for postdoc is about what in Physics?

I saw several postdocs in my field about 80k-90k USD.