About Astronomy — do you think this is pointless?

[JaredJames]

There's too much diversity within the group to talk about anything being representative, but there are enough astrophysics Ph.D.'s that are working on Wall Street so you can't ignore them.

There will be a mean earning for the group as a whole and I find it hard to believe it would come close to $15k per month (or $16k as per the OP).

Judging from personal experience, I think it's much, much more realistic for an astrophysics Ph.D. to expect to make $15K/month than it is to expect to get a tenured faculty position at a major research university.

Which of the above two options they are more likely to get is irrelevant. It is which of all possible options for someone with a Phd that matters (we broadened it slightly by looking at graduates in general).

It is safe to say that a wage of $16K per month is highly unlikely for a graduate (or Phd etc in any subject). When looking at all graduates, people earning that figure really is a small and unique group.

Just looking at this site for astrophysicist salaries (I know it's not perfect, but it gives some ball park figures):
http://www.schoolsintheusa.com/careerprofiles_details.cfm?carid=350

Entry Level Salary: $30,220
Average Salary: $60,200
Maximum Salary: $92,430

 

[twofish-quant]

There will be a mean earning for the group as a whole and I find it hard to believe it would come close to $15k per month (or $16k as per the OP).

The mean is likely to be quite high. The median is a more useful statistical measure, but even then the median is not that useful.

It is safe to say that a wage of $16K per month is highly unlikely for a graduate (or Phd etc in any subject).

That's plain wrong.

If you have a physics Ph.D. and you want to make $180K total comp, it's likely that you will be able to. Starting salary for a Ph.D. quant on Wall Street is $120K, and with three to five years of experience, total comp will exceed $200K. I don't know of anyone that has *tried* out for one of the positions that has been unable to make $200K after three years.

Now money isn't everything, and lots of people hate the lifestyle, but that's a personal choice.

Just looking at this site for astrophysicist salaries (I know it's not perfect, but it gives some ball park figures):
http://www.schoolsintheusa.com/careerprofiles_details.cfm?carid=350

Wrong job title. Look for quantitative analyst.

 

[JaredJames]

I'll tell you what, you provide me with a source that says the chances of a graduate getting 16k/month is likely, and I'll let it go.

So far, all you've done is repeat the same job position over and over. The majority of graduates do not end up on wall street and don't make anywhere near that figure.

The majority of graduates don't earn fantastic sums of money straight out of school.

Some websites showing average salary for a Phd:
US - http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Doctorate_(PhD)/Salary
UK - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/phd.do
http://www.ehow.com/about_6626574_average-starting-salary-ph_d_.html

I'm not denying there are jobs you can go into that pay exceptional amounts, but for the majority that just simply isn't the case.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'll tell you what, you provide me with a source that says the chances of a graduate getting 16k/month is likely, and I'll let it go.

I'm the source. I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics. I work as a quant in a major financial institution. I can tell you what the experiences is of the people I know with astrophysics Ph.D.'s.

You might argue that I'm biased. My sample is statistically invalid, and of course, you really have no way of completely verifying that what I'm saying is true (although if you contact me by PM, I'll give names, dates, and numbers). These are all valid points, but it's still useful information since it's first hand, and you can cross-examine me.

The majority of graduates do not end up on wall street and don't make anywhere near that figure.

In my personal experience, about 15% or so of astrophysics Ph.D.'s actually do end up in Wall Street. What's more significant is that everyone that I know of that has *tried* to get a job on Wall Street has gotten one and ended up making about $180K after three years. (Also note that $180K in NYC-dollars is less than you might think.)

The majority of graduates don't earn fantastic sums of money straight out of school.

That's because astrophysics Ph.D.'s are particularly sought after by Wall Street, and most astrophysics Ph.D.'s end up doing post-docs right after they get their Ph.D.

One other thing is that $180K on Wall Street is considered a rather low salary. One might argue that this is a sign that society is totally screwed up, and that may be the case.

I'm not denying there are jobs you can go into that pay exceptional amounts, but for the majority that just simply isn't the case.

And I'm saying that this is because most astrophysics Ph.D.'s don't really want to get paid $180K/year.

The jobs are there. The US graduates about 200 astrophysics Ph.D.'s each year, and if you subtract the number of people that want to do other things, you have maybe 50 or so entering the market. Your average investment bank employs several dozen physics Ph.D.'s.

 

[JaredJames]

OK, twofish. I'm not going to argue further, I've made my points.

So to conclude:

I don't deny your wall street claims.

You are still stuck with one Phd subject and one job type, not referring to "the majority" or "all" as per the discussion.

The OP's claim was "no grads makes that little, you meant 16k a month." which is clearly BS. Your claim doesn't have much bearing on this as it is only indicative of a very small minority of overall graduates (although damn I wish I was one of them).

The OP was asking about astronomy originally (which became "all graduates") and I'm not certain that is astrophysics anyway.

On the basis of the above, I wouldn't consider a salary of $16k per month a realistic figure for a graduate, especially in astronomy.