Physics Are physicists underpaid or is it a misconception?

[phys0101]

Prior to researching physicist salaries I was under the impression that physicists compared to other occupations e.g. engineers are rather low payed. Though after some browsing I found that physicists, roughly earn ~$85k/year (AUD) and mechanical engineers for instance earn ~$84k/year (AUD).

So are physicists underpaid or is it simply a misconception?

Physical Science Salary (AUD) http://joboutlook.gov.au/pages/occupation.aspx?search=alpha&tab=stats&cluster=&code=2349

Mechanical Engineering Salary (AUD) http://joboutlook.gov.au/pages/occupation.aspx?search=alpha&tab=stats&cluster=&code=2335

 

[Timo]

I don't feel underpaid. My salary straight after education phase (-> post-doc salary) equals the national (German) average, and is above the median (~2/3 have a lower salary). Globally, that seems more than okay to me, considering my limited job experience. You can of course always find local comparisons and e.g. wonder why a physician gets twice my salary. But do such local comparisons matter at the end of the day? Only if you're currently deciding which career path to take, I guess. The main problem with physics job is the job prospects (at least if you want to stay in academia or at least in physics research - which is usually the idea behind going into physics in the first place) and, for me even more importantly, the working conditions in academia (e.g. the pressure to move positions and ideally even countries every two years).

 

[Simon Bridge]

Welcome to PF;
Those stats are for physicists and engineers who are paid as physicists and engineers.

I don't think anyone is actually saying that physicists are underpaid as such, just that pure science is not a path to riches. All my professors drove beat up cars for instance. There is usually a surplus of supply in degrees that do not lead to a specific job.

The remuneration profiles are so similar - but there are other measures in there. eg. the qualifications distributions are very different. You'll see that you can be employed in the "Industrial, Mechanical and Production Engineering" Industry with an undergrad diploma - and that there are fewer with post-grad qualifications. For "Other Natural and Physical Science Professionals" there is more of an emphasis on higher education. Yet they make about the same amount of money. [edit]Notice that Timo has to get a doctorate to get the German national average pay?

Suggests that if you are a physicist you are more likely to have a higher qualification than but making the same amount as an engineer.

The devil is, as always, in the details, though, and the usual anecdotal stuff suffers from "the grass is always greener" syndrome.
In the end, you don't do physics (especially not in academia) because of the money.

 

[Devils]

Prior to researching physicist salaries I was under the impression that physicists compared to other occupations e.g. engineers are rather low payed. Though after some browsing I found that physicists, roughly earn ~$85k/year (AUD) and mechanical engineers for instance earn ~$84k/year (AUD).

So are physicists underpaid or is it simply a misconception?

Physical Science Salary (AUD) http://joboutlook.gov.au/pages/occupation.aspx?search=alpha&tab=stats&cluster=&code=2349

Mechanical Engineering Salary (AUD) http://joboutlook.gov.au/pages/occupation.aspx?search=alpha&tab=stats&cluster=&code=2335

Thats says "naturral & Physical Scientists" not physicists.

See http://www.seek.com.au/JobSearch?DateRange=31&SearchFrom=quick&Keywords=physics&nation=3000

The jobs seem to be teachers, require Ph.D., or medical physicists (ie creating radiopharecuticals or running machines in hospitals).

 

[phys0101]

yeah, the occupation "physicist" links to "Other Natural and Physical Science Professionals", so it must consider other occupations also, though as a rough estimate it should provide some indication.

 

[ThinkToday]

It is a bad idea to link all physicists, as if we all do the same things. I can't link our professions salary survey conducted by AAPM for legal reasons. As a medical physicists, we make much more than your link would indicate. A couple of gross numbers from the survey that ignore experience, rank, main work focus, etc. The 2011 AAPM salary survey median MS degree with ABR cert = $176,200, median PhD with ABR Cert = $188,000. The 2011 HPS salary survey for Radiological Health Physics is here http://hps.org/documents/2011_chp_salary_survey.pdf and shows a median of $121,250 for a certified health physicist (CHP).

In summary, "Physicist" is too general a label to assess salaries.

 

[phys0101]

It is a bad idea to link all physicists, as if we all do the same things. I can't link our professions salary survey conducted by AAPM for legal reasons. As a medical physicists, we make much more than your link would indicate. A couple of gross numbers from the survey that ignore experience, rank, main work focus, etc. The 2011 AAPM salary survey median MS degree with ABR cert = $176,200, median PhD with ABR Cert = $188,000. The 2011 HPS salary survey for Radiological Health Physics is here http://hps.org/documents/2011_chp_salary_survey.pdf and shows a median of $121,250 for a certified health physicist (CHP).

In summary, "Physicist" is too general a label to assess salaries.

Although it may be preferable to have a more advanced degree than a bachelor's to be employed as a medical physicist, what bachelors degree is preferable? e.g. physics or biophysics?

 

[ThinkToday]

Although it may be preferable to have a more advanced degree than a bachelor's to be employed as a medical physicist, what bachelors degree is preferable? e.g. physics or biophysics?

Preferable is a relative thing. Preferable money, research, free time, etc.? I do more fulfilling work as a medical physicist, but I had more fun as a health physicist. I make much more money as a medical physicist. I busted my butt as a health physicist during outages, and I sit on my ever growing butt too much as a medical physicist. As a health physicist, I had peers to share the load and responsibility, and as a medical physicist 100% of the load and responsibility rest with me.

So, preferable how?

Lastly, unless it's changed HP is the only one you can do without a graduate degree.

 

[phys0101]

Preferable is a relative thing. Preferable money, research, free time, etc.? I do more fulfilling work as a medical physicist, but I had more fun as a health physicist. I make much more money as a medical physicist. I busted my butt as a health physicist during outages, and I sit on my ever growing butt too much as a medical physicist. As a health physicist, I had peers to share the load and responsibility, and as a medical physicist 100% of the load and responsibility rest with me.

So, preferable how?

Lastly, unless it's changed HP is the only one you can do with a graduate degree.

Preferable, as in, would you be more likely to be employed as a medical physicist with a physics degree or with a biophysics degree?

 

[ThinkToday]

Medical physics requires a Medical Physics graduate degree. There are a few programs which have lumped medical physics in with biophysics. However, to get certified (which will generally be required for a job in the US) you need to go to a CAMPEP approved program http://www.campep.org/ These are medical physics graduate schools that satisfy the standards required to site for ABR medical physics board examinations. Medical physics also requires a two year residency in a CAMPEP approved residency program.

BTW, I corrected my earlier post. Health Physics is the only one you can do WITHOUT a graduate degree. http://www.hps.org/

 

[halifax12]

Prior to researching physicist salaries I was under the impression that physicists compared to other occupations e.g. engineers are rather low payed. Though after some browsing I found that physicists, roughly earn ~$85k/year (AUD) and mechanical engineers for instance earn ~$84k/year (AUD).

So are physicists underpaid or is it simply a misconception?

Physical Science Salary (AUD) http://joboutlook.gov.au/pages/occupation.aspx?search=alpha&tab=stats&cluster=&code=2349

Mechanical Engineering Salary (AUD) http://joboutlook.gov.au/pages/occupation.aspx?search=alpha&tab=stats&cluster=&code=2335

physicists are overpaid if you take in consideration the hard work in Mechanical Engineering

 

[twofish-quant]

Prior to researching physicist salaries I was under the impression that physicists compared to other occupations e.g. engineers are rather low payed. Though after some browsing I found that physicists, roughly earn ~$85k/year (AUD) and mechanical engineers for instance earn ~$84k/year (AUD).

So are physicists underpaid or is it simply a misconception?

It's a misconception, but one that is based on some fact. Permanent physics positions pay well, but Ph.D.'s that go the academic route end up spending a lot of time in "temporary" positions (i.e. post-docs) that pay poorly. The problem isn't the salary but the lack of positions.

Then you have to deal with the fact that most people with physics degrees don't get jobs with "physicist" in the job title. Some physics Ph.D.'s go into investment banking, which has quite high salaries.

 

[Choppy]

Although it may be preferable to have a more advanced degree than a bachelor's to be employed as a medical physicist, what bachelors degree is preferable? e.g. physics or biophysics?

I think what Phys0101 is asking is if someone is considering medical physics as a final career, which undergraduate program would be prepare the candidate the best for entry into an accredited medical physics graduate program.

To that I would answer it really depends. There is no standard undergraduate biophysics program (or standard undergraduate medical physics program for that matter). Generally when we assess candidates who apply to our graduate program, we look at the courses that they've taken. We look for core physics and mathematics courses. One of the risks of more specialized programs is that they can have watered down versions of a more typical physics undergraduate degree as these students end up struggling with our comprehensive exam. I generally advise students not to specialize too much at the undergraduate level.

And now back to your regularly schedualled thread.

 

[Choppy]

Something else (back on topic) to consider is that when you look at the data on employment of people who've gone through an undergraduate physics programs the median salaries tend to be quite similar to the various branches of engineering - finishing about middle of the pack. When you look a little more closely, the standard deviation for physics grads is considerably wider and this is because, in my opinion, engineering is a more tightly regulated profession. Physics is just an academic subject.

Another factor to consider is that engineers typically begin work after their undergraduate degree. People who become "physicists" - which has a fairly broad definition - go through graduate programs and spend time in temporary post-doctoral positions. So when you look at something like career-integrated earnings, engineers will come out on top because they start earning the salaries associated with their profession so much earlier.

 

[phys0101]

Under the prospects tab it is stated:

How many workers are employed in this occupation? 9800
How many work full-time (% share)? 85
What are the weekly earnings for full-time workers ($ before tax)? 1630/week
How does unemployment compare with other occupations? low
What is the long-term employment growth - 10 years (%)? 94.7
What is the medium-term employment growth - 5 years (%)? 172.3
What is the short-term employment growth - 2 years (%)? 63.9
Is the mix of industries favourable for employment growth? very favourable
Gross replacement rate – how many (%) leave the occupation each year? 5.9
What is the vacancy level for this occupation? very high
What is the likely future employment growth for the next five years? strong growth

So these statistics suggest physics graduates will enter a field with favourable employment growth, high vacancy and relatively high pay. (Although other occupations are considered in the above statistics)(these suggest somewhat similarly http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/category/education-field/physical-sciences/ )

Regarding Simon Bridge's post, although one should not enter physics for the money, my concern was that someone with an interest in physics may avoid physics due to lack of money, even though it may not be the case.

 

[ThinkToday]

So these statistics suggest physics graduates will enter a field with favourable employment growth, high vacancy and relatively high pay. (Although other occupations are considered in the above statistics)(these suggest somewhat similarly http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/category/education-field/physical-sciences/ )

Regarding Simon Bridge's post, although one should not enter physics for the money, my concern was that someone with an interest in physics may avoid physics due to lack of money, even though it may not be the case.

Didn't know you are Aussie. I'm assuming you are since the job statistics site you linked is there. I have no idea what the market or requirements are there. However, you keep linking "physicists" as if we are all the same. Global statistics like those are, IMO, useless. Pick a physics career field to discuss for better answers.

 

[phys0101]

Didn't know you are Aussie. I'm assuming you are since the job statistics site you linked is there. I have no idea what the market or requirements are there. However, you keep linking "physicists" as if we are all the same. Global statistics like those are, IMO, useless. Pick a physics career field to discuss for better answers.

I was referring to physics generally as I have been led to believe it can be difficult to be employed in a specific field of physics, not really sure if that's the case. If you could provide some insight into the employability of physics graduates from your knowledge/experience (presumably in the US) it would be appreciated.

(not sure which fields are easiest to be employed in, maybe someone could shed some light.)

 

[ThinkToday]

I was referring to physics generally as I have been led to believe it can be difficult to be employed in a specific field of physics, not really sure if that's the case. If you could provide some insight into the employability of physics graduates from your knowledge/experience (presumably in the US) it would be appreciated.

(not sure which fields are easiest to be employed in, maybe someone could shed some light.)

I can only speak for my field, medical physics, as I have been out of research and radiological health physics for many years.

If you take the time to go to college (4yrs), a CAMPEP graduate program (2yrs), and a CAMPEP residency (2yrs), pass the ABR board exams, and can work as a team member in a clinical environment, employment is good and pay is at the upper end of most physics careers.

Above is assuming US base.

I'll leave it to others to chime in on their areas of expertise.

 

[Locrian]

I was referring to physics generally as I have been led to believe it can be difficult to be employed in a specific field of physics, not really sure if that's the case.

Physicists are only employed in a specific field of physics.

Employment in physics is very specialized. University positions are often specific down to the line of research. Private employers can be even more specific in their job listings (though in my limited personal experience there was some latitude once you actually spoke directly with them). The difference between an astrophysics PhD and a condensed matter/materials science PhD doing computational work in thin films might as well be the sun and the moon to almost all employers. Just ask someone who recently got their PhD in HEP theory if vacancy is high and they’ll either laugh or cry, depending on whether they think you’re joking or not.

I’m with ThinkToday – you’re either discussing an area of physics, or you aren’t really discussing anything at all.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I'm not familiar with Australia's market, but in the US I would say the prospects listed in that tab are overly rosy for most physicists. Most of the physics students with only an undergraduate degree I know were not able to find employment as 'physicists' and instead work in finance,consulting,insurance,programming,etc. Most of the phds I know are doing similar work.

So the issue shouldn't be 'can I make money', because you probably can find a decent income as a physics major or a physics phd. The issue is- can this degree get me the sort of job I want? Personally, I would very much prefer engineering type work to what I'm doing now. If your utility looks like science job > engineering job> other work, then getting a physics degree is probably a bad move. You have a small chance of the science job, but you remove the path to engineering jobs all together.

 

[chill_factor]

I'm not familiar with Australia's market, but in the US I would say the prospects listed in that tab are overly rosy for most physicists. Most of the physics students with only an undergraduate degree I know were not able to find employment as 'physicists' and instead work in finance,consulting,insurance,programming,etc. Most of the phds I know are doing similar work.

So the issue shouldn't be 'can I make money', because you probably can find a decent income as a physics major or a physics phd. The issue is- can this degree get me the sort of job I want? Personally, I would very much prefer engineering type work to what I'm doing now. If your utility looks like science job > engineering job> other work, then getting a physics degree is probably a bad move. You have a small chance of the science job, but you remove the path to engineering jobs all together.

think that's more for some fields than others.

lots of jobs in semiconductors and optics. Well, no. Jobs are scarce nowadays in all fields. But more jobs than other places and pays better than flipping burgers and uses science.

but then again, most people on here apparently want to do string theory or black hole astro... so... that's basically pre-finance.

 

[twofish-quant]

The difference between an astrophysics PhD and a condensed matter/materials science PhD doing computational work in thin films might as well be the sun and the moon to almost all employers.

Also the OP needs to make sure that he or she is asking the right question. There are lots of employers that hire physics Ph.D.'s that really don't care what you did your Ph.D. in.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I'm not familiar with Australia's market, but in the US I would say the prospects listed in that tab are overly rosy for most physicists. Most of the physics students with only an undergraduate degree I know were not able to find employment as 'physicists' and instead work in finance,consulting,insurance,programming,etc. Most of the phds I know are doing similar work.

So the issue shouldn't be 'can I make money', because you probably can find a decent income as a physics major or a physics phd. The issue is- can this degree get me the sort of job I want? Personally, I would very much prefer engineering type work to what I'm doing now. If your utility looks like science job > engineering job> other work, then getting a physics degree is probably a bad move. You have a small chance of the science job, but you remove the path to engineering jobs all together.

ParticleGrl, would you say that your statement in your first paragraph about not finding employment as a "physicist" may be more applicable to those (like yourself) whose background is in a theoretical area, as opposed to someone specializing in an experimental area (e.g. experimental condensed matter physics, optics)? After all, I can imagine that someone with an experimental background will have skills that a potential employer in a high-tech firm may well recognize as being valuable (although I could be mistaken about this).

That being said, I have another question. Suppose your utility is science job > engineering job > other work. Which degree, in your opinion, will most likely (given the current economic climate) lead to satisfying the above utility criteria?

 

[ParticleGrl]

ParticleGrl, would you say that your statement in your first paragraph about not finding employment as a "physicist" may be more applicable to those (like yourself) whose background is in a theoretical area (such as yourself), as opposed to someone specializing in an experimental area

It might be more applicable to theorists, but even most experimentalists I know were unable to find permanent industry employment as physicists. They do a bit better, but not so much better that the phd makes sense. If you work on something directly related to silicon (and maybe optics, I see lots of job postings for optics specialists), you'll probably do ok, but there are lots and lots of experimental techniques that haven't made their way to industry yet. Where do the people who work on ultra-cold atoms find work? I recently worked with an IT consultant hired by the company I work for who had a physics phd specializing in NMR and superconductors.

He lamented that no one had wanted the experimental skills in which he had become an expert, and suggested his transition to the working world was probably harder, because he didn't have the same math background. But it is maybe a grass-is-always-greener phenomenon.

Suppose your utility is science job > engineering job > other work. Which degree, in your opinion, will most likely (given the current economic climate) lead to satisfying the above utility criteria?

I would argue that no degree makes the highest utility (science) likely, so your best bet is to focus on engineering. I taught several dozen engineers over the years while I was in grad school, and nearly all of them eventually landed a job in their chosen field (it took awhile for some, but the market is very weak right now). To my knowledge, the ones who left their fields did so by choice and not lack-of-opportunity .

The reverse is true among science phds I know- Nearly all of them left the field because of a lack-of-opportunity.

 

[Locrian]

Apoligies to StatGuy and ParticleGrl for answering a question not directed at me, but my experience was absolutely that experimental and computational physics studies allowed for a much wider variety of employment opportunities, though some of it might not be physics as most of us would define it. Furthermore, if you were graduating with a PhD in a topic that was currently hot, your odds of getting a university job were much higher. In the experimental area I studied in you met with industry professionals with great regularity, and you routinely found out that so-and-so at GenericStateU had left for work in the private sector.

This isn't something I have good statistical data for though, and I don't trust most of the data others have acquired. This feeling comes largely from impressions I got working in a materials science lab and watching every last person who worked with me* go on to enter into what appear to be successful careers while at the same time being a roomate of 3 HEP theory PhD's (two string theory, one non-comm geometry) and watching their lives derail in an epic way as they reached graduation date. (I also worked for a few years in industry and got a similar feel there; chalk-board physicsts were not highly thought of among those in my admittedly small circle).

At one point one of my grad school roommates asked for help from me looking for work, so we sat down and went over his employable skills. As far as I could tell, he had none, and to this day (over four years later) he is still making sub-poverty wages doing crappy undergrad class lab work for the university.

This blanket success and failure difference at my U could be due to the U itself. Almost a decade of trolling this forum combined with regular readings of other blogs suggests otherwise.

*My University keeps a list of PhD grads and where they are now. Just last month I accounted for the last person I worked with in the lab (and knew by name). The two of my three roommates are still not on the list, the thrid being mentioned above.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I think they are overpaid in general, like most first worlders. :p

 

[StatGuy2000]

I would argue that no degree makes the highest utility (science) likely, so your best bet is to focus on engineering. I taught several dozen engineers over the years while I was in grad school, and nearly all of them eventually landed a job in their chosen field (it took awhile for some, but the market is very weak right now). To my knowledge, the ones who left their fields did so by choice and not lack-of-opportunity .

The reverse is true among science phds I know- Nearly all of them left the field because of a lack-of-opportunity.

I would assume that when you refer to the highest utility (science), you are not considering those working in medical research, say at a pharmaceutical firm or a research hospital (many of whom have both MD and a PhD degree in say, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, etc.).

 

[pi-r8]

It's a misconception, but one that is based on some fact. Permanent physics positions pay well, but Ph.D.'s that go the academic route end up spending a lot of time in "temporary" positions (i.e. post-docs) that pay poorly. The problem isn't the salary but the lack of positions.

I agree with this. It seems like the word "physicist" can be used in two different ways, and that confuses the issue. Some people use it to mean "a person with the professional job of doing physics research", and those do pay pretty well, at least compared to the overall average salary. But other people use "physicist" to mean simply anyone with a physics degree, and then there's such a massive range of jobs and salaries that it's impossible to give a meaningful answer. It would range all the way from wall street quants or successful entrepreneurs on the high-end, to unemployed people or minimum-wage retail jobs on the low end.

I also think it's misleading the way most official data for "physicist" salaries excludes graduate students and post-docs. They're the ones doing the vast majority of physics research! Granted, those are "temporary" positions, but most post-docs spend at least 10 years as a grad student/post-doc, which is already more time than most people spend in "permanent" careers (average length: 7 years).

Anyway, at the risk of oversimplifying, I'm going to say that yes, most people with physics degrees are underpaid. Because most people with physics degrees DON'T become professional physicists, and if you can get a physics degree, you also could have gotten a degree in something like CS or electrical engineering where you would probably be earning more, and with much less risk of being unemployed or trapped in bad jobs.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I would assume that when you refer to the highest utility (science), you are not considering those working in medical research, say at a pharmaceutical firm or a research hospital (many of whom have both MD and a PhD degree in say, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, etc.).

Most biology/biochem/biophysics phds don't seem to find full time researcch work at pharma or med companies. My biophysics friends lament how easy it is to get a postdoc and how hard it is to find full-time work.

Maybe M.D./Phds do, but I don't know very MD/phds and those that I do know work at academic hospitals. They do some bench research, but most of their time (and income) comes from seeing patients. So an MD might be a good step into some sort of medical research. Its certainly a good way to step into a low-hours, good paying job (my sisters are doctors, they tend to work 3 12-hour shifts a week and make 170k+ a year).

 

[astor]

I'd just like to comment that MD/PhD's actually serve around a 70/30 research/clinical ratio, so they actually spend most of their time researching.

Although when clinical research is performed in their "clinical" role, things get hazy, but in general, you'll see either 80/20 or 70/30 quoted for the distribution of research/clinical for MD/PhD's.

 

[twofish-quant]

Apoligies to StatGuy and ParticleGrl for answering a question not directed at me, but my experience was absolutely that experimental and computational physics studies allowed for a much wider variety of employment opportunities, though some of it might not be physics as most of us would define it.

There is a classification issue because I've always thought of computational physics as part of theoretical physics. I do agree that if are a "paper and pencil" theorist, you are going to have an extremely hard time looking for work.

Oddly, this applies to Wall Street positions. One thing about derivatives is that they have (for better or worse) been industrialized. People just don't price derivatives with paper and pencil any more, and the typical problem involves managing books of *thousands* of derivatives, and this requires sharp computer skills.

This isn't something I have good statistical data for though, and I don't trust most of the data others have acquired.

One thing about my alma mater is that there is a professor that keeps very good statistical data of graduating Ph.D.'s. She has a file of what every single Ph.D. in our department is doing. However, there is a selection effect. I have this feeling that the fact that there is a professor that keeps track of Ph.D. outcomes means that people from our department probably do better than a department where no one tracks.

One problem is that you are dealing with small enough numbers that you really can't do statistics. If you have a population of twenty, then what's your sample? Two?

There are also privacy/anonymity issues. You can do a research a "typical electrical engineer" and publish details about their career path while keeping identity anonymous. You can't do that with theoretical astrophysicists. If you provide enough useful detail about someone's career track, it won't be hard to figure out who they are.

I also worked for a few years in industry and got a similar feel there; chalk-board physicsts were not highly thought of among those in my admittedly small circle).

There are some jobs for chalkboard physicists in finance, but they are rare, and getting rarer.

 

[phys0101]

Ph.D.'s that go the academic route end up spending a lot of time in "temporary" positions (i.e. post-docs) that pay poorly

From what I've searched postdoctoral research fellowships, though temporary, do pay well, for example, Griffith University offers a postdoctoral research fellowship in quantum information science which pays $79,377 - $94,263 per annum plus 17% superannuation (retirement fund), which equates to roughly $92,872 - $110,288 in total. (AUD)

http://www.seek.com.au/Job/postdoctoral-research-fellow-quantum-information-science/in/brisbane-southern-suburbs-logan/22677939

Many posts have been, demoralizing. So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

 

[twofish-quant]

So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

One of the reasons that I post is that I'm quite happy having gone into physics. I've never had much of a problem getting a job, and money has never been a problem.

Part of the reason I that I find these discussions interesting is that I'm not sure myself how I ended being a "happy camper."

 

[StatGuy2000]

Most biology/biochem/biophysics phds don't seem to find full time researcch work at pharma or med companies. My biophysics friends lament how easy it is to get a postdoc and how hard it is to find full-time work.

Maybe M.D./Phds do, but I don't know very MD/phds and those that I do know work at academic hospitals. They do some bench research, but most of their time (and income) comes from seeing patients. So an MD might be a good step into some sort of medical research. Its certainly a good way to step into a low-hours, good paying job (my sisters are doctors, they tend to work 3 12-hour shifts a week and make 170k+ a year).

That's interesting you say this, as I used to be employed at a pharmaceutical company and have known a number of biochemistry PhDs working in full-time research (this is in Canada, btw). After all, of all the places that would hire biochemists, I would think pharma companies would be at the top of the list.

Now as far as MD/PhDs are concerned, I have worked closely with a couple of MD/PhDs who were a part of the clinical team of which I was involved with at the same pharma company I worked. There were others who were involved with bench research as well. Granted, the sample of MD/PhDs are quite small, but I would assume that such a combination will open doors to medical research.

 

[StatGuy2000]

From what I've searched postdoctoral research fellowships, though temporary, do pay well, for example, Griffith University offers a postdoctoral research fellowship in quantum information science which pays $79,377 - $94,263 per annum plus 17% superannuation (retirement fund), which equates to roughly $92,872 - $110,288 in total. (AUD)

http://www.seek.com.au/Job/postdoctoral-research-fellow-quantum-information-science/in/brisbane-southern-suburbs-logan/22677939

Many posts have been, demoralizing. So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

My background is in math and statistics, and so I cannot speak about the experience of going into physics (I can say that I am currently gainfully employed in my field and do not regret at all going into math).

Certainly, there are a number of posters here who I would guess (based on the tone of their posts) regret pursuing a degree in physics (ParticleGrl, I'm specifically thinking of you, but my apologies in advance if I'm speaking out of school or am putting words in your mouth). However, outside of this forum, I have known a few people who have studied physics in undergrad -- one of them finished his PhD in applied math, and is now currently working as a researcher in bioinformatics at a major teaching hospital here in Canada, while the other finished her PhD in geophysics and is working in the oil industry. To my knowledge, neither regretted pursuing a physics degree.

 

[Locrian]

Many posts have been, demoralizing. So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

I don’t regret studying physics, exactly. I was a real idiot in my early & mid 20’s. I wouldn’t have had the drive or discipline to succeed in actuarial work (my current career path). I think it’s unlikely I’d have really succeeded at much of anything, so as long as I was going to be a doofus, I might as well have done it in physics.

I wouldn’t discourage someone from getting a physics degree. Instead, I would impress upon them the importance of learning employable skills, and stress the downside risks of being complacent about future employability. It’s entirely possible to burn 11 years learning physics and be less employable than you were walking into the university.

 

[Locrian]

However, there is a selection effect.

I know. I've been telling people here for years.

 

[daveyrocket]

From what I've searched postdoctoral research fellowships, though temporary, do pay well, for example, Griffith University offers a postdoctoral research fellowship in quantum information science which pays $79,377 - $94,263 per annum plus 17% superannuation (retirement fund), which equates to roughly $92,872 - $110,288 in total. (AUD)

Very few postdocs (in the US at least) pay that much money. I get paid about half that and I'm on the upper end of postdocs at my university.

http://www.seek.com.au/Job/postdoctoral-research-fellow-quantum-information-science/in/brisbane-southern-suburbs-logan/22677939

Many posts have been, demoralizing. So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

Yes, I do regret it. I would recommend an undergrad go into engineering instead.

 

[ParticleGrl]

That's interesting you say this, as I used to be employed at a pharmaceutical company and have known a number of biochemistry PhDs working in full-time research

Right, pharmaceuticals employ a fair number of biochem phds, but its only a small fraction of total biochem phds. You have to remember that your sample is phds employed doing research, and my sample tends to be people who went through graduate school around the same time I did.

Personally, if I could do it over I'd get an engineering degree. I don't hate my current work, and it pays well, but its not really what I want to be doing and it required a lot of retraining myself to get here. A statistics or economics masters (or phd) after undergrad would be worth a hell of a lot more than a physics phd if I were in my current line of work, or an engineering degree would let me pursue a career closer to what I wanted to be doing.

 

[chill_factor]

Right, pharmaceuticals employ a fair number of biochem phds, but its only a small fraction of total biochem phds. You have to remember that your sample is phds employed doing research, and my sample tends to be people who went through graduate school around the same time I did.

Personally, if I could do it over I'd get an engineering degree. I don't hate my current work, and it pays well, but its not really what I want to be doing and it required a lot of retraining myself to get here. A statistics or economics masters (or phd) after undergrad would be worth a hell of a lot more than a physics phd if I were in my current line of work, or an engineering degree would let me pursue a career closer to what I wanted to be doing.

Does the name of your degree actually matter?

Say you did the exact same research in a chemistry or materials science department as you did in a physics department at the PHD level. Usually that'd be something interdisciplinary such as OLEDs, for example. Would having the "physics" name on your diploma reduce or increase your employment chances vs. chemistry or materials science?

 

[twofish-quant]

I know. I've been telling people here for years.

There is obviously selection bias. But it's not obvious what that selection bias is, and what are the implications of that bias are.

One thing is that I find interesting is that I don't fully understand how I ended up where I am. I do think that a lot of explaining where I ended up has to do more with my life rather than what degree I got. The fact that my father made some very radical career and life changes in his life was more important than what degree I got.

 

[twofish-quant]

Say you did the exact same research in a chemistry or materials science department as you did in a physics department at the PHD level. Usually that'd be something interdisciplinary such as OLEDs, for example. Would having the "physics" name on your diploma reduce or increase your employment chances vs. chemistry or materials science?

I think it's very industry dependent. In computer programming, oil/gas, and finance, no.

A lot depends on who does the hiring. I mean, if someone gave me a resume, I'm not going to toss it because they have an astrophysics degree.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Does the name of your degree actually matter?

It depends on who is doing the hiring. I get the impression HR departments will filter resumes based on things like name-of-degree for resumes with little work experience. Also, I've seen comments from engineers on this board that they would never hire a physicist for engineering work regardless of skill-overlap. The prevalence of this attitude worries me.

The HR rep I dealt with at my current company when I was hired told me there is no way I would have gotten the job if I had sent them a resume in response to the job posting (I was hired in a very non-traditional way- a customer at a bar I worked in called me in for an interview after a conversation we had). My resume had the wrong sort of degree, and lacked a few of the 'critical' skills.

 

[Aero51]

Also, I've seen comments from engineers on this board that they would never hire a physicist for engineering work regardless of skill-overlap. The prevalence of this attitude worries me.

As an engineering student who studies physics on the side, I can that engineering and physics require very different skill sets and mindsets, the most significant being experience. Most engineering knowledge and skills (and perhaps more subtly, intuition) are acquired through experience; this even emphasized at the undergraduate level. With that fact in mind it wouldn't surprise me that most employer's would be reluctant to hire a physicist to do engineering work. Still, experience is something that can be acquired with time.

 

[chill_factor]

I think it's very industry dependent. In computer programming, oil/gas, and finance, no.

A lot depends on who does the hiring. I mean, if someone gave me a resume, I'm not going to toss it because they have an astrophysics degree.

I think that's because of the special nature of software. I think the computational theorists have it lucky in this aspect, they can always fall back on programming.

It depends on who is doing the hiring. I get the impression HR departments will filter resumes based on things like name-of-degree for resumes with little work experience. Also, I've seen comments from engineers on this board that they would never hire a physicist for engineering work regardless of skill-overlap. The prevalence of this attitude worries me.

The HR rep I dealt with at my current company when I was hired told me there is no way I would have gotten the job if I had sent them a resume in response to the job posting (I was hired in a very non-traditional way- a customer at a bar I worked in called me in for an interview after a conversation we had). My resume had the wrong sort of degree, and lacked a few of the 'critical' skills.

Thanks for telling me that. Would you have recommendations for networking such that the probability of meeting important people is higher?

 

[twofish-quant]

Thanks for telling me that. Would you have recommendations for networking such that the probability of meeting important people is higher?

One advance for networking is make sure the people that you are talking do aren't too important, because people that are too high up the food chain are useless to you. If I got into a conversation with the CEO of a major corporation in my industry, this would be totally useless to me because he wouldn't be able to do anything to actually get me a job.

The useful people are the people that are at most one or two levels above or below your level. Peer to peer networking is also useful, to keep close touch with your friends. Even if you can find a job lead, you can get information. For example, one reason I got interested in finance was because someone I knew ended up working for a hedge fund. I never was able to get in touch with him, but it was one of those "well if he can do it so can I" situations.

 

[twofish-quant]

The HR rep I dealt with at my current company when I was hired told me there is no way I would have gotten the job if I had sent them a resume in response to the job posting (I was hired in a very non-traditional way- a customer at a bar I worked in called me in for an interview after a conversation we had). My resume had the wrong sort of degree, and lacked a few of the 'critical' skills.

HR people are human spam filters. If you offer a job, you will get spammed with tons of resumes, most of whom are people that are clearly unqualified for the job. The job of HR is to rapidly sort through the resumes and get a short list of interviewees, and then usually do so using keyword search. Anyone that has enough technical skill to actually do more than a keyword search wouldn't be working in HR.

The process is designed toward getting rid of as many resumes as possible, and if the HR person tosses a resume of someone that is qualified, it doesn't matter. As long as they end up hiring someone, the fact that they could have hired someone else is irrelevant. Also, I tend to distrust HR people when they give job advice. Basically, if the HR person tells you something useful (like what are the magic words for the spam filter) they make their jobs more difficult, so I've never seen an HR person give useful job information.

One thing that universities and professional societies could do a better job of is "pre-sales." Once you send in your resume, if the employer has a negative or neutral view of physics Ph.D.'s, you are doomed. Your resume will be tossed. If you schools did a better job at "pre-selling" Ph.D.'s then it would make it easier once the resume goes across the desk of the person looking at it.

One other thing is that the employer doesn't want the *best* employee. They want to avoid the *worst* employees. Most of the job interview is not convincing people that you are good, but rather assuring the employer that you aren't bad. This is why employers tend to filter out people with "unusual" backgrounds. You might be spectacular, but there is no reason for an employer to take any sort of risk.

 

[ThinkToday]

HR people are human spam filters. If you offer a job, you will get spammed with tons of resumes, most of whom are people that are clearly unqualified for the job. The job of HR is to rapidly sort through the resumes and get a short list of interviewees, and then usually do so using keyword search.

Totally agree. Back in the early 90s I used a recruiter and lined up an interview for a job that I eventually accepted. The COO told me they hand about 200 resumes, of which 5 were adequately qualified, but only 3 of us worth interviewing. HR started culling resumes for the correct graduate degree, verifying credentials and certifications, background check, etc., and sent the resumes of those that fit the requirements to the COO, department head, and medical director for another pass at the resumes to select interview prospects. Beyond that, HR only got involved in setting up telephone interviews with senior staff as a final pass before buying each of us a plane ticket.

As far as taking advice from HR, I think it’s reasonable they should be able to tell you things that are the usual candidate problems to avoid in the early stages. In my experience, if you meet the qualifications, present yourself well, can carry yourself in a conversation, stay focused, know the company in depth, dress appropriately, etc., you are well on your way. The “best” person on paper (best grades, experience, etc.) may not have the best people skills, team skills, work habits, etc. that represent the company in the fashion they desire.

 

[StatGuy2000]

HR people are human spam filters. If you offer a job, you will get spammed with tons of resumes, most of whom are people that are clearly unqualified for the job. The job of HR is to rapidly sort through the resumes and get a short list of interviewees, and then usually do so using keyword search. Anyone that has enough technical skill to actually do more than a keyword search wouldn't be working in HR.

The process is designed toward getting rid of as many resumes as possible, and if the HR person tosses a resume of someone that is qualified, it doesn't matter. As long as they end up hiring someone, the fact that they could have hired someone else is irrelevant. Also, I tend to distrust HR people when they give job advice. Basically, if the HR person tells you something useful (like what are the magic words for the spam filter) they make their jobs more difficult, so I've never seen an HR person give useful job information.

One thing that universities and professional societies could do a better job of is "pre-sales." Once you send in your resume, if the employer has a negative or neutral view of physics Ph.D.'s, you are doomed. Your resume will be tossed. If you schools did a better job at "pre-selling" Ph.D.'s then it would make it easier once the resume goes across the desk of the person looking at it.

One other thing is that the employer doesn't want the *best* employee. They want to avoid the *worst* employees. Most of the job interview is not convincing people that you are good, but rather assuring the employer that you aren't bad. This is why employers tend to filter out people with "unusual" backgrounds. You might be spectacular, but there is no reason for an employer to take any sort of risk.

I agree with what you say regarding HR's (or at least those in HR responsible for recruiting) role in filtering out resumes to exclude as many "bad" candidates as possible, as well as the employer concered about avoiding the "worst" employee.

I also agree that universities and professional societies could do more to sell their physics PhDs to the private sector; the ASA does a decent attempt at this to potential employers for statistics PhDs.

But this leads me to ask the following questions:

(1) What is the perception (or awareness) of physics PhDs among employers outside of finance, defence, or oil firms (the three areas that have been known to hire physics graduates)? I would guess that software and technology firms will tend to have a favourable view of those with physics backgrounds (particularly those with either computational or experimental backgrounds).

(2) What has the various physics departments, along with the professional societies for physicists, in the US have actually done to promote physics PhDs in non-academic employment?

(3) As a follow-up to question (2), does there exist a contemptuous attitude among the professional physics societies in the US regarding non-academic employment?

 

[Rika]

So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

It's hard to say.

I don't regret studying physics but I don't think that the time I've spend on it was worth it.

Pros:

- it boost your analitical skills (but you can achive it with any other science/engineering major)

- useful knowledge (I create games and physics knowledge can be useful when you create let's say SF game but then you don't need history major in order to make fantasy game)

Cons:

- if you find out that you don't enjoy research or programming you are screwed

My advice:

1. If you want to be scientist/engineer and do computional/experimental work double major in engineering and physics, both are important.

2. If you are interested in string theory or quantum gravity and don't enjoy experimental/computional work don't bother studying physics at all. Stay with Kaku books as a hobby and major in sth useful.

3. If you are interested in physics but don't want to work in physics treat it as a hobby. Double major or do minior in physics and spend rest of your time doing sth useful to your career (I regret that I didn't do this).

4. Don't bother with studying engineering physics. It's a **** - it's neither engineering nor physics.