Concerned with all the pessimism surrounding PhDs lately

[discrete*]

I feel like as time goes on there are more and more pessimistic views surrounding PhDs lately. There was that one thread on the article from the Economist, which basically said getting a PhD is a waste of time, and honestly, articles like that one are everywhere -- especially on these forums. I've noticed there's always a ton of questions about "should I get a PhD?" or "should I study _____?" And the answer are rarely ever encouraging. This really concerns me.

I try to be realistic and tell myself that working in academia may not (or probably won't) pan out; so I try to open up other options. But when I talk to my professors, the general consensus is that it's very feasible to get into academia if you work hard, do the right research and prove that you can pull in external funding of any sort or that you're a good lecturer. This is not the sentiment echoed on the internet (mainly here). And the only reason I give the internet a good deal of credit in this case is because a site like this is supposed to be a representation of the community of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.

Here's my questions: what's going on exactly? I understand that there's a fundamental problem with academic work (more PhD are forged than there are jobs), but why does it seem that everyone is so pessimistic? Also, what are the ramifications of this? If the next generations are discouraged from pursuing doctorates, will that not just keep pushing the U.S. further and further away from the forefront of science? Are there differences in programs? I'm interested to know if, say, math grad students or post-docs are happier than ones in physics etc... I'd like to hear from, of course, the working scientists and mathematicians, but also from the grad students -- how are you feeling now? How does it compare to the way you felt going into the program? What are your futures looking like?

I hope this thread will be productive, because I think a lot of people are wondering these things. Thanks in advance.

 

[Norman]

What is really going on? Well, I can tell you my story and what I know about the bigger story. Maybe that will help.

I am a postdoc in physics. This is my third year of being a postdoc. It is not so bad and in some ways is quite nice (still doing research, get paid way more than grad school, etc.). The academic professorship route is a daunting thing to enter into in my opinion. First of all, there is the shear number of applicants you are competing against. Hundreds of other PhDs are looking to hook a professorship. It is not unheard of in physics for 500 applications to come in. In fact, a colleague of mine works at 2nd rate state school which just did a faculty search. He calls his school a glorified high school and they just did a physics faculty search (actually I believe it is ongoing) in which they received over 450 applications. Obviously there is a lot of competition.

My thoughts are I love my job (most days) and if I won the lottery I would still be working on the things I am working on. I would just be doing it from a beach house most days, rather than a stuffy, no window office. Is a postdoc under paid? Hard to say. I don't have to deal with a lot of the annoying administrative stuff (though I still get some of it). When you get paid more for a job, it is usually to compensate for some other annoyances you need to deal with.

Was my PhD worth it? Yes. Grad school is a great time in your life. I was pushed to my limits and came out on the other side ok. I made some great friends, learned a ton of things and had some fun along the way. Hell I even have a job, which is not permanent, but it is a job which pays me to do the same stuff I was doing in grad school for almost 3 times the pay. Not bad.

Will I get a faculty position somewhere? Who knows. I am not even sure if I want one to be honest. It seems all happy and grand to be professor, but there is all the other things that go along with being a faculty other than the teaching and research. I actually wouldn't mind doing some teaching again. I quite enjoyed it as a grad student, but there are big time drawbacks in teaching (annoying students being a big one).

In addition, I have a wife with a pretty big time job. So, we have the question of how to deal with my employment demands versus hers. If I take a job, it needs to be in a region where there is opportunity for her to get a job and for a job to be available for her. Kinda tough.

Regarding the perceived pessimism:
I think you need to consider the source of the information AND the whole story. The Economist article is a broad stroke which encompasses all PhDs. A physics PhD has a lot more opportunities outside academia than my friend who got his PhD in Medievil Literature and Comparative Linguistics (I actually have a friend who has a PhD in this). In addition, people tend to comment on things when they have strong feelings about something. So you get the best and worst in some sense.

In addition, your professors are also a little too involved in the whole process to be objective in my opinion. But I don't think what they are saying is completely untrue either. There are openings for faculty every year. Someone fills those jobs. It could be you. But obtaining a PhD is not a guarantee of a faculty position. As long as you remember that and plan your education accordingly (make sure you pick up skills useful outside of academia), I don't think getting a PhD is an inherently bad choice.

 

[Someone1987]

It is true that the growing consensus on this forum is that a PhD is not the best career decision as there is no guarantee at all that it will allow you to make more money or get the job you want. However, one question you should ask yourself is "Why do I want to go to graduate school in the first place?" If one's sole motivation for going to graduate is because they believe a doctorate will open up the greatest number of career options and make them the most money...then they might want to reconsider graduate school as the PhD will not guarantee this. However, if you want to go to graduate school simply because you want to learn physics, do research and want that sense of accomplishment regardless of your ultimate career outcome...then I would say go for it. I don't think having a PhD will ever prevent you from finding a job somewhere. It just may not be the career you expect to have.

 

[Phyisab****]

There was that one thread on the article from the Economist, which basically said getting a PhD is a waste of time

That's not really what it said.

 

[chingkui]

I feel like as time goes on there are more and more pessimistic views surrounding PhDs lately. There was that one thread on the article from the Economist, which basically said getting a PhD is a waste of time, and honestly, articles like that one are everywhere -- especially on these forums. I've noticed there's always a ton of questions about "should I get a PhD?" or "should I study _____?" And the answer are rarely ever encouraging. This really concerns me.

I don't think any of us here is discouraging anyone from getting a Ph.D. All we are saying is that if your only goal is to get a faculty position, you should know the reality. That should not be taken as a discouraging message, rather it opens your eyes, because the world is much bigger than you think, and a Ph.D. offers you more opportunities than just academia.

I try to be realistic and tell myself that working in academia may not (or probably won't) pan out; so I try to open up other options. But when I talk to my professors, the general consensus is that it's very feasible to get into academia if you work hard, do the right research and prove that you can pull in external funding of any sort or that you're a good lecturer.

Certainly feasible, but it doesn't mean it is likely. The reality is that there are way more new Ph.D. and Post-doc than faculty positions.

Here's my questions: what's going on exactly? I understand that there's a fundamental problem with academic work (more PhD are forged than there are jobs), but why does it seem that everyone is so pessimistic? Also, what are the ramifications of this? If the next generations are discouraged from pursuing doctorates, will that not just keep pushing the U.S. further and further away from the forefront of science? Are there differences in programs? I'm interested to know if, say, math grad students or post-docs are happier than ones in physics etc... I'd like to hear from, of course, the working scientists and mathematicians, but also from the grad students -- how are you feeling now? How does it compare to the way you felt going into the program? What are your futures looking like?

It is a good thing that not every Ph.D. get a faculty position. Some of them have to go into industry to drive technology development.

I have done post-doc and have tried to get a faculty position before. Now I am working in industry. My training in graduate school had definitely made in much better in doing my job, and never a day I regret getting a ph.d. Would I like to be a faculty? The answer would be a "yes" if you ask me before I work a few years in industry. Right now, it is good either way.

 

[Feldoh]

But when I talk to my professors, the general consensus is that it's very feasible to get into academia if you work hard, do the right research and prove that you can pull in external funding of any sort or that you're a good lecturer.

How many of your professors got into academia? All of them you say? The minority doesn't seems to be a good group from which to draw typical experiences.

 

[discrete*]

My thoughts are I love my job (most days) and if I won the lottery I would still be working on the things I am working on. I would just be doing it from a beach house most days, rather than a stuffy, no window office. Is a postdoc under paid? Hard to say. I don't have to deal with a lot of the annoying administrative stuff (though I still get some of it). When you get paid more for a job, it is usually to compensate for some other annoyances you need to deal with.

Does the fact that your job is temporary make you uneasy?

Was my PhD worth it? Yes. Grad school is a great time in your life. I was pushed to my limits and came out on the other side ok. I made some great friends, learned a ton of things and had some fun along the way. Hell I even have a job, which is not permanent, but it is a job which pays me to do the same stuff I was doing in grad school for almost 3 times the pay. Not bad.

This paragraph alone is very encouraging -- just to hear someone say emphatically "yes, it was worth it" and "it was great" is nice to hear once-in-a-while.

Will I get a faculty position somewhere? Who knows. I am not even sure if I want one to be honest. It seems all happy and grand to be professor, but there is all the other things that go along with being a faculty other than the teaching and research. I actually wouldn't mind doing some teaching again. I quite enjoyed it as a grad student, but there are big time drawbacks in teaching (annoying students being a big one).

Have you given any thought to where you'll be headed after your post-doc days are done, if not academia? Or, perhaps a better question is: what is your opinion on strictly teaching posts at smaller universities and colleges? Would you take such a position?

Regarding the perceived pessimism:
I think you need to consider the source of the information AND the whole story. The Economist article is a broad stroke which encompasses all PhDs. A physics PhD has a lot more opportunities outside academia than my friend who got his PhD in Medievil Literature and Comparative Linguistics (I actually have a friend who has a PhD in this). In addition, people tend to comment on things when they have strong feelings about something. So you get the best and worst in some sense.

This kind of put things into perspective.. What happens to your friend if he can't get a professorship? I guess he'll have to work in editing or become a writer, or do something totally unrelated all together. That's tough. I guess we should all be glad we're interested in things that are very useful in the industrial world.

In addition, your professors are also a little too involved in the whole process to be objective in my opinion. But I don't think what they are saying is completely untrue either. There are openings for faculty every year. Someone fills those jobs. It could be you. But obtaining a PhD is not a guarantee of a faculty position. As long as you remember that and plan your education accordingly (make sure you pick up skills useful outside of academia), I don't think getting a PhD is an inherently bad choice.

Thank you for this post. Very informative and very good advice. I really appreciate it.

 

[discrete*]

That's not really what it said.

I should clarify: that's kind of how I took the article and what I got from everyone's (mostly defensive) comments on the article. In general, the tone of the article was not in support of young people getting doctorates under the usual circumstances. Sorry for making a sweeping statement.

 

[discrete*]

I have done post-doc and have tried to get a faculty position before. Now I am working in industry. My training in graduate school had definitely made in much better in doing my job, and never a day I regret getting a ph.d. Would I like to be a faculty? The answer would be a "yes" if you ask me before I work a few years in industry. Right now, it is good either way.

This is good to hear also. If I end up working in industry or for the government, I'd like to be happy with what I'm doing. So, it's nice to hear that you are.

 

[discrete*]

How many of your professors got into academia? All of them you say? The minority doesn't seems to be a good group from which to draw typical experiences.

This is a good point, and one I've thought about before. But I'd like to think that there are professor's that have the student's best interest in mind and can be objective and honest in the matter. Perhaps pessimism isn't the problem, but my optimism.

 

[story645]

It is a good thing that not every Ph.D. get a faculty position. Some of them have to go into industry to drive technology development.

Or gov't and NGO positions-the NSA hires a whole slew of math PhDs, NASA and NOAA don't farm out all their work to unis, the UN probably has some in house epidemiologists, etc.

I'm also thinking the whole phd->academia thing is changing, or maybe that's cause of the school I'm at. When my prof polled my class (1st years) most everybody said they were in the phd for the research, and I'm tempted to believe most of them. The professor did throw in a warning that the people only in it for a job tend not to last.

I have a friend going through the phd process with me who doesn't want to teach, detests it and doesn't even really consider it for a career path. I'm open to it, but want to work for an NGO just as much 'cause I really like my research field and hey anything that let's me go further with it rocks. My friends getting history phds have research that can get them jobs at think tanks and intelligence agencies if the professorship thing doesn't pan out.

 

[Norman]

Does the fact that your job is temporary make you uneasy?

Yes and no. I am intimately tied to some major goals of our research group and have funding for the next 4 years approximately since I am the sole person responsible for some major milestones and deliverables. So I have 'some' stability. I am in a pretty unique situation in that my postdoc is through a major federal agency and I actually had to propose my research, have it reviewed by an external agency and graded compared to other proposals. So, even though I am not a PI (since this not a formal grant, but an award), I kind of am. It wasn't the usual situation where a PI under a grant writes funds for a postdoc into his grant. That postdoc usually then works for the PI under the grant.

But I have 2 kids and a wife, so of course I worry about my job stability and future. But as my previous boss said, "We are all temporary and can be let go at any time - even with tenure these days." So, I try not to worry too much. Near term I am doing well, long term is still in the air.

Have you given any thought to where you'll be headed after your post-doc days are done, if not academia? Or, perhaps a better question is: what is your opinion on strictly teaching posts at smaller universities and colleges? Would you take such a position?

Well, I have mulled a few things over. A lot depends on my wife. If her job really takes off, I can stay on grants as a research professor. It would be like having a postdoc, with a better title. With my current postdoc, I have had the opportunity to work slightly outside the traditional physics realm and venture into engineering and applied physics. So I feel my skills would be relevant in a wide range of applications. I have considered looking into jobs for NASA, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Naval Research Lab, Army Research Lab, and others. I also have some opportunities to spend some time working on other projects which will give me some experience in space weather coming up and I will likely take advantage of them to try to expand my professional contacts and research horizons.

This kind of put things into perspective.. What happens to your friend if he can't get a professorship? I guess he'll have to work in editing or become a writer, or do something totally unrelated all together. That's tough. I guess we should all be glad we're interested in things that are very useful in the industrial world.

He got an assistant professorship at a very small public university in South Carolina. He is happy there, so that is cool. But yes, I am quite glad with my decision to study physics and the doors it has opened for me.

 

[Caramon]

This thread has been extremely helpful for me as I am applying to graduate schools right now for direct-entry into a Physics or Astrophysics PhD program after completing an Honours degree in Astrophysics. I've only heard positive encouragement from my professors at the undergraduate level, with near a 4.0 GPA and doing extremely well in all my math and physics classes (Chemistry... ='[), I think I will be able to get through graduate school and work on interesting research!

My ultimate goal is to be able to get a faculty position teaching undergraduate math and graduate physics/astrophysics eventually, even if it doesn't happen until I'm 40 or 50... I absolutely love teaching and was even considering becoming a high school physics teacher if I did bad in my undergraduate. Is this unrealistic? I realize I will have to hop from post-doc to post-doc for a considerable amount of years and maybe having worked at NGOs or Government Agencies for a number of years will give me a lot of experience so that when that spot opens up with the 450 applicants, I am the best one for the job.

Would anyone be able to create a worst-case scenario for me? If I graduate with a PhD in Physics or Astrophysics and having conducted "uninteresting" research for my dissertation and I am unable to find a faculty position, post-doc, or any other type of research, what will my options be? (Note: I will NEVER work for the military).

 

[TMFKAN64]

Does the fact that your job is temporary make you uneasy?

These days, what job *isn't* temporary?

There are two kinds of job security: the kind that comes from having the same job for life, and the kind that comes from having skills that could fill a niche at many different places. The first type is rapidly vanishing, so work on the second.

 

[discrete*]

Yes and no. I am intimately tied to some major goals of our research group and have funding for the next 4 years approximately since I am the sole person responsible for some major milestones and deliverables. So I have 'some' stability. I am in a pretty unique situation in that my postdoc is through a major federal agency and I actually had to propose my research, have it reviewed by an external agency and graded compared to other proposals. So, even though I am not a PI (since this not a formal grant, but an award), I kind of am. It wasn't the usual situation where a PI under a grant writes funds for a postdoc into his grant. That postdoc usually then works for the PI under the grant.

But I have 2 kids and a wife, so of course I worry about my job stability and future. But as my previous boss said, "We are all temporary and can be let go at any time - even with tenure these days." So, I try not to worry too much. Near term I am doing well, long term is still in the air.

Well, I have mulled a few things over. A lot depends on my wife. If her job really takes off, I can stay on grants as a research professor. It would be like having a postdoc, with a better title. With my current postdoc, I have had the opportunity to work slightly outside the traditional physics realm and venture into engineering and applied physics. So I feel my skills would be relevant in a wide range of applications. I have considered looking into jobs for NASA, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Naval Research Lab, Army Research Lab, and others. I also have some opportunities to spend some time working on other projects which will give me some experience in space weather coming up and I will likely take advantage of them to try to expand my professional contacts and research horizons.


He got an assistant professorship at a very small public university in South Carolina. He is happy there, so that is cool. But yes, I am quite glad with my decision to study physics and the doors it has opened for me.

Thank you, Norman. You're responses have been very helpful and quite encouraging.

 

[discrete*]

This thread has been extremely helpful for me as I am applying to graduate schools right now for direct-entry into a Physics or Astrophysics PhD program after completing an Honours degree in Astrophysics. I've only heard positive encouragement from my professors at the undergraduate level, with near a 4.0 GPA and doing extremely well in all my math and physics classes (Chemistry... ='[), I think I will be able to get through graduate school and work on interesting research!

My ultimate goal is to be able to get a faculty position teaching undergraduate math and graduate physics/astrophysics eventually, even if it doesn't happen until I'm 40 or 50... I absolutely love teaching and was even considering becoming a high school physics teacher if I did bad in my undergraduate. Is this unrealistic? I realize I will have to hop from post-doc to post-doc for a considerable amount of years and maybe having worked at NGOs or Government Agencies for a number of years will give me a lot of experience so that when that spot opens up with the 450 applicants, I am the best one for the job.

Would anyone be able to create a worst-case scenario for me? If I graduate with a PhD in Physics or Astrophysics and having conducted "uninteresting" research for my dissertation and I am unable to find a faculty position, post-doc, or any other type of research, what will my options be? (Note: I will NEVER work for the military).

I'm glad the thread is helpful, that's why I made it. I think a lot of people around here are asking the same questions in a round-about way, and wanted to get a thread going that would clarify things for myself and others.

I'm not quite at the point where you are, yet. I won't be applying to PhD programs for another couple of years, but I'm very concerned about the future of the academic profession, and more importantly, whether it's really possible. I'm not saying that if I was told tomorrow that there was no way for me to get a professorship in mathematics that I wouldn't do a PhD -- provided the funding was in order, I'd still do it and love it. In fact, if I ended up becoming a plumber, I'd still probably come home at night and work on my maths.

 

[Simfish]

Another thing: the path to a PhD does not guarantee a job that makes use of your PhD skills. But on the other hand, what if you pursued the alternative route? There's no guarantee that you'd be more successful and make money that route. Certainly, many people do that. But what if you end with a BS, make mistakes and end up losing your job for a year? It's quite possible that you could end up in a perpetual cycle of low-wage jobs. It's a possibility for the PhD too, but at least you have some more hope that you could jump out of this cycle if you have a PhD (well, this is actually an unsubstantiated assertion and I hope someone will address this).

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here's my questions: what's going on exactly? I understand that there's a fundamental problem with academic work (more PhD are forged than there are jobs), but why does it seem that everyone is so pessimistic? Also, what are the ramifications of this? If the next generations are discouraged from pursuing doctorates, will that not just keep pushing the U.S. further and further away from the forefront of science? Are there differences in programs? I'm interested to know if, say, math grad students or post-docs are happier than ones in physics etc... I'd like to hear from, of course, the working scientists and mathematicians, but also from the grad students -- how are you feeling now? How does it compare to the way you felt going into the program? What are your futures looking like?

You've gotten a lot of good responses already. Here's mine:

My career path in 20 words or less: Straight through to PhD, 5 years for military/government contractors, 4 years postdoc, 2 years tenure-track assistant professor.

To your questions, here's my perspective: what's going on is a protracted period of high unemployment in the US, across nearly all employment sectors and experience levels. In the Sciences, government spending on research is shrinking, with the possible exception of Biomedical/Health research. Students are rightly nervous about what is going to happen after graduation.

Getting a PhD is a large investment to make- you invest some very productive years of your life earning one. Given the economic realities, some self-reflection is natural: why am I doing this? did I waste my time? That's why I emphasize the need to have a long term career plan- you develop answers to those questions.

The relevant statistics can be confusing: unemployment among those with a PhD in a science has historically been substantially low compared to the general population:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib97318.htm

And the trend seems to be continuing up until recently, at least for physicists:

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp3/figure1.htm

But what then accounts for the complaining? Honestly, I'm not sure. I don't deny the complaining, but I can't find any hard data showing that people having a PhD in a science are more upset than anyone else with their lot in life. Certainly, I was upset that I spent 6 years on a project becoming the world's expert on some small corner of science, and then when I was finished I was still unprepared to enter the job market. But I still got a job!

I am not encouraged by the dystopian condition of academia right now: academic research is a very difficult business to get into, and even more difficult to succeed at. Out of all the graduate students that started when I started my postdoc (10), *none* of them want to continue with careers in science, and several of them simply dropped out. The numbers aren't much better in the next few classes- enrollment is down. Here, enrollment (BS and MS) remains constant or slightly increasing. I am concerned about my generation of academics (Gen X-ers), and our (in)ability to generate productive research programs. I think this will have a long-term effect, but I can't guess what it will be. Most likely, the academic environment will become much more dynamic (higher turnover rate), and less stable as a career choice.

So the mixed messages you are getting could be a combination of a poor employment environment, and the disconnect between the experiences your professors had and today's reality. I think that a PhD in Science will continue to have value- both real (low unemployment) and imaginary (prestige), and so there will continue to be high competition for graduate school, postdocs, academic appointments, and research grants. The American Research University has access to the entire planet for students; there is a large global reserve of talent it has access to.

I'm starting to ramble- you are asking good questions, and more students should ask the same questions.

 

[discrete*]

But what then accounts for the complaining? Honestly, I'm not sure. I don't deny the complaining, but I can't find any hard data showing that people having a PhD in a science are more upset than anyone else with their lot in life. Certainly, I was upset that I spent 6 years on a project becoming the world's expert on some small corner of science, and then when I was finished I was still unprepared to enter the job market. But I still got a job!

I am not encouraged by the dystopian condition of academia right now: academic research is a very difficult business to get into, and even more difficult to succeed at. Out of all the graduate students that started when I started my postdoc (10), *none* of them want to continue with careers in science, and several of them simply dropped out. The numbers aren't much better in the next few classes- enrollment is down. Here, enrollment (BS and MS) remains constant or slightly increasing. I am concerned about my generation of academics (Gen X-ers), and our (in)ability to generate productive research programs. I think this will have a long-term effect, but I can't guess what it will be. Most likely, the academic environment will become much more dynamic (higher turnover rate), and less stable as a career choice.

This is similar to what I was saying about the future of the academic profession in the U.S.. You describe it much more elegantly than I did, and I think your analysis will probably be proven true. It just seems that academia is changing in many dramatic ways, and I doubt sometimes that it will ever be the same thing that we hear about from our Professors and advisers, as you said a bit later in your post.

I did a search on this topic before I made the thread an came across a discussion where a member Twofish-Quant was talking about the role of online education and distance learning right now, and I think that drives the point home also.

So the mixed messages you are getting could be a combination of a poor employment environment, and the disconnect between the experiences your professors had and today's reality. I think that a PhD in Science will continue to have value- both real (low unemployment) and imaginary (prestige), and so there will continue to be high competition for graduate school, postdocs, academic appointments, and research grants. The American Research University has access to the entire planet for students; there is a large global reserve of talent it has access to.

I'm starting to ramble- you are asking good questions, and more students should ask the same questions.

Thank you for your post, it's addressed some issues that others haven't and has been very helpful.

 

[Simfish]

Hmm, is biophysics the field of physics with the best prospects then? (both in academia and out of academia). As with biostatistics and computational biology? (and complex adaptive systems applied to biology?)

And if so, how willing are they to take physicists? There are many physicists who switched to biology (Francis Crick being the most famous of them), and Freeman Dyson wrote an excellent essay about how many of the most exciting discoveries will now be in the biosciences.

My field is astrophysics, but I'm starting to get concerned too. I have done a lot of biology self-study, but at this point I have a far higher chance at getting into a decent astrophysics grad school (of course I love astro too).

 

[QuantumJG]

My dream career is to become an academic. My study plan is to finish my BSc(Mathematical Physics) and then do a MSc in mathematical physics or physics. I want to do a MSc simply because the program looks like a very enjoyable two years of doing advanced coursework and I get to do research.

When I look at a PhD though, this degree is A LOT more serious. You are investing a lot of time and it scares me when some graduates finish only to do a job that they could have done straight out of high school.

This thread has given me back some confidence with posts from post-docs and hopefully in the next 3 years I will have a clearer idea of what I want to do.

 

[DrummingAtom]

snip...

Certainly, I was upset that I spent 6 years on a project becoming the world's expert on some small corner of science, and then when I was finished I was still unprepared to enter the job market.

(My emphasis)

This is what makes me worried about a PhD. I can't see myself doing something for 6 years and still not feel prepared to enter industry.

Andy, if you don't mind me asking, why did you feel this way?

Also, to ask again from Simfish's question, what areas of Physics have a lot of opportunities in industry?

 

[Norman]

For industry opportunities I would say:

-Most experimental fields have good opportunities in industry.
-Specifically, I know some people who have done optics (whether from a pure physics program, an astronomy program, or some applied physics) and come out with a job in industry with EXCELLENT pay.
-I definitely see biophysics being a good area, as I know a handful of people doing simulation work in biophysics with good prospects (most are still postdocs, but have had great publication records).

 

[Andy Resnick]

(My emphasis)

This is what makes me worried about a PhD. I can't see myself doing something for 6 years and still not feel prepared to enter industry.

Andy, if you don't mind me asking, why did you feel this way?

Also, to ask again from Simfish's question, what areas of Physics have a lot of opportunities in industry?

I don't mind- especially if it's helpful to you. I'll first try and answer in terms of how I felt them- without the benefit of hindsight. Please note that this all based on my particular experience as a science student (engineering students would likely have a *very* different experience), but I'll try an underline some broader themes.

To start, I was in grad school because "I need a PhD". I went to grad school for optics specifically because I wanted to get a job after graduation, and at the time optics was a 'hot topic'- telecom, photonics, all that stuff. I got a NASA fellowship, which was great because it meant I had a hard date for graduation- when the grant ended, I was done.

Then graduation date comes. I'm busy writing/editing my dissertation, but I figure that with my technical skills in a hot topic, I should have no problem getting a job- optics was all over the news as being a growth area for a while. Months went by without getting a response to the resumes I sent out. Nothing. Couldn't get a postdoc, either- if I had a Fellowship award I could have gone somewhere, but nobody had the cash to hire a postdoc, and I had never applied because I wanted a job- I was sick of being a poor student, and my friends were getting out of science and go into patent law- the equivalent of 'quants' now.

Why couldn't I get a job? Wasn't my project important? Wasn't it cutting-edge? After all, that's what my fellow academics were telling me at APS meetings and OSA meetings, the trade journals were saying companies are throwing money at optics PhDs, etc. etc.

The answer is, I think, because the skills needed to perform research- patient accumulation of data before developing a conclusion, careful repetition of experiments, etc. are the opposite of what is needed in industry. Industry is not about "learning new things". Industry is all about "quickly solving the problem at hand". Decisions have to be made based on incomplete information.

Furthermore, industry uses their own proprietary codes- they don't care if you know C or Unix or LabView, everyone does. Industry doesn't care if you have lab skills- they have technicians work in the labs, the PhDs are the ones writing reports (I spent 50-70% of my time writing reports in industry). A PhD gets hired to lead a technical team, often consisting of a wide variety of engineers and technicians. A PhD, in industry, is often a more direct route to senior management, or a 'front person' that can be displayed to a customer as evidence that the company has some technical credibility.

Don't get me wrong- my contractor experience was *amazing*. I learned more than I dreamed I would, and I got to play with amazing toys and do amazing things. It's cool to think that something I helped build is currently orbiting the Earth. I got to learn about military projects 10 years before the public, using equipment that is *still* beyond the capability of commercially available stuff. I simply don't want to become management.

So, I recommend thinking about getting a job (if that's what you want) well before you *need* to get a job. Talk to people in industry- heck, invite some to give a seminar to your department about what they do and how they got to where they are. Every time I switched jobs (I've been lucky to never have gotten laid off), it's taken about a year to find a better one.

In terms of some areas of physics being better suited for industry, I'm not sure it makes a substantive difference- what got me my first job was my ability to explain what I did my PhD on to an audience of people who, although they couldn't care less, did notice that I communicated *very* well and kept them engaged. I also figured out how to tell, during an interview, which of my skills were of interest, so as the interview went on (my job interviews have been 1 or 2-day long affairs, meeting with 8-10 people), I refined my 'sales pitch'.

Hope this helps...

 

[Choppy]

I think part of the reason for the pessimism stem from the natrual academic and personal maturation students go through in graduate school.

To a young undergrad, professors can seem almost god-like. The PhD is their defining characteristis, and thus, to a first year undergrad, the PhD seems like an end point by which success can be defined.

But somewhere in graduate school the PhD becomes a milestone rather than an end-point. You realize that it's an experience that, if drawn on properly can give you tools to be successful, but it's not something that will do any work for you. And it's not a meal ticket. From some, I think this can be a frustrating process.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Hmm, is biophysics the field of physics with the best prospects then? (both in academia and out of academia). As with biostatistics and computational biology? (and complex adaptive systems applied to biology?)

And if so, how willing are they to take physicists? There are many physicists who switched to biology (Francis Crick being the most famous of them), and Freeman Dyson wrote an excellent essay about how many of the most exciting discoveries will now be in the biosciences.

My field is astrophysics, but I'm starting to get concerned too. I have done a lot of biology self-study, but at this point I have a far higher chance at getting into a decent astrophysics grad school (of course I love astro too).

In the US, the biomedical/biotech field is growing and will likely continue to grow as the population ages.

When you say "how willing are they to take physicists", whom do you mean (who are 'they')?

 

[Norman]

I think part of the reason for the pessimism stem from the natrual academic and personal maturation students go through in graduate school.

To a young undergrad, professors can seem almost god-like. The PhD is their defining characteristis, and thus, to a first year undergrad, the PhD seems like an end point by which success can be defined.

But somewhere in graduate school the PhD becomes a milestone rather than an end-point. You realize that it's an experience that, if drawn on properly can give you tools to be successful, but it's not something that will do any work for you. And it's not a meal ticket. From some, I think this can be a frustrating process.

I think this is extremely insightful and spot on for many people.

 

[Troponin]

I know a number of people with PhD's who say they only have a BS on their resume so that they can get a better paying job.

Some have even asked their grad schools if there is any way to get a PhD rescinded so that they won't have to worry about their employer ever finding out about said PhD.

 

[Jack21222]

Some have even asked their grad schools if there is any way to get a PhD rescinded so that they won't have to worry about their employer ever finding out about said PhD.

I call shenanigans.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I know a number of people with PhD's who say they only have a BS on their resume so that they can get a better paying job.

Some have even asked their grad schools if there is any way to get a PhD rescinded so that they won't have to worry about their employer ever finding out about said PhD.

I call shenanigans.

I call bull**** as well.

 

[discrete*]

I know a number of people with PhD's who say they only have a BS on their resume so that they can get a better paying job.

Some have even asked their grad schools if there is any way to get a PhD rescinded so that they won't have to worry about their employer ever finding out about said PhD.

I sincerely hope this is false, or grossly exaggerated. I find no logical reason for this to possibly be true.

 

[Norman]

I call bull**** as well.

Just to echo the sentiment, I call BS also.

How exactly would one explain the giant hole in a resume or CV for the 5 years or so anyway?

And exactly how could having more education force someone to pay you less?

 

[Ryker]

I sincerely hope this is false, or grossly exaggerated. I find no logical reason for this to possibly be true.

Well, if it isn't false, then I guess it just goes to show you can still be a complete dumbass even after obtaining a PhD

 

[TMFKAN64]

I've never found having a Ph.D. anything but a major advantage in looking for a job and asking for more money.

Other people's experiences vary, of course, but it seems to me that there is a lot of unwarranted fear and loathing about the "dangers" of having a Ph.D.

 

[johng23]

I'm just a little bit into the second year of my PhD so I don't have the perspective of some others, but for what it's worth, I'm having a great time so far. Some of the other grad students in my group are decidedly not having a great time. But I think the difference between them and myself is that I wanted to do a PhD for its own sake, to keep learning about science. I'm not losing any money right now - in fact, I'm living comfortably and saving a little bit on top of it (although this varies between programs of course). And I believe that wherever I end up, I'll be able to make the best of it. If it's not academia, then so be it.

If you want to do it for the experience itself, then I think you will enjoy it and be happy. It's when you do it for the end goal that you get into trouble. Of course you need to have a long term plan, but there are people out there who think that you have to suffer through something now to get what you want later. And I think those are the people who are miserable their whole life.