Economy & Job Search Tips for Physics Majors

[joberr]

I am physics major who has tried applying to all types of internships and jobs and have not had any luck? This trouble led me to apply to PhD programs were I have had greater success than finding a fulltime job I suspect this might be due to the economy but not sure. Are there any jobs other than with Northrop/Boeing/Ratheon that I should be applying to were I could get a fulltime position to gather money before graduate school/September?

 

[aerospaceut10]

I'm guessing you're primarily interested in the aerospace/defense industry? Don't forget Lockheed Martin. And the billion other smaller start-up companies like SpaceX or Odyssey Space Research.

 

[joberr]

I tried Lockheed but had the least luck with them and Boeing because they are constantly canceling positions and never have had a response from them. I am abit more interested in aerospace but am not limited to aerospace and am open to any industry.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Are you asking to find a position that will only last ~6 months? No company is going to hire you for that (retail excepted). It will cost them a huge amount of money, and they will get near zero productivity out of you.

Unfortunately, it's a really bad time to be looking for work. Find someplace to weather the storm.

 

[Choppy]

One option might be to contact the department you're planning to do graduate work at and see if anyone in the department has funding to hire a student for the summer. It's not unheard of for some graduate student to start lab work in the summer immediately following their undergraduate degree before officially beginning in the fall.

Andy has a good point that if you're looking for something for only 6 months, it will be a tough slog. That's not even enough time to cover most maternity leaves.

The other advice I have is to consider what skills you currently have. What part time jobs did you have while you went through undergrad? What organizations did you volunteer with? What kinds of hobbies do you have? Essentially, you need to determine what your most marketable traits are and then identify target industires that need those traits.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Are you asking to find a position that will only last ~6 months? No company is going to hire you for that (retail excepted). It will cost them a huge amount of money, and they will get near zero productivity out of you.

That's true even in the best of times.

 

[joberr]

Are you asking to find a position that will only last ~6 months? No company is going to hire you for that (retail excepted). It will cost them a huge amount of money, and they will get near zero productivity out of you.

Im confused arent internships(contract jobs) especially summer < 6 Months that clearly is a contradiction with no
one will hire you for 6 months or less. Sorry for being a little contrarian with that advice given but it is clearly not true and discouraging.

 

[joberr]

One option might be to contact the department you're planning to do graduate work at and see if anyone in the department has funding to hire a student for the summer. It's not unheard of for some graduate student to start lab work in the summer immediately following their undergraduate degree before officially beginning in the fall.

Andy has a good point that if you're looking for something for only 6 months, it will be a tough slog. That's not even enough time to cover most maternity leaves.

The other advice I have is to consider what skills you currently have. What part time jobs did you have while you went through undergrad? What organizations did you volunteer with? What kinds of hobbies do you have? Essentially, you need to determine what your most marketable traits are and then identify target industires that need those traits.

I can't start as a summer student because a big part of wanting a job was the experience in a non-research environment and to save money to move to a different state.

I have experience with programming, analysis, and tutoring.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Im confused arent internships(contract jobs) especially summer < 6 Months that clearly is a contradiction with no
one will hire you for 6 months or less. Sorry for being a little contrarian with that advice given but it is clearly not true and discouraging.

I thought you were looking for a job, this is very different from a internship.

 

[joberr]

jo, internship, paid position of any sort to save money.

 

[ZPlayer]

In four years you will see people with signs "will work for food." In situation like this, you will take on any job. I mean literally any job. You want some good piece of advise? Get an entry level job in your field today (without any degree) and go to college part time. Before you graduate, make sure your degree will give you a promotion and you will not over-qualify.

 

[mooktank]

In four years you will see people with signs "will work for food." In situation like this, you will take on any job. I mean literally any job. You want some good piece of advise? Get an entry level job in your field today (without any degree) and go to college part time. Before you graduate, make sure your degree will give you a promotion and you will not over-qualify.

I want to hear more comments on this...

 

[Noo]

I want to hear more comments on this...

It's ill-informed speculation. Things arent as bad as mass-media depicts. Chill.

 

[elfboy]

There's always a market for smart people. When all else fails, get smarter. Learn more physics and mathematics.

 

[j93]

There's always a market for smart people. When all else fails, get smarter. Learn more physics and mathematics.

Thats pretty naive/simplistic advice like if all fails start a business and become a millionaire.

 

[ZPlayer]

I am working on a long essay about dismal future awaiting science/math/engineering majors (including myself.) For now, just take a look at this:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/234846-dont-major-engineering.html?highlight=engineering+connecticut"

 

[mooktank]

I am working on a long essay about dismal future awaiting science/math/engineering majors (including myself.) For now, just take a look at this:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/234846-dont-major-engineering.html?highlight=engineering+connecticut"

I call BS on a lot of that (your link has a lot of refutations as well). Maybe engineers like engineering? It can be more fulfulling than having 'fun in college' (I had plenty) and making it to 'management'. Who else is going to design the future?

You can be an engineer and an entrepreneur and you technically have no salary cap.

I don't see what you're trying to do here. Stir up the pot? Get kids to pursue management jobs, MDs, law degrees?

Bottom line is I feel like engineering is a fairly important field on the forefront of the major problems facing human kind. All your complaints are just noise.

 

[russ_watters]

I am working on a long essay about dismal future awaiting science/math/engineering majors (including myself.) For now, just take a look at this:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/234846-dont-major-engineering.html?highlight=engineering+connecticut"

That's just silly.

 

[TMFKAN64]

That's just silly.

Unbelievably silly, even.

The few true things in that article seem like advantages to me! (I like the fact that so much work is concentrated in a few areas... it makes it easier to find a job nearby. I enjoy workplace diversity, being a card-carrying liberal with all that entails.)

I'll also add, I'm in my 40's, and have never worried about keeping a job. I've never been personally interested in management, but most of the managers I've known have been engineers, including the CEOs of a majority of the companies that I've worked for.

 

[ks_physicist]

It's ill-informed speculation. Things arent as bad as mass-media depicts. Chill.

When school districts are laying off 40% of the certified teachers because their budgets are slashed, then things are as bad as the mass-media depicts.

I'm a physics teacher and I'm losing my job along with a few dozen other teachers in my district. When I started three years ago, people commented that while the pay was (relatively) low, the job security was GREAT, and that if science teachers were getting laid off it would be because everything was going completely downhill. Three of the seven of us in my department are being let go under a Reduction In Force (RIF).

 

[ZPlayer]

To all: teaching lost job security because of artificially created 'teacher shortages'. This way hiring committees can keep the starting salary low. It benefits them to close down schools and let people go, so next wave can be hired at the same or lower cost.

To ks_physicist: my condolences to your situation and I hope you schmooze around (e.g. play golf with school principal or some prominent colleagues) to get back on-board. Teaching has never been more elitist than it is today.

To other responders: thank you for keeping optimistic in this economic recession. Take whatever I say with a grain of salt, but remember: science and engineering are wonderful things that you and I love. When you have to put food on the table - there is a different story.

 

[joberr]

Now that thread was semi-hijacked i have a question. Will graduating from a top 50 graduate school as opposed to top 15 matter when applying to jobs post PhD or is based more on the enthusiasm of my recommenders and networking?

After graduating from top 15 I gathered it only open doors but doesn't mean as much between top 100 schools as work experience/networking at least post undergrad is it similar post -PhD?

 

[Choppy]

Now that thread was semi-hijacked i have a question. Will graduating from a top 50 graduate school as opposed to top 15 matter when applying to jobs post PhD or is based more on the enthusiasm of my recommenders and networking?

After graduating from top 15 I gathered it only open doors but doesn't mean as much between top 100 schools as work experience/networking at least post undergrad is it similar post -PhD?

Scenario 1:
An employer looks at an applicant, immediately skipping through his or her resume/CV down to the education section, noting the school name, and then making a hiring decision based on the rank the school has been given based on a somewhat arbitrary set of criteria that likely have little to do with the employer's business.

Scenario 2:
An employer looks at an applicant, immediately skipping through his or her resume/CV down to the relevant experience and qualifications. The hiring decision is based on whether the skills the candidate can bring to the position match up with the current need within the employer's organization.


It seems self-evident to me.

 

[joberr]

On the hand I have seem people who have networked for their jobs create

Scenario 3:
An employer looks at an applicant, immediately skipping through his or her resume/CV down to the relevant experience and qualifications. Then hires because he knows C and can learn any needed skills on the job in C's opinion.

That is what scares me abit.

 

[mal4mac]

Why not try teaching for a few years until the job market improves? You will be competing with unemployed finance wizards for math teaching jobs, so maybe getting into physics teaching will be easier!?

 

[joberr]

Like I mentioned in OP I am just starting graduate school this fall therefore I won't be in the job market until 5-6 years.

 

[Topher925]

You could delay going back to grad school by longer than 6 months. I took about a year off between my undergrad and grad and glad I did. Not only did I make some cash but I learned a hell of a lot about engineering and myself. This of course all depends on your ability to get a job.

 

[joberr]

Im already doing a contract position for a few months that's why asked about post-PhD. I still don't think economic conditions are good enough to delay going back to grad school since positions are being layoff as quickly as being offered nowadays, so I wouldn't trade that uncertainty with the certainty of a small graduate stipend while working on a PhD.

 

[ZPlayer]

Scenario 3:
An employer looks at an applicant, immediately skipping through his or her resume/CV down to the relevant experience and qualifications. Then hires because he knows C and can learn any needed skills on the job in C's opinion.
That is what scares me abit.

That is just a great way of putting it all together. This is what it's all about. Get to know the right people, schmooze around, play golf with C, kiss it, kiss it, kiss it and love it. Then luck will be yours wherever you go regardless of your education.

 

[joberr]

That is just a great way of putting it all together. This is what it's all about. Get to know the right people, schmooze around, play golf with C, kiss it, kiss it, kiss it and love it. Then luck will be yours wherever you go regardless of your education.

Yeah from my experience this is at least 85% true at least for jobs with decent salaries and it makes me feel dirty and is disappointing because when you start with a science major your sold the idea of this great meritocracy but in reality its approximately just like every other major.

 

[ZPlayer]

The good part is that you worry about this gunk now, when it is not too late. Your graduate education will be looked upon as a burden for your employer because they will have to pay you a hefty salary. If you don't have enough experience in the work setting, your advanced degree will make your candidacy look undesirable and unwieldy as opposed to person with experience and no formal education. Such person can do a lot for the employer for relatively low money.

Here is essay I promised some time ago.

The perceived meritocracy of scientific establishment in the U.S. is the primary reason for the dismal career prospects facing an average science graduate today.

Let me elaborate.

Scientific skill was once considered a talent, a gift, something rare and very much in demand. This is because it was actually rare to find an engineer or a scientist. Science majors would typically attend expensive universities because the tuition was paid by their middle class parents to begin with. Thanks to their rich parents, these kids would have good education in high school and would be able to spend time to learn the science, prepare for admission tests, etc. And, of course, sea of opportunities was available to such kids long before formal graduation from their top-notch school.

Another way into prestigious school was and is through scholarships. To get a scholarship, you have to study very hard. However, if you have to work a part-time job because your parents do not make enough money, you won't have time to pursue education. See the problem in this picture?

By the way, the reason why people from top schools get better jobs is because they get to make the best connections, not due to their "outstanding training." In fact, some argue that Ivy-league schools today tend to produce lower quality graduates because the school faculty keeps artificially high grades to justify the tuition paid to the school.


In our day, educational institutions capitalize on apparent superiority of scientific talent to every other facet of human intelligence. You have city universities offering doctorates in sciences like chemistry, biology, engineering, etc. Some of the schools offering science degrees today were community colleges/vocational training schools just two decades ago! As a result of the unforeseen popularization of science, more families are ready to shell-out big bucks to university faculty for science education because parents believe in the discovery channel stuff they watch on TV. I see a business proposition. I see supply-demand dynamics in this situation. I see people believing in science education and willing to pay for it, and I see people ready to give that education and take the money.

However, there is one problem here. Some kids are smarter than others. So how can a science school accommodate influx of students who flunked basic algebra and/or scared of word 'calculus'? What can we do with the people who spell 'you' like 'u' and just don't know and don't want to know any better? Or, for instance, what are we going to do with all these fractions and irrational numbers? Here is the favorite solution: water-down science curriculum. Have biology taught without any statistics. Have college level physics courses with emphasis on simple algebraic formulas. Remember the differentiation/integration routine? Don't bother with that too much. Just use TI-89! Will sell you fancy science textbooks with computer graphics illustrations and simple formulas, will fill those textbooks with useless CDs full of junk to raise the price. Today the standards of scientific education have gone down to an extent when biology graduates hear about box-whisker plots after graduation and chemistry students don't know what an outlier means. The hardest concept for any science student to grasp is the normal distribution! And when you 'remind' a chemistry grad that reaction rate is actually a first-order derivate of the concentration as function of time they go 'ahhh... is it some of that calculus stuff again?'

So now we got a market flooded with these 'new generation' scientists. So what happens to their salaries and career prospects? Look here: http://www.biocareercenter.com/article/slaves_to_science.html .

Z. Player, M.A.