What other options are there for making money without a Science degree?

[Mépris]

Often, when reading through the fora, I come across people saying, "if money is your main concern, don't waste your time with a PhD - there are other, better ways at getting money." I can recall reading this in discussions about jobs on Wall Street for Maths/Physics PhDs.

Well...these statements are rather vague and if not science, what can people do to earn lots of money? Business ventures? I really have no inkling as to how this works, hence, my asking the question. What exactly can people do? What can one do with an MBA? Then there's the "why do you have to look for a job - if you're a Physics/Maths doctorate, perhaps you can figure out a way to make money without an "employer"?"

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

In the real world, people do not throw money at your feet just because you got a degree in something. The degree is merely the price of admission. What you do with the knowledge you learned is what makes you valuable.

That's where business management becomes an issue. You don't need an MBA, but it might help. My personal impression from bosses I have known with an MBA is that the results are usually negative. More than an MBA, you need hard won experience in a real business. You need the experience of figuring out a need, writing a business proposal, getting venture capital, and then running the business so that the investment makes money for everyone.

As a businessman, you'll need excellent interpersonal skills. Learn how to be polite, disciplined, motivated, and a good communicator. This is where liberal arts can help.

Many engineering students I've met are introverts with an impression that they'll spend their days doing hard, mathematical modeling and designing to build large stuff right away and get paid ludicrous money for doing so. The real world is not like that. I spend far more time writing documentation, accounting for expenses, managing schedules, and so on than I do with actual engineering.

As for your science education, you can use that to research new features for engineers to build cutting edge products that people might need. Can you think of a new instrument for industry? Can you build a better inertial navigation system? Can you imagine a new application for orbital surveillance data?

There are many things you could do with your education. To find them, you need imagination and, most of all, motivation.

Good Luck!

 

[twofish-quant]

Well...these statements are rather vague and if not science, what can people do to earn lots of money?

Think of every product or service that you encounter and behind that is someone that makes money, often lots of money on that. Right now, I'm looking at an IKEA bookcase, and someone has made a ton of money making book cases.

Also, making money usually involves looking at someone and convincing them to give you their wallet. There are a lot of people that are good at this.

Business ventures? I really have no inkling as to how this works, hence, my asking the question. What exactly can people do? What can one do with an MBA?

MBA's are corporate bureaucrats. It turns out that to run a large company, you need a ton of corporate bureaucrats. Also if you want to start your own company, the MBA is probably the worst possible degree that you can get.

Then there's the "why do you have to look for a job - if you're a Physics/Maths doctorate, perhaps you can figure out a way to make money without an "employer"?"

You could, but being in school for a very long time encourages habits and beliefs that don't work well when you start your own company.

 

[twofish-quant]

One problem is what I call the "second Einstein problem." OK, one Einstein can change the world with a single idea. That fact is actually rather bad for physicists, because what are you going to do if you are the second Einstein.

As a businessman, you'll need excellent interpersonal skills. Learn how to be polite, disciplined, motivated, and a good communicator. This is where liberal arts can help.

So can acting classes. I can *think* that the person across the table is the world's biggest idiot, but it's often a good idea to smile and act otherwise.

The real world is not like that. I spend far more time writing documentation, accounting for expenses, managing schedules, and so on than I do with actual engineering.

And part of it is that I think of this as "fun." I like solving hard problems, but you'll find that not all hard problems are math problems. A lot of them are time problems Some are people problems.

As for your science education, you can use that to research new features for engineers to build cutting edge products that people might need. Can you think of a new instrument for industry? Can you build a better inertial navigation system? Can you imagine a new application for orbital surveillance data?

Also, you'll find that a good idea is not enough. You'll need people to sell your stuff, or learn out to sell your own stuff.

 

[FourierFaux]

If you *do* have a good idea that you think that you would like to turn into a business... maybe it would be helpful to look at the history of how other industries got started. It probably won't help you with any of the technical problems that you have to deal with. On the other hand, it might help you to get a feel for the kinds of challenges that you'll have to face when starting a business.

Anyone else think this might be a good idea?

 

[hadsed]

My father is an entrepreneur, and so are a lot of people in my family. Being an entrepreneur is not something that you realize when you wake up one morning. You need to take a good, long, and hard look at yourself to figure out whether you're cut out for that sort of thing or not. You need to be a risk-taker, you need to be able to deal with massive failure, you need to have the energy to try and try again with an extremely stubborn mentality. You basically need to be obsessed with making it work, because if you're not then it's very, very likely you'll end up going down the tubes, like 90% of the people who try to do this (which obviously include lots of people who have this obsessive personality too, so not being that way almost precludes you from ever being successful in it. Of course, you could always get lucky..). It's a very high risk, high pay off sort of deal. There are 'easier' ways of making a 'lot' of money, but you really need to figure out what works best for you.

Also, look at the forum topics and order them by the highest number of posts, and then read them all. You'll find all the information you need to get an idea of how this stuff works (specifically, our good colleague two-fish has posted massive amounts of information on finance, for which we're all very grateful for, so use that as a resource). Also check out the Academic Advisement forum, these two seem to be pretty related in those topics.

 

[twofish-quant]

My father is an entrepreneur, and so are a lot of people in my family. Being an entrepreneur is not something that you realize when you wake up one morning.

Absolutely. One thing that people that have started businesses tell me is never do it for the money. You'll make more money working for someone else.

You basically need to be obsessed with making it work, because if you're not then it's very, very likely you'll end up going down the tubes, like 90% of the people who try to do this

And people that are successful entrepreneurs always have one story about something in which they really screwed up. But the difference between entrepreneurs and "normal people" is that when they screw up, they dust themselves off, figure out what to do differently the next time, and try again.

Curiously, people who are successful entrepreneurs "fail" if they "succeed." One thing that is a common pattern is that someone starts a business, it becomes wildly successful, but the person that started it doesn't want to be a corporate bureaucrat, so they cash out, hand over the keys to the MBA's, and the starts another company. It's also a never-ending cycle. People that make gizillions of dollars with their own business end up working just as hard after they have their money, than when they started. It's not about the money.

 

[twofish-quant]

On the other hand, it might help you to get a feel for the kinds of challenges that you'll have to face when starting a business.

Anyone else think this might be a good idea?

It helps, but most businesses are not started on technical challenges. Take McDonalds. Highly successful company based on doing something that anyone one of us can do in the kitchen. Or Coca-Cola. Multi-billion dollar industry based on fizzy water.

If you want to start your own company, you need to talk to people that have done that. And most of them will tell you not to do it.

 

[Mépris]

Many engineering students I've met are introverts with an impression that they'll spend their days doing hard, mathematical modeling and designing to build large stuff right away and get paid ludicrous money for doing so. The real world is not like that. I spend far more time writing documentation, accounting for expenses, managing schedules, and so on than I do with actual engineering.

As for your science education, you can use that to research new features for engineers to build cutting edge products that people might need. Can you think of a new instrument for industry? Can you build a better inertial navigation system? Can you imagine a new application for orbital surveillance data?

There are many things you could do with your education. To find them, you need imagination and, most of all, motivation.

An engineer, more often than not, spends most of his time doing office work that any given person with a high school diploma and correct vocational training could have done? Why employ an engineer to do that when you can employ X person with Z qualifications for cheaper? In both cases, you have to train the person in question and the other can be paid less.
Or is it because the engineer does "actual engineering" as well, so they employ them for both the engineering and the "office" work?

I don't know about being creative or inventing stuff - don't think I have the skills or knowledge for that, *not yet* anyway, but I can identify problems. Something which I learned with Physics. I could have learned it by being a mechanic as well. But I learned with pen and paper in a classroom. There's a system. Something's not quite right with it. You break it apart and look at the individual pieces and figure out what's wrong. If that doesn't work, maybe I've done something wrong somewhere. Or else, try something new. How useful that can be, I don't know. Excuse the rambling.

Think of every product or service that you encounter and behind that is someone that makes money, often lots of money on that. Right now, I'm looking at an IKEA bookcase, and someone has made a ton of money making book cases.

Yeah, I think so too. Coincidentally, it's something I thought about a while back. Lots of things which people don't pay too much attention to, make their lives more "comfortable". If these products can do that, they're "useful". And "useful" things generate money. Whoever turned these thoughts/ideas into products and sold them, is quite possibly making lots of money. Be it the insect repellents you plug into a power socket or the plastic bottle.

Also, making money usually involves looking at someone and convincing them to give you their wallet. There are a lot of people that are good at this.

Or taking the wallet yourself? Not necessarily the "right" thing to do (it could be, mind) but you did say "a lot of people" - I figured it could be anyone.

MBA's are corporate bureaucrats. It turns out that to run a large company, you need a ton of corporate bureaucrats. Also if you want to start your own company, the MBA is probably the worst possible degree that you can get.

My brother has a degree in English Literature. He set up a computer business (sales/repairs/lan gaming) here back in 2003. Sold it two years later for good money. Immigrated. Initially, things were a mess. Things progressively got better and six years down the line, which would be about now, he's turned a computer repair shop which was located behind a laundry service into quite a successful business and sold a franchise to somebody in a neighbouring town.

You could, but being in school for a very long time encourages habits and beliefs that don't work well when you start your own company.

I can understand a little. I've read many discussions on here, lots of them involving you, which dealt with this.

One problem is what I call the "second Einstein problem." OK, one Einstein can change the world with a single idea. That fact is actually rather bad for physicists, because what are you going to do if you are the second Einstein.

Unless we're talking about an exact replica, well, that person could possibly contribute something to science as well. Groundbreaking or not - as long as the person's satisfied with what he's done, it's all fine by my books.

Curiously, people who are successful entrepreneurs "fail" if they "succeed." One thing that is a common pattern is that someone starts a business, it becomes wildly successful, but the person that started it doesn't want to be a corporate bureaucrat, so they cash out, hand over the keys to the MBA's, and the starts another company. It's also a never-ending cycle. People that make gizillions of dollars with their own business end up working just as hard after they have their money, than when they started. It's not about the money.

And part of it is that I think of this as "fun." I like solving hard problems, but you'll find that not all hard problems are math problems. A lot of them are time problems Some are people problems.

I take it that it's about getting something satisfying enough to do?

Well, at least, that's the way I see it. I see a problem that needs fixing. I can do something about it? I do it. Or I try. If I die before succeeding, meh, at least, I got something to do. Pursuit can bring satisfaction. It's something that I've thought about for a while and it applies to various situations.

It could be trying to get that really hot cheerleader to like you. It might or might not work; doesn't matter. As long as one wants something, he's good.

With these business men you speak about, it's not about the money, it's about having something to do. The satisfaction that comes with success or getting something to work. Then starting all over, going through all the struggles over and over again. That's what I would do anyway. Assuming I could do it.

Right now, my main problem is money. Why? I don't necessarily need too much of it, but I know some people who would be very happy with that and it happens that these people form an important part of my life. And to me, that's a situation that needs fixing. So, right now, my only goal is to try fix that.

I really got to go now. I'll come back to reply to everybody else tomorrow or tonight. Thanks guys.

 

[twofish-quant]

An engineer, more often than not, spends most of his time doing office work that any given person with a high school diploma and correct vocational training could have done?

It's grunt work, but it's not something you can get someone else to do. For example, if you are putting together a project schedule or giving a status presentation, you need deep understanding of the engineering to put together something decent.

Also a lot of what you end up doing is explaining a problem to someone that has little/no technical background.

Why employ an engineer to do that when you can employ X person with Z qualifications for cheaper? In both cases, you have to train the person in question and the other can be paid less.

1) Companies provide very little training.

2) The trend has been that anything that can be done in India is done in India, where you have very competent people that get paid a lot less.

3) In some fields, there is an element of "cover our rear ends." If you hire a licensed electrician to do something and your house burns down, then its his problem. If you hire some random person and your house burns down, it's your problem.

Or taking the wallet yourself? Not necessarily the "right" thing to do (it could be, mind) but you did say "a lot of people" - I figured it could be anyone.

If you grab someone's wallet, they generally get mad at you. However, the thing about some salesmen is that they are so good at what they do, that they can talk you into handing over your wallet, and make you feel good about it.

My brother has a degree in English Literature. He set up a computer business (sales/repairs/lan gaming) here back in 2003. Sold it two years later for good money. Immigrated. Initially, things were a mess. Things progressively got better and six years down the line, which would be about now, he's turned a computer repair shop which was located behind a laundry service into quite a successful business and sold a franchise to somebody in a neighbouring town.

It would be good for your education if you follow him around and see what he does.

 

[Mépris]

It's grunt work, but it's not something you can get someone else to do. For example, if you are putting together a project schedule or giving a status presentation, you need deep understanding of the engineering to put together something decent.

Also a lot of what you end up doing is explaining a problem to someone that has little/no technical background.

Fair enough.

1) Companies provide very little training.

2) The trend has been that anything that can be done in India is done in India, where you have very competent people that get paid a lot less.

3) In some fields, there is an element of "cover our rear ends." If you hire a licensed electrician to do something and your house burns down, then its his problem. If you hire some random person and your house burns down, it's your problem.

1) What about your current job? Did you get any "training" for it or did you have to rely on your knowledge of economics/other social sciences to get by? I get the impression that even your employers don't really understand what you're doing...which is why they hired you in the first place.

2) What gets done in India (with regards to "science") by people in the US?

3) I'd say that's how everything works.

If you grab someone's wallet, they generally get mad at you. However, the thing about some salesmen is that they are so good at what they do, that they can talk you into handing over your wallet, and make you feel good about it.

I've seen him do that. He's not very good with the math, he doesn't like reading much but he's got his way with people and figuring stuff out.

It would be good for your education if you follow him around and see what he does.

I have a feeling this will end horribly but I will ask him when I get the chance to talk to him.

Thank you.

Another thing that's been on my mind is: how does one figure out what jobs are available to him? In another thread, you said you've been changing jobs every few years. How did you know where to apply and what to do? Where do you read about this? Newspaper job listings...nah, doesn't seem likely.

 

[Mépris]

If you *do* have a good idea that you think that you would like to turn into a business... maybe it would be helpful to look at the history of how other industries got started. It probably won't help you with any of the technical problems that you have to deal with. On the other hand, it might help you to get a feel for the kinds of challenges that you'll have to face when starting a business.

Anyone else think this might be a good idea?

Well, I think so. History, in general, is definitely worth reading/studying when one has the time.

My father is an entrepreneur, and so are a lot of people in my family. Being an entrepreneur is not something that you realize when you wake up one morning. You need to take a good, long, and hard look at yourself to figure out whether you're cut out for that sort of thing or not. You need to be a risk-taker, you need to be able to deal with massive failure, you need to have the energy to try and try again with an extremely stubborn mentality. You basically need to be obsessed with making it work, because if you're not then it's very, very likely you'll end up going down the tubes, like 90% of the people who try to do this (which obviously include lots of people who have this obsessive personality too, so not being that way almost precludes you from ever being successful in it. Of course, you could always get lucky..). It's a very high risk, high pay off sort of deal. There are 'easier' ways of making a 'lot' of money, but you really need to figure out what works best for you.

Also, look at the forum topics and order them by the highest number of posts, and then read them all. You'll find all the information you need to get an idea of how this stuff works (specifically, our good colleague two-fish has posted massive amounts of information on finance, for which we're all very grateful for, so use that as a resource). Also check out the Academic Advisement forum, these two seem to be pretty related in those topics.

If that's not asking too much, what do you want?

Ah yes, definitely. Lots of interesting reads there. :)

 

[chiro]

Often, when reading through the fora, I come across people saying, "if money is your main concern, don't waste your time with a PhD - there are other, better ways at getting money." I can recall reading this in discussions about jobs on Wall Street for Maths/Physics PhDs.

Well...these statements are rather vague and if not science, what can people do to earn lots of money? Business ventures? I really have no inkling as to how this works, hence, my asking the question. What exactly can people do? What can one do with an MBA? Then there's the "why do you have to look for a job - if you're a Physics/Maths doctorate, perhaps you can figure out a way to make money without an "employer"?"

Do something that other people want, need, or think they want or need.

There are many problems out there waiting to be solved and there are many improvements out there ready to be thought up and implemented.

If you stick with something long enough and develop a skill for it you will see problems and room for improvement everywhere. These are opportunities for you.

I have to tell you though (and this is from family experience), getting a business up an running even if its something fairly modest is hard work and can be daunting. You'll be working all the time and you don't punch in or punch out. Monday to Friday is running the public side of the business and the weekend is for doing all the crappy work you wish you didn't have to do.

If you like it, then it can be very rewarding and sometimes there is never enough time in the world to do what you want to do, but in my experience even if you do like it, you won't like it all the time.

Also remember, you don't need a university degree. Any kind of developed skill will do. Anything from vocational training like being a chef, or a mechanic, or an electrician/plumber, basically any kind of area that has a specific developed skill will do.

If you want experience in business, start one. It doesn't have to be big, keep it simple at first. Think of something with very low overheads, and something that doesn't have big running costs.

If you are hesitant about the above, my advice to you is to get employed in a good business and rotate among the different business units. In my mind that's probably one of the better ways to really understand a business and its industry well. In some places that is a hard thing to do, but in others if you get the chance, jump on it.

Also I know this is cliche, but don't do it for money. The fact is most businesses fail, and they do so for a variety of reasons. For a long time, even if you become successful, you are going to be working for a pittance. You will get stressed and you will need to keep putting on a happy face in spite of all the crap that can happen. You will probably end up hiring people and everything about you including your values and how you handle success, failure, and pressure will affect not only your success, but your employees and your customers relationship with you.

With regards to the PhD aspect, if that's what you want to do, then do it. If your area of study is in something practical all the better. You don't automatically rule yourself out if its more abstract, but you would need to find a way to put that knowledge to practical use.

If your not interested in business, or don't want the risk/lifestyle/responsibility/whatever then your typical "jobs" are probably your best bet (like actuary/engineer and so on).

 

[twofish-quant]

1) What about your current job? Did you get any "training" for it or did you have to rely on your knowledge of economics/other social sciences to get by? I get the impression that even your employers don't really understand what you're doing...which is why they hired you in the first place.

I self-train constantly.

Also people have this idea that the "employer" is one person when in a company you are dealing with dozens of people on a day to day basis. My supervisor is a better programmer than I am, and he is perfectly capable of doing my work. The problem is the "toilet bowl" problem. It doesn't matter how good a plumber you are, you can only fix one toilet at a time, and he is busy doing job X, so he has be do job Y. He *could* do both jobs X and Y, but he has to pick one.

There are companies in which the people in charge don't have any technical knowledge, but I try to avoid them because they are hell for geeks.

Also, a lot of what I learn about history and economics isn't directly applicable to my day to day job, but it matters for what jobs I look for, and what I think will happen next. It takes about five years to pick up a skill and ten years to be an expert, so I'm always thinking about what sort of expertise will be in demand ten years from now. Maybe it's time to start reading about agriculture or mining technology. I know nothing about agriculture, but if the world is going to have a food crisis in 2021, then now is the time to start learning.

The other thing that history is useful is to see how people solved certain problems. One thing that I did a lot of reading in 2007 was how people went through the Great Depression. I'm reading a lot right now about the suburbanization of the US after WWII, because there are parts of the world that "feel" like the US in 1950.

2) What gets done in India (with regards to "science") by people in the US?

No. What happens is that if it can get done in India, people will hire people in India, and one of the things that happened to me is that I had a nice programming job, that got moved offshore.

There are lots of ways of dealing with that. One is to move to India. The other is to figure out what can't be moved to India. Something about finance is that it is hard to move. Finance requires a large number of people with different skills physically in one place, so the good news is that you can't move NYC to Mumbai. That's also bad news, because it means that you have to move to NYC.

Another thing that's been on my mind is: how does one figure out what jobs are available to him? In another thread, you said you've been changing jobs every few years. How did you know where to apply and what to do?

Trial and error. Try something. If it seems to work, do more of it. If it doesn't, try something else. Repeat.

One thing about labor markets is that a lot of habits you learn in school turn out to be counterproductive. In school, you read the textbook, take the test, and you get a high or low score on it. It turns out that this encourages habits that are bad for looking for work. One thing that I've noticed is that people that have spent all of their lives in school are a little surprised when they find out that things work differently.

Just to give one silly example. If you are at a university, you can find the phone number of the admissions office, and you can find out who is in charge of admissions. In most companies it's damn near impossible to find out who is in charge of hiring, in part because that person doesn't exist.

One is that this doesn't work if no one has written the textbook, or if there are a hundred textbooks that say different things. Also things change. The labor market today is very different than it was in 2009, and it is also somewhat different than it was three months ago. Also, if you start a Ph.D. today, you will be about in 2016 or 2017. I haven't got a clue what the labor markets are going to look like then.

But that's part of the interesting part. I like figuring things out, and I figure that if I can figure out how quantum field theory works, I can figure out how to write a resume.

Curiously one thing that I hated about academia is that it kills your curiosity. The way to get ahead is to be hyperspecialized, but I find that annoying.

 

[hadsed]

Curiously one thing that I hated about academia is that it kills your curiosity. The way to get ahead is to be hyperspecialized, but I find that annoying.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who suspected this.

 

[Mépris]

There are companies in which the people in charge don't have any technical knowledge, but I try to avoid them because they are hell for geeks.

I can imagine. I have talked to a select few individuals who are on track to become "corporate bureaucrats" or already are ones and while they're a clever bunch (at least, the few ones I've talked to), I can imagine how working under them can be a pain, if you're a geek or otherwise. Or maybe I just talked to a-h*les.

Also, a lot of what I learn about history and economics isn't directly applicable to my day to day job, but it matters for what jobs I look for, and what I think will happen next. It takes about five years to pick up a skill and ten years to be an expert, so I'm always thinking about what sort of expertise will be in demand ten years from now. Maybe it's time to start reading about agriculture or mining technology. I know nothing about agriculture, but if the world is going to have a food crisis in 2021, then now is the time to start learning.

I suppose you do that because you'd like to be in a situation where you're making money while doing maths?

The other thing that history is useful is to see how people solved certain problems. One thing that I did a lot of reading in 2007 was how people went through the Great Depression. I'm reading a lot right now about the suburbanization of the US after WWII, because there are parts of the world that "feel" like the US in 1950.

Uhuh. One can see what was done "wrong". Chances are, one thought of something similar. (not for that specific case, just a general thing) So, don't do that. Do something else. Try out the "other thing" "they" might have thought of but didn't do.

I would like to learn about history but I can do that tomorrow. Or next week. There's no "rush" or maybe I'm just being lazy about it. And yeah, history won't change but it will keep on growing. One thing I've learned is that I can't learn *everything*. It might sound stupid but it was hard to shake off that feeling.

No. What happens is that if it can get done in India, people will hire people in India, and one of the things that happened to me is that I had a nice programming job, that got moved offshore.

There are lots of ways of dealing with that. One is to move to India. The other is to figure out what can't be moved to India. Something about finance is that it is hard to move. Finance requires a large number of people with different skills physically in one place, so the good news is that you can't move NYC to Mumbai. That's also bad news, because it means that you have to move to NYC.

But outsourcing can be counter productive in the long run? What happens when US citizens qualified for the job end up selling corn dog and washing windows?

Trial and error. Try something. If it seems to work, do more of it. If it doesn't, try something else. Repeat.

Sounds reasonable. I suppose it has a lot to do with who I talked to (or who talked to me) but I had this constant "fear" grown into me. I'd argue that I actually over analyse my actions because of that. Whether that's a good thing or not, I do not know but at least, the amount of "bad decisions" I make are seemingly less than before.

One thing about labor markets is that a lot of habits you learn in school turn out to be counterproductive. In school, you read the textbook, take the test, and you get a high or low score on it. It turns out that this encourages habits that are bad for looking for work. One thing that I've noticed is that people that have spent all of their lives in school are a little surprised when they find out that things work differently.

Just to give one silly example. If you are at a university, you can find the phone number of the admissions office, and you can find out who is in charge of admissions. In most companies it's damn near impossible to find out who is in charge of hiring, in part because that person doesn't exist.

One is that this doesn't work if no one has written the textbook, or if there are a hundred textbooks that say different things. Also things change. The labor market today is very different than it was in 2009, and it is also somewhat different than it was three months ago. Also, if you start a Ph.D. today, you will be about in 2016 or 2017. I haven't got a clue what the labor markets are going to look like then.

Interesting indeed.

Curiously one thing that I hated about academia is that it kills your curiosity. The way to get ahead is to be hyperspecialized, but I find that annoying.[/QUOTE]

But as I said, one cannot learn *everything*. Getting hyperspecialised means you know a lot, a hell of a lot, about one thing. Maybe two things. I suppose time is the annoying here.

 

[turbo]

Hyperspecialization is probably not too productive for most people and/or most jobs. My most lucrative years were in sales (consigning and auctioning) rare antique firearms, flags, military accouterments, photographs, etc. The owner of that company set his sights pretty low, and set my sales targets low enough that I could vastly exceed them every year and get incentive pay (bonuses) based on those sales. It would not pay to be hyperspecialized in such a position, but it DID pay me to learn where I could find the answers and to know all the specialists intimately.

A vexicologist that used to work for the Smithsonian had retired to her horse-ranch years back, but she graciously accepted commissions whenever I asked for her evaluations on CW flags because she knew that I had absorbed her lessons and could filter out fakes. As far as I know, I was the only person that she would accept commissions from during her retirement. She was in high demand because collectors of CW flags were loathe to accept the authenticity of any flag that did not have her approval. You don't spend over $100K on a battle flag that doesn't have rock-solid references.

I guess my take on this is that you don't have to have all the answers, but you'd better know where to get them when you need them.

 

[twofish-quant]

I can imagine. I have talked to a select few individuals who are on track to become "corporate bureaucrats" or already are ones and while they're a clever bunch (at least, the few ones I've talked to), I can imagine how working under them can be a pain, if you're a geek or otherwise.

Fortunately, I've had to pleasure of working for some great managers. Also one thing that causes a lot of resentment is that geeks tend to think that "geeks are better than jocks" and it's a shock to find that in most business situations, this isn't true.

Uhuh. One can see what was done "wrong". Chances are, one thought of something similar. (not for that specific case, just a general thing) So, don't do that. Do something else. Try out the "other thing" "they" might have thought of but didn't do.

1) You'll quickly find that people will have bitter arguments over what was done "wrong." Take the Great Depression. The big argument right now is between people that think that right thing to do is to increase government spending, and people that think the right thing to do is to decrease government spending. One problem with politics is that you can't just come up with the right answer and make it happen. You have to deal with people that think you are dead wrong.

2) But that's not the part of history that I was interested in. The part that I was reading in 2007 was figuring out how ordinary people made it through the Great Depression. You take someone that was similar to me in 1929, and after things blew up just what did that person do? Also, even if you find out that there is nothing you can do, I found that reading about people that went through the Great Depression made me feel less alone. One thing that I found out that helped was that people didn't know the future. In 1929, most people didn't think that things would be nearly as bad as they ended up being, and not knowing the future helps you deal with the present.

I would like to learn about history but I can do that tomorrow. Or next week. There's no "rush" or maybe I'm just being lazy about it. And yeah, history won't change but it will keep on growing. One thing I've learned is that I can't learn *everything*. It might sound stupid but it was hard to shake off that feeling.

The important thing is to figure out what is important. Also, randomness helps. One thing that I do from time to time is to just go to a used book store and pick out a book at random and read it.

But outsourcing can be counter productive in the long run? What happens when US citizens qualified for the job end up selling corn dog and washing windows?

Good question.

One of my answers is that it will work out if people selling corn dogs and washing windows can make decent amounts of money and have decent amounts of social respect. If you have your health care expenses paid for, you have a good pension, and you can make decent amounts of money, then what's wrong with selling corn dogs?

Getting hyperspecialised means you know a lot, a hell of a lot, about one thing. Maybe two things. I suppose time is the annoying here.

Knowing a lot about one thing doesn't bother me. Having someone force me to be curious about one thing and not another is annoying.

 

[Mépris]

Fortunately, I've had to pleasure of working for some great managers. Also one thing that causes a lot of resentment is that geeks tend to think that "geeks are better than jocks" and it's a shock to find that in most business situations, this isn't true.

I'll take your word for it. Another thing I've noticed, related to that, is that people (all of us, I guess) make up an opinion on another too quickly. If the guy I talked to was a douche, there is a possibility that he isn't inherently douche-y.

1) You'll quickly find that people will have bitter arguments over what was done "wrong." Take the Great Depression. The big argument right now is between people that think that right thing to do is to increase government spending, and people that think the right thing to do is to decrease government spending. One problem with politics is that you can't just come up with the right answer and make it happen. You have to deal with people that think you are dead wrong.

2) But that's not the part of history that I was interested in. The part that I was reading in 2007 was figuring out how ordinary people made it through the Great Depression. You take someone that was similar to me in 1929, and after things blew up just what did that person do? Also, even if you find out that there is nothing you can do, I found that reading about people that went through the Great Depression made me feel less alone. One thing that I found out that helped was that people didn't know the future. In 1929, most people didn't think that things would be nearly as bad as they ended up being, and not knowing the future helps you deal with the present.

I will learn about this. I think this can be applied to my present situation as well.

I find that there can be more comfort in not knowing *about* the future.

In a post of yours, you suggested that somebody read Tom Stoppard. Why? Which book exactly? I started Ros & Guil are Dead a while back but never got around to finish it. I ask because you mention this "I found that reading about people ... less alone."

The important thing is to figure out what is important. Also, randomness helps. One thing that I do from time to time is to just go to a used book store and pick out a book at random and read it.

Hmm. I'll give this some thought, then decided if I'll apply it. More tilting towards a yes now. My main problem is that I get very obsessive. I just can't use a physical dictionary because when I'm looking up a word, I end up looking up 50 others that I didn't need for immediate use. I don't remember what all 50 mean but I learned things. I also delayed the time spent on my essay. And often, I find myself doing it at the wrong time, either because I've had too much work or if I've been lazy. Laziness. There, found it!

One of my answers is that it will work out if people selling corn dogs and washing windows can make decent amounts of money and have decent amounts of social respect. If you have your health care expenses paid for, you have a good pension, and you can make decent amounts of money, then what's wrong with selling corn dogs?

Would a PhD want to sell corn dogs? If I had a reasonable amount of money to sell corn dogs and have the facilities you listed, I wouldn't mind doing it. I know lots of people who wouldn't. Prestige and social respect matter a lot for many. I personally don't find this kind of job demeaning but I'll have to admit that if I've studied long enough to earn a PhD, I wouldn't want to do that job. Unless I was so disgusted with my work.

Knowing a lot about one thing doesn't bother me. Having someone force me to be curious about one thing and not another is annoying.

I can relate but I suppose being taught "only this much" means that the interest/drive/curiosity will be in a related field. Especially if you had particularly good teaching or just were among the right set of people to get you interested. I think going any further into this would be delving too much on the "philosophical" side of things and also straying further away from an absolute answer. I like it though (thinking about things - keeps me busy). :P

Also, have you heard of http://www.khanacademy.org/ ? The guy behind all this is MIT and Harvard Business School alumni.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'll take your word for it. Another thing I've noticed, related to that, is that people (all of us, I guess) make up an opinion on another too quickly. If the guy I talked to was a douche, there is a possibility that he isn't inherently douche-y.

And then there is the possibility that he is. Also a lot of human relations is chemistry. When you put too people together unexpected things happen. So you can have two non-douche-y people together and they just annoy each other to hell. Or you can put two jerks together and they get along great.

Something that helps me is to focus on the money. I'm trying to make money. The people that I'm working with are trying to make money. The fact that we have that in common, means that we have some basis to try to avoid annoying each other to hell.

In a post of yours, you suggested that somebody read Tom Stoppard. Why? Which book exactly? I started Ros & Guil are Dead a while back but never got around to finish it.

Rosencrantz and Guliderstern are Dead. Also I've found Kafka to be useful. The reason that absurdist books are useful is that a lot of looking for a job and working in a large corporation matches the world of R and G and Kafka. The basic situation in R and G is that they are in this bigger play (Hamlet) that they don't understand and which ultimately gets them in big trouble for reasons that no one explains to them, and which they never understand. The Trial ends up being the same thing.

That's your basic job interview situation. During your job interview you may or do something that dooms you, but you have no idea what it is. Having read Kafka and Stoppard, makes you laugh at that situation, and think to yourself. We'll at least I'm not getting killed.

Other things that I've read that are useful are Death of a Salesman and Glen Garry Glen Ross. One thing about GGGR is that the thing that people end up fighting each other for are "leads." They are a stack of index cards with names of people that you can call. Once you look for jobs, you suddenly realize how important leads are.

One thing that makes job interviews different from undergraduate courses is that in undergraduate courses you are given tests, where there are right and wrong answers, and if you do well or badly you know. That's not the way businesses work.

Would a PhD want to sell corn dogs?

Depends on the Ph.D. One personality quirk that is useful I have is that I'm willing to learn whatever I need to put food on the table, and if I end up having to do something I have a competitive drive to do it well. If it turned out that I ended up selling corn dogs, then I'll try to learn whatever I need to do be the number one corn dog salesman.

In my case, the thing that makes me interested in the big bang also makes me really interested in the business of selling corn dogs. Also curiosity is a useful trait in finance. I had an interesting conversation with someone at a bank that became an expert in an industry that is similar to selling gravel (it's not gravel but something similar). Why learn about gravel? Well gravel companies need loans, so if you want to figure out how much money to loan/invest in gravel companies, you suddenly find yourself having to learn a lot about gravel. I'm willing to bet that the corn dog industry is just as interesting.

Prestige and social respect matter a lot for many.

Screw prestige. I suppose I'd care more about prestige and social respect if I had a chance of getting some.

Also prestige works in odd ways. One thing about academia is that you get more prestige if you end up with abstract stuff that doesn't connected to physical matter. Unfortunately, those are precisely the jobs that get outsourced. The laws of physics are the same anywhere in the world, and with the internet you can be anywhere in the world and still do the same physics. That's a problem because that means that the job isn't "sticky" and you can move it to the lowest bidder.

If you are selling corn dogs, you have to be physically at the same space time coordinate as the buyer, which means that the job is very sticky. Cleaning toilets is the same thing. Also in computer science, there are some jobs that are sticky and some that aren't. Jobs in finance tend to be surprisingly sticky.

One thing about human beings is that if you hand a large amount of cash to someone, you want to be staring at a human being, and that fact has a lot of interesting implications.

One other thing about outsourcing. You have to deal with the fact that most people in the world aren't Americans. I've been in meetings in which I'm the only American citizen, and in those situations making a business decision based on sentimental attachment to the United States isn't going to work. If you are moving a ton of jobs from the US to India, the Indians in the room are going to be happy about it, and the French and Brazilians aren't going to care either way, and there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans. So it ends up being a decision on what makes the money for the corporation.

Also, one problem with outsourcing services is that it's not obvious how you stop it even if you wanted to. For example, if you want to have trucks manufactured in the US, you can put taxes and customs duties. It may or may not be a good idea, but you can do it. With non-tangible goods, it's not obvious how you can even begin to put a tax. Someone in India writes a program and then e-mails it to you. What *can* you do to stop this?

I personally don't find this kind of job demeaning but I'll have to admit that if I've studied long enough to earn a PhD, I wouldn't want to do that job.

They pay money? Yes. Is it anything that is morally or ethically questionable? No.

OK, what's the problem? The only reason I'm not selling corn dogs is that someone else gave me gave me a better offer.

 

[Mépris]

And then there is the possibility that he is. Also a lot of human relations is chemistry. When you put too people together unexpected things happen. So you can have two non-douche-y people together and they just annoy each other to hell. Or you can put two jerks together and they get along great.

Definitely.

What I'm saying is only anecdotal but I think that this "chemistry" of any given situation is well, very "situational". In that, things that could have been affecting the parties mentally affect their overall behaviour and it's that, and other variables that sort of "govern" this chemistry.

Rosencrantz and Guliderstern are Dead. Also I've found Kafka to be useful. The reason that absurdist books are useful is that a lot of looking for a job and working in a large corporation matches the world of R and G and Kafka. The basic situation in R and G is that they are in this bigger play (Hamlet) that they don't understand and which ultimately gets them in big trouble for reasons that no one explains to them, and which they never understand. The Trial ends up being the same thing.

That's your basic job interview situation. During your job interview you may or do something that dooms you, but you have no idea what it is. Having read Kafka and Stoppard, makes you laugh at that situation, and think to yourself. We'll at least I'm not getting killed.

Haha! Another situation in Ros and Guil that I find hilarious and at the same time, very real, is that they so easily get consumed in any given "activity" of theirs, that they forget what they were *supposed to do*. It's a lot like the situation my friends and I find ourselves at times. We're just there and letting the time flow playing cards (coin tosses!) and thinking about that and that alone and nothing else really matters until we remember what we were supposed to be doing in that time.

OR, just people who're always fighting (for example) and after a while, they don't even know why they were fighting or if they even had to.

Other things that I've read that are useful are Death of a Salesman and Glen Garry Glen Ross. One thing about GGGR is that the thing that people end up fighting each other for are "leads." They are a stack of index cards with names of people that you can call. Once you look for jobs, you suddenly realize how important leads are.

I haven't looked for jobs but I know people who have and they tell me that it rarely ever goes their way. One of them though, said this: "When you're applying for a job, you've got a single chance out of a hundred to land it, and that's assuming they haven't found an exact match by the time they read your CV. So, apply for 100+ jobs." I think that makes sense. A lot of it.

Just now, I googled "goldman sachs physics" and this was the first result that turned up:
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~physics/?q=node/14
Talk about leads! I don't know if this actually works out but at least, they're saying that they do it.

Depends on the Ph.D. One personality quirk that is useful I have is that I'm willing to learn whatever I need to put food on the table, and if I end up having to do something I have a competitive drive to do it well. If it turned out that I ended up selling corn dogs, then I'll try to learn whatever I need to do be the number one corn dog salesman.

Nice. I will put some further thought into this. (and the last paragraph)

Another question: would you be able to have done your current job with just your BS under your belt? I ask because I don't really know how employable I can make myself after my BS and I would rather figure this out now, before spending three years of my life. (and money) I also don't know if I'd want to go grad school post-BS.

The only reason I chose this subject is because I like it because I can get kicks out of it, it's intellectually stimulating enough and..er, I don't really know what else but that's enough by my standards. I often see people talk about wanting to do this or that subject (especially the aspiring doctors) and they speak of it with such passion and drive. Drive, I can get. It's all about work ethos but passion is something else entirely. If somehow, I find out that doing Physics would mean I'd be on the track to starving myself and/or being stuck in a dead end job which barely pays the bills for a single person, I won't do it. We know that's not necessarily true and it all depends on me and how far I'm willing to or can go. But yes, what I was trying to illustrate here is, if there's another way around it, I'll do it. I'm very flexible in that respect. I chose Physics for X and Y reasons and these X and Y reasons are not exclusive to Physics alone it would seem.

Even then, let's say I don't do Physics and do a bachelor's degree in Commerce. How would I be in a better position? Let's assume I might actually enjoy doing it. How does that put me in a better position? Won't I be having to make my own way onto the job market, as I would, with a Physics or Maths degree? Or would doing that magically transport me into a dream job? It baffles me to no end when people give me "the look" and get into that kind of argument with me when I answer to them that I want to study Physics or Maths.

Also, one problem with outsourcing services is that it's not obvious how you stop it even if you wanted to. For example, if you want to have trucks manufactured in the US, you can put taxes and customs duties. It may or may not be a good idea, but you can do it. With non-tangible goods, it's not obvious how you can even begin to put a tax. Someone in India writes a program and then e-mails it to you. What *can* you do to stop this?

I was going to suggest blocking certain IP addresses or something of that sort but it doesn't seem legal at all and there are ways around that. So, nothing? Nothing that I can think of anyway!

On another note: If I'm not replying to any specific block of test, it doesn't necessarily mean I have nothing at all to say. It's more because it saves me from having to type "Hmm" or "Yeah, I agree. This makes a lot of sense now."

 

[Mépris]

Another note on outsourcing to India:

There is this article I found a link to when reading through posts here which basically said that paying a junior analyst in the US would cost them $70k while that same job done in India would cost them $20k. I can't remember the name of the article but I think it was published in June 2004.

Now, $20k, by American standards is little. In India though, $20k/year is NOT a measly sum. One can live very comfortably with that amount in India.

If the jobs are in China, Singapore and India - why not just go there? If that's the only way to get what you want, why torture yourself here? I for one would be willing to move anywhere if I had to. As you said: "They pay money? Yes. Is it anything that is morally or ethically questionable? No. So, what's the problem?"

I suspect that there are even faculty positions available in India. At least, faculty positions that one can actually have a good shot at getting. There are lots of Science (NOT engineering) institutes that are cropping up there.

 

[Mépris]

...

Could you clear some space on your PM folder? I've got a question to ask you.

Cheers

 

[Haydendiego]

World is not possible to sustain without science. Due to that discovery of gravity, motion. Inventions are not possible without science. Improved gadgets like computers,calculators, are not possible.

 

[twofish-quant]

I haven't looked for jobs but I know people who have and they tell me that it rarely ever goes their way. One of them though, said this: "When you're applying for a job, you've got a single chance out of a hundred to land it, and that's assuming they haven't found an exact match by the time they read your CV. So, apply for 100+ jobs." I think that makes sense. A lot of it.

One thing that makes the system work is that (hopefully) you end up with 100 people applying for about 90 jobs, which means that there is a mad rush to match people with jobs, but in the end up, you are likely to end up with something.

Just now, I googled "goldman sachs physics" and this was the first result that turned up:
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~physics/?q=node/14
Talk about leads! I don't know if this actually works out but at least, they're saying that they do it.

That page is probably the biggest reason to go to Harvard. The people at Harvard have already have connections with employers. DE Shaw and management companies like McKinsey care very much about what school you went to, so if you went to Texas A&M, forget about DE Shaw/McKinsey. Goldman-Sachs recruits very heavily in the big name schools, but they don't care particularly about the name and they also recruit from the big name state schools like UTexas Austin. The thing that Goldman-Sachs looks very, very heavily at is personality.

The other thing that you get if you go to Harvard is someone telling you this. One of the big reasons that I post as much as I do is to give people the sort of information that they would get if they went to MIT or Harvard.

Another question: would you be able to have done your current job with just your BS under your belt?

No. One other thing is that I probably would not have been able to do my current job with my Ph.D. While I was preparing for interviews, I did a lot of independent reading. Also, I haven't stopped. I spend a huge amount of my time reading papers on the internet that are relevant to what I'm doing.

Just one example of what I'm reading. You'd think that after having programmed C++ for twenty years, that I'm "done" learning C++. It turns out that this isn't true. The C++ standards organization has just come out with C++0X which has new features, and I'm thinking about how those features could be useful. Also I'm studying the boost libraries to see if there is anything useful there.

I ask because I don't really know how employable I can make myself after my BS and I would rather figure this out now, before spending three years of my life. (and money) I also don't know if I'd want to go grad school post-BS.

This is one of the "what do I want to do with my life" questions that you'll have to figure out. However, one thing about my job which I like is that in some sense I'm still in grad school and I'll be there for the rest of my life.

 

[twofish-quant]

Now, $20k, by American standards is little. In India though, $20k/year is NOT a measly sum. One can live very comfortably with that amount in India.

I'll have someone else talk about the Indian job market, since I'm not Indian. However, one thing that I find scary about China is that the stereotype of the "sweatshop" doesn't work. Chinese workers end up having more rights than US workers.

If the jobs are in China, Singapore and India - why not just go there?

There's a quote from Three Days of the Condor, where the main character is talking with a contract killer.

Turner: You seem to understand it all so well. What would you suggest?
Joubert: Personally, I prefer Europe.
Turner: Europe?
Joubert: Yes. Well, the fact is, what I do is not a bad occupation. Someone is always willing to pay.
Turner: I would find it… tiring.
Joubert: Oh, no — it's quite restful. It's… almost peaceful. No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause. There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision.
Turner: I was born in the United States, Joubert. I miss it when I'm away too long.
Joubert: A pity.
Turner: I don't think so.

In the case of Mainland China, there are cultural issues. Most of the jobs require fluency in Mandarin. This isn't true for Hong Kong or Singapore.

But all this worries me, because I'm seeing a massive brain drain among Ph.D.'s from the US to China and India, and this is going to be bad long term. Something about China and India is that they are both now out of the recession, and companies are hiring. The longer the US has 10% unemployment, the worse the brain drain is going to be.

I suspect that there are even faculty positions available in India.

There aren't. I've looked.

Something about the US is that the research university *system* is still number one in the world. The United States still has the best system for producing Ph.D.'s and for doing scientific research on the planet, and even though I spend a lot of time bashing universities,the way that the US does things is still far, far better than what China and India do. China wants to replicate what the US has, but it will take it at least two decades to do it.

What really scares me right now is that I'm seeing the US take this crown jewel that was created with decades of sweat and just tossing it into the dirt. It's really sad.

 

[atyy]

In the case of Mainland China, there are cultural issues. Most of the jobs require fluency in Mandarin. This isn't true for Hong Kong or Singapore.

What really scares me right now is that I'm seeing the US take this crown jewel that was created with decades of sweat and just tossing it into the dirt. It's really sad.

But you'll still have Texas BBQ. (It's just as good as anything in Singapore.)

 

[Locrian]

In the real world, people do not throw money at your feet just because you got a degree in something. The degree is merely the price of admission. What you do with the knowledge you learned is what makes you valuable.

What a great quote. Students entering college should sign a disclaimer reading exactly this.