1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Increasing Our Pay.

  1. Feb 14, 2006 #1
    We've discussed this before, physcists aren't the highest paid proffesionals. Well to look at matters more, neither are engineers,programers,technogis or scientests. The average was about 50K for beginners and the highest was 120K fir seniors.

    WHile higher than the average population not substantial when compared to doctors and lawyers. My question is howcome they make alot more when we study our asses off. I diubt they even have to take calculas. You can spend nearly a decade studying frying your brain and get paid less than somebody that gets to rob people for money.

    I know you're not supposed to be in physics for the money but when doctors are making 300k something's wrong. And why do they charge so much, does it take that much to keep their job running or their Mercedes?

    You would think someone with such big ideas and major contributions to the world would get paid alot higher.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 14, 2006 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well doctors tend to... oh i dunno.... save peoples lives?

    Lawyers... well its really because of the nature of their job. When you sue corporations for $200,000,000... they can occasionally become fabulously rich. And realistically, a physicists pay isn't as heavily gauged to his/her performance. I mean think of how strange life would be if physicists were only paid when their experiments worked or came in on time or on budget or whatever.

    I also don't really know why you think doctors and lawyers don't study as much as physicists... the idea that 'they didn't even have to take calculus' is a silly point. A lawyer could say "I doubt physicists ever took public policy" or a doctor could say "I doubt physicists ever took microbiology" or whatever is a key concept for their fields.
     
  4. Feb 14, 2006 #3
    Look at sports as well. Yes they provide entertainment, but the amount of money athletes get is preposterous. That money could be helping a lot better causes. Of course, one of the foundations of America was that people could make as much as they can earn; that money is obviously in sports and law right now. Then again, most people just don't care what scientists do and have done for them (or more 'advanced' knowledge in general). Most people just care about getting to see their sports, not how it gets to them. The average person probably doesn't care as to how the image gets to their television screen. I guess that is just modern society, however.

    Gz.
     
  5. Feb 14, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah that is one of the problems with societies these days, modern ones that is. People are pretty much ready to give their houses away to Reebok because some hero-for-a-day basketball player appears in a commercial by reebok. Capitalism would work if capitalism didn't work....
     
  6. Feb 14, 2006 #5
    Well, historically, the AMA is behind doctors' high salaries. In the 1800s and early 1900s, it essentially acted as a "union" for doctors, driving the salaries of doctors way above market price. They have lost some of their power in recent years, however. Perhaps something similar should be formed by the physicists and engineers?
     
  7. Feb 14, 2006 #6
    All modern society isn't about sports. Many countrues around the world take great intrest in Science&Technology like Germany and Japan.

    As for The States, we've got alot of work to be done.

    And although they take mocrobiology I doubt a dcotor's collegiate schooling is as hard as a physicist's.
     
  8. Feb 14, 2006 #7
    I'm not limiting to just sports, and I'm not saying countries don't care about science and technology, I'm just stating (using a sports metaphor since it is common around the world), that most people just don't care.

    Gz.
     
  9. Feb 14, 2006 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah the sports is a good analogy but there are probably better analogies. The thing is, one isnt paid based on how hard one had to work to get where they are. Theres always the CEO that got an AS from some community college making as much as a CEO that got a Mba or whatever from Harvard. It's really a combonation of market forces, cultural values, economic priorities of a country, etc etc.

    One of my professors once said something that leads to the conclusion that if science had to make economic justifications for most of what it does, they would never make it in modern societies. So much of it, mainly now-a-days, is simply for knowledges sakes.
     
  10. Feb 14, 2006 #9

    t!m

    User Avatar

    Yes they do. A traditional pre-med track as an undergraduate involves calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology.

    Medical school is notoriously difficult, including internship and residency. And then to pursue a specialty can add another four or so intensive years of schooling on top.

    Add a high-stress environment and medical malpractice suits to the formula, and all I'm saying is I don't think doctors have the sweet life that you seem to think.
     
  11. Feb 14, 2006 #10

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree, doctors are asked to do a LOT. I mean what kind of environment would it be when people are all sick around you and families acting insane and you having to work for 30 hours straight.
     
  12. Feb 14, 2006 #11
    Calcuulus and physics, why would a doctor need Calculas and physics? Computer programmers don't even have to take that.
     
  13. Feb 14, 2006 #12

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    .... computer programmers don't have to take physics and calculus... are you sure you know what you're talking about? Yah sure they don't get into upper division quantum mechanics or complex analysis... but are you sure you know what you're talking about?
     
  14. Feb 14, 2006 #13

    This is a load of bull****. The idea that science should have to economically justify itself is preposterous. If that were the case, Maxwell would never have created his theory of Electromagnetism, without which the modern world would not exist. At all. Maxwell had no idea what would come from his discovery, he was just playing with wires and magnets because they were interesting. What was arguably the single most important scientific discovery of all time could not have been "economically justified" before hand.

    Computer programmers have to take both Intro physics and Calculus. You need to pick up a university catalog and actually look at degree requirements. Pre-med students are required to take calculus, in addition to intro physics. Biology students have it much easier than Biochem ones though (Looking over the biochem course list, I cringe. Thats nasty stuff).
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2006
  15. Feb 14, 2006 #14

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You just proved my point franznietzsche. What you said has nothing to do with this thread. What doctors and lawyers do are economically viable ideas while scientists work are rarely economically viable which means they should not be compared based upon what their worth to society is.
     
  16. Feb 14, 2006 #15

    I was not even commenting on that. i have no complaint with what doctors and lawyers get paid. I couldn't care less. However, the idea that scientific work should be economically viable is idiotic and counter-productive. Unless you want to give up every piece of electronic equipment you own?
     
  17. Feb 14, 2006 #16
    I meant people who study Computer Information Systems not programers.
     
  18. Feb 15, 2006 #17

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They do... computer science requires a lot of heavy math...
     
  19. Feb 15, 2006 #18

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not saying it should. I'm just saying that that is the case. I was saying if physicists had to be payed based on market forces and how they effect people's lives now-a-days (ESPECIALLY now-a-days), they wouldn't be making much. That's what i was talking about! The thread topic!! roar!!! :devil: :devil: :devil:
     
  20. Feb 15, 2006 #19

    There's nothing that makes it "especially" now-a-days. That's a load of crock. Didn't you know that physics was completely solved in the 1880s?
     
  21. Feb 15, 2006 #20

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :confused: :confused: :confused:
     
  22. Feb 15, 2006 #21
    For the amount of training that Engineers and Scientists have, they should make as much or more than doctors do. Doctors in this country are WAYYYYYYY overpaid. Lets face it, people become doctors so they can get rich.
     
  23. Feb 15, 2006 #22

    In the late 1800s, physics was considered by many physicists to be almost completely solved. Then Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein, Planck, and Bohr rolled around.

    Your claim that "especially now-a-days" scientists can't justify themselves economically is simply wrong. Such has been the case since Newton. Newton certainly couldn't have justified his work economically. Nor could Gauss, Faraday, Coulomb, Watt, or almost any other physicist of the past 300 years. There is nothing especial about now-a-days.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2006
  24. Feb 15, 2006 #23
    :rolleyes:

    Well, i disagree with you on this one. It is always easy to name "those happy few" scientists that made the big contributions to science. Indeed, the origin of their work was not economic in nature but one cannot extend this idea toward contemporary science, as you are doing here. Keep in mind that science has gotten a whole lot more expensive. For example, look at the budgets needed in the micro-electronics research "industry" and then look at the solutions this research provides. I am working in this field as a PhD student (high k materials and metal gates in CMOS structures) and i can assure you, the required investments are way out of line. This was certainly NOT the case with the people you summed up in your post.

    Also, you should not forget that most research does not solve any problem what so ever. Naming big names in a field is easy because one cannot argue the use/quality of their work. But what about those other 10000 researchers that get funding and a monthly payment, that do not achieve anything worthwhile during their entire careers.

    One needs to invest a lot, to acquire some few useful results. That is one of the main reasons why scientists will never be the ones collecting the biggest paycheck. Most of the times, they do not solve realtime specific problems like a doctor does, so what exactly is their service for which they should get paid ? You see my point ?

    marlon
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2006
  25. Feb 15, 2006 #24
    Ohh c'mon, please stop thinking like you live in the 19th century. The "way science is done" has changed completely. Economic relevance is one of the key issues. Why do you think that so many institutions like IMEC, CERN invest so much in doing quantum ab initio simulations ?

    In order for a researcher to acquire funding, he/she will be spending a lot of time to prove the economic relevance of his/her project. Clearly, you have not yet defended a research project to acquire funding.

    The big fundamental new concepts in science are really a minority in today's research activities. Now, unless you wanna waist your time doing LQG or string theory research (which has not yet any experimental evidence) you really need to be looking at how your research can be implemented into technical concepts/products. If your research has some promising prospects into technical applications/products (read : if it can generate a cash flow TOWARDS the institute or company you are working for) you will have a much bigger probability of actually acquiring the funding. That's what it is all about no ? That's the economic part i am referring to. As an example, the research institute i am working for (IMEC) has seven core partners in the industry like INTEL, ASM, Texas instruments, PANASONIC. Why do you think that is ?



    ???

    Why do you think the IC , CMOS, was invented ? For scientific relevance ? Please :rolleyes:

    marlon
     
  26. Feb 15, 2006 #25

    Why were electric circuits and the behavoir of most of the simple components in those ICs invented? For economic relevance? Please. :rolleyes:

    The modern age would not exist if scientists had been required to justify themselves economically in the 1800s.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook