Programs Is a Career in Science Really Worth the Investment?

[mxmm]

Hi, I'm new to these forums, and sorry if I just jumped into this board without much reputation and asking demanding questions... but this thread is really the reason I made an account, since this is the easiest way I can ask for a large number of PhDs' honest opinions.

First some background. I'm an upcoming senior, and I plan to apply to top-tier schools and I think that I have the SAT's and other stats to get into at least some of them. My plan then was to possibly double major in physics and mathematics at that university and try to get into a good grad school. However, last night, on one of my stumbleupon excursions, I unfortunately came to this page: http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

After reading that page, I was extremely discouraged. It was the analogy of someone dreaming to be in the NBA seeing how impossible it is. However, is this image accurate, exaggerated, or outdated? The reason I ask this is that over the past few years I've spent a lot of time learning mathematical and physical theory on my own, and I couldn't really see a future in which I'm happy without constantly learning more about the universe or mathematics. I believe I have the skill and determination to make a good scientist (many may thinks it's too early to tell on this board or see this as arrogance, but I honestly believe that I have what is needed.) Is this article accurate in that, no matter how hard I try, no matter how skillful I am, I will eventually end up 200k in debt with no job and no life?

Thanks, and I really want honest answers... Not the "follow your dreams" answer my guidance counselor may give me.

 

[cristo]

I wouldn't really pay too much attention to that essay. For example a comment like

I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.

is simple statistics: how many more people do you think he's known that have done a PhD than have done drugs? It could also be down to him leaving a sheltered existence: I know more people who have had their lives negatively affected by drugs/alcohol than have by obtaining a PhD.

One thing you should pay attention to, though, is that it is really tough to make a career in physics (at least in academia). I won't go on about this, since I'm sure others will be around to tell you the other job opportunities with a physics PhD. Just make sure that you take every chance to develop "transferable skills", and you should be fine career-wise.

 

[Ryker]

I think that infamous text only plays the role of a "boss" on some of the lower levels of the scientific profession game. You need to read it, come to grips with the fear it has instilled in you and then you're good to go collect coins on the next level.

 

[Jack21222]

Instead of looking at the reasons you shouldn't get a Ph.D, let's start with the question "why do you hope to get a Ph.D?" What were you hoping to get out of it?

Once you answer that question, we can help you. The "worth" of a Ph.D. is hard to give an answer to without defining "worth."

 

[mxmm]

Instead of looking at the reasons you shouldn't get a Ph.D, let's start with the question "why do you hope to get a Ph.D?" What were you hoping to get out of it?

Once you answer that question, we can help you. The "worth" of a Ph.D. is hard to give an answer to without defining "worth."

The reason I want to get a PhD is because I want to be able to contribute to human knowledge in either the fields of mathematics or physics through original research and theory. I also enjoy teaching those who are interested to learn math or physics, so having a teaching position alongside with a research position would be ideal. I don't really care much for money, as long as I'll be able to get a decent living and live relatively comfortably (not necessarily luxuriously, just comfortably.) In other words, I would work to research and learn constantly, as long as it provides me the means to keep on living happily with perhaps a small family. I can't really delve into specifics yet, since it is still a far way off, but I hope that vague description of what I want to do (learn/research for the rest of my life) can give you enough information.

Thanks for all the responses.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Although not directly related to the OP, I think this gentleman makes a few valid points. In particular, these two:

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200112/spotlight.cfm

At the PhD level, a recent American Institute of Physics (AIP) report[2] reveals that PhD production has been declining since 1994. The number of Americans entering physics graduate programs is the lowest in more than 30 years, although much of the slack has been taken up by an influx of students from foreign countries. Workforce needs in the US will be severely compromised if the economy stagnates and many of these foreign PhD recipients find it more attractive to return to their countries of origin to pursue their careers.

<snip>

Meaningful curriculum reform should be guided by the principle that physics education is not just for the purpose of producing professional physicists. Graduates with PhDs are often too specialized and have trouble adapting to nonacademic careers. Attitude changes are needed. No longer should the conferral of a master's degree be viewed as a consolation prize but rather as a valued and marketable degree that qualifies the recipient for a wide variety of lucrative and satisfying jobs. A number of schools are already providing alternative offerings including professional masters degree programs, career-skills courses, dual track undergraduate majors, and combined physics-business or physics-engineering majors.

I think the essay in the OP makes a valid point of what seems like a "post-doc threadmill". I noticed people who graduated in the prior to the 70s normally obtained a science Ph.D. almost "immediately"; now, I read the avg. time it takes to complete a Ph.D. in science is 5yrs. I applaud those who put themselves through a decade or more of academic preparation in the sciences but I'd rather get a BS in Physics and start solving real world problems.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Is this article accurate in that, no matter how hard I try, no matter how skillful I am, I will eventually end up 200k in debt with no job and no life?

Thanks, and I really want honest answers... Not the "follow your dreams" answer my guidance counselor may give me.

Right now, the biological and health sciences seem to be in favor. That's where the demand is and that's where a lot students are probably aiming. I'll guess that in ten years there will be an oversupply of graduate students in many areas of biology/medicine. That's the way these things are. When I entered college, there was a big demand for engineers. Later it was computer scientists. The current pessimism may lead to a shortage of grad students in physics over the next 5-10 years.

I wanted to be a meteorologist. However, jobs in that field have always been limited: government, academic or TV (if you're good looking and have a nice smile). Fortunately, I took too much math in my freshman year and found it difficult although I passed. I switched my major to pre-med mostly to raise my GPA and succeeded. I got into medical school and found I liked it. However, I never went into private practice. I became an emergency physician and found well paying jobs easily. I never thought I'd like it, but I did. I was on the front line for 10 to 12 hour stretches, worked hard for 4 days and got the next 4 days off. I was never on call and had six nights off almost every week.

When I got older, I went back to school for an MS in epidemiology, did a stint at NIH, then held satisfying jobs doing research in both government and industry. I never planned any of this. One thing just led to another. But I was practical about my next step when making a course change. I had to have reasonable expectations of future opportunities. Always keep that in mind. I never gave up meteorology, I just never got paid for doing it.

 

[xbomber88]

Ugh that article is so discouraging but unfortunately it's also probably a worthwhile read. I'm going into my senior year of undergrad and I've been going back and forth endlessly on whether or not I should continue with Physics and go into a PhD program or if I should just give up on Physics and go into engineering or finance or something. I have a 3.9 GPA from a decent school and I'd imagine I could get into a top 20 and maybe even top 10 school for grad school but I'm not sure if I want to deal with it. I love Physics but it seems ridiculous to go to school until you're 30 just to bounce around from low paying post-doc to post-doc trying to get a permanent job as a professor which is likely to never happen. Being able to get a $50,000 a year right out of college sounds really nice to me right now but at the same time I like Physics so much and I'm not sure I want to leave. I have a lot of thinking to do in the next few months.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Thanks, and I really want honest answers... Not the "follow your dreams" answer my guidance counselor may give me.

This is the same advice I would give. A PhD is only worth pursuing if you want to do it. Expanding on that, what I mean is that taking a PhD position to further career or employment prospects is a terrible idea. Similarly, don't do it 'just because it's the next stage' or 'just because you can'. It needs to be something you're passionate about - you will be commiting to living as a student for a few more years, and it will be extremely stressful into the bargain.

If you ask PhD graduates whether or not it is worth it - the ones who enjoy their subject matter will say yes. The ones who did it for reasons other than just for the love of the topic will almost always have a resounding no.

There are almost no jobs out there where having a PhD would hurt your prospects - you'd gain many valuable skills, but at the same time - the gain isn't enough to justify using that as a reason to go for the PhD.

 

[mxmm]

This is the same advice I would give. A PhD is only worth pursuing if you want to do it. Expanding on that, what I mean is that taking a PhD position to further career or employment prospects is a terrible idea. Similarly, don't do it 'just because it's the next stage' or 'just because you can'. It needs to be something you're passionate about - you will be commiting to living as a student for a few more years, and it will be extremely stressful into the bargain.

If you ask PhD graduates whether or not it is worth it - the ones who enjoy their subject matter will say yes. The ones who did it for reasons other than just for the love of the topic will almost always have a resounding no.

There are almost no jobs out there where having a PhD would hurt your prospects - you'd gain many valuable skills, but at the same time - the gain isn't enough to justify using that as a reason to go for the PhD.

See, I like that answer. It's strange, and it may be a consequence of growing up in a middle class household, but I really don't care much for money (as long as it isn't a huge obstacle to getting necessities) as long as I'm able to learn for the rest of my life. I find scientific research extremely fun, and I find new theory extremely interesting. If I am simply searching for learning, research, and occasional teaching, then, would this be a good choice? I know that I'll have to wait until the latter part of my undergrad to be sure about this passion, but as long as nothing changes in my heart, would anyone else suggest this course of action?

 

[fasterthanjoao]

but I really don't care much for money (as long as it isn't a huge obstacle to getting necessities) as long as I'm able to learn for the rest of my life.

Like most scientists, I care for money but care more for science. If you want to study science and find a subject you can see yourself working on for a number of years - if you have that kind of focus - then it sounds like a PhD might be for you. You should of course search for as much undergraduate research experience as you can, to help you be sure. It is obviously a big decision.

 

[mxmm]

Like most scientists, I care for money but care more for science. If you want to study science and find a subject you can see yourself working on for a number of years - if you have that kind of focus - then it sounds like a PhD might be for you. You should of course search for as much undergraduate research experience as you can, to help you be sure. It is obviously a big decision.

Ok. And sorry if I ask one more question... You guys have already answered a lot for me... But here it goes. My principal worry is really just being able to get a job in academia (not high school teacher, college academics), whether it pays $40k or $100k. Will such jobs be readily available (although not a tenured position) if I were to get my Ph.D from a prestigious top-tier school?

 

[redrzewski]

Note that continuously learning and exploring new scientific research areas doesn't require a PhD. Is your primary goal to do research in academia, or to just continue to grow yourself and learn new interesting things? If the latter, you can do anything you want as a day job to pay the bills, and then spend your free time researching whatever you like largely constraint free.

 

[Leptos]

If the latter, you can do anything you want as a day job to pay the bills, and then spend your free time researching whatever you like largely constraint free.

Sounds like what Sal Khan(founder of Khan Academy) did. He retired early from his job as a hedge fund analyst and now he makes free educational videos which help people all over the world.

 

[mxmm]

Note that continuously learning and exploring new scientific research areas doesn't require a PhD. Is your primary goal to do research in academia, or to just continue to grow yourself and learn new interesting things? If the latter, you can do anything you want as a day job to pay the bills, and then spend your free time researching whatever you like largely constraint free.

Well, my aims are both. I would love to learn, teach what I learn, and research as a profession.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Well, my aims are both. I would love to learn, teach what I learn, and research as a profession.

That's fine. But there's a catch. You must publish to advance your career and too often quantity takes precedence over quality. You must also be able to fund your research by obtaining grants. You need to devote time and energy to play that game with funding agencies. I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm just suggesting that academia isn't the cozy sinecure that some people suppose. There's a lot of politics and competition in those halls of ivy.

 

[DrDu]

I think the article by Katz is quite accurate. However, doing your PhD has the advantage, that if you are lucky you will be able to spend at least 5 years of your live doing something interesting. The shock with endless boredom in industry you'll have anyhow.

 

[redrzewski]

I recommend that you prioritize the things you're looking for from a career. So far, we have:

Tied for 1: research in academia, learn new things
3: money

There are a lot more aspects. Stress load, hours/week, job security, power, prestige, travel requirements, advancement opportunities, etc etc. Also, I'd recommend you break the tie for #1. Think in concrete terms.

Ex:
Scenario 1: you have an academia research position, and you're teaching the same courses over and over. You turn the crank on your research, and can pump out new papers without learning much.

Scenario 2: You don't have an academia position. In the evenings, you can forget your day job, and are free to study/learn/research whatever you want. You learn new things daily.

Etc. Do that exercise for all the variables you can think of, which'll help you figure out what sorts of jobs you're looking for.

Remember that you probably won't get a job that meets everything in your list of high priority job aspects. That's why prioritization is very important, since you want a job that'll meet your highest priorities.

For instance, if research in academia is your highest priority, than getting a PhD is clearly required.

 

[johnnyies]

There's there's a lot of mentions of saying that you should go for a more lucrative degree, and in your free time, you can do your own studying/research.

While it seems logical, wouldn't that take time out of other things you can enjoy in life. . . family and friends? Doesn't seem so practical.

 

[Pyrrhus]

A PhD is only worth as much value as you give it to it.

 

[murmillo]

Is it generally a good idea to become more financially secure (if you'e not already) before going for a Ph.D. program? I am considering getting a math Ph.D. but I'm worried that I might not be able to land a job in academia (which is what I'd want to do if I get a Ph.D.). Would working for a few years as, for example, an actuary just to get a more solid financial footing be a good idea? By the way, does anyone know how the job market for academics is in math?

 

[redrzewski]

I hope no one is reading my posts as pro self-study and against getting a PhD. I was just trying to explain my method for prioritizing what is important from a job via constructing hypothetical scenarios where one property is there, and another isn't. I wasn't trying to push any value judgements about my own personal preferences.

 

[SbF5]

You must publish to advance your career and too often quantity takes precedence over quality.

What kind of quantity though? I understand a mathematician needs to publish a lot less than a chemist would for example. What about for physicists?

 

[SbF5]

Is it generally a good idea to become more financially secure (if you'e not already) before going for a Ph.D. program? Would working for a few years as, for example, an actuary just to get a more solid financial footing be a good idea?

Once you leave, it is hard to come back and walk away from an actuary paycheck and health insurance for an 18to 25K per year stipend. It is good to have some savings but if you really want a PhD, just do it. If not you'll be sitting here 5 years from now telling yourself you could be done with a PhD if you hadn't taken that break.

 

[sshzp4]

PhD's, depending upon the city, get paid between 16-30K. 26-30K is for ColumbiaU, NY. 22K, MIT. 22K, CMU, Pittsburgh, 16/18/22K varies intradepartment for the mid west schools. And I have absolutely no clue about pays they lure grads at on the West coast. If you win an NSF GRFP/Hertz grant, you are rich, at around 50/55K per year. You can also win industry graduate fellowships. There's the Intel and microsoft graduate fellow awards and various others. The basic idea is, if you can win a grant, life is really really good. But there's no scope for FUps. You get reviewed every year so the pressure to write is very high, but that's good in a way.

Post docs in all universities, under federal grants, are around 40K. You don't get paid more unless you are on some post doctoral fellowship. If you work as a post doc in the industry, its about 70K, with the fed, about 55K, with Santa Fe (the omidiyyar fellowship), about 80K. NASA post doc fellowships vary between programs, again around 40K to 60K. The more post doctoral exp you have, the more the pay.
Prof salaries are base and only for teaching. So you don't get paid like in industry, however, you have the right to charge consultant fees from your grants for your time. Some people do weird sheet with grants though. Private schools pay more, but life is harder as well.

Oh, and all pay mentioned is before tax.

Math PhD's get sucked up by the band aid called google. Or amazon. Or any of your favorite pick of software MNCs. Another favorite place for math grads is NY, Manhattan working for QuantAnalyst companies. Look up D E Shaw and all their requirements. Anyway, whatever you do with your math degree, remember to be able to display 'statistics' somewhere on your resume, you will never have to worry about a job.

 

[twofish-quant]

After reading that page, I was extremely discouraged. It was the analogy of someone dreaming to be in the NBA seeing how impossible it is. However, is this image accurate, exaggerated, or outdated?

It's total non-sense. Live is unpleasant if you stay in academia and go tenure track, but there is a whole wide world of stuff that you can learn out there.

The reason I ask this is that over the past few years I've spent a lot of time learning mathematical and physical theory on my own, and I couldn't really see a future in which I'm happy without constantly learning more about the universe or mathematics.

Same here. However one thing that helps me is that I have a really broad definition of what the universe and mathematics entails. For example, I've become extremely fascinated by why Brazilian bonds have such weird holidays, and trying to understand that, gets you into history, economics, politics, even philosophy.

One thing reason I love industry and hate academia is that it was extremely stifling to my curiousity. You are only supposed to care about certain questions, and if it wasn't "physics" then you weren't supposed to be curious about them.

Is this article accurate in that, no matter how hard I try, no matter how skillful I am, I will eventually end up 200k in debt with no job and no life?

One *GREAT* thing about physics Ph.D.'s is that you end up with zero graduate school debt. If you go to law school, you have to be a lawyer, because you have to pay off your debt. If you get a physics Ph.D., you can open a pizza shop or sell shoes if you want, because you don't have this crushing debt load. I've found this to be really useful, because it means that I can figure out what career I want to get what I want. By random chance, it happens to be investment banking, but I could have easily ended up doing something very, very different if different things happened.

 

[twofish-quant]

The reason I want to get a PhD is because I want to be able to contribute to human knowledge in either the fields of mathematics or physics through original research and theory.

If that's what you want then it's quite simple. I contribute to human knowledge through mathematics and physics through original research and theory everyday. But...

If I'm honest with myself, that's not all I want. I grow up in an environment where I got lots of recognition and praise for being "smart" and one of the things that motivates me (like it does every else) is the social approval of people around you. It feels good to have the name Professor attached to you and get money and prizes. That's harder.

Let me ask you a question. Would you be willing to contribute to human knowledge if no one had any idea that you were doing it?

I also enjoy teaching those who are interested to learn math or physics, so having a teaching position alongside with a research position would be ideal.

Random question. Are you interested in teaching physics to people who *aren't* that interesting in math and physics and really don't have that much preparation?

Anyway, I like my job because I'm consistently both in teaching mode and learning mode. To give an example, each quarter I have to write a report about what I did that quarter, and at the end of the year, I have to write a one to two page summary of what I did that year, and how much bonus I get and whether I even have a job next year depends a lot on what I write on that report.

Personally, I think it's cool because it's *HARD* teaching. Basically I have to give a mini-math/physics lesson to people that may or may not be technical, and I have to do it in two pages. I have to explain some very complex technical concepts and explain exactly how those concepts make a difference in the profitability of the firm. I think it's pretty cool.

 

[Leptos]

One *GREAT* thing about physics Ph.D.'s is that you end up with zero graduate school debt. If you go to law school, you have to be a lawyer, because you have to pay off your debt. If you get a physics Ph.D., you can open a pizza shop or sell shoes if you want, because you don't have this crushing debt load. I've found this to be really useful, because it means that I can figure out what career I want to get what I want. By random chance, it happens to be investment banking, but I could have easily ended up doing something very, very different if different things happened.

Isn't it the same with math Ph.D.'s as well? There was some woman on the food channel who opened up a restaurant after getting her Ph.D in math from Harvard which sounds really weird, but her restaurant became quite popular. I assume it's not feasible for someone to start a business without leaving academia.

 

[twofish-quant]

Ugh that article is so discouraging but unfortunately it's also probably a worthwhile read. I'm going into my senior year of undergrad and I've been going back and forth endlessly on whether or not I should continue with Physics and go into a PhD program or if I should just give up on Physics and go into engineering or finance or something.

Getting a physics Ph.D's is a really good way of getting into finance. If you get a masters in finance, you end up with a 30% chance of working on Wall Street, and you leave with large debt. If you get a Ph.D. in physics, you have an 80-90% chance of working on Wall Street if you want to, no debt, and the starting salaries are roughly the same.

Right now, banks are hiring large numbers of physics and math Ph.D.'s because of the recent financial rules that got passed. If you want a teaching position, well...

You have a model that consists of three pages of complex stochastic integrals. Now, your job is to write a report that will go to senior management and ultimately the SEC and Federal Reserve justifying the model. Keep in mind, that a lot of the people that reading the report are non-technical people, so you have to get them to understand what is going on, and if after reading your report, they are confused about what's on the page, they will shut you down.

I love Physics but it seems ridiculous to go to school until you're 30 just to bounce around from low paying post-doc to post-doc trying to get a permanent job as a professor which is likely to never happen.

So don't go that route. That's not the only career path. One *huge* problem that physics departments have is that the only people that students meet are people in academia. It's rare that you get to talk with someone that has "escaped the penitentary and seen the world."

 

[twofish-quant]

PhD's, depending upon the city, get paid between 16-30K. 26-30K is for ColumbiaU, NY. 22K, MIT. 22K, CMU, Pittsburgh, 16/18/22K varies intradepartment for the mid west schools.

Also a lot of schools have cheap housing and day care which helps a lot.

One very important thing to keep in mind is that even though those numbers seem low (because they are), the school is paying *you*. You'll get out with zero graduate school debt. +$20K/year is better than -$50K/year

 

[mxmm]

If that's what you want then it's quite simple. I contribute to human knowledge through mathematics and physics through original research and theory everyday. But...

If I'm honest with myself, that's not all I want. I grow up in an environment where I got lots of recognition and praise for being "smart" and one of the things that motivates me (like it does every else) is the social approval of people around you. It feels good to have the name Professor attached to you and get money and prizes. That's harder.

Let me ask you a question. Would you be willing to contribute to human knowledge if no one had any idea that you were doing it?



Random question. Are you interested in teaching physics to people who *aren't* that interesting in math and physics and really don't have that much preparation?

Anyway, I like my job because I'm consistently both in teaching mode and learning mode. To give an example, each quarter I have to write a report about what I did that quarter, and at the end of the year, I have to write a one to two page summary of what I did that year, and how much bonus I get and whether I even have a job next year depends a lot on what I write on that report.

Personally, I think it's cool because it's *HARD* teaching. Basically I have to give a mini-math/physics lesson to people that may or may not be technical, and I have to do it in two pages. I have to explain some very complex technical concepts and explain exactly how those concepts make a difference in the profitability of the firm. I think it's pretty cool.

To your first question: I guess recognition is a factor in my desire to discover something, but it is not at all the complete motivation. One of the things that I take most pride in are 2 (probably) original proofs of the Pythagorean theorem, because they feel like my original creation and discovery; it is highly unlikely that people will ever praise me for that or I will receive any awards from it... I haven't really even told my teachers (barring one professor who verified it).

To your second question: I would not mind teaching someone who didn't have a lot of background knowledge; I would, however, not enjoy teaching someone who wasn't interested, although it may be necessary to do so at some points. The way I discovered this is due to a job that I had with tutoring all last year... Most of the time it was exhausting and very unenjoyable because their parents were forcing them to be tutored and they had absolutely no interest in the subject. However, sometimes there would be kids who would genuinely be interested, and who would have visible progress, and that was really the only enjoyable part of the job.

About my priorities... I guess I would rather have a constant increase in knowledge, but I really don't like the working/self-studying model... I would much rather have learning as my profession, rather than living a drab life that is temporarily lifted into enlightenment only to be again disappointed.

Also, I read the comments of a prospective math Ph.D... To be quite honest, I would favor getting a Math Ph.D to a Physics one. If I were to get involved to some extent in statistics, would my job prospects with a Math Ph.D be relatively positive?

Again, thanks for all the feedback.

 

[johnnyies]

Getting a physics Ph.D's is a really good way of getting into finance. If you get a masters in finance, you end up with a 30% chance of working on Wall Street, and you leave with large debt. If you get a Ph.D. in physics, you have an 80-90% chance of working on Wall Street if you want to, no debt, and the starting salaries are roughly the same.

Right now, banks are hiring large numbers of physics and math Ph.D.'s because of the recent financial rules that got passed. If you want a teaching position, well...

You have a model that consists of three pages of complex stochastic integrals. Now, your job is to write a report that will go to senior management and ultimately the SEC and Federal Reserve justifying the model. Keep in mind, that a lot of the people that reading the report are non-technical people, so you have to get them to understand what is going on, and if after reading your report, they are confused about what's on the page, they will shut you down.

What's the starting salary for a physics/math major at Wall Street? I doubt any salary will be enough to live in New York. College grads are fleeing that state because of the high cost of living. Probably should 'risk' it with academia.

 

[arunma]

Hi, I'm new to these forums, and sorry if I just jumped into this board without much reputation and asking demanding questions... but this thread is really the reason I made an account, since this is the easiest way I can ask for a large number of PhDs' honest opinions.

First some background. I'm an upcoming senior, and I plan to apply to top-tier schools and I think that I have the SAT's and other stats to get into at least some of them. My plan then was to possibly double major in physics and mathematics at that university and try to get into a good grad school. However, last night, on one of my stumbleupon excursions, I unfortunately came to this page: http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

After reading that page, I was extremely discouraged. It was the analogy of someone dreaming to be in the NBA seeing how impossible it is. However, is this image accurate, exaggerated, or outdated? The reason I ask this is that over the past few years I've spent a lot of time learning mathematical and physical theory on my own, and I couldn't really see a future in which I'm happy without constantly learning more about the universe or mathematics. I believe I have the skill and determination to make a good scientist (many may thinks it's too early to tell on this board or see this as arrogance, but I honestly believe that I have what is needed.) Is this article accurate in that, no matter how hard I try, no matter how skillful I am, I will eventually end up 200k in debt with no job and no life?

Thanks, and I really want honest answers... Not the "follow your dreams" answer my guidance counselor may give me.

Personally I think that Dr. Katz is pretty much right; getting a PhD is lame. But you shouldn't listen to me since I'm just a PhD student, so I'm probably just going through that phase where you get pissed off at physics and wonder what it would be like to go the industry route.

 

[eliya]

I'm new here and I don't have a PhD, in fact, I'm just starting my B.S. now.

The fact that Katz' article is on a university website and not just somewhere on the internet is making me feel that its purpose is to serve as a filter. I mean, they put it there for students to read and to deter those who want to get a PhD for the wrong reasons, those who really want to get a PhD will pursue it anyway.

I really can't comment on how much work there is for Physics PhD's in academia, but it all reminds me how my parents always warned me to not become a musician. Generally speaking, they were and still are right. It's hard to make a living as a musician, but it's totally doable if you really want it as your job. You might need to make some sacrifices and it might suck in the beginning, but eventually you will find your sweet spot.

I know that being a musician is far from being a physicist, and that one might give up more for becoming a physicist than if he or she chose to become a musician. However, the comparison is still valid because they're both fields that don't have a lot of open positions, and if it really is what you want to do, then you should go for it.

 

[twofish-quant]

What's the starting salary for a physics/math major at Wall Street? I doubt any salary will be enough to live in New York.

Starting salary for a physics Ph.D. quant on Wall Street is $100K + 50% bonus. You won't be living on Park Avenue, but it's decent even for NYC, and it's comparable to starting salaries for MBA analysts.

The one big catch in being a physics geek on Wall Street, is that you have to live in a major finance center (NYC, London, Hong Kong, or Singapore). This is cool if you like NYC. If you hate NYC, then you are better off not going into this type of finance. $120K in NYC works out to $80K elsewhere in the US.

College grads are fleeing that state because of the high cost of living. Probably should 'risk' it with academia.

It's more of a lifestyle choice than anything else.

 

[arunma]

I'm new here and I don't have a PhD, in fact, I'm just starting my B.S. now.

The fact that Katz' article is on a university website and not just somewhere on the internet is making me feel that its purpose is to serve as a filter. I mean, they put it there for students to read and to deter those who want to get a PhD for the wrong reasons, those who really want to get a PhD will pursue it anyway.

Eh...even though I fully agree with Katz, I feel I should point one thing out. Just because it's on a university website doesn't mean the university endorses it. Dr. Katz has tenure, and one of the ideas behind tenure is that professors can say whatever they want without losing their jobs. Within reason, he's free to express his opinion on his website, and they can't stop him. If you take a look at Dr. Katz's other essays and musings, you'll find he's got a lot of weird things to say. In one article he defends homophobia, and in another he talks about the importance of terrorism (however you feel about these issues, it's clearly not the sort of thing a university would endorse). I recall reading somewhere that the university states that they don't endorse his essays.

Anyway, Katz's article has been around for awhile. The first time I read it, I dismissed it as stupidity. Personally I think that Dr. Katz himself is a nutjob. I independently came to the conclusion that getting a PhD was a complete waste of my time. Unfortunately it was just a few months ago, I was in the middle of year three of grad school by then, and at that point I figured it's worth completing just so I can go around calling myself doctor too.

I really can't comment on how much work there is for Physics PhD's in academia, but it all reminds me how my parents always warned me to not become a musician. Generally speaking, they were and still are right. It's hard to make a living as a musician, but it's totally doable if you really want it as your job. You might need to make some sacrifices and it might suck in the beginning, but eventually you will find your sweet spot.

I hope someone will come here and correct me, since I don't want to be right about this. But I'm not sure if physics PhDs do necessarily find that sweet spot. I know of one postdoc in my research group who was running what Katz would call the postdoc treadmill for something like six years. He didn't get a tenure-track professorship, has mentioned that he would gladly leave physics if another job opportunity presented itself, and ended up taking a non-tenure-track physics job which he isn't too happy about. I know that all the successful physics PhDs will talk about how anyone can make it in physics if they apply themselves (and this guy is really good at his job), but when you're approaching your mid-thirties and haven't found a permanent position as a physicist, I have to wonder if Katz is right and the whole system is broken.

Oh, I'm not just working off of one data point here. I know another former postdoc who now lives with his parents. I know another who ended up teaching middle school. And of course there's no short supply of PhDs who ended up being programmers. Sure that's not a bad gig, but I could have gotten a B.S. in computer engineering and saved six years of my life if I wanted to do that.

So anyway, I really have to agree with the nutjob on this one. Physics isn't a religious vocation, it's a job. And it would be nice if physics PhDs could find stable, 40 hour/week jobs that pay well enough to afford house and support a family of four. To me that seems like the mark of a "sweet spot," and I don't see many physicists getting there apart from the tenured faculty. Am I missing something? Am I just hanging out with the wrong physicists?

I know that being a musician is far from being a physicist...

I'm not so sure about that. Like you, my parents warned me not to become a musician, except that instead of musician they said physicist. I sort of feel like I've run off to join a rock band. I'm doing what I love, and I have few ways of actually making money by doing it. But hey, I'm about as disgruntled as Katz, so what do I know?

I guess I'm going with DrDu's recommendation and treating my PhD as my last chance to do something interesting. After that I'll probably ditch physics altogether for something with better job security.

 

[cristo]

I independently came to the conclusion that getting a PhD was a complete waste of my time. Unfortunately it was just a few months ago, I was in the middle of year three of grad school by then, and at that point I figured it's worth completing just so I can go around calling myself doctor too.

How can doing a PhD be a "complete waste of your time"? If this is the case, then you are doing something wrong!

 

[Goldbeetle]

IMHO a PhD is worth in a group that were you learn how to do research in a serious and rigorous. This opens you careers in academics or if your decide to leave it teaches your skills that are valuable in business.

 

[twofish-quant]

I know that all the successful physics PhDs will talk about how anyone can make it in physics if they apply themselves (and this guy is really good at his job), but when you're approaching your mid-thirties and haven't found a permanent position as a physicist, I have to wonder if Katz is right and the whole system is broken.

Your odds of getting a tenured track faculty position in a research university with a Ph.D. is about 1 in 6.

A lot depends on what you define as success. By a lot of definitions I'm a total loser. Like a lot of other people, I went into graduate school expecting to be tenured faculty, and I figured out that I couldn't. Most people don't think of me as a physicist or even as a scientist.

I do think the system is seriously broken, but I think a lot of that breakage is because people going into physics aren't given accurate career advice.

I know another former postdoc who now lives with his parents. I know another who ended up teaching middle school. And of course there's no short supply of PhDs who ended up being programmers. Sure that's not a bad gig, but I could have gotten a B.S. in computer engineering and saved six years of my life if I wanted to do that.

Not the type of programming I do. Saying that someone "programs computers" is like saying someone "writes English." There are a lot of different types of computer programming, and the type of programming that I do would be impossible to do without my having done a physics Ph.D. or something equivalent. If you show up my company with just a bachelors or a masters with no job experience, you aren't going to get past the first screening, because you are just not going to have the right skills.

Also save six years of your life and then do what? One thing that I like about my job is that I'm still mostly doing more or less what I did in graduate school.

Physics isn't a religious vocation, it's a job. And it would be nice if physics PhDs could find stable, 40 hour/week jobs that pay well enough to afford house and support a family of four.

And they can. I don't know of a *single* physics Ph.D. that can't afford a middle class life style, and given the really bad state of the economy, that's means something. There are people that are doing things other than physics, most most are doing something science-like.

And for me, physics *is* a religious vocation.

I sort of feel like I've run off to join a rock band. I'm doing what I love, and I have few ways of actually making money by doing it.

That's because you are getting really bad career advice.

 

[mxmm]

Can anyone answer for me about whether or not the prospects of a Math PhD are brighter than a Physics PhD?

 

[deRham]

In regards to the system being broken, let me add - the famous mathematician and pioneer of an entire field, Alain Connes, I think believes that in America, a problem is the extreme emphasis, compared to some parts of Europe, on rapid publication. The publish or perish mentality can be stifling, because it makes it more likely that someone will enter a PhD and learn a bunch of really scary-sounding technical stuff and then publish a bunch of stuff involving it, so it looks impressive, in order to get a job. This probably goes along with the several years on the postdoc treadmill issue in making the pursuit of
academic career paths less attractive.

Then again, luckily there are people out there kind enough to tell us about non-academic career paths.

 

[arunma]

That's because you are getting really bad career advice.

Maybe that's the case. Indeed, in my department no one really says anything about industry careers. Except of course for the condensed matter people. Anyway, thanks for sharing your own experiences. As usual, they give me hope that perhaps there is some possibility of getting a normal job with a physics PhD.

How can doing a PhD be a "complete waste of your time"? If this is the case, then you are doing something wrong!

Well the problem is that before grad school, I didn't know how low the chances are of getting a tenure-track position. So essentially I'm getting a PhD which will prove useless in achieving my original goal. What am I doing wrong?

 

[twofish-quant]

In regards to the system being broken, let me add - the famous mathematician and pioneer of an entire field, Alain Connes, I think believes that in America, a problem is the extreme emphasis, compared to some parts of Europe, on rapid publication.

I think the problem is more fundamental. Academia encourages professionalization and specialization, and that's just not economically viable. At the end of the day, you can't have a society that is all philosopher-kings. Someone has got to plow the fields and clean the toilets.

The publish or perish mentality can be stifling, because it makes it more likely that someone will enter a PhD and learn a bunch of really scary-sounding technical stuff and then publish a bunch of stuff involving it, so it looks impressive, in order to get a job.

Oh that's not the problem. I don't have much of a problem going through the publication maze if it meant a job. The trouble the jobs aren't there, and when the music stops, and there are two jobs for ten people, eight people are going to be out of luck.

This probably goes along with the several years on the postdoc treadmill issue in making the pursuit of academic career paths less attractive.

It's not the thread mill that's the problem, it's the reality that for most people, there is nothing at the end of it.

 

[twofish-quant]

Maybe that's the case. Indeed, in my department no one really says anything about industry careers. Except of course for the condensed matter people. Anyway, thanks for sharing your own experiences. As usual, they give me hope that perhaps there is some possibility of getting a normal job with a physics PhD.

The weird thing is that there is *TONS* of data on careers for physics Ph.D.'s. going back decades.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40219068

The really weird thing is that it's not a new problem...

http://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/CWB.html

The question I'm curious about is how the world's smartest people can be such idiots when it comes to this sort of thing. The answer I've come up with is that smart people are still people and people can be idiots.

Well the problem is that before grad school, I didn't know how low the chances are of getting a tenure-track position. So essentially I'm getting a PhD which will prove useless in achieving my original goal. What am I doing wrong?

You are doing nothing at all wrong...

 

[DrummingAtom]

I've read this entire thread and still feel as if most that get or want to get a PhD have *no* desire to work in Industry. I know a lot of my professors haven't done anything in Industry. Which, in my opinion, is a failure for what they pretend to be. I hear things like "you can use these skills when applying for jobs" or "this is what employers want." It sounds like a bunch of lies.

Two-fish, I know you've stepped out of Academia. Was that decision made in Grad school or before hand?

Are there any PhD's (or future PhD's) that don't want to be in Academia? Is this not a realistic view of why you should get a PhD?

 

[deRham]

"Oh that's not the problem. I don't have much of a problem going through the publication maze if it meant a job. The trouble the jobs aren't there, and when the music stops, and there are two jobs for ten people, eight people are going to be out of luck."

Well, it is the problem from the eyes of a mathematician, who contrasts the American system with others, because after all, he sees everything from the eyes of academia and its own productivity.

Now sure, I agree that the very system of academia has problems and doesn't give accurate career advice like you say.

 

[deRham]

Basically, even if you're willing to go through the publication maze, it doesn't mean that's the ideal system for academic innovation, is I think the point.

 

[jf22901]

Are there any PhD's (or future PhD's) that don't want to be in Academia? Is this not a realistic view of why you should get a PhD?

I'll hopefully obtain my PhD in 2013 (modelling water-ice clouds in the Martian atmosphere), and I don't mind whether I'm in academia afterwards or not. My main interests are exoplanets and atmospheric physics, and when deciding what area to do my PhD in, I thought hard about future employment options.

With a PhD relating to exoplanets I'd pretty much limit myself to a career in academia. With a PhD in atmospheric physics I could work in academia (studying the atmosphere of the Earth, Solar System planets or exoplanets), or work in industry (researching the Earth's atmosphere, climate change, or being involved in weather forecasting).

Since I liked both topics equally, the choice was a no-brainer. And if after my PhD I got an atmosphere/weather related job in industry rather than academia, then I'd be perfectly happy. (In fact, a job in industry would allow me to work on a subject area I love without the hassle of obtaining grants, organizing lectures, marking papers etc, so would probably be better!)

I should note that I worked in industry full-time for 10 years prior to quitting to study for a physics degree (it was just a boring paper-shuffling office job though).

 

[Nick R]

Here is a question:

experimental physics requires lots of money because it relies on equipment... Lots of big and expensive equipment.

theoretical physics - pen, paper, computer? What expensive equipment could you possibly need?

So wouldn't going with theory put you in a position where you aren't spending all your time writing papers to get money form the government?

Or is the main push to publish the evaluations from other faculty? Who or what requires these evaluations?

Is it just really hard to get a tenure position as a theorist? If professors are only paid 35k or something, then why is it difficult for schools to hire many of them? 35k is tuition for two out of state students, or a couple thousand football tickets - schools are rich.

 

[deRham]

Tenure positions pay more than 35K for sure.

Schools pay for lots of other things, though, other than professors - facilities, etc. And I wouldn't even think of it this way.

Who needs another ton of philosophizing lala-land inhabitants? I'm sure schools realize that there are a ton of PhDs waiting to work for dirt cheap, so they can tread the treadmill more, so there's no pressure on the schools really.