Is a Career in Science Really Worth the Investment?

[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.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

It's largely because most Ph.D.'s have been brainwashed to think that if they do anything other than become a tenured professor, they are a total failure, and not fit to walk the earth. It took me a few *years* to get around the brainwashing.

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

It's less decision than damage control.

If I thought I realistically had any chance of becoming a professor at a big name research university, I wouldn't have left, but it was quite obvious that this wasn't going to happen. OK, now what?

Are there any PhD's (or future PhD's) that don't want to be in Academia?

What is "academia"?

I want to live the "life of the mind". Work on interesting problems, do useful things, help the world, and spend my time thinking deeply. That's what I do. It turns out that I don't work at a university. So what?

If the Harvard physics department offered me a tenured faculty position today at 50% my current salary, I'd take it in two seconds. That's not going to happen. So given what *can* happen, what can I do to get what I want?

As far as I'm concerned, I am in academia and I secretly think of myself as a "secret professor". I teach, I do research, and I do community service. I don't have a nice title, and no one other than me knows that I'm a physics professor, but I don't care.

Is this not a realistic view of why you should get a PhD?

You should get a Ph.D. because you want a Ph.D. If it turned out that the only thing that I could do with a Ph.D. was to sell shoes, then I'd still get the Ph.D.

 

[twofish-quant]

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

You need *LOTS* of computing power. Data centers with tens of millions of dollars of computing equipment. You also need people's time and you need administrative support staff. Having a bright, cheery assistant that knows that you need to file form TR-501 and *NOT* TR-503 to get reimbursement for travel expenses will save you hours of headache.

Office space, travel, admin staff, office computers. It all costs money. Not totally insane amounts of money, but it does cost money.

Also you need *graduate students*. When you are a professor, you are an administrator for a small research group. If you don't have bright graduate students that help you do grunt work and work with you to author papers, you aren't going to be able to get much done.

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?

No. Also you have to work with experimentalists. If you don't have data from telescopes and spacecraft , then you aren't going be able to do anything useful. Also, if you don't help experimentalists with their grant proposals, then they aren't going to let you look at the "not ready for publication" raw data that they have.

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

There is an "up or out" system. If you don't get tenure in seven years, you are gone. There are a lot of rules (sometimes arcane rules) that are intended to maintain the academic power structure. If they don't like you, you aren't getting promoted, and you aren't going to get into the upper levels of the power structure. This is how the structure reproduces itself.

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?

Junior physics professors make about $85K. Senior ones can make $150K. Also professors are hard to hire because they are hard to fire. Once you've granted tenure, it's practically impossible to fire a professor, which means that you are making a very long run financial commitment. Also tenured faculty have *power*. They are the people that make the decisions, and you want someone that has really been brainwashed into the club.

35k is tuition for two out of state students, or a couple thousand football tickets - schools are rich.

Part of the fun of administration is getting to the money.

 

[twofish-quant]

The other thing is that the system all makes sense if you think of academia as just another power structure that is intent on maintaining its power. The tenure system is in place to insure that the people that end up with any real power don't rock the boat in unacceptable ways.

That's fine, since academia is just another bureaucracy in which you have to sometimes shut up and climb the ladder. Society is dominated by those bureaucracies. Ultimately there is a small ruling elite that controls the social systems for their own purposes. Nothing wrong with that.

Except academia was *supposed* to be different. It's not.

This makes a difference in career choices. The mythology of academia is that it's the place where you are supposed to be free to think and to speak out, and industry is the place where people have to wear chains and submit to corporate task masters. My experience is that this isn't the case, since you have to wear chains in both places.

In big corporations, yes, you do have to take orders and do what you are told, but there is a lot of freedom in what you say and think once you've mastered the art of corporate speak, and because I have money in the bank, and I can walk out if things get bad, I feel more free than I did in the university.

Also even when there isn't freedom, at least there isn't hypocrisy. We are in charge. You are an employee. We are here to make money. We'll be nice to you as long as you are profitable, but you are gone if we think you are a liability to us. We'll listen to you ***** and moan, if you can convince us if you can help us make money, but if you can't, then shut up.

Cool. People are honest. It's quite refreshing. Also, I've found that I can ***** and moan without getting into trouble a lot if I master the art of corporate code words and smile a lot.

So if its a choice between climbing the bureaucratic ladder in an university and climbing the bureaucratic ladder in some large corporation, I'm not sure I see the difference, especially since large corporations are letting me onto their treadmill whereas universities aren't.

 

[Nick R]

Wow sounds like a lose-lose situation.

I guess this is why we were making more progress when science was controlled by rich hobbyists. Seems like accountability systems basically just load you down with overhead until you're spending all you time doing things that aren't useful (and they're there because people get promoted for putting them in place).

Well at least graduate school sounds like a good gig - spend 15 hours a week doing labs and such and spend the rest of your time learning (even if most of that is fretting over memorizing techniques to solve particular problems so you can pass tests - I don't see the difference from this and memorizing names of birds or something).

 

[twofish-quant]

I guess this is why we were making more progress when science was controlled by rich hobbyists.

When was that? At least in the 20th century, science has been a tool by the power elite to maintain global domination.

Not that I have any problem with that.

Seems like accountability systems basically just load you down with overhead until you're spending all you time doing things that aren't useful (and they're there because people get promoted for putting them in place).

It's quite useful. Take one step to the left. That's easy. Now try to arrange things so that 25,000 people takes one step to the left at the same time. That's hard. Coordinating large bureaucratic systems is quite useful work, and I'm glad someone else is doing it so I don't have to worry about it.

Much of the university or corporation exists because you have tons of people that do the necessary bureaucracy so that people that don't like the stuff don't have to do it.

Much of these systems exist because we are dealing with large amounts of money and power. If you have a $5 billion project, you have tons of people looking at each other to see whether or not the money goes missing, and another ton of people arguing whether or not we really should be spending $5 billion.

Well at least graduate school sounds like a good gig - spend 15 hours a week doing labs and such and spend the rest of your time learning (even if most of that is fretting over memorizing techniques to solve particular problems so you can pass tests - I don't see the difference from this and memorizing names of birds or something).

Ummmm... No. That's not what graduate school is like. One thing to remember when you are a Ph.D. student, is that you are a Ph.D. student from the time you wake up until the time you fall asleep.

 

[Mathnomalous]

From where I stand, current Academia seems like a scam. Many people on a conveyor belt trying to reach extremely limited spots. The majority seem to be spat out by the system and the few that do make it have to wait until the "Old Guard" dies to make any kind of meaningful progress. The many that are spat out are then "left out in the cold", with little to no debt but no enough earnings anyway.

The part I can not understand is why does it take 5+ years to obtain a Ph.D. when many in the previous generations were obtaining their Ph.D. within 3 years.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's largely because most Ph.D.'s have been brainwashed to think that if they do anything other than become a tenured professor, they are a total failure, and not fit to walk the earth. It took me a few *years* to get around the brainwashing.

When exactly is this brainwashing done? And by whom?

We have people just starting high school, for heavens sake, who come here and want to figure out exactly how to become a university professor.

Where I think the brainwashing occurs is the idea that a degree prepares you for exactly one job, and indeed, guarantees someone will hire you to do this single job. Which is, of course, utter flapdoodle.

 

[twofish-quant]

The majority seem to be spat out by the system and the few that do make it have to wait until the "Old Guard" dies to make any kind of meaningful progress.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

I remember back in the early 1990's, when the NSF was talking about the huge number of openings that will happen once the Sputnik generation retires. Didn't happen. The problem is that when someone retires, they don't necessarily replace them, and also the system is such that once someone retires, they aren't going to hire you if you've been out of the loop for a few years.

The many that are spat out are then "left out in the cold", with little to no debt but no enough earnings anyway.

It's not that bad. It's pretty good in some ways. Personally, the big problem that I had was to stop thinking of myself as a miserable failure, and start thinking of myself as "normal." The interesting thing is that if people had told me from freshman year college that I had zero chance of becoming faculty, it would have been more enjoyable.

The part I can not understand is why does it take 5+ years to obtain a Ph.D. when many in the previous generations were obtaining their Ph.D. within 3 years.

Looking at the AIP statistics the time for Ph.D. since 1960 has remained more or less constant. There might be some differences pre-WWII, but anything pre-WWII is different enough to be a different degree.

 

[twofish-quant]

When exactly is this brainwashing done? And by whom?

And how?

The thing that I find weird is no one ever had a lecture in which someone explicitly said "here are the rules" So it's quite interesting how I managed to end up believe what I believe.

We have people just starting high school, for heavens sake, who come here and want to figure out exactly how to become a university professor.

A lot of people's beliefs about how the world works and their place in it come very early. When I read some old letters by my father that were written before I was born, a lot of stuff started making sense, and then there was a conversation with my uncle about things that happened to my grandfather before my father was born.

Where I think the brainwashing occurs is the idea that a degree prepares you for exactly one job, and indeed, guarantees someone will hire you to do this single job. Which is, of course, utter flapdoodle.

I wouldn't put it as "of course." Lot's of reasonably intelligent people believe it, and it's interesting to figure out why they believe it.

Which is why it is interesting that college marketing and admissions departments emphasize that sort of thing in their admissions material. Come to school X and be a success!

There is one basic economic reality that people will not pay much money in order to learn Greek literature. If you tell people, this is interesting stuff, will make you a better person. Totally useless for getting a job, you aren't going to make much money from this. If you want to convince people to fork over large sums of money, the way to do that is go convince them that they will make more money, which pulls universities into the success/academia loop.

I should point out that there is nothing wrong with having a degree that prepares you for a job and let's you earn a reasonable amount of money at it. An associate of science in plumbing is that sort of degree, and I think the demand for that sort of degree is a lot higher than that for Ph.D.'s.

 

[twofish-quant]

There's also a huge, massive. and well-intentioned effort to get kids interested in science, and so there are lots of media messages encouraging kids to study hard and become scientists.

 

[twofish-quant]

We have people just starting high school, for heavens sake, who come here and want to figure out exactly how to become a university professor.

Maybe this is why...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-launches-educate-innovate-campaign-excellence-science-technology-en

So do we want more scientists or not?

What I find interesting is why there is this high level effort to have people become scientists and not Buddhist priests or experts in Peruvian literature. It's all because of this money and power thing (not that there is anything wrong with that).