Near the End of A PhD and Have No Job

[twofish-quant]

Bad day for me overall. I've applied to another 30 jobs just this last week alone, in various industries. Got three rejections today, all from DCs, that were all positions I was really optimistic about.

One thing that helped me was to "be numb." If I got optimistic about something then it was depressing when nothing happened. So I just got emotion-less when I send out the resumes. Viewing sending out resumes as something like taking out the trash, helps a lot.

Also if you get immediate rejections, that means that the companies are likely under hiring freeze so there are no jobs to be had. Something to be aware of is that right now the US economy is at the edge of a cliff, and if the US doesn't come up with a budget deal before 8/2, then we are looking at a disaster of Biblical proportions...

Peter Venkman: Or you can accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff!
Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Ray Stanz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
Winston Zeddmore: The dead rising from the grave!
Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
Mayor: Enough! I get the point! And what if you're wrong?
Peter Venkman: If we're wrong, then nothing happens. We go to jail, peacefully, quietly. We'll enjoy it

Right now, no one that is dependent on any government money is hiring, because everything depends on what happens between now and August 2. I'm hoping that this is all political theater, because there is a decent chance that things are going to go from bad to very, very, very bad.

Within 24-48 hours of the app going out, I got an email that didn't even give any feedback. :(

That likely means that there are no jobs at all, so even if you could walk on water, it doesn't matter.

I'm trying my damnest to keep optimistic, but when I can't even get past the damned computer on entry level things just asking for B.S. degrees, I want to scream.

Something that helped was *NOT* to be optimistic. It actually felt better to feel bad. The other thing that helped was the game "things could be worse."

Something else that I tried to avoid doing was to think "well if I did this other thing then things would be fine." The reason for not thinking that was that first it's not likely to be true. I'm pretty sure that bachelors with engineering degrees are getting rejection letters faster than you are. The second thing is that even if it is true, it doesn't matter. The important thing is to keep swinging at the ball, and anything that keeps you from doing that is useful.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Twofish-quant,

I am of the concerted opinion (I could be wrong, but likely not) that much of what is happening related to the debt-ceiling is just pure political theatre, and that by August 2 (or probably the day before) a deal will be reached between the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress.

It will be a cliffhanger, but given the importance of the debt-ceiling and the consequences of the US being in a technical default, cooler and responsible heads will prevail, in spite of all the noises from the right-wing extremist Tea Partiers within the Republican party.

 

[Astro_Dude]

I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for you. There was a time in my life where I was between jobs and it took me almost 4 months and 100 job applications before I found my next job.

The key thing is persistence. You can send your resume and cover letter to >100 jobs, and the vast majority (perhaps upwards of 80-90%) would end up being rejected., but it's the other 10-20% though that will get you in the door.

Also, just because you were rejected (or didn't get a response) doesn't automatically mean that the company has forgotten about you. Many companies keep your resumes on file for upwards to a year, sometimes 2 years, and when new positions open up will contact those who they haven't placed, particularly those with impressive credentials. I have had companies contact me almost 6 months later asking to interview me for a position that just opened up.

In the worst of times, it feels like a total waste. I understand that I'm very qualified and have more skills than most anyone my age. Heck, almost all of us on this site are in that kind of position. In the end though, it just is just maddening to think that after spending 10 years with (pretty much) no life, I *still* don't have what is needed for most positions that are interesting. I know people with humanities degrees who have gotten engineering jobs more easily.

As I've said, I know I got to keep optimistic, not always easy though! Heck, last night, some friends of mine came up three physics/eng companies I hadn't thought of... and of course none of the three had anything that I qualify for. :(

Must keep trying though!

Same here. One of the more useful bits of education that I learned was from salesmen that I worked with. The thing about salesmen is that getting rejected is part of the job, and after the first 30 rejections, you stop caring about people saying no. Some of my friends were telemarketers in college, and that's a very useful job to prepare you for the job hunt.

Something that helped me was to consider that my job was to find a job. I got up every morning at 8:30, went to my office (i.e. a local coffee house) and spend the entire day until 6:00 busy working. The other thing that I did that helped was to think deeply about my situation. What happens with a lot of people is that the demand that you do something right now means no time to think about abstract things, but in order to keep sane, I ended up thinking about economics and physics, and reading a lot of math.

I'm somewhat lucky that I have something that I can do the next few months to keep alive while I look more. I can't imagine having to work in retail again... but I guess you got to do what you got to do.

Dark humor also helped. One thing that I did was to imagine myself being Gordon Gekko stuck the play Glen Garry Glen Ross. The weird part was that I really *was* stuck in the play Glen Garry Glen Ross.One other bit of drama that helped was the Star Trek: TOS episode "The Enemy Within." It was my inner "evil Kirk" that got me through that period.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'M CAPTAIN KIIIIIIIIIIIRK

One thing that helped me was to "be numb." If I got optimistic about something then it was depressing when nothing happened. So I just got emotion-less when I send out the resumes. Viewing sending out resumes as something like taking out the trash, helps a lot.

Most rejections I just giggle at this point. It's the ones that I thought I had the best chance at that are frustrating.

Also if you get immediate rejections, that means that the companies are likely under hiring freeze so there are no jobs to be had. Something to be aware of is that right now the US economy is at the edge of a cliff, and if the US doesn't come up with a budget deal before 8/2, then we are looking at a disaster of Biblical proportions...

I'd be interested to know what the perception of this is on Wall Street. Because really, the people I know on Wall Street seem to have a much better bead on what's really going on in these types of debates.

That likely means that there are no jobs at all, so even if you could walk on water, it doesn't matter.

But if there's no jobs, why advertise positions on the website? Isn't that just a waste of everyone's time?

Something else that I tried to avoid doing was to think "well if I did this other thing then things would be fine." The reason for not thinking that was that first it's not likely to be true. I'm pretty sure that bachelors with engineering degrees are getting rejection letters faster than you are. The second thing is that even if it is true, it doesn't matter. The important thing is to keep swinging at the ball, and anything that keeps you from doing that is useful.

Understood. One thing I tend to forget when I think that I should have gone into engineering is that engineers are a dime a dozen. Physics PhDs are not.

 

[nobelium102]

omg you are scarrrrring me,,,,,,,,,,,
I wanted to do physics and math major :(

can't you try teaching high school? (my high school teacher has phd)
Dude, i thought if you had phD you are like a professor or something

 

[twofish-quant]

I am of the concerted opinion (I could be wrong, but likely not) that much of what is happening related to the debt-ceiling is just pure political theatre, and that by August 2 (or probably the day before) a deal will be reached between the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress.

Oh. I think that too, but the problem with threatening to jump off a cliff is that even if you don't mean to do it, you might slip.

The other thing is that there are some pretty interesting game theory elements as to what is going on. You have your finger on the button of a bomb that will blow everyone up. Now no rational person would press that button, but if you know that the other person is rational, you can bargain pretty hard knowing that they won't press that button. So part of convincing someone to do what you want is to make people think that you are nuts.

Also even if they do come up with a budget deal, no one has any clue what it looks like which means that even in the best case scenario, no one that depends on government funding is hiring right now, because even in the absence of a default, no one knows who is going to get cut.

 

[twofish-quant]

omg you are scarrrrring me,,,,,,,,,,,
I wanted to do physics and math major :(

The world is a scary place.

Also, I don't want to dissuade you from doing a physics and math major. Part of the situation is that we have a lousy economy, but a lousy economy hits pretty much everyone, so even though you might be in a bad situation if you major in physics and math, what else are you going to do? Every other major is bad or worse.

 

[twofish-quant]

In the end though, it just is just maddening to think that after spending 10 years with (pretty much) no life, I *still* don't have what is needed for most positions that are interesting. I know people with humanities degrees who have gotten engineering jobs more easily.

One thing that I figured out when I went out into the "real world" is that getting a job involves learning a lot of skills that aren't obviously taught in the Ph.D. program. One of which is how not to go insane with a ton of rejections.

As I've said, I know I got to keep optimistic, not always easy though!

Personally, I find that optimism doesn't work that well.

Cynicism and a taste for the absurd works better for me. Also, I found that looking for work left me profoundly angry, and a lot of the "how not to go too crazy" was to deal with the anger. It turns out that for me, anger was useful. The thing that I had to worry about most was getting so depressed that I couldn't get out of bed, but the nice thing about getting angry was that getting angry gets you out of bed.

I'd be interested to know what the perception of this is on Wall Street. Because really, the people I know on Wall Street seem to have a much better bead on what's really going on in these types of debates.

I don't think there is a consensus. Also there is an element of self-interest here. I'm a little worried that the economy is becoming too finance focus, but on the other hand, I'm obviously not going to advocate "shoot the bankers" policies.

But if there's no jobs, why advertise positions on the website? Isn't that just a waste of everyone's time?

Because it takes time to clean up the website, and sometimes the truth (i.e. not only are we not hiring, but we are just laid off a thousand people and moving operations to India) looks bad on a website. It's an obvious waste of the time of job seekers, but then that doesn't matter to anyone in the company. Also, when a company is undergoing massive layoffs, the last thing anyone cares about is to keep the website up to date.

This is where networking comes in useful. If you know someone that works at company X, they can tell you whether company X is really hiring or if everyone there is working on their resumes and about to jump ship.

I've had bad experiences with corporate websites to the point that I don't even bother looking at them for any sort of job search. In the markets I've been in, if a company has a real job opening, they are going to be going through headhunters and the standard job search sites.

 

[twofish-quant]

One other thing about geography is that there is something that causes Ph.D. jobs to cluster in a few cities. My guess is that part of it is the "space alien syndrome." If you give your resume to a company that has never seen a physics Ph.D., then they have no clue what to do with you. Whereas, it helps a lot if you are talking to another Ph.D.

I spent about two years trying not to end up in NYC before I gave up and drank the kool-aid. I ended up loving the culture of NYC, although I can see how some people might hate it.

One of the things I like about NYC is that people in NYC think big, and they don't mind other people thinking big. In my last job search, I was talking to a company in DFW and I was telling them how I wanted to transform the entire world of finance, and they were looking at me like "well we just need someone to manage the computers."

 

[Astro_Dude]

One other thing about geography is that there is something that causes Ph.D. jobs to cluster in a few cities. My guess is that part of it is the "space alien syndrome." If you give your resume to a company that has never seen a physics Ph.D., then they have no clue what to do with you. Whereas, it helps a lot if you are talking to another Ph.D.

I spent about two years trying not to end up in NYC before I gave up and drank the kool-aid. I ended up loving the culture of NYC, although I can see how some people might hate it.

One of the things I like about NYC is that people in NYC think big, and they don't mind other people thinking big. In my last job search, I was talking to a company in DFW and I was telling them how I wanted to transform the entire world of finance, and they were looking at me like "well we just need someone to manage the computers."

That's a surprising attitude for a DFW company to have since half the damned area runs on high tech. I can think of about 2 dozen companies that have big operations there... and that's not including the gov't operations in the area.

 

[Astro_Dude]

A lot of my professors have been coming to me and telling me that even they had months of waiting after graduation. It actually amazed me at which of them are telling me that they were out of school with no options, because a lot of them are staggeringly brilliant, and much better than I am at this! :)

It's vaguely calming to hear that this is apparently normal to be in this position.

 

[twofish-quant]

That's a surprising attitude for a DFW company to have since half the damned area runs on high tech.

The curious thing about high technology companies is how with some few exceptions, they tend not to be run by technical people. Many technology companies have a glass ceiling above which geeks aren't allowed to tread. In most companies, you will find a huge amount of your time taking orders from salesman and MBA's that are totally clueless about what the company makes.

 

[hawaiifiver]

isn't that headwrecking!

 

[TMFKAN64]

Not really. The sad thing that you eventually realize is that in the big scheme of things, engineering really isn't that important to the fate of a company. Sure, you need some engineers, and they need to make *something* that can be sold... but how good it is doesn't really matter that much.

The fate of a company usually turns on sales and marketing, not technology.

 

[twofish-quant]

The fate of a company usually turns on sales and marketing, not technology.

Also sales and marketing involves convincing people to give you money and power, and it's not too surprising that people that are good at convincing other people to give them money and power end up having large amounts of money and power within a company.

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

I'm really at the end of my rope.

For months I've applied to jobs in industry, gov't, and even academia with little to nothing in the way of responses. I've gotten on the order of 1-3 responses back, and almost all three said that they'd "might have" hired me if they didn't get unexpected cuts.

For background, I have a M.S. in physics, B.S. in Physics & Mathematics, and will soon get my Ph.D. in physics this summer. Sounds like I totally have a great resume right? Well, it turns out that I made a horrific decision in wanting to do my thesis in observational astronomy. So while my degree says Physics, much of my research experience isn't very transferable outside of academia... which I have grown to despise. I don't want to be in this environment anymore. I don't want to move 3 more times in the next six years before even having a hope of a permanent job. I want to be able to start my life... I'd love a job in industry (particularly in defense)... but I can find very little in the way of openings I even vaguely qualify for.

I don't have the vigorous theoretical background to do high-end finance, even if that would be of interest to me. I have some computational skills, but virtually everything I find computer based in jobs requires much more skills than I have (e.g. specific databases, language or engineering programs). What I do have is the PhD to prove I'm a good problem solver, and a smart driven person. I have authored many papers, can (and have) taught others how to use astro tools, and I am above average in scientific statistics. I have scripted a few basic monte carlos in Python, but that's really the extent of my coding skills.

Still, everything I find wants ridiculous requirements, and generally the response I hear back for jobs I do qualify for is "...but you don't have an engineering degree". I'm losing my mind in that I can't find very many jobs that I qualify for, and those that I do stick their nose in the air because my degree says Physics and not Engineering.

My best luck in matching my skills has come from looking at Systems & Research engineering, but I generally never hear back from those positions. I suppose mostly because they are either entry level or require knowing every engineering program the company uses. While I'm on the subject, I've never really figured out whether I should sell myself as an entry level person with a lot of skills or a qualified person with no experience?

I guess I'm just posting to figure out what the heck I'm doing wrong. I just am so darn frustrated... I feel like I've wasted my time, and I should have just gone straight into the workforce out of my B.S...

EDIT: I also try to sell my very limited experience with radios and Jackson E&M as being relevant for signal analysis and such...

You've picked a field where brilliant men are commonplace. A roommate at IIT was a physics major, but his grades weren't so good. When they returned the exams in physics class he had a "D" on his. However, this guy was well informed about everything and later landed a job designing aircraft instruments.

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

Still, everything I find wants ridiculous requirements, and generally the response I hear back for jobs I do qualify for is "...but you don't have an engineering degree". I'm losing my mind in that I can't find very many jobs that I qualify for, and those that I do stick their nose in the air because my degree says Physics and not Engineering.

Another thought, maybe you can try civil engineering. Civil engineering is one of those jobs they sometimes let mathematicians do. They don't always ask for an engineering degree. It's a very old profession. Civil engineering has been around for thousands of years.

 

[minesweeper]

Another thought, maybe you can try civil engineering. Civil engineering is one of those jobs they sometimes let mathematicians do. They don't always ask for an engineering degree. It's a very old profession. Civil engineering has been around for thousands of years.

I find this post very odd. Civil engineering is one of the most tightly regulated fields.

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

I find this post very odd. Civil engineering is one of the most tightly regulated fields.

Check out the requirements for posted civil engineering job openings. Some of them do accept a mathematician.

 

[joesmith]

,,,,,,and if it aint been mentioned there is always the Oil field,,
you'll do just great I am sure,
enjoy life,,
a joe in Texas

 

[Astro_Dude]

GODISMYSHADOW, from what I've seen, you need to be a PE to be a civil engineer. Most everything I've seen on PE exams is you can't even sit for them without a BE.

,,,,,,and if it aint been mentioned there is always the Oil field,,
you'll do just great I am sure,
enjoy life,,
a joe in Texas

I really should have learned more fluid dynamics...

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

GODISMYSHADOW, from what I've seen, you need to be a PE to be a civil engineer. Most everything I've seen on PE exams is you can't even sit for them without a BE.



I really should have learned more fluid dynamics...

You won't be licensed without the PE, but maybe it's different in the UK. An applied mathematician can still generate some income.

The Great Pyramid at Cheops was constructed using the golden section PHI = (1 + SQR (5)) / 2. The height of the pyramid is half the length of one side of the base multiplied by the square root of PHI. The slant height of the pyramid is half the length of one side of the base multiplied by PHI. A mathematician must have been involved.

 

[evankiefl]

You won't be licensed without the PE, but maybe it's different in the UK. An applied mathematician can still generate some income.

The Great Pyramid at Cheops was constructed using the golden section PHI = (1 + SQR (5)) / 2. The height of the pyramid is half the length of one side of the base multiplied by the square root of PHI. The slant height of the pyramid is half the length of one side of the base multiplied by PHI. A mathematician must have been involved.

Shame we still don't build those.

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

Shame we still don't build those.

It was a big white elephant they built for some superstitious reason.

While working as a programmer at IR, the design engineers used Intergraph Solid Edge modeling software. They drew the sheet metal part in 3D and Solid Edge did everything for them. It would calculate the bend allowance and unfold the part into a flat drawing ready for print out.

Engineering is getting like that. Software is analyzing the forces acting on parts making up a bridge. Perhaps the engineer has forgotten how to do it himself. That was in a Statics and Dynamics course he took years ago. Is it possible they have even forgotten their trig?

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

I feel your pain. I've been looking since last December, when I finished my high energy phd, and am currently tending bar while I look for more challenging work.

I've had some luck getting interviews with business consulting firms, so you might want to look at that route.

Be careful what you wish for! You will notice that red fire alarm with piezoelectric element on the wall. It WILL damage your hearing. Every month they will do a test: "We will be testing the fire alarm. Please remain in your work areas." If you do anything strange like wear hearing protection in the office or even put your fingers in your ears when it goes off, you'll probably be fired. That's how people are. The job might pay $80,000/year, but if it costs you your hearing, is it worth it?

Do something outdoors. Go hunt for meteorites.

 

[twofish-quant]

I really should have learned more fluid dynamics...

In fact fluid dynamics isn't directly used that much in oil/gas exploration. The closest thing to CFD is reservoir simulation and those are mostly difussive equations. Once on a lark I tried to calculate the effective reynolds number of an oil reservoir and the numbers were really, really tiny.

What I did when I worked in oil/gas was data processing software for well logs. What I ended up doing was mostly algebra. There is a lot of sophisticated physics "under the covers" which was then packaged for use by people with middle educations.

What someone (who I never met and might have done the work in the 1970's) did was to calculate things like neutron diffusion and then created "graphical charts" which someone with a middle school education could use to do calculations. It's really cool because someone in the 1950's figured out a way for someone with no knowledge of algebra to do PDE computations. A lot of what I did was then to take those charts digitize them and have it so that the computer could do chart lookups. Of course, the logical thing would be to have the computers run the actual equations, but that would have been too logical.

 

[joesmith]

This is a good time for a young man to join the industry.Oil and gas pays BIG $$$$$$$$,,,,the
standard has been raised because of BP and the gulf thing.
-------------
All I ever did was drill,,,,I was a driller for 9 years,,good enough money that I could afford to save most of it,married a woman from Wisconsin,,with same mindset.
At 65 Life is Good.
a joe in Texas

 

[Pyrrhus]

What someone (who I never met and might have done the work in the 1970's) did was to calculate things like neutron diffusion and then created "graphical charts" which someone with a middle school education could use to do calculations. It's really cool because someone in the 1950's figured out a way for someone with no knowledge of algebra to do PDE computations. A lot of what I did was then to take those charts digitize them and have it so that the computer could do chart lookups. Of course, the logical thing would be to have the computers run the actual equations, but that would have been too logical.

Yes... Standardized engineering is pretty much following those steps at least in some fields like Civil. Someone solved the problem before and created a guide that you must follow. This stifles creativity, but standardizing is a way to make sure that everything works "fine". That's one of the reasons I left engineering.

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

In fact fluid dynamics isn't directly used that much in oil/gas exploration. The closest thing to CFD is reservoir simulation and those are mostly difussive equations. Once on a lark I tried to calculate the effective reynolds number of an oil reservoir and the numbers were really, really tiny.

What I did when I worked in oil/gas was data processing software for well logs. What I ended up doing was mostly algebra. There is a lot of sophisticated physics "under the covers" which was then packaged for use by people with middle educations.

What someone (who I never met and might have done the work in the 1970's) did was to calculate things like neutron diffusion and then created "graphical charts" which someone with a middle school education could use to do calculations. It's really cool because someone in the 1950's figured out a way for someone with no knowledge of algebra to do PDE computations. A lot of what I did was then to take those charts digitize them and have it so that the computer could do chart lookups. Of course, the logical thing would be to have the computers run the actual equations, but that would have been too logical.

Then what skills do we need? What should we study? Have your read the tale of John Henry? He tried to compete with a steam powered hammer. Don't try to beat a machine. Don't try to be like the computer.

 

[Astro_Dude]

Just as an update, I sent out another 100 apps in July alone. Got a few first round phone interviews, a call or two from managers regarding unposted jobs, but nothing beyond that.

It seems like every time I feel like I may be getting something it doesn't go through. I don't feel anything when I get the standard no-reply or rejection email anymore, but I just wish I'd get called back just to hear "oh yeah, sorry, we're going with someone else."

I know that a lot of these companies move VERY slow, and a lot more just don't feel a need to call anyone back. I just wish I could do something of use. :( The economy getting worse and the cuts to the defense industry are not helping my optimism.

 

[Nylex]

I've only just seen this thread. Good luck to you, Astro_Dude. I know how you're feeling; I'm experiencing the "end of my rope" feeling as well. What kinds of things are you applying for? Looks like I'll need to do 100 app months as soon as I'm done with my PhD. Wow .

 

[EEEngr25]

I am in the same boat as you astro_dude except I have an EE degree. However, like you, my dissertation topic is not readily transferable to industry so I am also having a hard time finding jobs. I was "lucky" to land a part-time gig as lecturer at a university for $2,000 a month which is a bit higher than my monthly stipend as a grad student researcher.

It's not your fault that you are having a hard time finding a job. The economy is just terrible and is probably the worst for new grads since the 1930s.If Ivy League grads are working minimum wage jobs for $10 an hour after earning a bachelors degree and UC grads are thankful to be working as cashiers at Home Depot after finishing an undergraduate degree, you can only conclude that the job market is going to be hard for everyone - new grads and older workers who have just been unemployed.

The best tip is this. The best way to get a job in this horrible economy is through networking and connections. Do your academic or thesis advisers or someone at your alma mater colleges have connections to industry, research, or government? Maybe through them, you can find a job. If you reconnect with them, they can put in a good word for you with their contacts and then you can pretty much skip the resume & phone interview crap and go straight to an in-person interview. That might be the best way to go. Otherwise, if you have any grad school classmates who were able to find employment, it might be helpful to check with them also to see if they can get you in through the back door. In this economy, the easiest way to get a job is through the "back door" via networking and connections. Otherwise, going through the formal procedures of resume, phone interview, in-person interview, and pray that the company hires you is really difficult. It's not going to help that the economy might go into a double dip recession.

Anyway, best of luck to you! I hope something works out!

 

[nickadams]

This thread is making me second guess my desire to get a PhD.

 

[twofish-quant]

This thread is making me second guess my desire to get a PhD.

There are some good things about getting a physics Ph.D. This discussion is really useful because it helps people make informed decisions and know what they are in for, but part of the reason that I encourage discussions like these is because I think that society would be better off with more physics Ph.D.'s.

1) Remember that the job market is bad for everyone.

2) Getting a Ph.D. gets you out of the market for about seven years, and let's you reroll the dice. Hopefully the US economy will recover in a few years, but if it doesn't then you are probably in trouble no matter what you do.

3) You leave the Ph.D. without much debt. Yes it is a bad thing, to get your Ph.D. and then work as a bartender, but you have to realize that this puts you in a *much* better position than people that went to med school or law school. In the worst case scenario, you get some job that keeps you from starving and wait for things to improve. People that went to law and med school now have massive debt that *cannot be discharged by bankruptcy*. Interest payments are building up, so even if they economy improves in two years, they are totally hosed.

4) Is it better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all? The biggest regret that physics Ph.D.'s have is that they aren't going to be able to do science for their entire lives. However, most people can't do that, and for me at least, I think it is better that I spent ten years doing astrophysics research (with the possibility that I'll be able to do it again in a few years) than to have never done it at all.

5) Finally, if everything does blow up, a Ph.D. will get you in front of the queue if you have to immigrate to another country. Remember that a lot of scientists ran to the US in order to escape extreme hardship, and if things get really, really bad, a Ph.D. will help you get out of the US to somewhere that the grass is greener.

 

[jk]

I have found that sending resumes at random is highly ineffective. I have been in working in industry for 15 years and have only had that work twice and one of those times was during the dot com boom when they were taking anyone with a pulse.
I graduated with a BS Physics in 95 and have been working as a programmer since. I've worked for all kinds of companies from tiny mom and pop shop that needed someone to do networking and some data analysis, to oil and gas, large law firm (~2k employees), dot com, major financial company and government contractor.

The most effective methods for job hunting that I have found are (in decreasing order of effectiveness):
1. Networking. This is by far the most effective way. If you know someone in the company you want to work for who can place your resume on the desk of a technical manager who is looking to hire, you have cleared the number one hurdle that trips up every job hunter. If you don't know anyone at that company, your job is to get to know somebody there. You can ask friends and family, neighbors, professors, your pastor and any person you come in contact with for more than 5 minutes if they know someone there. LinkedIn can be invaluable in this way (I know someone who got hired through contacts they made on LinkedIn. I also got someone an interview because he found out that I was linked to someone who worked at a company he was interested in. I made the introductions, his resume was placed on the tech manager's desk and he got the interview. He did not get the job but I can't do everything :)
Of course everyone tells you to network but if you've spent the last 8 years or so buried in books, you probably haven't built up a particularly robust network. You can start by going to industry functions, chamber of commerce events, local speakers from the industry you are interested in and even enrolling in some classes where people of that ilk are bound to be found. For example, you can audit a financial derivatives class at your local MBA mill. The thing is, you are not going to find those people sitting at home and sending resumes into the wild (more on this later).
One thing you can do is call up people in the industry and ask if you can do informational interview. If someone calls me and I'm not under pressure to give them a job, I'm more than willing to give them advice on the industry. Just make sure you don't call them on Monday morning when they're trying to get caught up on all the crap they were supposed to do over the weekend. People will usually give you pointers. At they very worst, they will hang up on you - you have nothing to lose.

2. Head hunters. They have a bad reputation (some deservedly so) but the good ones have contacts in their respective industries that keep them informed. The really good ones have top level contacts (There was one particular head hunter who was rumored to have been romantically involved with a married director of the financial firm I was working at. That is contacts!). Your job is to find such headhunters - which is much easier than finding those elusive jobs. You have to make sure that whoever you get specializes in the industry you are interested in. It does you no good to go to a recruiter who works with oil and gas if you're interested in finance (unless it was energy trading) and vice versa.

3. Your school's career center. Depending on where you are located and what kind of jobs you are looking for, this may or may not be effective. For example, if you are in Arkansas and you want to work in Quantitative Finance, they probably won't be able to hook you up. But if you are in Texas and want to work in the Oil and Gas industry, they may have something for you. Companies routinely go to schools for recruiting events. They're probably looking for people with BS and MBA degrees but all you need is a chance to talk to the person the company sends. He or she may pass on your resume if you look promising.

4. Job fairs. You probably won't get a job out of these unless it's something like Walmart is in town and wants 200 people. If it is in your industry though, it is worthwhile to go and spend as much time as possible networking, ie. doing all those things that techies normally hate like accosting random people, introducing yourself, asking them what they do (even better if you know what they do - do your research beforehand) and then pumping them for information. Take their business cards. You will need it later when you call them up two weeks later, introduce yourself and ask if you can do an "informational interview".

5. Sending out resumes blindly. This is the least effective way to get a job. Yes, if you do it long enough and you send out enough resumes, you may get something. But are you willing to do this for a year and send out thousands of resumes? Especially when there are other more effective, if less comfortable, ways to get jobs? The thing is, while you are sending those resumes you feel like you are doing something. You can tell yourself at the end of a grueling day of sending resumes and cold calling (you are doing that, right?) that you are searching for a job. Truth is, you are doing the most comfortable thing for you to get a job. If you really want a job, you have to get out of your comfort zone and try the
other things I listed. It took me a while to get this but once I did, I never really had a problem finding a job.

When you send a resume blindly, it will land on some HR flunky's email inbox (if you're lucky). Usually, it will go to an automated inbox which scans for keywords and throws out those that don't have them. If by chance you get through to a human, most likely it will be someone in HR who has no clue what half the things on your resume are (I know this because I used to do programming for PeopleSoft and worked with HR people. They were really nice ladies but their priorities are learning new rules and policy changes, dealing with things like sexual harrassment and discrimination, etc. and not learning the latest hot programming language). Trust me, HR is your enemy. Repeat this until it sinks in. Their job is to filter out resumes, not to find that rare gem.

One more thing. Read a book called "What Color is your Parachute?". I read it when I first left school and the advice the author gave in that book has been spot on. It is updated every couple of years so you should get the latest one. If there is one book you should read on job hunting, this is it.

 

[COSMOSGEEK]

Unfortunately its ture that people who has astro or cosmos diploma can't find a job in the industry area easily. I know someone who have similar situation to you. But it isn't so hard to do postdoc for them. I live in France. Here, PHD has salary as a normal employee . The salary is +/-2000euro/months . You can try to come to Europ if you don't mind living in another country. Maybe its easier to get a job.

Best luck for you!

 

[Astro_Dude]

Ugh. I've been completely slowed down due to this job I had to take to keep my head above water as I'm looking. Long days, and I'm absolutely wiped most every night.

I have found that sending resumes at random is highly ineffective. I have been in working in industry for 15 years and have only had that work twice and one of those times was during the dot com boom when they were taking anyone with a pulse.
I graduated with a BS Physics in 95 and have been working as a programmer since. I've worked for all kinds of companies from tiny mom and pop shop that needed someone to do networking and some data analysis, to oil and gas, large law firm (~2k employees), dot com, major financial company and government contractor.

The most effective methods for job hunting that I have found are (in decreasing order of effectiveness):
1. Networking. This is by far the most effective way. If you know someone in the company you want to work for who can place your resume on the desk of a technical manager who is looking to hire, you have cleared the number one hurdle that trips up every job hunter. If you don't know anyone at that company, your job is to get to know somebody there. You can ask friends and family, neighbors, professors, your pastor and any person you come in contact with for more than 5 minutes if they know someone there. LinkedIn can be invaluable in this way (I know someone who got hired through contacts they made on LinkedIn. I also got someone an interview because he found out that I was linked to someone who worked at a company he was interested in. I made the introductions, his resume was placed on the tech manager's desk and he got the interview. He did not get the job but I can't do everything :)
Of course everyone tells you to network but if you've spent the last 8 years or so buried in books, you probably haven't built up a particularly robust network. You can start by going to industry functions, chamber of commerce events, local speakers from the industry you are interested in and even enrolling in some classes where people of that ilk are bound to be found. For example, you can audit a financial derivatives class at your local MBA mill. The thing is, you are not going to find those people sitting at home and sending resumes into the wild (more on this later).
One thing you can do is call up people in the industry and ask if you can do informational interview. If someone calls me and I'm not under pressure to give them a job, I'm more than willing to give them advice on the industry. Just make sure you don't call them on Monday morning when they're trying to get caught up on all the crap they were supposed to do over the weekend. People will usually give you pointers. At they very worst, they will hang up on you - you have nothing to lose.

You are correct, I don't have the best of networks. I do, however, have good friends at very many defense contractors. I've had them suggest me for jobs, I've had some that are the heads of entire divisions send my resume out to their people, I've had others directly talk to their boss about how I would be great for some position in their own group. None of this has worked.

I keep hearing people talk about the magic of networking, but when you have friends who directly know people making the decisions and you can't get hired...

Anyway, yes. Everyone knows this is the way to network, but most people don't WANT to network with a physics person. 99% of the people you meet don't know what to do with you.

I also despise companies who are claiming to hire people but aren't. Stop bleeping lying, and wasting everyone's time.

2. Head hunters. They have a bad reputation (some deservedly so) but the good ones have contacts in their respective industries that keep them informed. The really good ones have top level contacts (There was one particular head hunter who was rumored to have been romantically involved with a married director of the financial firm I was working at. That is contacts!). Your job is to find such headhunters - which is much easier than finding those elusive jobs. You have to make sure that whoever you get specializes in the industry you are interested in. It does you no good to go to a recruiter who works with oil and gas if you're interested in finance (unless it was energy trading) and vice versa.

This is MUCH easier said than done.

3. Your school's career center. Depending on where you are located and what kind of jobs you are looking for, this may or may not be effective. For example, if you are in Arkansas and you want to work in Quantitative Finance, they probably won't be able to hook you up. But if you are in Texas and want to work in the Oil and Gas industry, they may have something for you. Companies routinely go to schools for recruiting events. They're probably looking for people with BS and MBA degrees but all you need is a chance to talk to the person the company sends. He or she may pass on your resume if you look promising.

4. Job fairs. You probably won't get a job out of these unless it's something like Walmart is in town and wants 200 people. If it is in your industry though, it is worthwhile to go and spend as much time as possible networking, ie. doing all those things that techies normally hate like accosting random people, introducing yourself, asking them what they do (even better if you know what they do - do your research beforehand) and then pumping them for information. Take their business cards. You will need it later when you call them up two weeks later, introduce yourself and ask if you can do an "informational interview".

These are one in the same and the problem is companies don't actually care. They're purposely not sending anyone worth networking with to these things. They send college-age kids who are usually one or two years out of their BE. 99% of the time all they have to say is how much fun they're having and to "use the website". It's almost never worth going to job fairs. I've never once met anyone who is worth "networking with" or is even interested in networking.

Maybe this was different when you were looking for work. Most companies just see job fairs as a way of reminding those kids who did co-ops that they have a job waiting for them.

5. Sending out resumes blindly. This is the least effective way to get a job. Yes, if you do it long enough and you send out enough resumes, you may get something. But are you willing to do this for a year and send out thousands of resumes? Especially when there are other more effective, if less comfortable, ways to get jobs? The thing is, while you are sending those resumes you feel like you are doing something. You can tell yourself at the end of a grueling day of sending resumes and cold calling (you are doing that, right?) that you are searching for a job. Truth is, you are doing the most comfortable thing for you to get a job. If you really want a job, you have to get out of your comfort zone and try the
other things I listed. It took me a while to get this but once I did, I never really had a problem finding a job.

I've never, not once gotten a response back from a cold call. I always get a voice mail, and never, ever, get a call back. It's like when you pull a hot chick's number and she has no intention of actually picking up! :p

Yes, this is the worst possible way, but when the system is DESIGNED to screw anyone qualified, it's usually the ONLY way.

When you send a resume blindly, it will land on some HR flunky's email inbox (if you're lucky). Usually, it will go to an automated inbox which scans for keywords and throws out those that don't have them. If by chance you get through to a human, most likely it will be someone in HR who has no clue what half the things on your resume are (I know this because I used to do programming for PeopleSoft and worked with HR people. They were really nice ladies but their priorities are learning new rules and policy changes, dealing with things like sexual harrassment and discrimination, etc. and not learning the latest hot programming language). Trust me, HR is your enemy. Repeat this until it sinks in. Their job is to filter out resumes, not to find that rare gem.

One more thing. Read a book called "What Color is your Parachute?". I read it when I first left school and the advice the author gave in that book has been spot on. It is updated every couple of years so you should get the latest one. If there is one book you should read on job hunting, this is it.

HR is the enemy, I know. However, there is little hope for me elsewhere since literally all my professors and colleagues have been career academics. I bleeping hate academia, and my contacts in industry, helpful as they have been, have not yielded results.

 

[twofish-quant]

2. Head hunters. They have a bad reputation (some deservedly so) but the good ones have contacts in their respective industries that keep them informed. The really good ones have top level contacts (There was one particular head hunter who was rumored to have been romantically involved with a married director of the financial firm I was working at. That is contacts!). Your job is to find such headhunters - which is much easier than finding those elusive jobs.

For physics Ph.D's, you can find headhunters at www.dice.com[/url], [url]www.efinancialcareers.com[/url], [url]www.phds.org[/url], [url]www.wilmott.com[/URL]. Also *.jobs USENET is also useful.

[QUOTE]3. Your school's career center. Depending on where you are located and what kind of jobs you are looking for, this may or may not be effective. For example, if you are in Arkansas and you want to work in Quantitative Finance, they probably won't be able to hook you up.[/QUOTE]

The problem with large schools like UT Austin is that physics Ph.D.'s can use the good career services. UT Austin has very good contacts in the financial industry, but those are in the McCombs Business School for MBA's, and I was told specifically that because I was natural sciences, that I would not be allowed to use MBA career services (I even offered to pay them).

[QUOTE]Take their business cards. You will need it later when you call them up two weeks later, introduce yourself and ask if you can do an "informational interview".[/QUOTE]

For Ph.D.'s it is extremely useful to go to conferences. Even if you don't get a job, you can get information.

[QUOTE]They were really nice ladies but their priorities are learning new rules and policy changes, dealing with things like sexual harrassment and discrimination, etc. and not learning the latest hot programming language). Trust me, [B]HR is your enemy[/B]. Repeat this until it sinks in. Their job is to filter out resumes, not to find that rare gem.[/QUOTE]

One thing that I learned is don't consider people enemies. HR people have a job to do. Their job is to get rid of you. Also, one thing that helps a lot for Ph.D.'s is to write a resume that confuses HR. If an HR person sees that you have a Ph.D. and has no clue what you did, they might forward your resume to someone that has some clue, at which point you've gotten over the first hurdle.

Also, be *VERY* careful when you are interviewed by someone from HR. Their job in the interview is to make you feel warm and comfortable so that you say something about yourself that disqualifies you from the job. Also, be *VERY* careful at assuming roles. Some people that look like stereotypical HR people are actually computer geeks, and some people that look like stereotypical computer geeks are actually HR people.

[QUOTE]One more thing. Read a book called "What Color is your Parachute?". I read it when I first left school and the advice the author gave in that book has been spot on. It is updated every couple of years so you should get the latest one. If there is one book you should read on job hunting, this is it.[/QUOTE]

I haven't read that book, so I don't know about it, but I've found that other books about resume writing and job searching often get it wrong. For example, a lot of books say that you should write your resume so that the reader will understand what you did, but if you are a Ph.D. looking for a Ph.D. position, you should write your resume so that the average person *doesn't* have much of a clue what you did.

 

[jk]

You are correct, I don't have the best of networks. I do, however, have good friends at very many defense contractors. I've had them suggest me for jobs, I've had some that are the heads of entire divisions send my resume out to their people, I've had others directly talk to their boss about how I would be great for some position in their own group. None of this has worked.

I keep hearing people talk about the magic of networking, but when you have friends who directly know people making the decisions and you can't get hired...

There is no magic in job searches. Networking is work and it is not guaranteed to produce results all the time. But it is the best method that I know of.
What was the feedback you got from the jobs you were rejected for? Did you get any? Also, can you post your resume (after removing the personal info) here so we can give you feedback?

Anyway, yes. Everyone knows this is the way to network, but most people don't WANT to network with a physics person. 99% of the people you meet don't know what to do with you.

This is not true. Most people don't give a flip what you studied if they think you can do stuff for them. That is all that matters in the corporate world.

I also despise companies who are claiming to hire people but aren't. Stop bleeping lying, and wasting everyone's time.

Strange as this advice may sound, don't take it so personal when you get rejected. You will drive yourself crazy. You need to develop a thicker skin or you won't last long

These are one in the same and the problem is companies don't actually care. They're purposely not sending anyone worth networking with to these things. They send college-age kids who are usually one or two years out of their BE. 99% of the time all they have to say is how much fun they're having and to "use the website". It's almost never worth going to job fairs. I've never once met anyone who is worth "networking with" or is even interested in networking.

It is true that companies don't care but that is not relevant for your purposes. This is a commercial transaction. Your job is to convince the recruiter that by passing on your resume to his/her boss, they are doing something to help themselves. Of course, they don't care about you - they don't know you.

Try this next time you run into those "college-age kids"...instead of deciding that they are too low level to do anything for you, try to chat them up about the company in general. Don't tell them that you would like to work for the company. Tell them that you are looking around and trying to find one that you like. You don't want to give the impression of desperation, even if you are desperate. It's a funny thing about people that if they think you want to join their group badly (whatever their group is), they will be standoffish. But if you act as if you have options and are just being choosy, they will consider you more seriously.

Maybe this was different when you were looking for work. Most companies just see job fairs as a way of reminding those kids who did co-ops that they have a job waiting for them.

I don't think things have changed. For one thing, just because I got in the market 15 years ago doesn't mean I had never to look for work after that. The last time I got a job offer was in the middle of the financial crash when everyone was thinking the world was coming to an end. Of course, I have experience so that makes it a bit easier for me. But it is a question of degree and not a qualitative difference.

I've never, not once gotten a response back from a cold call. I always get a voice mail, and never, ever, get a call back. It's like when you pull a hot chick's number and she has no intention of actually picking up! :p

I agree cold calls are not very effective. That is why you should network and be introduced to the person you are calling. I am more likely to return a call if the person who is calling me was referred to me by someone I know and trust.

Are you on LinkedIn?

Yes, this is the worst possible way, but when the system is DESIGNED to screw anyone qualified, it's usually the ONLY way.

First of all, no one knows if you are qualified. A PhD is not a guarantee of qualification - it just means you were able to go through a few years of focused work in one very narrow area. That may or may not translate into productivity once you are at job. That is the only metric that counts for a manager. When I used to interview applicants, I noticed that there was very little correlation between advanced degrees and someone's performance. In fact, I had one PhD working for me that was ok but was not as good as this kid who was 6 months out of college with a BS.

The system is not designed to screw anyone. I think you need to step back for a minute and view this whole job search in a more dispassionate light. No one is out to get you. But no one is going to bend over backwards for you either. What you have to do is view this as a puzzle without getting emotional about it.

HR is the enemy, I know. However, there is little hope for me elsewhere since literally all my professors and colleagues have been career academics. I bleeping hate academia, and my contacts in industry, helpful as they have been, have not yielded results.

If you realize that HR is not going to help you, then the corollary is that you have to look elsewhere for help. If your professors are of no help, then you need to plug into a new network. Have you done any of the things I suggested earlier (like talk to people at industry conferences, go to chamber of commerce events, etc)?

 

[jk]

The problem with large schools like UT Austin is that physics Ph.D.'s can use the good career services. UT Austin has very good contacts in the financial industry, but those are in the McCombs Business School for MBA's, and I was told specifically that because I was natural sciences, that I would not be allowed to use MBA career services (I even offered to pay them).

I think you meant "physics PhD's can't" use the good career services. Yeah, MBA schools can be a bit territorial but there are ways around that. Audit an MBA class and network with some of the students. Then ask them to get you information from the career services (like which companies are hiring, when they are coming to campus etc and also access to the job listings).

One thing that I learned is don't consider people enemies. HR people have a job to do. Their job is to get rid of you. Also, one thing that helps a lot for Ph.D.'s is to write a resume that confuses HR. If an HR person sees that you have a Ph.D. and has no clue what you did, they might forward your resume to someone that has some clue, at which point you've gotten over the first hurdle.

Of course, they are not literal enemies. But people let the HR job description fool them into thinking that HR is there to facilitate job applicants' access to information.

I haven't read that book, so I don't know about it, but I've found that other books about resume writing and job searching often get it wrong. For example, a lot of books say that you should write your resume so that the reader will understand what you did, but if you are a Ph.D. looking for a Ph.D. position, you should write your resume so that the average person *doesn't* have much of a clue what you did.

I have read a lot of job search books as well and this one is the one I found the most useful. It does a good job of breaking the illusion that mass mailing of resumes is effective.

 

[ParticleGrl]

What was the feedback you got from the jobs you were rejected for? Did you get any?

The feedback I get is consistently that other candidates had more experience doing X (where X is some technical technique/skill that is needed for the job) than I did. Generally, this is no doubt true, because odds are I self taught whatever I thought I needed as I was applying for the job. (My theory phd didn't give me much in the way of what industry might want).

This is starting to make me worried that engineering/science industry jobs are NOT what I should be applying for (despite being what I would like to do, and despite having a physics phd), because they seem to care more about experience with some technique than a broad background/trainable.

 

[mayonaise]

The feedback I get is consistently that other candidates had more experience doing X (where X is some technical technique/skill that is needed for the job) than I did. Generally, this is no doubt true, because odds are I self taught whatever I thought I needed as I was applying for the job. (My theory phd didn't give me much in the way of what industry might want).

This is starting to make me worried that engineering/science industry jobs are NOT what I should be applying for (despite being what I would like to do, and despite having a physics phd), because they seem to care more about experience with some technique than a broad background/trainable.

This exact sentiment came as a huge mind**** when I went job hunting the first time: I knew little about electronics other than they were a bunch of transistors. I could do C++ but what the heck was class inheritance? I had no idea what Verilog was, or was it very log? I had never even heard of Pro-E.

Having believed the professors "if you learn physics, you can do anything" "there is always industry" "physics is used everywhere" instilled me with such unrealistic sense of safety and superiority. But the truth is, an academia focused physics education gives you zero advantage over an engineering education for a particular engineering field. And since most engineering fields are represented by their respective disciplines in academia, a physicist cannot do anything without being humbled by the engineers. Besides, the sense of superiority really shuts one's mind from the world. Irony for the discipline that tries to figure out the world!

Oh, and I don't consider a physicist more trainable and has broader background anymore. Not compared to an engineer. That was just superiority complex.

 

[Choppy]

The feedback I get is consistently that other candidates had more experience doing X (where X is some technical technique/skill that is needed for the job) than I did. Generally, this is no doubt true, because odds are I self taught whatever I thought I needed as I was applying for the job. (My theory phd didn't give me much in the way of what industry might want).

This is starting to make me worried that engineering/science industry jobs are NOT what I should be applying for (despite being what I would like to do, and despite having a physics phd), because they seem to care more about experience with some technique than a broad background/trainable.

As someone who's recently been on the other side (doing the hiring) one of the issues that comes up has to do with the applicant pool. When your applicant pool has candidates with specific experience doing X (for a position in doing X), even though it may not be a requirement, those candidates still go to the top of the list.

 

[jk]

The feedback I get is consistently that other candidates had more experience doing X (where X is some technical technique/skill that is needed for the job) than I did. Generally, this is no doubt true, because odds are I self taught whatever I thought I needed as I was applying for the job. (My theory phd didn't give me much in the way of what industry might want).

This is starting to make me worried that engineering/science industry jobs are NOT what I should be applying for (despite being what I would like to do, and despite having a physics phd), because they seem to care more about experience with some technique than a broad background/trainable.

My experience with applying for engineering jobs is that they are looking for very specific set of skills/experience - the same set that you would get in school. From speaking with my engineer jobs, they seem to be mostly a "paint by the numbers" type of jobs. Of course, they only have Bachelor's degrees so the types of jobs they would qualify for might be different than what you are going after. What kind of engineering jobs are you applying for?

You might do better with software positions, especially since you have a more theoretical training and it would be easier to fit you in software roles. For example, if you don't have experience with control engineering, it would be hard to convince someone to put you in a role designing control systems for a factory or something like that. But software is generally more malleable and the people in software have a more diverse set of backgrounds. One of the directors at a financial firm I worked for has a phd in particle physics and he is in charge of a division that writes risk management software for the firm.

If you don't have particular programming skills, I would take a couple of classes at your local community college.

 

[jk]

This exact sentiment came as a huge mind**** when I went job hunting the first time: I knew little about electronics other than they were a bunch of transistors. I could do C++ but what the heck was class inheritance? I had no idea what Verilog was, or was it very log? I had never even heard of Pro-E.

Having believed the professors "if you learn physics, you can do anything" "there is always industry" "physics is used everywhere" instilled me with such unrealistic sense of safety and superiority. But the truth is, an academia focused physics education gives you zero advantage over an engineering education for a particular engineering field. And since most engineering fields are represented by their respective disciplines in academia, a physicist cannot do anything without being humbled by the engineers. Besides, the sense of superiority really shuts one's mind from the world. Irony for the discipline that tries to figure out the world!

Oh, and I don't consider a physicist more trainable and has broader background anymore. Not compared to an engineer. That was just superiority complex.

I don't recall any of my professors ever making a statement like the one you describe.

Arrogance and superiority complex will do you no good, regardless of the field. Physics is not some magic spell that can compensate for lack of knowledge of specific fields. It stands to reason that if a company is looking for someone with very specific skills to hit the ground running, then you won't stand a chance - even if you had come up with the latest TOE that united gravity and quantum mechanics.

From my experience, a physics person would do better to go for software jobs rather than engineering jobs unless you are an experimentalist and have specific experience related to the job that you are applying for.

 

[daveyrocket]

I heard those kinds of statements on a fairly regular basis, from professors, grad students and undergrads. There's a general attitude that gets sold to physics students that physics will prepare you for a variety of things but in reality it doesn't really prepare you for anything.

And ugh.. software. I went to graduate school to get away from that field. The fact that you're recommending that someone with a PhD needs to take more classes goes to show how worthless a PhD in physics is.

 

[mayonaise]

I don't recall any of my professors ever making a statement like the one you describe.

I wouldn't say I heard the exact words, but communication is only 30% words. Imagine from 18 to 22 you're surrounded by this kind of poster (see attached), and most of you curriculum follows a reductionist approach (see "More Is Different" from P. W. Anderson), and the highest powers in your institution, the professors, seem to be happy about all that. Then it's not hard to imagine what messages ultimately form in the minds of young physics students.

 

[ParticleGrl]

What kind of engineering jobs are you applying for?

Numerical programming when it pops up, thermo stuff, fluid stuff, anything simulations, occasionally EE stuff but my circuit design experience is all analog and there isn't a ton of call for it.

If you don't have particular programming skills, I would take a couple of classes at your local community college.

Really? More than a decade of schooling past high school, and your response is "maybe you don't have what it takes to get a job, take some classes?"

Physics is not some magic spell that can compensate for lack of knowledge of specific fields. It stands to reason that if a company is looking for someone with very specific skills to hit the ground running...

The thing with physics is that you learn a little bit about many different subjects. I certainly don't know as much about electrical engineering as an electrical engineer, but I probably know more about mechanical engineering than an electrical engineer.

I know a little about fluid mechanics, a little about circuit design, etc. The groundwork has been laid, and is there, and I've done a phd, so given a bit of time I can become an expert in any of these areas, after all I've done it before with certain aspects of quantum field theory. What companies actually VALUE that sort of dynamism?

 

[jk]

I heard those kinds of statements on a fairly regular basis, from professors, grad students and undergrads. There's a general attitude that gets sold to physics students that physics will prepare you for a variety of things but in reality it doesn't really prepare you for anything.

You should have taken those statements with a grain of salt. It is true that physics (or any analytical subject) does prepare you well for careers that use those type of skills. What you don't have is a ready made track you can jump on that will carry you to your destination. If you wanted that you should have studied accounting, engineering or something like that.

And ugh.. software. I went to graduate school to get away from that field. The fact that you're recommending that someone with a PhD needs to take more classes goes to show how worthless a PhD in physics is.

I think that kind of attitude is very detrimental to your growth. Having a physics PhD doesn't mean you know everything. Why would you think that without doing the work it takes to learn it, you could do the same work as someone who spent 4 or 8 years studing something like engineering? That is so naive as to be unbelievable. You are going to have to continually learn if you want to be competitive in today's workplace.

While physics won't give you a ready made job, somehow I suspect that you will eventually do fine. I have yet to meet a PhD in physics who is on welfare. Just to give you some hope, I know two physics phd's (one particle, the other condensed matter) that are in industry and both are doing great. One is a director at a major bank and the other heads his own consulting company. Both are probably millionaires.

 

[jk]

I wouldn't say I heard the exact words, but communication is only 30% words. Imagine from 18 to 22 you're surrounded by this kind of poster (see attached), and most of you curriculum follows a reductionist approach (see "More Is Different" from P. W. Anderson), and the highest powers in your institution, the professors, seem to be happy about all that. Then it's not hard to imagine what messages ultimately form in the minds of young physics students.

I wouldn't make my career plans based on a poster that claims that physics tells you how to get out of black holes.

But I do agree that physics (science in general, with the exception of perhaps Chemistry) departments do a poor job of informing students about career options.

 

[twofish-quant]

I heard those kinds of statements on a fairly regular basis, from professors, grad students and undergrads. There's a general attitude that gets sold to physics students that physics will prepare you for a variety of things but in reality it doesn't really prepare you for anything.

YMMV. I found my Ph.D., really, really, really incredibly useful for getting jobs.

And ugh.. software. I went to graduate school to get away from that field. The fact that you're recommending that someone with a PhD needs to take more classes goes to show how worthless a PhD in physics is.

As for as software goes, one reason I did my Ph.D. in the way that I did was that I wanted to get into software. I like programming. I like figuring out the universe. Writing nasty, hard code to figure out the universe was cool.

One problem with Ph.D.'s is that every Ph.D. is different. They aren't like MBA's in which one MBA is like another one. I happen to find my Ph.D. incredibly useful to get jobs, but YMMV.