# Near the end of my PhD - when to start applying for jobs

I'm almost done with my PhD in physics(hep-ex). It's about 6-7 months till I'm out. I was curious about everyone's opinions on what is the right time to start looking/applying for jobs. Is now too early (or should I have already started)?

Not really interested in post-docs, so this purely a question about jobs outside of academia. That is why I'm asking this here, since I have enough sources of info on the academic path if I wanted it. I wouldn't think that most jobs would be super interested in someone that couldn't start for half a year, but I really don't know.

Choppy
I'm not sure there's a 'perfect' time. This is probably a good time to start casting around though. Lag time between recruiting and start date depends considerably on the particular job and field. In some cases a 6 month lag is not unheard of.

The advantage of starting now is you might find something where the hiring is done during a particular time of year, so you'll know when to put your CV in and you'll have time to prepare and tailor it, rather than having to thrown in a generic copy.

In my experience (I'm a hep theory phd), there isn't an obvious exit-academia strategy for hep phds. We have an eclectic mix of skills that are hard to fit into most places.

I'd recommend searching around for what you want to do ASAP, so you can spend some time picking up the extra skills to fill in your CV. Also, start pumping contacts for information about jobs (i.e. where are your advisors former students working? Where are your collaborators former students working?, etc). In my experience, most of us (hep-ex and hep-th) are working for banks, so you might want to start looking in that direction.

Now is good - if you apply for government jobs, it can easily take 6 months just to get a security clearance, and they don't start that until after they make you an offer. I've had a few friends stuck sitting around for months waiting for the clearance.

Thanks everyone! Seems the consensus is to at the very least to start looking.

I'd already asked around to this effect and it seems like for all the ones (in hep) that didn't get post-docs there is an effective damnatio memoriae on most of them because of their apostasy. The active disdain of some of the profs to those that don't go for or get post-docs is messed up.

For the ones I can dig up stuff on via friends of theirs that are still around, its disheartening things like working retail, living in their parent's basement playing World of Warcraft, etc. Don't know how much of that is because they are high-energy or that they graduated in 2010/2011. I know some people in certain fields of condensed matter experiment that have jobs lined up in Silicon Valley even before they graduated, but that's different...

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
It's probably wise to look ahead a year before graduating and contacting prospective employers, or at least have done research on what employment is available.

I would advise against sitting around playing WoW,etc anywhere.

I'd already asked around to this effect and it seems like for all the ones (in hep) that didn't get post-docs there is an effective damnatio memoriae on most of them because of their apostasy. The active disdain of some of the profs to those that don't go for or get post-docs is messed up.

Its pretty straightforward to find out the names of the students who used to work for your advisor, and the internet makes tracking people down much easier. Sending a cold email that says "hey, we worked for the same advisor, etc" can get a conversation going.

There is no a downside to starting your job search earlier rather than later. Worst case scenario is that you'll get an offer you can't accept because you're still in school.

There is a downside to waiting too long since you never know how long it will take you to land a job

Were the people now playing W.o.W. only looking at postdocs, or were they also looking at non-postdoc jobs as well? If the former, i'm not really surprised, if the latter, that's a little scary, as someone entering the job market soon myself.

Were the people now playing W.o.W. only looking at postdocs, or were they also looking at non-postdoc jobs as well?

In terms of the jobless PhD grads I know some were looking for just post-docs and some were looking outside academia, but that by itself isn't any reason to worry. It's not many data points. There were far more people that I haven't found any info on compared to those that I have. Friends of mine who weren't high energy seem to be doing fine though (read this as: if what you do is useful to people that do stuff with silicon, then you're probably fine).

Also I would guess some of it is just the times.

There were far more people that I haven't found any info on compared to those that I have.

This is one of the things that every physics/astronomy department really should track. One good thing about my program is that there is a professor in the department who has taken it upon herself to track every single graduate and see what they are doing now.

Incredibly useful information. One of the reason I got into finance was that I found out that one of my friends ended up working for a hedge fund. I never was able to get in contact with them, but it's one of those "well if so-and-so can do it, so can I" sorts of things.

I agree completely. Luckily for me, some grad students at my school have a spreadsheet of what people who left here with phds have done. It's pretty complete for recent years, less so for pre-2004 or so, but a pretty valuable resource. I've already talked to some people on wall street and gotten some good info. What I don't understand at all is why the department itself doesn't do this but whatever.

Start now. Clearly, you have proven to be a bright person at an academic level. I've seen job markets fluctuate wildly. One month it seems like lots of opportunities and next 6 months it looks like the sale rack at Wal-Mart after the holidays, thin and messy. Starting now does two things. First, you can get a good feel for what's out there in your area of interest. Second, assuming its nill, you have time to broaden your training into an area where employement looks good. Even if you had to hang out one more year in graduate school to pick up a Masters in an offshoot of physics where hiring is better, that wouldn't be too bad.

Start now. Clearly, you have proven to be a bright person at an academic level. I've seen job markets fluctuate wildly. One month it seems like lots of opportunities and next 6 months it looks like the sale rack at Wal-Mart after the holidays, thin and messy. Starting now does two things. First, you can get a good feel for what's out there in your area of interest. Second, assuming its nill, you have time to broaden your training into an area where employement looks good. Even if you had to hang out one more year in graduate school to pick up a Masters in an offshoot of physics where hiring is better, that wouldn't be too bad.

In terms of non-academic jobs in high energy experiment, there are effectively zero. I have to transition into something else that is unrelated.

On the extra Masters: I have no idea if my department would even let me do that, but I doubt it. Also I don't have any funding left after the spring quarter, so I'd have to pay all the tuition and living expenses myself. That would mean taking out loans. If I am still going to end up working at Jack in the Box, Frys, or whatever random retail job to attempt to avoid being homeless at least for a while, then I'd rather not have to worry about making loan payments.

On the extra Masters: I have no idea if my department would even let me do that, but I doubt it. Also I don't have any funding left after the spring quarter, so I'd have to pay all the tuition and living expenses myself. That would mean taking out loans. If I am still going to end up working at Jack in the Box, Frys, or whatever random retail job to attempt to avoid being homeless at least for a while, then I'd rather not have to worry about making loan payments.

I'd advise very strongly against a Ph.D. getting an extra masters degree since in addition to the fact that you have to pay , the usefulness to you is negative. One stereotype that Ph.D.'s have to fight against is that we are too academic and can't to anything outside of school, and getting another masters just adds to the stereotype. (Of course, if you take courses and don't get the masters degree that's fine.)

Getting a job selling used cars or working at Jack in the Box flipping burgers is going to look better on your resume than another Masters degree since if you work at Jack in the Box, that proves that you can function in a non-academic environment.

One stereotype that Ph.D.'s have to fight against is that we are too academic and can't to anything outside of school, and getting another masters just adds to the stereotype. (Of course, if you take courses and don't get the masters degree that's fine.)

Getting a job selling used cars or working at Jack in the Box flipping burgers is going to look better on your resume than another Masters degree since if you work at Jack in the Box, that proves that you can function in a non-academic environment.

LOL, what total nonsense. Let's see... ego or job???? I'd take the job. As for getting a Masters in a somewhat related field after a PhD, I've seen more than a few do it. I know MDs that decided to get a PhD, which is as much as step down as a PhD getting an MS in another area. I have friends with MS degrees in physics get PhDs in business; hmm... probably still a step down.

In your PhD trail, you probably have a lot of computer science/programming, so you could push towards an MS in computers. The additional computer training/degree would probably be useful when you got your dream job. Or, add some biophysics training and move toward an MS in Biophysics or Medical Physics. Anything is better than minimum wage at IHOP or Jack in the Box.

You can still jump at the chance to do high energy physics, when one opens.

As for what would "look better", IMO, someone that never stops learning looks far better than someone that gave up to sell cars or flip burgers.

In your PhD trail, you probably have a lot of computer science/programming, so you could push towards an MS in computers.

I've already taken lots of CS courses in undergrad. All my development experience is in a Linux environment anyway, so its probably better to start contributing to some open-source project than to get another random degree. That at least builds a demonstrable portfolio.

You can still jump at the chance to do high energy physics, when one opens.

In high energy physics there is the post-doc to maybe eventually tenure-track faculty path or there is nothing else. Also once you've stepped off this path there is generally no going back. I have zero interest in continuing to do high energy experiment, so I'm completely okay with this.

chiro
I've already taken lots of CS courses in undergrad. All my development experience is in a Linux environment anyway, so its probably better to start contributing to some open-source project than to get another random degree. That at least builds a demonstrable portfolio.

If you want to get into software development, you need project experience of some sort.

I would also side with two-fish and not get a masters in CS if you want to go into software development: it's pointless.

What usually happens is if you get hired you get a complex platform thrown at you, and you have to learn it quickly, and then contribute to it equally as quickly.

Many platforms are not your "one language", "one code-base" type setup. Many are written in multiple languages, have scripting interfaces, have all kinds of 3rd party libraries that stuff really well (the library is written by a group that lives and breathes that area) and all of this is connected together in weird and wonderful ways.

So yeah your own hunch is correct: build a portfolio and take it from there if you want to get into development.

LOL, what total nonsense. Let's see... ego or job????

I say this as someone that has reviewed resumes for physics Ph.D.'s. Getting a masters after your Ph.D. doesn't kill the resume, but it hurts it, and I've never seen a situation in which it helps.

People already think you are an overqualified egghead. Getting a masters just feeds into that stereotype.

In your PhD trail, you probably have a lot of computer science/programming, so you could push towards an MS in computers. The additional computer training/degree would probably be useful when you got your dream job.

No it won't.

Anything is better than minimum wage at IHOP or Jack in the Box.

Not true. +$5/hour > -$20000/year

First of all, it's going to be non-trivial for a physics Ph.D. to get a job at IHOP and Jack in the Box. Trying to get a job at IHOP with a physics Ph.D. seems like an SNL skit, but the odds are that you are going to have tremendous difficulty trying to get someone to hire you because they will see you as being overqualified.

Second, having an IHOP job shows some good personality traits. It shows that you can take orders, and more importantly take orders from people that aren't as smart as you are. It means that you are willing to shut up and punch a time clock if you have to.

As for what would "look better", IMO, someone that never stops learning looks far better than someone that gave up to sell cars or flip burgers.

Do you review resumes?

Learning happens in places other than school, and Ph.D.'s have spent so much time in school, that what they really need to learn is stuff that you are going to end up learning selling used cars or flipping burgers.

"Not true. +$5/hour > -$20000/year" <- and your point? I made much more than that in 1980, when I worked in the 300 area at Hanford.

Yes, I've reviewed resumes, interviewed people, hired and fired people, supervised anywhere from a couple to a couple thousand. I've work in a major DOE lab, industry, with the NRC, and in the medical field, but that isn't relevant. My point is pretty simple. The economy sucks and will continue to suck for awhile. The government funding of the major high energy projects isn't looking that promising, and certainly not what it should be. Even at IHOP people start at the bottom... you know, the guy that cleans the restrooms when some pig misses the can. IMO, you should ASSUME your job prospects in high energy physics suck. Perhaps you jumped on the High Energy PhD band wagon too late. Perhaps you chose a degree without even looking at job prospects. You can remedy the situation by getting training flipping burgers, hotcakes, cleaning toilets, OR accept your degree isn't going to serve you well and fix it. Perhaps I’m too old, but having a family tends to make one put aside things like “People already think you are an overqualified egghead. Getting a masters just feeds into that stereotype.” You do what you need to do and to heck with what people will think.

As for the comment that an MS in CS would be pointless for someone going into software development, seriously? A job opens for software development and the guy without the degree in CS is on par with the guy that does?

"I've already taken lots of CS courses in undergrad. All my development experience is in a Linux environment anyway, so its probably better to start contributing to some open-source project than to get another random degree. That at least builds a demonstrable portfolio." <-- The trouble with this is "contributing" doesn't pay rent or buy food. Additionally, this is something you could do while getting a Masters in CS or other training for a career in demand.

As I said at the outset, you didn't get that degree being anything less than very bright. So do the math. Cost of getting an employable degree vs. Burger King wages? Cost of the year of school vs. lost wages at Burger King vs. wages made from a good career after the added year. I know you probably feel like you've been in school forever. However, you went to school to...... yea, get a job. It didn't work out the first time, so fix it and research a job you'd like and has good employment prospects. FWIW, elsewhere in the forums, I think there was a discussion about the need for advanced high school science teachers. The pay isn't bad, hours good, and summers off. For high tech degreed educators, some states have waved the "Education Degree" requirement to teach, e.g. Texas. Hey, and teachers have gone into space, so you never know what the future may hold for you.

I really do wish you the best! With some soul searching you'll figure it out and be just fine.

Many platforms are not your "one language", "one code-base" type setup. Many are written in multiple languages, have scripting interfaces, have all kinds of 3rd party libraries that stuff really well (the library is written by a group that lives and breathes that area) and all of this is connected together in weird and wonderful ways.

This was the one nice thing about the large LHC experiments, the software for the experiment was a platform written in multiple languages (for different parts of the software), linked to an array of 3rd party software. There was revision control, automatic nightly builds, and validation tests before an new build would go live on the production systems. I'd guess not exactly the same as a professional development environment, but better experience than nothing.

IMO, you should ASSUME your job prospects in high energy physics suck. Perhaps you jumped on the High Energy PhD band wagon too late. Perhaps you chose a degree without even looking at job prospects.

Haha, the prospects in high energy physics have always been terrible. I knew that going in. It's prestige research - you will only ever find it in an academic setting, which is fine. At this point it doesn't actually matter to me because one thing I learned during my PhD is that I just have no interest in continuing in the field. At least now I know that I don't like it. I've languished around in school directionless for long enough. No point just trying more things randomly until they stick.

You can remedy the situation by getting training flipping burgers, hotcakes, cleaning toilets, OR accept your degree isn't going to serve you well and fix it. Perhaps I’m too old, but having a family tends to make one put aside things like “People already think you are an overqualified egghead. Getting a masters just feeds into that stereotype.” You do what you need to do and to heck with what people will think.

The problem is that the person that you are trying to impress has money, you don't. You are trying to convince the person that you are trying to impress to give you money. One reason that people have these stereotypes of Ph.D.'s is that they are often *TRUE*. I hate taking out the trash. I hate flipping burgers. I really *would* rather talk about quantum physics and the big bang.

However, the reason that you should hire me is that

1) I will take out the trash and flip burger if I need to, and
2) I *don't* have the "to heck with what people think" attitude

If you are in any sort of sales position (and in a company everyone is in a sales position), you *MUST CARE* what the customer thinks because if the customer isn't willing to hand over cash, you don't get paid. A lot of business is crap work. I'm willing to do some crap work if that's what it takes to get the job done.

One thing about working at BK is that flipping burgers or manning the cash register for eight hours a day is exhausting, and trying to stay sane while doing it isn't easy. It's a lot like doing tech support.

As for the comment that an MS in CS would be pointless for someone going into software development, seriously?

Yes seriously. If you just have a bachelors, then a Masters in CS may be very useful. If you have a Ph.D., it's totally useless. One problem is that what they teach in most CS departments is very, very far removed from the world of commercial software development.

A job opens for software development and the guy without the degree in CS is on par with the guy that does?

Absolutely. One other thing about CS is that you can very quickly tell how good a programmer someone is. The reason that MBA's are valuable is that it's impossible in one hour to figure out if someone is a competent manager, so you need a "brand" to make sure that you don't end up with someone incompetent.

Computer science isn't like that. With an hour interview, you can very quickly figure out if someone is a competent programmer or not.

The trouble with this is "contributing" doesn't pay rent or buy food.

Neither does having $20K of non-dischargeable student loans. Cost of getting an employable degree vs. Burger King wages? Cost of the year of school vs. lost wages at Burger King vs. wages made from a good career after the added year. I know you probably feel like you've been in school forever. I've been out of school for a decade. I'm telling you how I review resumes. Someone that has six months of working at IHOP or Burger King is going to much more easily get an interview with my company than someone that has another masters. The Ph.D. in physics is a plenty employable degree. The problem with the degree is that you mess out on some skills that are really important in business. Working at Burger King gets you those skills. Now if you have to choose between working at Burger King and an internship at Goldman-Sachs, then choose Goldman-Sachs, but if it's Burger King versus nothing or Burger King versus another degree, then BK is the way to go. Also, if you absolutely must get a Masters degree, don't do anything technical. Get an MBA or something like that. Last edited: This was the one nice thing about the large LHC experiments, the software for the experiment was a platform written in multiple languages (for different parts of the software), linked to an array of 3rd party software. There was revision control, automatic nightly builds, and validation tests before an new build would go live on the production systems. I'd guess not exactly the same as a professional development environment, but better experience than nothing. One marketing tip, don't sell yourself short. You were working in a professional development environment, make sure that you highlight that in your resumes and in your interviews. One thing that you have that most people with CS degrees don't have is that you were developing production code for end users, and that makes a lot of difference. One other thing that you should highlight in your resume is that you were working in a team. One thing about MBA's is that most good programs have a requirement of a minimum of a few years full-time work experience. I would hope that research done toward the PhD would count toward that, but I'm not sure. Agreed. Also, with your PhD research, thesis, and defense, you liked had to manage a budget, staff (RAs), present work/papers in a peer review setting, worked within deadlines and stress. One thing about MBA's is that most good programs have a requirement of a minimum of a few years full-time work experience. I would hope that research done toward the PhD would count toward that, but I'm not sure. Something about MBA's is that with a Ph.D., even an MBA from a bad program might be useful. The thing about MBA's is that a lot is about branding and the branding element is less important than the education element for most people, whereas if you have a Ph.D., that's your brand. It's like a dancing bear that speaks French. The fact that the bear speaks French at all is more interesting than how well the bear speaks. If you get a bottom tier no-name el-cheapo MBA, then you are a dancing bear that speaks French badly. Also, I think that getting an MBA after you get a physics Ph.D. is a bad idea, and probably worse than a job working at Burger King. It's just less bad than getting a CS or MFE degree. One thing to remember is that school make money selling these sorts of degrees, and because they are selling them, there are some conflict of interests. If you go to a sports car dealer with cash wanting to buy a new expensive car, you can't expect the salesman to talk you out of it, because frankly that's not his job. So if you try to get information form a school about whether the degree is useful, or whether or not there are cheaper ways of getting what you want, you aren't going to get unbiased information. There is a huge problem with "placebo degrees." For example, if you set your admission standards high enough, you won't have any problem finding jobs for graduates, but then you have to ask if the people that got jobs would have been able to get them without the extra degree, and in finance and physics Ph.D.'s, the answer is yes. If you pay$20K to a university and then get a job you would have gotten anyway, you boost up the employment statistics of the university, pay them money, and are much more useful to them than they are to you.

One other thing about MBA's. One curious statistic is that the US graduates about 1000 physics Ph.D.'s from all schools. Harvard MBA graduates about 900 people each year, and there are 100,000 MBA's produced each year.

Last edited:
Agreed. Also, with your PhD research, thesis, and defense, you liked had to manage a budget, staff (RAs), present work/papers in a peer review setting, worked within deadlines and stress.

In fact, physics Ph.D.'s usually don't have to manage budgets and staffs. (Post-docs do) Stress is high, but deadlines in academia tend to be a lot more flexible than in the business world. Ph.D.'s do have to present results, but there are some major differences between how information is presented in academia and in industry. People in academia tend to be a lot more interested in how you got from A->B, whereas in many industrial settings, people just care about the conclusion, and how you came up with it is something they don't have time to worry about.

Also in academia, the focus is on getting things right. In business, there is more focus on getting things done quick, because a better answer that comes too late can turn out to be totally useless.

The reason I think a job in BK would be useful is that in graduate schools (with some exceptions like class TA's), there's no need to punch a time clock, and that results in an environment which is quite different from industrial environments. Also the social hierarchy in universities is just different than in business. It's less formal in some places, more formal in others.

It's hard to explain the environment of a Ph.D. to someone that hasn't gone through the process, and usually it's a waste of time, because if you have to explain why you should get the job, you'll lose out to someone that doesn't have to explain. One thing that *is* common in every company that I've every worked in is that you have Ph.D.'s in management positions so you don't have to explain anything.

Oh, as someone starting a MSc in HEP-ex, this topic is very discouraging.

Why don't you guys stop talking about flipping burgers, minimum wages, etc. and tell us about how to transition from this field to finance for example?

Why don't you guys stop talking about flipping burgers, minimum wages, etc. and tell us about how to transition from this field to finance for example?

What specifically do you want to know? I've posted a ton of stuff on this topic in this forum.

What specifically do you want to know? I've posted a ton of stuff on this topic in this forum.

I would like to know what you must have for this transition to be possible. Any specific abilities? connections? experience in something? Age?

Is this better than the post-doc -> assistant professor -> tenure road in terms of how soon you will be having a decent and solid salary?

I assume it is a different world, how much pressure is there? Similar or more?

P.S.: I looked through your posts but couldn't find specifically this. If you can post links it would be great.

I would like to know what you must have for this transition to be possible. Any specific abilities? connections? experience in something? Age?

I don't know of any physics Ph.D. that wanted a job in finance that wasn't able to get one. The big catch is that you have to move to NYC, so if you hate NYC it's not going to work. It's very, very useful to have a computational background.

Also I don't know anything about what the situation is like with people with only masters Ph.D.'s. Financial firms will hire people with masters degrees but usually only after work experience in a non-financial company.

Is this better than the post-doc -> assistant professor -> tenure road in terms of how soon you will be having a decent and solid salary?

Starting compensation is typically $90K+$50 bonus. One catch is that NYC is wildly expensive. If you adjust for cost of living, then it's not that much better than working with a technological company elsewhere.

I assume it is a different world, how much pressure is there? Similar or more?

It's not a different world. It's not so much "a job in finance" than "a technology job in a finance company." Pressure is more or less the same as grad school.

I don't know of any physics Ph.D. that wanted a job in finance that wasn't able to get one. The big catch is that you have to move to NYC, so if you hate NYC it's not going to work. It's very, very useful to have a computational background.

Also I don't know anything about what the situation is like with people with only masters Ph.D.'s. Financial firms will hire people with masters degrees but usually only after work experience in a non-financial company.

Starting compensation is typically $90K+$50 bonus. One catch is that NYC is wildly expensive. If you adjust for cost of living, then it's not that much better than working with a technological company elsewhere.

It's not a different world. It's not so much "a job in finance" than "a technology job in a finance company." Pressure is more or less the same as grad school.

I still don't hate NY because I've never been there XD, however I'm in Toronto and since this city is also kind of a financial capital, I suppose there could be something in the area here.

What I don't get is this: this financial companies hire PhD physicist over computer scientist to do this job? why? Is there something in particular that makes us a better choice?

The money seems to be a lot better than what I've heard for post-docs around here, so this option might become my goal. I love physics, but I guess I love money more :)

I still don't hate NY because I've never been there XD, however I'm in Toronto and since this city is also kind of a financial capital, I suppose there could be something in the area here.

I'm pretty sure there is. The thing that you need to do is to get in touch with some local headhunters, and they'll tell you what the local market is like.

What I don't get is this: this financial companies hire PhD physicist over computer scientist to do this job?

They don't. It's just that this is a physics board and not a CS one. It's not that a finance company would necessarily prefer a Ph.D. physicist over a Ph.D. CS, but rather than Ph.D. physicists can get jobs in the field.

The money seems to be a lot better than what I've heard for post-docs around here, so this option might become my goal. I love physics, but I guess I love money more :)

Curiously, the reason I got into the field was because I love physics. One problem in career advice is that people make it seem as if it's a choice between love and money, when in fact it isn't. The trouble is that after you run through two post-docs, assuming you don't get tenure track then you'll be both without money and without any means of doing physics.

My career plan right now is to make a ton of money, retire early, and then spend the rest of my life doing astrophysics.

I'm pretty sure there is. The thing that you need to do is to get in touch with some local headhunters, and they'll tell you what the local market is like.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this. Are these like agencies that control this type of jobs?

They don't. It's just that this is a physics board and not a CS one. It's not that a finance company would necessarily prefer a Ph.D. physicist over a Ph.D. CS, but rather than Ph.D. physicists can get jobs in the field.

Mmmm, I see. So I guess that it might be good to have extra knowledge that might excel your application when competing with CS. Would taking some sort of finances classes be useful?

Curiously, the reason I got into the field was because I love physics. One problem in career advice is that people make it seem as if it's a choice between love and money, when in fact it isn't. The trouble is that after you run through two post-docs, assuming you don't get tenure track then you'll be both without money and without any means of doing physics.

My career plan right now is to make a ton of money, retire early, and then spend the rest of my life doing astrophysics.

I see your point, and in my humble opinion, your plan is awesome! Just to make sure, are you already working in the field?

twofish-quant has always been awesome!!!