Schools PhD in theoretical physics at “prestigious” university

[Rika]

@ZapperZ @Rika @Dr. Courtney
Ok, so the story is - I am a geophysicist. The plan is to work in resources industry until financial situation permits for me to pursue academia. Why academia? Because maximising profit for the shareholders is just not enough of a purpose for me. If someone asks me 40 years from now what have I spent my life doing, how does "finding gold" or "finding oil" compare to "attempting to develop a unified theory"? The kind of work that you do is incredible. If only life gives me the opportunity, I know I can also contribute to the betterment of humanity! This is why I am trying to collect as much information as I can about my options, so I make the most informed decision when the time is right. If life doesn't give me the opportunity, then perhaps I can use money to "force" my way in. The way I see it, I only need enough money to "swim to the other side". Once I get to the PhD, it's all good.

You are very delusional. About industry, about academia and about life in general. It's not black or white. It's not about soul-sucking industry and doing boring stuff only for money vs working in academia in the name of humanity. Working in academia can be boring and soul-sucking too, tbh it's closer to "finding gold/oil" than to "solving mysteries of the universe" even if you work in string theory. And working in academia doesn't mean you do very important stuff in order to save humanity. Working in industry doesn't mean you can't do important stuff and help ppl. It's not like that. You should know about that if you've read ZapperZ's posts.

Job after PhD does not have to be string theory. As ZapperZ suggested, I am open to other areas - perhaps condensed matter physics, quantum information or computational physics, or other non-experimental areas.

What about PhD in Geophysics? (I'm sure it has more theoretical side). You can do more industry-oriented PhD while you work full time. You don't need to sacrifice so much time and money and it may lead to very interesting career. Why are u so againt it? And why do you want to work in oil&gas if you hate it so much? Isn't it better to find more interesting job with your current degree?

 

[Hypercube]

You are very delusional.

Quite possible - that's why it's always good to ask for second opinion. Talk to people from academia and hear from them what it's like?

You should know about that if you've read ZapperZ's posts.

Ok, so I must've missed that part.

What about PhD in Geophysics? (I'm sure it has more theoretical side).

That is also an option I am considering. Everything I said in previous post - it is not 100%. A lot of things can happen in the meantime.

And why do you want to work in oil&gas if you hate it so much?

I don't remember saying I "hate it". Nor wanting to "saving the humanity" for that matter.

On the other hand... Why do you think academia can be "soul sucking"? In what way is it?
PS I don't mean to start an argument with you - I am genuinely curious about your experiences?

 

[Rika]

My research experience is not that great (half year during my bachelor final year) and it's more about Europe than US - but from my experience (and have some family members in academia) it's soul sucking because it's "survival of the fittest" race. Race for money, grants, contracts, permanent position. You go from postdoc to postdoc, from country to country, from one university to another, from one grand proposal to another, zero stability, you beg for money all the time. You don't do what's interesting or risky - you do what's hot, safe and brings grant money to the university - because without that you can't survive. My thesis advisor (professor so he already held a holy grail of academia - permanent position) was working on single method (and guess what - it was industry-oriented) for 15 years because it was a gold mine. He was improving it little by little, it wasn't hot, myserious and ground-breaking. Slow, steady progress, doing almost same thing all the time. He didn't acually do research - PhD students did. Instead he was sitting in his office all day writing grand proposals, making callphones and writing papers. You need to write papers, a lot - for the sake of writing papers. You could write one, bigger paper but instead you write 3 slightly different. The more the better. He was one of most successful people on my university because while being 70+ years old he was working from 7am to 8pm, had gold mine method, lots of grands, connections and papers. Tbh in normal industry you have less stress and more freedom. You don't need to fight for your survival all the time. If you are good enough - you will get a job. If you don't like your current company or project - you can change it, you can have work-life balance and stable 9-5 job in one company for many years. You don't need to beg for money and prove your skills all the time. You don't have to teach if you don't like it, you can choose location and company you want to work for - in academia you don't have this kind of luxury. That's why I think academia can be dark and soul sucking.

 

[Hypercube]

My research experience is not that great (half year during my bachelor final year) and it's more about Europe than US - but from my experience (and have some family members in academia) it's soul sucking because it's "survival of the fittest" race. Race for money, grants, contracts, permanent position. You go from postdoc to postdoc, from country to country, from one university to another, from one grand proposal to another, zero stability, you beg for money all the time. You don't do what's interesting or risky - you do what's hot, safe and brings grant money to the university - because without that you can't survive. My thesis advisor (professor so he already held a holy grail of academia - permanent position) was working on single method (and guess what - it was industry-oriented) for 15 years because it was a gold mine. He was improving it little by little, it wasn't hot, myserious and ground-breaking. Slow, steady progress, doing almost same thing all the time. He didn't acually do research - PhD students did. Instead he was sitting in his office all day writing grand proposals, making callphones and writing papers. You need to write papers, a lot - for the sake of writing papers. You could write one, bigger paper but instead you write 3 slightly different. The more the better. He was one of most successful people on my university because while being 70+ years old he was working from 7am to 8pm, had gold mine method, lots of grands, connections and papers. Tbh in normal industry you have less stress and more freedom. You don't need to fight for your survival all the time. If you are good enough - you will get a job. If you don't like your current company or project - you can change it, you can have work-life balance and stable 9-5 job in one company for many years. You don't need to beg for money and prove your skills all the time. You don't have to teach if you don't like it, you can choose location and company you want to work for - in academia you don't have this kind of luxury. That's why I think academia can be dark and soul sucking.

Holy sh%t

 

[ZapperZ]

Tbh in normal industry you have less stress and more freedom. You don't need to fight for your survival all the time. If you are good enough - you will get a job. If you don't like your current company or project - you can change it, you can have work-life balance and stable 9-5 job in one company for many years. You don't need to beg for money and prove your skills all the time. You don't have to teach if you don't like it, you can choose location and company you want to work for - in academia you don't have this kind of luxury. That's why I think academia can be dark and soul sucking.

Wow! Really?!

Then why did droves of Bell Labs scientists left (many into academia and various National Labs) after it became Lucent and the need to produce profit margins for the stockholders?

I very seldom hear people in industries having the ability to simply change a project that he/she doesn't like. There is LESS freedom in the private sector than in Academia because of the need to make a profit, especially if you are a public company with stockholders.

In business, everything begins with the profit motive...

I have no first-hand knowledge of the academia atmosphere in Europe, but what you described is no where as severe here in the US.

Zz.

 

[Rika]

Wow! Really?!

Then why did droves of Bell Labs scientists left (many into academia and various National Labs) after it became Lucent and the need to produce profit margins for the stockholders?

I very seldom hear people in industries having the ability to simply change a project that he/she doesn't like. There is LESS freedom in the private sector than in Academia because of the need to make a profit, especially if you are a public company with stockholders.

I don't know about US and tbh I wasn't talking about being scientist in industry but more like professional. When you are let's say programmer and work in big IT company you have much more freedom than people in academia.

In business, everything begins with the profit motive...

Isn't that the same with academia? You need to bring money and grants to university - that's your worth.

I have no first-hand knowledge of the academia atmosphere in Europe, but what you described is no where as severe

In US u don't go from postdoc to postdoc and after 3 postdocs it's game over for you?

Now - I come from country much poorer than US - you don't get any scholarship during your PhD unless you have advisor with grants but still - I don't think that in US academia is nice and fluffy - especially for non-marketable fields.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Wow! Really?!

Then why did droves of Bell Labs scientists left (many into academia and various National Labs) after it became Lucent and the need to produce profit margins for the stockholders?

I very seldom hear people in industries having the ability to simply change a project that he/she doesn't like. There is LESS freedom in the private sector than in Academia because of the need to make a profit, especially if you are a public company with stockholders.

In business, everything begins with the profit motive...

I have no first-hand knowledge of the academia atmosphere in Europe, but what you described is no where as severe here in the US.

Zz.

It probably isn't as severe, but it is still nonetheless true that scientists in academia (tenure track or tenured) spend a considerable amount of their time writing grant proposals and chasing down funding (not to mention teaching, supervising graduate students, and administrative responsibilities) that eat into the time to do research. It is probably also true that scientists don't necessarily have as much freedom to pursue the research they would like to do because of concerns about getting such research funded.

I think what Rika is saying is not that people in industry have the ability to change a project he/she doesn't like, but that it's easy (or easier) for people in industry to change employers if the said employer doesn't offer the type of project work that the scientist wants to work on. Now as far as work-life balance is concerned -- this may reflect Rika's bias since he is based in Europe.

 

[Rika]

And maybe in Europe it's easier to change projects within one company - I don't know that. But in poorer countries it's industry >>>> academia in all aspects and to some extend - it's also true in case of rich countries such as Germany when it comes to work-life balance, salary, stability and benefits.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know about US and tbh I wasn't talking about being scientist in industry but more like professional. When you are let's say programmer and work in big IT company you have much more freedom than people in academia.

I disagree. I know of many programmers working in Fortune 500 companies. They do NOT have the freedom that people in academia has.

Isn't that the same with academia? You need to bring money and grants to university - that's your worth.

Nope. Once you get a tenure track position, you can simply coast and just teach.

Now, most scientists don't do that because we get into this field because we have an interest in doing stuff and pursuing the field of study that we want to do. That is why we look for research grants so that we can get students and continue doing what we want. But there's nothing here that says that you need to keep bringing money into the institution.

In US u don't go from postdoc to postdoc and after 3 postdocs it's game over for you?

I'm not sure what game is over here. US National Labs will not hire someone for a postdoc when one is beyond 3 years of one's PhD. But universities set their own standards and limits. Besides, most people really do not want to hop from one postdoc to another, because this is such a temporary situation. After the 2nd postdoc, one has to make a decision on what to do.

Now - I come from country much poorer than US - you don't get any scholarship during your PhD unless you have advisor with grants but still - I don't think that in US academia is nice and fluffy - especially for non-marketable fields.

But do you think your view here is accurate, though, and sufficient enough to warrant that kind of an advice? I will dispute.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

It probably isn't as severe, but it is still nonetheless true that scientists in academia (tenure track or tenured) spend a considerable amount of their time writing grant proposals and chasing down funding (not to mention teaching, supervising graduate students, and administrative responsibilities) that eat into the time to do research. It is probably also true that scientists don't necessarily have as much freedom to pursue the research they would like to do because of concerns about getting such research funded.

Again, we seek funding proposals because what we want to do requires money! It is the nature of doing science. You'll notice that those from the liberal arts and humanities areas do not seek as much money as those in the STEM fields. Yet, they continue to be hired and employed!

Read my post before this.

I think what Rika is saying is not that people in industry have the ability to change a project he/she doesn't like, but that it's easy (or easier) for people in industry to change employers if the said employer doesn't offer the type of project work that the scientist wants to work on. Now as far as work-life balance is concerned -- this may reflect Rika's bias since he is based in Europe.

It is easier to quit in ANY employment, including academia. But to think that one can easily get hired elsewhere is naive, because it depends on what one can do, the demand for such skills, and the economic conditions.

As far as "work balance", a faculty member can take the whole summer off and not work if he/she doesn't want to. And this is strange, because I've seen discussion on here claiming that getting a tenure-track position is a cushiony job. And now we have it being the opposite.

Zz.

 

[Rika]

Again, we seek funding proposals because what we want to do requires money! It is the nature of doing science. You'll notice that those from the liberal arts and humanities areas do not seek as much money as those in the STEM fields. Yet, they continue to be hired and employed!

But they still need to publish and they have much harder time in academia than their STEM friends, earn less money, have less possibilities. Yes, research requires money and it's easier to get money for some fields and topics than for another - that's what I wanted to say.

But do you think your view here is accurate, though, and sufficient enough to warrant that kind of an advice? I will dispute.

Zz.

I have never said that I know some kind of one and ultimate truth. It's only my experience and observation. In my country when you are on tenure track you need certain amount of published papers and grants in order to stay employed. And salaries for permanent position aren't that great either. What I want to say - OP thinks that academia is nice and fluffy while industry is dark and bad. That't not how it is.

 

[ZapperZ]

But they still need to publish and they have much harder time in academia than their STEM friends, earn less money, have less possibilities. Yes, research requires money and it's easier to get money for some fields and topics than for another - that's what I wanted to say.

Yeah, so? If you do not want to do research, then don't seek research money.

I know of physics professors who teach full time, but also do research without any research grants. Their students are all TAs, so they are supported by the school. They don't do experimental work, but a lot of numerical simulations based on experimental data that they got from various projects.

I'm countering your "fact" that gives the impression that seeking funding is a continuous and non-stop "mind-numbing" task that has to be done all the time. This is FALSE!

I have never said that I know some kind of one and ultimate truth. It's only my experience and observation. In my country when you are on tenure track you need certain amount of published papers and grants in order to stay employed. And salaries for permanent position aren't that great either. What I want to say - OP thinks that academia is nice and fluffy while industry is dark and bad. That't not how it is.

But in doing that, you painted academia as dark and bad, while industry is nice and fluffy. Just look at the reaction of the OP after one of your post. That is highly irresponsible!

Zz.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Again, we seek funding proposals because what we want to do requires money! It is the nature of doing science. You'll notice that those from the liberal arts and humanities areas do not seek as much money as those in the STEM fields. Yet, they continue to be hired and employed!

Read my post before this.

I have read all of your posts in this thread, and you have no arguments from me. And what you state above is obvious -- of course doing science requires money! That's why scientists in academia writes grant proposals to begin with. The issue is that the very process of grant proposal tends to bias research towards incremental progress in existing fields rather than more speculative ventures which may have a potential to revolutionize a field, but may more likely lead to failure. The thing is, incremental progress is important, but scientific advances also requires some level of risk.

There is also the concern that the current grant proposal process biases in favour of established scientists with an existing track record, versus new scientists

As far as liberal arts and humanities people being hired. Yes, they are hired, but how many of these get hired for tenure-track positions? For that matter, how many open tenure-track positions in any STEM discipline, never mind physics (and for that matter, theoretical HEP, astrophysics, etc.)?

It is easier to quit in ANY employment, including academia. But to think that one can easily get hired elsewhere is naive, because it depends on what one can do, the demand for such skills, and the economic conditions.

As far as "work balance", a faculty member can take the whole summer off and not work if he/she doesn't want to. And this is strange, because I've seen discussion on here claiming that getting a tenure-track position is a cushiony job. And now we have it being the opposite.

Zz.

I was only clarifying what I think Rika was saying. In my opinion, academia is a more "cushiony" job in comparison to industry for those who have tenure. I suspect that postdocs or tenure-track assistant professors don't have it that easy.

 

[Hypercube]

Tbh in normal industry you have less stress and more freedom. You don't need to fight for your survival all the time. If you are good enough - you will get a job. If you don't like your current company or project - you can change it, you can have work-life balance and stable 9-5 job in one company for many years. You don't need to beg for money and prove your skills all the time.

Tell that to the 70% of fellow geologists who are currently out of work in my country. I cannot speak for ALL the industry, but resources is a cyclical business - when the price of commodity goes down, guess what? You are no longer needed.

Look, this isn't about "industry vs academia". This is about the nature of capitalism - regardless of where you are, you HAVE TO fight for your place under the sun. It's the way the world runs these days.

 

[ZapperZ]

I have read all of your posts in this thread, and you have no arguments from me. And what you state above is obvious -- of course doing science requires money! That's why scientists in academia writes grant proposals to begin with. The issue is that the very process of grant proposal tends to bias research towards incremental progress in existing fields rather than more speculative ventures which may have a potential to revolutionize a field, but may more likely lead to failure. The thing is, incremental progress is important, but scientific advances also requires some level of risk.

There is also the concern that the current grant proposal process biases in favour of established scientists with an existing track record, versus new scientists

As a "stat guy", I'd like to see you back that up with statistical evidence. Otherwise, this is the same as a politician stating an opinion as fact.

And oh, what do you think ARPA-E and DARPA are for?

I was only clarifying what I think Rika was saying. In my opinion, academia is a more "cushiony" job in comparison to industry for those who have tenure. I suspect that postdocs or tenure-track assistant professors have it that easy.

Then please say that once more to Rika so that more than one person will have stated that in this thread.

Zz.

 

[Rika]

Maybe my post was too dark but the point is - working in academia is not some kind of holiday where you are paid to do whatever you want. It's normal job. Not that different from any other job out there. Getting permanent position is (yes!) much harder than getting permanent position in industry and you need to do a lot of stuff - teachning, writing papers and grand proposals outside of research. It pays less too. It has it's downsides.

 

[StatGuy2000]

As a "stat guy", I'd like to see you back that up with statistical evidence. Otherwise, this is the same as a politician stating an opinion as fact.

And oh, what do you think ARPA-E and DARPA are for?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892638/

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process

 

[ZapperZ]

Wait... wait... I thought we went through this already!

We have Rika giving the narrow view of what's going on in a specific part of the world and making it sound universal, and then now we have research funding issue specific to Canada, or getting research funding in some particular subject area.

And based on these, we can somehow make an overall conclusion about the ENTIRE thing everywhere else? Why leave out China, which has doubled and quadrupled research funding so much that they are attracting many of their expatriates back to the country?

I'm getting into this because there was a very skewered, one-sided, and highly inaccurate view being painted about academia that doesn't apply everywhere, and certainly not in many parts of the world. There was also a very skewered view of working in private industries. Those had to be countered with specific examples. They were NOT meant to be arguments to show that that is the overall situation in each of those sectors.

But somehow, the original intent is lost!

Zz.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Wait... wait... I thought we went through this already!

We have Rika giving the narrow view of what's going on in a specific part of the world and making it sound universal, and then now we have research funding issue specific to Canada, or getting research funding in some particular subject area.

And based on these, we can somehow make an overall conclusion about the ENTIRE thing everywhere else? Why leave out China, which has doubled and quadrupled research funding so much that they are attracting many of their expatriates back to the country?

I'm getting into this because there was a very skewered, one-sided, and highly inaccurate view being painted about academia that doesn't apply everywhere, and certainly not in many parts of the world. There was also a very skewered view of working in private industries. Those had to be countered with specific examples. They were NOT meant to be arguments to show that that is the overall situation in each of those sectors.

But somehow, the original intent is lost!

Zz.

ZapperZ, I'm not sure if this post is specifically directed at me, but if so, let me step in and clarify what I'm saying.

Rika is I presume eastern European, so he's speaking specifically about the state of research in physics (and perhaps more generally in STEM) in his country. The thing is, his situation is not unique and is in fact highly applicable to many other parts of the world.

As for the articles I've quoted -- yes, the first article is about funding in Canada, but my understanding is that the Canadian experience is similar to the current situation in science funding in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and (in a perhaps less severe way) in the US. The second article is about science funding more broadly in Western countries and is not specific to either a field -- hence it applies to physics as much as to any other STEM field.

In terms of China -- yes, China has greatly increased research funding, and hence their expatriates are finding opportunities back in their home country. That's all great and wonderful for Chinese scientists and graduate students in STEM fields (with the caveat that I'm familiar with how the increased funding is allocated in China -- since you mentioned this, perhaps you have more information on hand with respect to this matter). But this has no material impact for those scientists or graduate students or postdocs in the sciences outside of China. After all, how likely is it that non-Chinese can find employment within China? (from what I've read, Japan -- a country which has hardly been open to immigration, has more immigrants and foreign workers there than China by an order of magnitude)

My overall point is this. If the OP wants to leave industry to pursue a PhD, then he should do so with his eyes wide open and be aware that his prospects for seeking employment in a tenure-track position in research in theoretical physics (whatever that may be) is quite slim. On this, both you and I agree. If he broadens his horizon to consider other areas of physics or if he considers physics work outside of academia that is marketable (whatever that may mean, which is dependent on where he is located), then his future in physics looks fairly bright.

 

[Rika]

Yeah I'm from eastern Europe but this situation is similar in UK or Germany. People who do very marketable industry-oriented research live quite well.

 

[Dr Transport]

Maybe my post was too dark but the point is - working in academia is not some kind of holiday where you are paid to do whatever you want. It's normal job. Not that different from any other job out there. Getting permanent position is (yes!) much harder than getting permanent position in industry and you need to do a lot of stuff - teachning, writing papers and grand proposals outside of research. It pays less too. It has it's downsides.

Yes, a permanent position in academia is difficult, but you cannot say that an industrial research position is easy and in the US there is no such thing as a permanent position either. You are subject to lay-off at any time depending on the direction of the company you work for, for example, I had close to 15 years in high tech R&D, they walked in and said my project was done and gave me a severance package to get out in 60 days. So much for a permanent position after I brought in close to $50 million over the past 10 years. I'd like to see any academic institution get rid of a cash cow like that, my advisor brought in about 2 times his salary a year to fund both himself and me and he was let go and he was one of the more successful ones grant wise. Neither one of us is employed at this time, he has been out of work for 10 years and me a year.

 

[Rika]

In Europe when you are on full time position and work several years - you have 90 days. I'm not saying industry is soft and fluffy. Especially in R&D (which is very small and competitive in poor countries). But usually industry offers you much more than R&D - management, consulting, sales and other professional stuff. It's easier to make transition. Yes, you can get laid-off even on permanent contract so in that sense being professor is better. I can understand - if in US private sector is much less stable than in Europe academia seems to be nice place. Even in EU when you are professor or work in administration (you need personal connection for that usually) it's lower pay but more stability. But when you are tenure-track, postdoc or PhD student industry is better. What I want to say - if OP decides to do industry-oriented PhD in geophysics versus let's say PhD in cosmology he:

- can work both academia or industry in his field
- because he can do research that industry needs he can get more $$$ for his research
- he can use his professional connections from his pre-PhD times to establish himself within academia, R&D and industry general
- because his research is more industry-oriented he has potential to become cash cow for his university which means he has better chance for permanent position

More or less he has more possibilities, it requires less work and sacrifice, there is higher probability of sucess and what's most important - he doesn't need to throw his degree and professional experience away. Instead of rewriting his life he simply can upgrade it. I know it's not ultimate truth but those scientist that I know (in Europe) live well because they have strong connections with industry and their research is needed. Those who don't - not so well.

 

[radium]

I think the main takeaway from all of this is that academia is very competitive and it takes a certain type of person to succeed. Some people are just not suited to the lifestyle. Before you get a tenure track position it is very stressful and unpredictable and you really need to know that's what you want. I know several people who quit academia not because they weren't talented, but because they realized it wasn't the life they wanted. There's nothing wrong with that. For them I think it was a trade off between academic freedom/doing less applied research and getting a job with less freedom but still involving an area they found very interesting (and of course their salary was multiplied by a nontrivial factor). A lot of them still do research and use the general skill set they gained during their time in industry. I know or have heard of several former theorists who now work in industry jobs that they really love which they feel are compatible with the life they want to lead.

On the other hand, there are people who are very suited to the academic environment and who really enjoy. That's not to say it's alway easy for them. If you don't actively make an effort to find friends and other things that make you happy, academia can be very isolating even from a grad student's perspective. However, if you do and are meant to be in that environment you will thrive. Certain professors give me the impression that they wake up everyday (or at least most days) and think to themselves "I love my life". When I feel frustrated and discouraged it's always makes me feel better to interact with these people.

 

[Crek]

Your pay correlates with the value you provide to society. Theoretical physics usually provides nothing(beyond generation of knowledge) to anybody and the pay/demand reflects that. It's why there are fewer academic positions then academics, because most of what academics do is kinda worthless so only the most intellectually impressive get payed.

 

[Student100]

This thread is getting a bit out of hand, i don't think the OP was looking for advice on the merits of what he wants to do, only on how to go about doing it.

Its one thing to make sure he knows what's waiting for him, and to see what reasoning there is behind his choice, but another to keep bashing a field because "you" see it as worthless.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Your pay correlates with the value you provide to society.

At the risk of going off-topic...

Crek, what you state above is not necessarily true (like most things you have posted here on PF) -- one can look at the pay packages of CEOs of various corporations, and ask if their pay correlates to the value they provide to society at large.