PhD in theoretical physics at “prestigious” university

[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.