Is Pursuing a PhD in Organic Photovoltaics a Smart Career Move?

[moontiger]

I am sorry, I guess I didn't write it down correctly and it got misinterpreted ...
I meant that "at least for 3 years, do something that covers the reasons you followed physics"...since it was most of ours choice to study physics, at least once we should do that in research level. Rather than spending 4 years, just to go to an irrelevant field's job with one extra degree...

If you want to go for the PhD, go for it. Just make sure that you have a reason to do it which seems solid (to you). That way a few years from now, regardless of whether it turned out to be the right decision or not, you know that you thoroughly considered the costs vs. the benefits, and made the best decision you could at the time.

In my case, hindsight is 20/20. If I could have seen my future career prospects and what a struggle life was going to be, I would have gone to graduate (or professional) school in some other field. But it is too late for that now, so I have to just do my best to find a future that makes me happy.

 

[elkement]

I graduated nearly 20 years ago in Europe. My PhD was in laser physics / materials science / thin films.

Though I left academia I think it was worth it - but mainly because it was a job, probably as good as any other job that gives you some transferable skills. We didn't have that notion of "graduate _school_" - I was paid mainly for working on an international research project with partners from industry, and there were no student fees.

I was "forced" to do also project controlling and management which I actually hated at that time - but it was the combination of that experience plus having acquired a set of experimental skills (... working with device X to measure Y ...) that made it rather easy to land my first job after the PhD.

 

[mdxyz]

I don't understand how could someone who is interested in the subject, call it a waste of time (of their 20s')... You can however consider it as a job so it's not a waste of other opportunities . Am I wrong?

I think a lot of people have an incomplete appreciation of the richness of the world in which they live. There are many interesting things to do elsewhere that do not carry the drawbacks of academia.

I don't think a PhD is necessarily a waste of time, but I think the academic career path as a whole is a waste of time for most. As others have pointed out, a funded PhD is essentially a job and can give you useful skills and experience, while you are young enough to apply them elsewhere. Academia is a career in which 90% of people will never make it to the entry level, and won't find out they've failed until their mid 30s or early 40s.

At that point, your experience needs to be very industry-specific, or else tilted to management or finance. Hence the problems many report here, of finding it very difficult to switch field at that stage.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Nearly every single person I know with a physics phd, myself included, has a job that has absolutely nothing to do with their phd. Getting a phd tends to leave you applying for the same jobs you could get after a bachelors, just 6 years later. If you are going to get a job that has nothing to do with what you studied,best to do it earlier rather than later.

Of course, one could argue that all of the people you know with a physics PhD, including yourself, ended up getting the job that they have because of their PhD, in spite of the fact that the job itself has nothing to do with their PhD. For example, many companies advertising for data science/data mining positions (such as yours) often hire physics PhDs or cognate quantitative degrees like math, CS, statistics or operations research because of the analytical skills gained as part of their PhD training). Those positions may not necessarily be open for those without a masters or a PhD (many of the advertised data science positions states that a minimum of a masters degree in a quantitative field like math, physics or statistics is a requirement).

 

[ChrisVer]

I think a lot of people have an incomplete appreciation of the richness of the world in which they live. There are many interesting things to do elsewhere that do not carry the drawbacks of academia.

I don't think a PhD is necessarily a waste of time, but I think the academic career path as a whole is a waste of time for most. As others have pointed out, a funded PhD is essentially a job and can give you useful skills and experience, while you are young enough to apply them elsewhere. Academia is a career in which 90% of people will never make it to the entry level, and won't find out they've failed until their mid 30s or early 40s.

At that point, your experience needs to be very industry-specific, or else tilted to management or finance. Hence the problems many report here, of finding it very difficult to switch field at that stage.

That is true, however you don't have to do just your PhDs and nothing else (real world needs flexibility). For example I know PhD researchers who at the same time start a new Masters course (for example on mathematics). It depends on the person. For example, because my plan's to do PhD on phenomenology of supersymmetry (something that is far away from "industry"), at the same time I'll try to start a masters on economics and model-making (which is good for the real market and easier than doing a masters on mathematics)... the costs will be less than the money I can take from a PhD salary...

 

[bigfooted]

The problem is, post phd you've studied and gained even more knowledge, but now you are left without any way to use it. Your question is basically "why study for 4 years if you won't get a chance to use it?", but push it forward "why study for 6 more years if you won't get a chance to use it?"

Why play golf for 10 years when you're not going to become a professional golf player?

I did a PhD because I wanted to dive into the wonderful world of mathematics and physics to a depth that I knew could only be achieved during a PhD research. I wanted to know more about the subject and actively contacted professors to ask if they had a PhD project in this field (turbulence and combustion). I ended up basically getting money for satisfying my curiosity.
I'm now working in R&D in my PhD research field, and it's a job that you can't do without a PhD. But statistics from my university showed that 5 years after their graduation, around 5% of the graduated actually worked in the field they were studying for. Are the other 95% all failures? I don't think so. I think it doesn't really matter that much what specific topics you study, the main thing you should learn is thinking. Company X doesn't need an expert in numerical analysis of the Maxwell equations, they just need a smart guy, with a certificate of smartness.

From a financial perspective, on average a PhD does not have the best return of investment. Maybe it's better to study for dentist or something similar. But I don't see myself looking into other people's mouths for the next 30 years - boring!

What a PhD does give you is the ability to start a career path that doesn't involve doing the same thing for the next 30 years. I actually advise people to do something completely different immediately after their PhD. It makes you more open-minded and shows that you are a 'homo universalis', a smart guy that can do anything, and not just An-Expert-In-Theoretical-Laser-Diagnostics.

I see a PhD degree as an initial condition that can take you to places you cannot reach if you just do a masters.
In some cases it might be a necessary requirement to reach a certain goal, but it is never a sufficient requirement.

 

[mdxyz]

Why play golf for 10 years when you're not going to become a professional golf player?

This is a good analogy.

Imagine that a PhD is like someone paying you food and board to play amateur golf for 5 or so years.

I can see the appeal of that.

But bear in mind that many people with physics PhDs were Type A overachievers in school who saw their degree as a ticket to the very top, not a scratch-card where the prize is to get paid to do your hobby for a few years, then have to get a mediocre job.

And I am quite sanguine about the proportion of physics PhDs who earn more at 30 than they would have done without a bachelor's, when considering student loans and foregone income.

From a financial perspective, on average a PhD does not have the best return of investment. Maybe it's better to study for dentist or something similar. But I don't see myself looking into other people's mouths for the next 30 years - boring!

I'm with you on those trade school professions. They are just technician jobs with inflated salaries due to licensing. However a lot of physicists see themselves being dumped into jobs that aren't much more exciting, but also carry worse pay and social status, like accountancy or programming.

 

[jesse73]

I see a PhD degree as an initial condition that can take you to places you cannot reach if you just do a masters.
In some cases it might be a necessary requirement to reach a certain goal, but it is never a sufficient requirement.

The only cases for a necessary requirement of a PhD are for technical research positions which the rest of the comment acknowledges is unlikely position to get.

There is also the demeaning look at a lifetime of dentistry while acknowledging that phd physicists arent going to work in physics. Seems odd.

 

[jesse73]

That is true, however you don't have to do just your PhDs and nothing else (real world needs flexibility). For example I know PhD researchers who at the same time start a new Masters course (for example on mathematics). It depends on the person. For example, because my plan's to do PhD on phenomenology of supersymmetry (something that is far away from "industry"), at the same time I'll try to start a masters on economics and model-making (which is good for the real market and easier than doing a masters on mathematics)... the costs will be less than the money I can take from a PhD salary...

Are you planning on having your advisor pay for your economics masters or masters on "model making??" . I don't think your advisor would be happy with a student starting out with one foot out the door and paying for it too?

 

[ChrisVer]

I am not going to be paid for my masters, I am going to do my PhDs and parallel a master...there's a difference (I'll be paid for my work)

 

[jesse73]

Of course, one could argue that all of the people you know with a physics PhD, including yourself, ended up getting the job that they have because of their PhD, in spite of the fact that the job itself has nothing to do with their PhD. For example, many companies advertising for data science/data mining positions (such as yours) often hire physics PhDs or cognate quantitative degrees like math, CS, statistics or operations research because of the analytical skills gained as part of their PhD training). Those positions may not necessarily be open for those without a masters or a PhD (many of the advertised data science positions states that a minimum of a masters degree in a quantitative field like math, physics or statistics is a requirement).

You could also argue that the only reason this is true is because there are so many quantitative phds in the job market that employers can be picky similar to why office positions like office mail person etc in some companies now require bachelors when before they required only HS despite the fact that handing people mail doesn't require a college degree.

 

[Rika]

This is a good analogy.

Imagine that a PhD is like someone paying you food and board to play amateur golf for 5 or so years.

I can see the appeal of that.

But bear in mind that many people with physics PhDs were Type A overachievers in school who saw their degree as a ticket to the very top, not a scratch-card where the prize is to get paid to do your hobby for a few years, then have to get a mediocre job.

It's not about "overachievers". Golf is different - there is a clear distinction between amateurs and professional. Amateurs have different schools, trainers and competitions. They know right from the start that they are amateurs and won't earn money. No one is telling them that they are going to be professionals one day. They know their place. Everything is clear and fair right from the start.

Physics is different. You do golf in professional school for 10 years and are told by your trainers that you are going to be professional one day only to realize that it's not going to happen.

I didn't do PhD but BSc in Physics wasn't worth my time. I regret it but back then I had no idea what to do with my life. Now I know and study it (in my country higher education is free) but I have wasted 5 years for useless education.

 

[bigfooted]

The only cases for a necessary requirement of a PhD are for technical research positions which the rest of the comment acknowledges is unlikely position to get.

There is also the demeaning look at a lifetime of dentistry while acknowledging that phd physicists arent going to work in physics. Seems odd.

I'm not talking about companies that will hire you only when you have a PhD. I mean that with the experience gained from doing a PhD (sharpening your problem solving skills, etc) you might be able to advance in your career better or faster than without a PhD.

People with a PhD in physics might not all work as physicists, but they're no window washers either. I am also not a physicist now but an engineer. If I make a career switch and go work for a bank, I will probably not become a cashier, but maybe make predictive models for the stock market. I would be happy in a wide range of non-physics jobs as long as it is mentally challenging. I just don't think there is that much freedom in dentistry.

 

[Choppy]

I am not going to be paid for my masters, I am going to do my PhDs and parallel a master...there's a difference (I'll be paid for my work)

Because it's relevant to the discussion, and not a specific critique of your choices here, I would point out that in most cases it's not feasible to do the PhD AND another graduate program - at least not without extended the time taken for either or both substantially.

A PhD is a full-time commitment for most people. And most supervisors are not going to be happy with a student diverting a substantially amount of time to another program that doesn't advance the PhD project.

It's not a bad idea to supplement the PhD with a few courses here and there that might give you marketable skills. Other options include holding volunteer positions or getting part-time work. But even getting a part-time job can delay progress on your PhD. It's the kind of thing that can turn a four year project into six years.

 

[StatGuy2000]

You could also argue that the only reason this is true is because there are so many quantitative phds in the job market that employers can be picky similar to why office positions like office mail person etc in some companies now require bachelors when before they required only HS despite the fact that handing people mail doesn't require a college degree.

The situation is not necessarily that clear cut. For example, in my field (statistics) what I see currently is that in the era of "big data" (a result of increasing computing power and ever larger databases with greater storage capacity) more and more companies and organizations require people with the quantitative skills to be able to effectively handle and analyze them to help them make better decisions.

Statistics and sub-specialties in CS such as machine learning, are the natural degree programs that one would ordinarily turn to for precisely these positions, but there are still relatively too few people who graduate with MS or PHD (or even BS) in these programs compared to the demand. Thus employers are turning to other quantitative PhDs such as physics to fill the void, as they have cognate skills and thus have an easier time transitioning to such fields.

 

[jesse73]

Because it's relevant to the discussion, and not a specific critique of your choices here, I would point out that in most cases it's not feasible to do the PhD AND another graduate program - at least not without extended the time taken for either or both substantially.

A PhD is a full-time commitment for most people. And most supervisors are not going to be happy with a student diverting a substantially amount of time to another program that doesn't advance the PhD project.

It's not a bad idea to supplement the PhD with a few courses here and there that might give you marketable skills. Other options include holding volunteer positions or getting part-time work. But even getting a part-time job can delay progress on your PhD. It's the kind of thing that can turn a four year project into six years.

These points are largely true except for the part time work part. The condition for an RA or TA in grad schools or at least the big ones is that you are not taking part time jobs elsewhere without approval of people at the university. The idea is that your PhD program will expect you to focus on your PhD and they are funding you based on this idea. It isn't like undergrad where you arent funded so you can do what you want because it isn't on someone else's penny.

 

[jesse73]

The situation is not necessarily that clear cut. For example, in my field (statistics) what I see currently is that in the era of "big data" (a result of increasing computing power and ever larger databases with greater storage capacity) more and more companies and organizations require people with the quantitative skills to be able to effectively handle and analyze them to help them make better decisions.

Statistics and sub-specialties in CS such as machine learning, are the natural degree programs that one would ordinarily turn to for precisely these positions, but there are still relatively too few people who graduate with MS or PHD (or even BS) in these programs compared to the demand. Thus employers are turning to other quantitative PhDs such as physics to fill the void, as they have cognate skills and thus have an easier time transitioning to such fields.

The same could be said about systems engineering but we have heard that contractors arent knocking down doors for physics grad when they can retool an engineer. More CS BSc are also coming out with machine learning experience since universities are reacting to demand in their course offerings. However like I previously mentioned employers arent taking these kids because they can pick up a quantitative PhD with programming experience for nearly for the same cost because the glut of PhDs and the current high costs of BSc in CS.

 

[Choppy]

These points are largely true except for the part time work part. The condition for an RA or TA in grad schools or at least the big ones is that you are not taking part time jobs elsewhere without approval of people at the university. The idea is that your PhD program will expect you to focus on your PhD and they are funding you based on this idea. It isn't like undergrad where you arent funded so you can do what you want because it isn't on someone else's penny.

That condition gets broken frequently. But generally you are correct and essentially I think we're arguing the same thing here.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The same could be said about systems engineering but we have heard that contractors arent knocking down doors for physics grad when they can retool an engineer. More CS BSc are also coming out with machine learning experience since universities are reacting to demand in their course offerings. However like I previously mentioned employers arent taking these kids because they can pick up a quantitative PhD with programming experience for nearly for the same cost because the glut of PhDs and the current high costs of BSc in CS.

It is true that more CS BSc are coming out with machine learning experience, but not at the pace needed to fill the data science positions -- hence the physics and other quantitative PhDs. And since supply and demand works here, we shouldn't expect that the glut of physics PhDs will necessarily last (many of the physics PhDs are foreign students, particularly from Asian countries, and a significant percentage of them will likely return to their own countries for research positions in their own countries).

 

[jesse73]

It is true that more CS BSc are coming out with machine learning experience, but not at the pace needed to fill the data science positions -- hence the physics and other quantitative PhDs. And since supply and demand works here, we shouldn't expect that the glut of physics PhDs will necessarily last (many of the physics PhDs are foreign students, particularly from Asian countries, and a significant percentage of them will likely return to their own countries for research positions in their own countries).

What is the reasoning to assume that the pace for data science jobs will continue while assuming there will be a significant change in rates of foreign phds returning to their own countries?

If anything there is much talk about tech stocks being overvalued (huge valuations for Uber/Snapchat etc) and in a bubble. The assumption of growth of these tech jobs seems like a big assumption.

 

[ChrisVer]

A PhD is a full-time commitment for most people. And most supervisors are not going to be happy with a student diverting a substantially amount of time to another program that doesn't advance the PhD project.

It's not a bad idea to supplement the PhD with a few courses here and there that might give you marketable skills. Other options include holding volunteer positions or getting part-time work. But even getting a part-time job can delay progress on your PhD. It's the kind of thing that can turn a four year project into six years.

I'll try to move away from my personal case, towards a more general case...
I don't really understand this idea. For example someone who is doing his PhDs doesn't have any time for himself (in general master courses cost 3-4 hrs/day as much as a hobby activity would last+homework)? The important thing is not how many assignments you overtake, but how well you can adjust your time/everyday schedule. I don't say I can manage that well, but of course someone else can...

 

[Choppy]

I don't really understand this idea. For example someone who is doing his PhDs doesn't have any time for himself (in general master courses cost 3-4 hrs/day as much as a hobby activity would last+homework)? The important thing is not how many assignments you overtake, but how well you can adjust your time/everyday schedule. I don't say I can manage that well, but of course someone else can...

Of course you'll have free time during your PhD. But for most people after you spend roughly 8 hours (and in many cases a lot more) working on your PhD - reading papers, coursework, programming, writing, tweaking an experiment, etc. and then go on to complete whatever work you have for your teaching assignment - I don't think it's that practical to take on another 3-4 hours of coursework each day that's unrelated to your PhD, especially on a regular basis. Most people need some form of down time.

It may not be unrealistic to slip a course or two in here and there. And over the entire PhD, you may very well be able take a chunk out of a course-based master's degree and then complete whatever remains afterwards.

And of course there are always exceptional people who could to both and build a house and wonder everyone else struggles so much.

 

[jesse73]

It isn't about the time costs but the money costs. Courses costs money in university and that money comes from your department or advisor.

 

[mdxyz]

Why is it useful to take a masters and a PhD? A general education masters won't make you more employable, while if the masters degree will get you into a specific field you intend to work in, why not do the masters full time instead of the PhD?

 

[StatGuy2000]

What is the reasoning to assume that the pace for data science jobs will continue while assuming there will be a significant change in rates of foreign phds returning to their own countries?

If anything there is much talk about tech stocks being overvalued (huge valuations for Uber/Snapchat etc) and in a bubble. The assumption of growth of these tech jobs seems like a big assumption.

There is a big difference between the tech industry in general (and it may very well be the case that tech stocks could indeed be overvalued -- I haven't done any analysis of the historical data over the past few months so it is difficult to say whether that is the case) and data science in particular.

Many of the companies and organizations that are currently offering data science jobs are those outside of the tech industry (in fact, in many different industries -- think financial firms such as banks and insurance companies, market research firms, consulting firms, retail chains, non-profits, even manufacturing firms), simply because advances in computing have reduced the cost of collecting data on consumers/customers/stakeholders in these industries, and there is increased value in understanding the data to make better decisions. I could be wrong about this, but I don't foresee the demand for data science positions changing any time soon.

With respect to any change in the rates of foreign PhDs returning to their own countries, this would obviously depend on the economic conditions of their home countries. As of this moment, much of the economic growth has been led in non-Western countries such as China, India, and numerous Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia (which incidentally are also countries where many of the foreign PhDs in the STEM fields like physics originate). Until recently, many of the PhD graduates would have tried to stay in the country where they earned their PhD (e.g. Canada, US, western Europe, Australia, etc.) but I have heard at least anecdotally that there are an increasing number of these PhDs graduates that have returned to their own countries due to increased opportunities.

 

[jesse73]

There is a big difference between the tech industry in general (and it may very well be the case that tech stocks could indeed be overvalued -- I haven't done any analysis of the historical data over the past few months so it is difficult to say whether that is the case) and data science in particular.

Many of the companies and organizations that are currently offering data science jobs are those outside of the tech industry (in fact, in many different industries -- think financial firms such as banks and insurance companies, market research firms, consulting firms, retail chains, non-profits, even manufacturing firms), simply because advances in computing have reduced the cost of collecting data on consumers/customers/stakeholders in these industries, and there is increased value in understanding the data to make better decisions. I could be wrong about this, but I don't foresee the demand for data science positions changing any time soon.

With respect to any change in the rates of foreign PhDs returning to their own countries, this would obviously depend on the economic conditions of their home countries. As of this moment, much of the economic growth has been led in non-Western countries such as China, India, and numerous Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia (which incidentally are also countries where many of the foreign PhDs in the STEM fields like physics originate). Until recently, many of the PhD graduates would have tried to stay in the country where they earned their PhD (e.g. Canada, US, western Europe, Australia, etc.) but I have heard at least anecdotally that there are an increasing number of these PhDs graduates that have returned to their own countries due to increased opportunities.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/chinas-real-estate-bubble-50142079/

 

[Delong]

I want to pursue graduate school education but I want to do it in a field in biology. I like physics but I think I can only pursue physics as a hobby.

Is it better to do grad school in biology? I hope so maybe you guys don't know. Felt like asking anyway thanks

 

[Locrian]

There is a big difference between the tech industry in general . . . and data science in particular.

Many of the companies and organizations that are currently offering data science jobs are those outside of the tech industry

Strongly agree with this.

 

[Locrian]

I want to pursue graduate school education but I want to do it in a field in biology. I like physics but I think I can only pursue physics as a hobby.

Is it better to do grad school in biology? I hope so maybe you guys don't know. Felt like asking anyway thanks

Everything I've read and seen suggests the market for PhD's in biology may be even worse than that of physics.

You should carefully research this.

 

[Delong]

Everything I've read and seen suggests the market for PhD's in biology may be even worse than that of physics.

You should carefully research this.

I know the bls says biomedical research is in high demand. Plant and microbial biology was also in decent demand. I was considering one of these three but what you just said made me scared gah...