Physics PhD Success: 1 in 10 or 1 in 4?

[Diracula]

Question regarding this statistic:

I've read on here a lot that if you complete a physics PhD you have a 1 in 10 chance of obtaining a research professor job. 1 in 4 chance if you graduate from a top school.

This is after an average of 6 years of postdoc'ing (for the top school, 1 in 4 chancer). No idea what it is from the set of all schools.

So my question is, are these statistics assuming the other 9 out of 10 (or 3 out of 4) are attempting to acquire a research professor job and fail? As in, they go through the process of doing multiple postdocs, putting in crazy hours, apply at every opportunity to assistant professor jobs, publish as much as possible, etc. And then, after all that, they still never get that professorship?

OR, is it simply taking the set of all PhD graduates and separating them into groups of "professor" jobs and "non-professor" jobs. Because if this is the scenario, it is possible the reason the statistics look so crappy is that these physics PhDs actually receive far better job offers upon graduate when compared to 6 years of postdocs, so they simply leave academia for these other career opportunities. This way of looking at the statistic makes a physics PhD look far better, unless the ONLY reason you are doing a PhD is that you want to become a research professor at a university.

However, if these other 9 out of 10 are all have laser-like focus on getting a professor job and they still fail, it makes a physics PhD much less appealing for career prospects. Opportunity costs and all that. To put it simply, if this is the case these other 9 are "settling" for lesser jobs rather than choosing other careers outside of the research professor track. But, if many of these other 9 are leaving academia by choice because other careers are roughly equivalent in quality, than a physics PhD doesn't look so terrible after all for career prospects.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I've read on here a lot that if you complete a physics PhD you have a 1 in 10 chance of obtaining a research professor job. 1 in 4 chance if you graduate from a top school.

I believe the 1/10 statistic is for being a professor anywhere, including liberal arts colleges.

Because if this is the scenario, it is possible the reason the statistics look so crappy is that these physics PhDs actually receive far better job offers upon graduate when compared to 6 years of postdocs, so they simply leave academia for these other career opportunities. This way of looking at the statistic makes a physics PhD look far better, unless the ONLY reason you are doing a PhD is that you want to become a research professor at a university.

The broad trend has been that we create more scientists than science jobs, so overall, a PhD is not a sure bet for a career in science (industry or academic). As a country, we've seen a shift toward applied and away from basic research. Anecdotally, I know many physics phds who were unable to find any industry or academic work within the field, and now work in insurance, finance, business consulting, etc.

This is not to say there aren't physics phds who get great industry offers- many do, especially if they are in a more applied field, and leave with an industry relevant skill set. However, there are plenty of specialties within physics where the only meaningful hope of employment within the field are academic or national lab positions.

 

[Diracula]

It is surprising to me that industry doesn't find a way to convert theoretical physicists to more applied areas of research. It just feels extraordinarily wasteful. I think they have a pretty unique skill set and could certainly approach technical problems (even if it isn't in their direct area of specialty) in novel ways. Just because they didn't specialize in some ultra-specific area of engineering in their PhD doesn't meant they couldn't do it with some training and time to think, and perhaps even do it better than someone who specialized in it. This is pretty frustrating to me as I'd really love to do a PhD in particle physics but I also don't want to work in an academic setting, so unless I want to go into business I'm stuck doing a PhD in an applied area of physics or engineering (which is fine; I'd just prefer particle physics). I could understand the inability to transition from say a history PhD to an engineering job at a technical company. But particle physics? C'mon... how many particle physicists out there would be truly incapable of doing technical work for a company?

Do you know anyone who specialized in particle theory then transitioned to an applied technical job (engineering, applied physics, chemistry, biophysics, whatever) at a good company? If so, was it difficult?

 

[ZapperZ]

Question regarding this statistic:

I've read on here a lot that if you complete a physics PhD you have a 1 in 10 chance of obtaining a research professor job. 1 in 4 chance if you graduate from a top school.

This is after an average of 6 years of postdoc'ing (for the top school, 1 in 4 chancer). No idea what it is from the set of all schools.

So my question is, are these statistics assuming the other 9 out of 10 (or 3 out of 4) are attempting to acquire a research professor job and fail? As in, they go through the process of doing multiple postdocs, putting in crazy hours, apply at every opportunity to assistant professor jobs, publish as much as possible, etc. And then, after all that, they still never get that professorship?

OR, is it simply taking the set of all PhD graduates and separating them into groups of "professor" jobs and "non-professor" jobs. Because if this is the scenario, it is possible the reason the statistics look so crappy is that these physics PhDs actually receive far better job offers upon graduate when compared to 6 years of postdocs, so they simply leave academia for these other career opportunities. This way of looking at the statistic makes a physics PhD look far better, unless the ONLY reason you are doing a PhD is that you want to become a research professor at a university.

However, if these other 9 out of 10 are all have laser-like focus on getting a professor job and they still fail, it makes a physics PhD much less appealing for career prospects. Opportunity costs and all that. To put it simply, if this is the case these other 9 are "settling" for lesser jobs rather than choosing other careers outside of the research professor track. But, if many of these other 9 are leaving academia by choice because other careers are roughly equivalent in quality, than a physics PhD doesn't look so terrible after all for career prospects.

You're making an a priori assumption that the 9 out of 10 who did not get academic position were actually seeking such positions. There are many Ph.Ds who have no ambition to be college professors.

Zz.

 

[Diracula]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I didn't know if that assumption was in place when the statistic was presented. When I read "you have a 1 in 10 chance of getting a tenured research professor job as a physicist if you complete a PhD" I had the image of 10 PhDs working toward obtaining such a position and only 1 obtaining it, while 9 others have to settle for some other job that they really don't want. The statistic does not look nearly as bad if say, 6 of those 9 (for example) chose to go into industry instead immediately after completing their PhD.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Do you know anyone who specialized in particle theory then transitioned to an applied technical job (engineering, applied physics, chemistry, biophysics, whatever) at a good company? If so, was it difficult?

If you consider programming an applied technical job, I know several theorists who now work as programmers. I wouldn't personally consider this research work, but if you have good computer skills its available.

I recently finished a phd in particle theory, so I know a fair number of graduates in the field. The three people I know who are attempting to transition to other research fields generally have had a much harder time than people who went into more business oriented positions, and all three are attempting to use a postdoc to retrain.

Looking through former students of various faculty I've worked with, it seems that the transition into other technical fields is less probable than finance, or business. A non-trivial percentage do appear to work for oil companies. Its possible the work for oil companies involves more traditional technical work, though I don't know for sure.

 

[Locrian]

There's no good evidence behind that number, but that doesn't mean it's not reasonable. Furthermore, that number will likely vary for different areas of physics.

The reality is that no one really does a good job of keeping track of what percentage of physicists do what largely due to poor methodology and the cost of tracking human beings. The guy who got a high profile professorship is in the university and AIP stats, but the dude who disappeared to work at Starbucks sometimes is and sometimes isn't. It only takes a small percentage of that bottom tail to disappear and your expected values all shift to the right (E(X) | X > y). In this case, the problem is that you don't know if they left because they couldn't find a job or found another one they liked more, or both, or neither. Even if they do tell you, interpreting their response can be a pain.

However there are lots of less formal ways of getting a feel for the difficulty level. Look at polls that ask physics grad students whether they'd like to stay in academia and compare it with the typical number of position openings, for instance.

 

[Locrian]

Peter Woit has done a number of back-of-the envelope estimates of this. I just looked and couldn't find them, but I did find this interesting post.

Some tidbits:

The data gathered show that only 10-20% of HEP graduate students end up with permanent tenured positions at HEP institutions, and the other 80-90% in some sense “leave” the field.

The committee seems to have had very little success at finding out what happens to the “leavers”, perhaps because its data-gathering method is based on questionnaires filled out by one person at each institution.

I’d certainly be curious to see some real data, but based on my personal experience I’d guess that the 80-90% number sounds right, with “leavers” going into a wide variety of different careers.

Lots of feels and guesses on this number. Most of them seem similar, but that could be because everyone is reading everyone else's same estimates.

 

[twofish-quant]

I've read on here a lot that if you complete a physics PhD you have a 1 in 10 chance of obtaining a research professor job. 1 in 4 chance if you graduate from a top school.

The basis for that statistic is that our astronomy department does survey of all its graduates. It matches what other people are seeing. Now the *good* news is that 7 in 10 people end up doing something astronomy related, and there is no one unemployed and everyone is living at a middle class standard of living.

For example, some people end up becoming a non-tenured research scientist at a national lab. That isn't included in the 1 in 10, but it's still a pretty decent job.

Because if this is the scenario, it is possible the reason the statistics look so crappy is that these physics PhDs actually receive far better job offers upon graduate when compared to 6 years of postdocs, so they simply leave academia for these other career opportunities.

Or the go through the post-doc route, figure out that they aren't going to make it, and then have to find something else. The statistics are about 1 in 2 Ph.D.'s end up getting a post-doc right after the Ph.D. I don't know that numbers that apply, but I suppose they are higher.

But, if many of these other 9 are leaving academia by choice because other careers are roughly equivalent in quality, than a physics PhD doesn't look so terrible after all for career prospects.

"Choice" is probably not a good way of looking at it. The problem is that you have a fixed number of Ph.D.'s, a fixed number of professorships, and you have to figure out some way of making those numbers match.

I should point out that every physics Ph.D. I know (including myself) would take a research professorship someone just offered it out of the blue. Part of the problem is that there is this extreme brainwashing that if you don't get a research professorship, you are a "failure".

 

[twofish-quant]

It is surprising to me that industry doesn't find a way to convert theoretical physicists to more applied areas of research.

They have. One problem is that there just aren't that many physics Ph.D.'s. so it's hard to justify creating a formal program. The total labor market in the US is 30 million. The number of surplus physics Ph.D.'s is in the hundreds.

I could understand the inability to transition from say a history PhD to an engineering job at a technical company. But particle physics? C'mon... how many particle physicists out there would be truly incapable of doing technical work for a company?

The good news is that the 90% of physics Ph.D.'s that don't end up as research professors end up doing something useful. Even in this bad economy, I don't know of any physics Ph.D.'s that have been just unable to get a job or are currently unemployed.

If you can do quantum field theory, then you certainly have the intellectual brain power to figure out how to write a resume. The trouble is that there are very few forums in which someone tells you how to write a resume.

Do you know anyone who specialized in particle theory then transitioned to an applied technical job (engineering, applied physics, chemistry, biophysics, whatever) at a good company? If so, was it difficult?

Know lots of people.

The hard part is not getting a job. That part turns out to be relatively easy, once you figure out how the system works, and most people figure it out. The hard part involves just getting rid of the brainwashing that you have somehow failed.

It's also a different environment. If you've done telemarketing, you are used to people hanging up on you when you try to sell them something, and so you are more or less desensitized to it. The trouble with looking for a job, is that you have to go through dozens maybe hundreds of NO's before you get to the one YES. This is strangely enough quite difficult for physics Ph.D.'s. The reason is that since five years old, most physics Ph.D.'s have never really failed at anything important. You make good grades, get to the head of the class, and then you make it to the next level. Repeat. Now you are in your late 20's and for the first time in your live, lots of people are saying that they are choosing someone else. That's the hard part.

 

[twofish-quant]

There's no good evidence behind that number, but that doesn't mean it's not reasonable.

There is. My department (UT Austin astronomy) has a professor that keeps track of the outcome of every single one of the Ph.D.'s that graduate. I'm surprised that more universities don't do that. One in ten end up going into tenure track research professorships. About 70% end up something that is obviously astronomy related.

The reality is that no one really does a good job of keeping track of what percentage of physicists do what largely due to poor methodology and the cost of tracking human beings.

I don't think that's the real reason.

Last year, the US graduated about 1000 physics Ph.D.'s and about 300 astronomy Ph.D.'s. You can get the name of every single Ph.d. that graduated from the US, and then use google to track down every single one of them. If you want the names of every physics Ph.D., you can go to UMI Dissertation Abstracts and they'll have a list. If you want to find out what they are doing now. Use google.

For a department it's even easier. Even the biggest departments graduate at most 20 people a year. It's not that hard to track 20 people if you want.

I think the real reason that people don't do this is because they are scared of what the answer is.

It only takes a small percentage of that bottom tail to disappear and your expected values all shift to the right (E(X) | X > y).

But in the case of physics Ph.D.'s the number of people is small enough so that you can do a complete sample. In the case of our department, the professor needed to track down about 100 people. She managed to get in touch with all but a very small fraction (I think it was three), and for those three people that she wasn't able to track down directly she found people that knew them that could tell her what they were doing.

Look at polls that ask physics grad students whether they'd like to stay in academia and compare it with the typical number of position openings, for instance.

Also the number of faculty positions open is also a statistic that you can get a complete sample for.

 

[twofish-quant]

The weird thing is with all of the doom and gloom is that if you look at the outcomes for Ph.D.'s, the outcomes are rather good. No one is living in cardboard boxes or eating catfood, which makes me wonder why there is so much difficulty in making these results more well known. I know a few people with physics Ph.D.'s that are doing something totally non-technical, but even then, they have ended up as middle management paper pushers rather than as janitors.

One theory that I have is that the statistics are pretty good, but if you make it clear that most Ph.D.'s will not end up being tenured faculty, then you call into question why tenured faculty should be making the basic decisions about Ph.D. programs. One other interesting thing that comes out of the statistics is it appears that most researchers end up being non-tenured. You have people working in national labs, as non-tenured university research scientists, and as support staff. One job that seems to be common is that the IT person that runs the department computer cluster in a lot of astronomy departments happens to have a Ph.D. and has as part of his job description the ability to do research.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The weird thing is with all of the doom and gloom is that if you look at the outcomes for Ph.D.'s, the outcomes are rather good.

I think the issue might be not whether the outcomes are good, but rather the outcomes are better than equivalent students with bachelors or masters. If a higher percentage of masters recipients get jobs in their chosen field, why would people get the phd? I have no idea if this is true or not, just a thought.

One in ten end up going into tenure track research professorships. About 70% end up something that is obviously astronomy related.

How biased do you think that is by UT Austin's relative rank? I don't really have a feel for it, but my impression has been that percentage of students who end up in the field is highly advisor dependent (in the extreme case, I know a prof. who has graduated 8 students over his career, not one of which is still in physics). Could one prof. with a lot of clout shift this substantially? Sadly, very few departments seem to keep good numbers.

 

[Locrian]

There is. My department (UT Austin astronomy) has a professor that keeps track of the outcome of every single one of the Ph.D.'s that graduate.

That's not evidence of the stated statistic. That's evidence of it in the case of a single university.

And it's a spectacular case of selection bias.

 

[twofish-quant]

I think the issue might be not whether the outcomes are good, but rather the outcomes are better than equivalent students with bachelors or masters.

Sometimes the hard part is figuring out what the question is.

That's a harder question, and my personal experience says that it you'll find that you'll end up making less money if you go for a Ph.D. than if you spend the equivalent amount of effort at something else. Looking at my own career, I'm pretty sure that I'd be making more money if got an MBA.

If a higher percentage of masters recipients get jobs in their chosen field, why would people get the phd?

For me, I got the Ph.D. because I wanted a Ph.D. Not everything is about career.

How biased do you think that is by UT Austin's relative rank?

Not sure. I don't know what Austin's relative rank is. I *do*( know that UT Austin students tended to extremely highly represented in finance, and I have theories about why that is.

I don't really have a feel for it, but my impression has been that percentage of students who end up in the field is highly advisor dependent (in the extreme case, I know a prof. who has graduated 8 students over his career, not one of which is still in physics).

I get that sense too, but it's zero-sum, Any advisor which puts ten students per place means that someone else that puts ten less.

 

[twofish-quant]

That's not evidence of the stated statistic. That's evidence of it in the case of a single university.

It's evidence. You then show people the UT stats and then ask people in other departments if UT appears to be representative, and I think the answer is that people think that it is. It's not iron-clad, but it does set limits.

And it's a spectacular case of selection bias.

Possible selection bias. If it turns out that UT Austin is "typical" than it isn't.

Also it depends what you are trying to measure. Personally, I care more about the outcomes for Ph.D. students for UT Austin than I do about Ph.D. students for the general population, because I have a Ph.D. from UT Austin, and in that case, you have zero selection bias since you are looking at the whole sample.

Something else that should be considered is feedback. Because we are looking at small numbers of people, the act of getting statistics will change the statistics.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also the big issue here is that you are looking at things in the rear view mirror. The number of physics Ph.D.'s getting academic jobs is dependent on funding levels. If you suddenly had 1000 new jobs per year, the statistics change totally.

 

[twofish-quant]

One other thing is that there are limits on statistics skepticism. For example, the current estimated age of the universe is 13.6 billion years. These are a lot of guess factors in this, so you might question the age and maybe suggest 15 or 12 billion years. But there is no way in heck that the number is 6000 years old.

For an estimate of the likelihood of a Ph.D. getting a tenure track position, the quoted number is 1 in 10. It might be 1 in 20. It might be 1 in 5. If you really stretch things, it might even be 1 in 4. But there is just no way in heck, it's going to be 8 in 10 or even 1 in 2.

 

[ParticleGrl]

For me, I got the Ph.D. because I wanted a Ph.D. Not everything is about career.

Thats true, but I think the people gathering statistics have incentives to make the career look as attractive as possible- after all they are trying to gather people to their school. "Get a Ph.D., Not Everything is About Career!" isn't really going to bring them knocking to your door.

 

[twofish-quant]

Thats true, but I think the people gathering statistics have incentives to make the career look as attractive as possible

Well that's their problem... It sort of explains why they end up with such crappy statistics.

In my case, I'm interested in statistics to figure out the "so what do I do next question?"

"Get a Ph.D., Not Everything is About Career!" isn't really going to bring them knocking to your door.

On the other hand, our job is to try to figure out the truth about the universe, and not to sell used cars. If the name of the game is to get people in the doors, work them to death for a few years, and then toss them out, that doesn't seem to be a system that I really want to be a part of, especially since I'm one of the people that got tossed out.

 

[caffenta]

"Get a Ph.D., Not Everything is About Career!" isn't really going to bring them knocking to your door.

Perhaps the people who are "all about career" should not be knocking on the door in the first place, so does it really matter if it brings them there or not? The "all about career" crowd probably don't make good PhD students. No big loss.

 

[Diracula]

Perhaps the people who are "all about career" should not be knocking on the door in the first place, so does it really matter if it brings them there or not? The "all about career" crowd probably don't make good PhD students. No big loss.

4-6 years is a lot of time to spend on a hobby.

 

[twofish-quant]

4-6 years is a lot of time to spend on a hobby.

It's not a hobby. It's an all consuming, life altering obsession. If you aren't totally consumed by physics that you are willing to devote 4-6 years of your life on it, then you are much better off not getting the Ph.D.

 

[Ryker]

Perhaps the people who are "all about career" should not be knocking on the door in the first place, so does it really matter if it brings them there or not? The "all about career" crowd probably don't make good PhD students. No big loss.

I also think we shouldn't get on a high horse and look down upon people that are all about career. If they show they are capable of producing good research, then they should get accepted and I don't really see why they are any worse or less deserving than other people who are in it for of their undwindling love of Physics, whatever that might mean. I agree that no matter what you shouldn't play around with the statistics just to draw them in, though.

 

[Diracula]

One can be obsessed with a hobby. IMO, if someone spends 4-6 years working on a degree that adds zero value to their career, it is a hobby, whether they are obsessed with it or not.

(Luckily this appears not to be the case for most people interested in pursuing a physics PhD, as the PhD seems to open up decent non-academic careers.)

 

[caffenta]

I also think we shouldn't get on a high horse and look down upon people that are all about career. If they show they are capable of producing good research, then they should get accepted and I don't really see why they are any worse or less deserving than other people who are in it for of their undwindling love of Physics, whatever that might mean. I agree that no matter what you shouldn't play around with the statistics just to draw them in, though.

My post wasn't looking down at people who are into careers. But those who are strictly interested in careers in the classic sense would not benefit from or really care about a PhD. Why put your career on hold for 5-6 years if your career is your core interest? You need a reason to pursue a PhD. Simply "I want a job" is not reason enough.

 

[twofish-quant]

I also think we shouldn't get on a high horse and look down upon people that are all about career.

I don't think it's a bad thing to be career-focused. I do think that if you are career focused it's a serious, serious mistake for you to get a physics Ph.D. On the other hand, I think that most people that are career-focused have figured it out already.

If they show they are capable of producing good research, then they should get accepted and I don't really see why they are any worse or less deserving than other people who are in it for of their undwindling love of Physics, whatever that might mean.

The problem is that people that aren't obsessed with physics make worse research serfs.

 

[twofish-quant]

(Luckily this appears not to be the case for most people interested in pursuing a physics PhD, as the PhD seems to open up decent non-academic careers.)

I don't think it does really. All of the jobs that I've gotten with a Ph.D., I could have gotten without one, and if I was interesting in maximizing income, I would have gotten more had I gotten an MBA.

There are two different questions:

1) does a Ph.D. help your career? I don't think it does.

2) how much does a Ph.D. hurt your career? I don't think it hurts much.

 

[ParticleGrl]

2) how much does a Ph.D. hurt your career? I don't think it hurts much.

Apart from the 5-6 years of deferred compensation, of course.

 

[mal4mac]

Apart from the 5-6 years of deferred compensation, of course.

Geez, you Americans, you're all about money :)

If it's an all consuming interest, then that's full compensation!

 

[Ryker]

On a related note, just the other day I was talking to a relatively young associate professor at my university, and mentioned that while I really like the academia I heard the chances of getting into it are 1 out of 10 if you have a PhD. He just smiled and said he thought they'd be even lower, later emphasizing, however, that he does enjoy the academic lifestyle a lot. So I guess this is just additional anecdotal evidence suggesting that the perceptions of PhD's are on par with that dreaded statistic, as well.

 

[diligence]

On a related note, just the other day I was talking to a relatively young associate professor at my university, and mentioned that while I really like the academia I heard the chances of getting into it are 1 out of 10 if you have a PhD. He just smiled and said he thought they'd be even lower, later emphasizing, however, that he does enjoy the academic lifestyle a lot. So I guess this is just additional anecdotal evidence suggesting that the perceptions of PhD's are on par with that dreaded statistic, as well.

For what it's worth, I asked the exact same question to my Diff Eq prof a couple days ago, and he said almost every one of his colleagues from grad school/post-doc has been able to land a job in academia. He said sometimes they've had to take positions at a low-tier university, but that they've all managed to stay in academia.

He's a mid-thirties, assistant prof at a top-5 public. Not tenured yet.. and this is math, not physics.

 

[diligence]

Personally, I hold the opinion that success in academia is directly correlated to how hard you're willing to work/study. Maybe I'm just a naive undergrad, but I'd bet money that the people who fall in the 10% who make it are either

a) in the 90th percentile intelligence-wise
b) in the 90th percentile related to how hard they work

 

[twofish-quant]

For what it's worth, I asked the exact same question to my Diff Eq prof a couple days ago, and he said almost every one of his colleagues from grad school/post-doc has been able to land a job in academia. He said sometimes they've had to take positions at a low-tier university, but that they've all managed to stay in academia.

Did he graduate from Harvard by any chance?

Also there are some fields in which Ph.D.'s are pretty much guaranteed academic positions. Finance Ph.D.'s and Math education Ph.D.'s.

 

[twofish-quant]

Personally, I hold the opinion that success in academia is directly correlated to how hard you're willing to work/study.

That's because you are in an environment in which that's true. The problem is that once you get into graduate-level *everyone* is super-intelligent and *everyone* works hard. So the difference between people that make it and people that don't starts become random factors. Politics and luck plays a more important factor that intelligence and hard work, because everyone is intelligent and everyone works hard.

Also, you have to ask how much hard work is enough. When you get in graduate levels, the amount of work that you do starts getting into areas where you are threatening your physical and mental health.

Maybe I'm just a naive undergrad, but I'd bet money that the people who fall in the 10% who make it are either

a) in the 90th percentile intelligence-wise
b) in the 90th percentile related to how hard they work

And once you get into that top 10%, there is another top 10%, and another, and another.

So we are talking about people at the 99.999 level here.

One unspoken part of this is that people also tend to believe that they are in the 10%, so it's a shock when you find that you aren't. You *will* eventually find that you aren't because people just get chopped out until there is no one left.

Also people use the term "meritocracy." One thing that is illuminating is to read the book that invented that term

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1560007044/?tag=pfamazon01-20

What people don't realize is that Michael Young wrote a *satire* of a world in which people's social status were determined by intellegence+effort. The point of this book was that a society based on IQ+effort was inherently unstable and would lead to riots and social revolution. To summarize Young's argument, just because you are smarter or work harder doesn't make you more compassionate, sympathetic, moral, or honest, so if you have a social in which social status is based on IQ+effort, you end up people in charge that lack compassion and sympathy.

Also read Max Weber. There's also the book of Revolutions which explains a lot of this. Weber argues that a lot of the way people think about the world in Western Europe/US comes from Calvinism and the 144,000 elect in Revelations.

One problem is that because I "wasted" a lot of my time reading and thinking books like these, I got slightly lower scores and got kicked out of the system.

 

[vici10]

twofish-quant,

thank you for pointing out the book about meritocracy. I just have read an introduction to transaction edition on google books and it seems that the book is a satire on meritocratic society. The situation, when the people in power are confident that they deserve all this power because they are brightiest and smartest and the rest of population believes in it, can be very dangerous.

 

[twofish-quant]

The situation, when the people in power are confident that they deserve all this power because they are brightiest and smartest and the rest of population believes in it, can be very dangerous.

What's bizarre about the Young's book was that he *invented* the term meritocracy to describe the type of society that he thought would be dystopian. The other thing that I find interesting is that almost no one I know has heard of the book. It's a counterargument to "Atlas Shrugs" and "Harrison Bergeron" The other thing that is required reading is Plato's Republic.

Like all good books, it makes you think, whether you agree with it or not. One thing about academia is that it is a rigourously meritocratic society, and Young's book makes you wonder if that's the problem with it. The thing about academia is that it influences society, and maybe meritocracy is a bad thing.

The irony that I've been trying to figure out is that at least in the tradition that I've been brought up in, the purpose of education was to remove class distinctions. Education is supposed to make us equal. So it really disturbs me when academia has set up one of the nastier class systems, and this nasty class system is making it's way into society in general. When I call graduate students "educated serfs" I really use that term literally.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also here is Michael Young talking about the point he was trying to make

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

quote: It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.

another good web page is

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm

-----------

I think that the crash of 2007 changes things a bit. Before 2007, it was possible to believe that either a) everyone that deserved it would make it and by contrast people that didn't make it, didn't deserve it and b) things would trickle down. All those assumptions are subject to question.

One thing that people ask is "what is the right school? what is the right job? what is the right degree?" and I think this is a symptom of a much, much deeper problem, that I don't think that anyone really has good solutions for.

 

[EntropicLove]

It seems in America the power is in the hands of the government and exerted by some particular institutions such as: armies, police, local governments; These institutions transmit the orders, apply them and punish those who don't obey.

I think the political power is also exerted by a few other institutions which seem to have nothing in common with political power, which seem to be independent which actually aren't. We all know that university and the whole educational system that is supposed to distribute knowledge, we know that the educational system maintains power in the hands of a certain social class and exclude the other social class from this power. Many institutions appear to be independent and neutral but are not.

It seems that what is happening is this is becoming more obvious/transparent to those of low status; especially since the system is proving to not be adaptive enough for the general population and that the idealistic/structured presentation of the system is breaking down.

 

[twofish-quant]

It seems in America the power is in the hands of the government and exerted by some particular institutions such as: armies, police, local governments; These institutions transmit the orders, apply them and punish those who don't obey.

There's also a large amount of power in private corporations and universities. Also, it's a bit more complicated than punishing people. The problem is that you don't have enough people to physically punish people that don't obey, so you have to tell some sort of story that gets people to obey.

That's where education comes in. Part of the purpose of an educational system is to teach people in thing in ways that maintain social hierarchies, not that this is a bad thing. If you go to an elementary school, one thing that is interesting is how military it seems. Stand up straight, get in line, raise your hand, be at location X at time Y. It's all to teach conformity.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Conformity is necessary to have a society run. The problem is that at some point, you may have some annoying person that likes asking questions about the universe as "so what's in this for me?"

We all know that university and the whole educational system that is supposed to distribute knowledge, we know that the educational system maintains power in the hands of a certain social class and exclude the other social class from this power. Many institutions appear to be independent and neutral but are not.

But curiously I don't think this is the fundamental problem, because I don't think that it's possible to run a society in which you don't have social hierarchy. The fact that some people rule is something that I think is inherent to any society.

The problem comes in if you have a situation in which people that rule have all of the marbles, and the people that don't have nothing. I don't mind a small number of people running the world. Running the world is a pain in the rear end, and I'd rather someone that I trust do it. I do mind it when they manage to take everything.

It seems that what is happening is this is becoming more obvious/transparent to those of low status

People of low status don't matter. The poor have been stepped on for the last several decades, and they don't matter because there aren't enough of them to matter.

The problem isn't the poor. The problem is the middle class. If you have a society in which 10% of the people are rich, 70% are in the middle and then 20% are poor, then it's stable. If you have a situation in which 10% of the people get everything, and 90% get nothing, then you have revolution.

 

[nobelium102]

hmm some hopeful message for Physics major students!

What exactly discriminates the phd students from becoming tenured professors and the rest doing astronomy related?

 

[Ryker]

Hmm, have you read this thread? Because this is exactly the question people that have responded tried to address.

 

[nobelium102]

ahhh really?, well can you kindly repeat it for me?
I only read the thread by twofish-quant guy

 

[Ryker]

Why don't you read the ENTIRE thread and then comment on stuff or ask the additional questions? I mean, I'm not going to and can't repeat everything that was stated here. There's also obviously not an answer everyone agrees upon.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What would be the point in typing in a second copy of all the messages? Why don't you read the originals?

 

[diligence]

Did he graduate from Harvard by any chance?

Also there are some fields in which Ph.D.'s are pretty much guaranteed academic positions. Finance Ph.D.'s and Math education Ph.D.'s.

No, not even close to the level of Harvard

 

[nobelium102]

I did read the thread, or maybe I missed it
let me address the question again
so I was saying getting a higher grade in grad school for example give you a higher chance of becoming professor?

1/10 sounds awful low :(

 

[Ryker]

I did read the thread, or maybe I missed it
let me address the question again
so I was saying getting a higher grade in grad school for example give you a higher chance of becoming professor?

1/10 sounds awful low :(

From what I gather, the answer to your question is no. As long as you get good enough grades in grad school, no one cares what they are. Research is where the importance lies, and even with that a lot of other factors come into play (luck, networking etc.). And if that 1 in 10 number is correct, then it also means only 1 out of 10 of those that had the highest grades as undergrads get to become professors.

 

[Vanadium 50]

so I was saying getting a higher grade in grad school for example give you a higher chance of becoming professor?

No, it won't.

 

[nobelium102]

Wow,,,,hmm
I guess physics isn't a great career then
I think becoming an engineer who does physics as hobby would be a wiser choice
what do you guys think