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

[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

 

[diligence]

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.

see right here, even you said it for the statistic you quote: that 10% of those who graduate get a tenure track position. I have serious doubts about applying that 10% figure to people who have put sufficient effort into getting a professorship, and we all know that graduating from PhD is nowhere close to sufficient.

 

[twofish-quant]

see right here, even you said it for the statistic you quote: that 10% of those who graduate get a tenure track position. I have serious doubts about applying that 10% figure to people who have put sufficient effort into getting a professorship, and we all know that graduating from PhD is nowhere close to sufficient.

I think one big problem is that people's experience with such things comes from undergraduate graduate admissions, when Ph.D.'s are a different animal.

In high school, you are competing against a lot of people that just don't care or aren't that good, so if you make some effort, you'll find yourself on top. At the Ph.d. level, anyone that hasn't put in enough effort has already been gotten rid of, so it's a different game.

If you don't believe me, now, don't. I'm just a voice in the internet. But if you do go for your Ph.D., my guess is that at some point you'll find out that I was more or less right about the situation, and if you don't believe me now, then I've at least planted a seed that will grow when you are actually in that situation.

 

[twofish-quant]

Wow,,,,hmm
I guess physics isn't a great career then

Personally, I think it is a great career.

I try not to give advice, but rather to just give facts. Some people will look at what I say, and say that they don't want anything to do with it. Other people will look at what I say and figure that this is exactly what they want.

Curiously, I'm trying to get people *into* physics, but I figure the best way of doing that is to be straight about how things are like.

One thing I like about physics degrees is that I'm the entrepreneurial type that likes solving original problems and doing hard and new things. A physics degree is just not a degree in which a career comes prepackaged. You have to figure things out for yourself.

I think that's cool.

 

[Choppy]

Along those lines, physics-itself is not a career. It's an academic discipline.

Most people who go into the discipline, in my experience, end up with well-paid, interesting careers. The point of this thread is that only one in ten of those who complete the PhD end up with a career as a professor.

What perhaps bears repeating is that the other one aren't failures. They don't disappear from the face of the Earth or end up serving fries with that. The end up in industrial research and development positions, national labs, teaching positions, become consultants, embark on entrepreneurial ventures, work in industrial investigations or technical sales, technical positions, move into physics-professions like medical physics or geophysics, branch off into other very-well established professions, etc...

 

[Ryker]

So I guess just to reinforce what a lot of people in this thread have said, I had a pretty much open discussion about what it takes to get an academic position with my faculty advisor the other day, and this is basically what we came to agree upon Yes, it really is hard to get a position, and no, it doesn't just take hard work. She said a lot of it has to do with what university you're applying to, and what research they focus on. Therefore, it's supposedly important what your research was in, and that you don't lock yourself into an area that is kind of going nowhere. So even if you "objectively" excel there, it'll be hard getting a position if the universities just don't see it as something they want to do. Of course how good your research was factors in, but I guess it's sometimes hard to make distinctions whose was better, because it's just too hard to analyze it objectively. So from what I was told, universities often also look for people to form groups, so that they're not going to have one professor specializing in one thing, and then another in a completely different one, but rather two or three whose research will be kind of related.

Apart from that, there are subjective factors that come into play, and "personality" was the first thing that was brought up. Which makes sense. So I guess they not only look for excellence, but a good fit. And what that good fit is again depends on multiple factors that come into play in any interpersonal relation, so some might look for younger people, whereas others for more experienced, hence older ones. But from what I gathered, this isn't just some random, trivial factor, it plays a big role, and so does networking. It was pretty much confirmed to me what two-fish quant was saying all along, that is, if they haven't heard of you, you won't get the position. And if there are, say, 15 people that make it to the final shortlist, and for which it's hard to determine who stands out in terms of research, doesn't it actually make sense that they would go with someone who they know, who they've talked to and think is a nice person to work with, rather than take a chance with someone who, yes, they've heard of (and of their research), but don't really know how they are as a person?

I know I didn't say anything new here, but I just thought I'd post this, because it is just another affirmation of the fact that what the more experienced people here are saying isn't just bolony and that it's not just their disenchantment with Physics or academia that drives to strike down the romanticized view of hard work implying a job in the academia.

 

[diggy]

I think there is an important comment to make about people starting into the field now, compared to people currently or recently through there PhD.

Many university professors are getting within about 10 years of retirement age. If you look at the demographics for many research institutions you will see that there will necessarily be a large turn over of positions.

I doubt the effect of this will be of large impact for people looking for positions now, but for students beginning their study I think they will be facing a situation that is not remotely close to the 1/10 statistics quoted today and as of late.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I doubt the effect of this will be of large impact for people looking for positions now, but for students beginning their study I think they will be facing a situation that is not remotely close to the 1/10 statistics quoted today and as of late.

I wouldn't count on it- there was actually a wave of retirement in the late 90s that did very little to improve on these sorts of statistics (what it did improve was the length of time people were in postdocs before taking a tenure track position). Academia as a whole is contracting. At my former universities, for every three professors that retired only one was being hired.

Without dramatic restructuring, the job crunch is systemic. Universities are paring down, defense companies aren't growing, etc.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Many university professors are getting within about 10 years of retirement age. If you look at the demographics for many research institutions you will see that there will necessarily be a large turn over of positions.

This has been the case for at least 25 years. But this seller's market in academic jobs never seems to materialize.

Year-to-year fluctuations from 1 in 10 to 1 in 8 or 1 in 15 don't change the message. If a professor graduates 10 students in his career, and only 1 will replace him, the other 9 have to find something else to do if they want to make a living. This is not some sort of strange alternative career. This is the normal career path.

 

[lubuntu]

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

Yes for b, but for I doubt it for a. Lazy and smart gets you nowhere.

 

[diggy]

This has been the case for at least 25 years. But this seller's market in academic jobs never seems to materialize.

Year-to-year fluctuations from 1 in 10 to 1 in 8 or 1 in 15 don't change the message. If a professor graduates 10 students in his career, and only 1 will replace him, the other 9 have to find something else to do if they want to make a living. This is not some sort of strange alternative career. This is the normal career path.

True -- I meant something more along the lines of 1:10 going to 1:8. Admittedly, that doesn't sound super impressive, but its on order of a 20% increase, which is a meaningful increase (it its actually true!) to someone looking for a spot.

Of course the bigger picture is still correct that most PhD's won't be professors, 100% agreed. Of course the odds of becoming a professor are considerably worse without getting a phd :)