Physics PhD's: Would you do it over again?

[-Dragoon-]

As I'm nearing the end of my junior year, I'm starting to seriously consider whether I'll attend graduate school for physics in the upcoming years. I enjoy physics and doing research in physics, but I also don't want to be unemployed years down the line or the only employment option available is remaining an eternal post-doc. From what I've read on here and numerous other forums, it would appear that many (perhaps a majority) regret pursuing their PhD's in the long run and would have rather wished to pursue physics as a hobby and do something more "practical".

So, my question for those with PhD's or currently pursuing one: If you could go back to the time you were finishing your undergraduate, would you do the PhD all over again? If not, what would you rather have done differently?

 

[Lavabug]

Adding a poll would make this thread even better.

 

[jesse73]

Shouldnt there be a pursue a different major as undergrad option?

Different majors have different expectations of what you need to be minimally employable.

 

[Lavabug]

That could be a topic for a different thread/poll, one for people who enter the workforce with just a BS. It's probably been done already, but I'm not sure. I'm certain we already know the overwhelming answer for that for physics bachelors though. I think this topic deserves its place, as there's at least a dozen physics phd's who post regularly here.

 

[ZapperZ]

So, my question for those with PhD's or currently pursuing one: If you could go back to the time you were finishing your undergraduate, would you do the PhD all over again?

Heck yeah!

Zz.

 

[jkl71]

No question I would do it all over again for a couple of reasons. I started learning general relativity as an undergrad, I loved it and kept wanting to learn more, without a PhD there would have been an empty feeling in my life. Also, grad school was the best time of my life, I wouldn’t want to undo that.

If I hadn’t felt so compelled to do it, then I probably wouldn’t do it over again. It cost a lot of money being in school without a full time job and putting off starting a career. It’s also kind of frustrating not being able to do what I like. I’d imagine the job market depends a lot on one’s specialization. The advice I was given when I started research (theory, using pen and paper) in grad school “if you can see yourself doing something else do that”. Like I said though, there is probably a huge variation depending on what you specialize in. It also probably makes a big difference depending on how extroverted you are and how well you market yourself.

 

[George Jones]

I would do it again.

As an undergrad, I quit school, and I thought that I would be able to pick up lots of physics as a "hobby". After some time off, I realized this wasn't going to happen, so I went back to school.

 

[jesse73]

That could be a topic for a different thread/poll, one for people who enter the workforce with just a BS. It's probably been done already, but I'm not sure. I'm certain we already know the overwhelming answer for that for physics bachelors though. I think this topic deserves its place, as there's at least a dozen physics phd's who post regularly here.

But it is still relevant because Physics is a double down major which means it is not BSc terminal.

However if you are just a junior you arent in enough to really be committed to any major outcome. You could easily change to EE , CS , engineering physics, or material sciences. Would I have done Physics PhD again. Yes. Would I have done the physics route as a whole possibly not. I would of done CS or less likely materials science which are not majors which can be BSc or Masters terminal.

I believe the older posters decisions had an easier time as far as getting jobs as generalist because it is earlier along in the trend for specialization and predates application tracking systems and expanding networks where employers can much more easily find specialist.

The trend towards specialization is only going to continue as we become globalized and employers can draw from an even bigger pool.

 

[Choppy]

Absolutely I would do it again - even if I was faced with today's economy.

Pursuing the gave me the opportunity to actually do research. As an undergrad I was doing book exercises. I did okay at that, but it wasn't until I reached graduate school that I really began to dive into a problem and make progress on it that no one else had made before (even if it was only in very incremental steps).

I think the actual "doing" of research is one of my true passions. The PhD has opened a lot of doors in that respect. I think even if things would have turned out differently, had I not been able to do anything else, given the choice between nothing and something I would still go with something.

Also, pursuing the PhD was probably the biggest challenge I could pursue at the time. Had I not done it I would have always wondered if I could have.

One analogy that comes to mind for me is judo. I love the sport. The big 40 is coming up for me (still off in the distance but I can see the roadsign) and I know I'm never going to win an olympic medal. My best hope is to maybe compete in the nationals at the "veterans" level one day (for which, arguably, all you have to do is show up). But I still go because I enjoy it.

 

[-Dragoon-]

To all those who answered they would, how many of you have permanent jobs working as physicists in either academia or industry? Do you feel your the majority of your colleagues and or former classmates in graduate school feel the same way (assuming you have kept in touch with any of them)? Do you acknowledge that you may possibly be the exception to the rule and the average physics PhD, in fact, regrets going to graduate school?

 

[jesse73]

Do you acknowledge that you may possibly be the exception to the rule and the average physics PhD, in fact, regrets going to graduate school?

You should realize that self rationalization is important for daily living. Of course there is going to be some friction against thinking that something you spent 5+ years on was not worth it. You arent going to get a completely unbiased answer because that isn't how people work.

There is also little point in regretting something you spent a lot of time on because you can't turn back time. It is easier to make an alternate recommendation to someone else than regretting one's own action.

 

[sky08]

So, my question for those with PhD's or currently pursuing one: If you could go back to the time you were finishing your undergraduate, would you do the PhD all over again? If not, what would you rather have done differently?

Hmm..I think phd is the best way to prepare for a research-based career, and if i have the choice, I would definitely do it once and twice.. I just like being a phd student!

 

[ParticleGrl]

I think the actual "doing" of research is one of my true passions. The PhD has opened a lot of doors in that respect

Pick the wrong specialty, and the phd doesn't open up any research jobs at all. I think you underestimate the pain of finding something you truly enjoy and then having the opportunity to pursue it taken away.

Hmm..I think phd is the best way to prepare for a research-based career, and if i have the choice, I would definitely do it once and twice.. I just like being a phd student!

What if you never get that research based career, and all that time spent preparing is just time wasted?

For my part, given a choice to do my phd again, I would not. I would have self taught some things after undergrad and jumped into my current career or something similar.

 

[kurros]

I think the only reason you should ever do a PhD in physics is for the love of it. It makes no sense on almost any other measure. If you are good enough to get your PhD, then you could make much more money doing something else. On the other hand money isn't that important once you have over a certain threshold, and you will still do just fine after getting your PhD; it's not like you will be homeless.

So for me, yes I would do it again. I think learning physics makes you a better human being :p.

I am going on to do my first postdoc soon, but to be honest I will not relentlessly pursue a career in physics beyond that. If it just seems to work out on its own, then great, I am very happy for people to keep paying me to do physics. I'm not going to work myself to death for it though.

 

[jesse73]

Pick the wrong specialty, and the phd doesn't open up any research jobs at all. I think you underestimate the pain of finding something you truly enjoy and then having the opportunity to pursue it taken away.

You are taking away the carrot while the person is still on the treadmill.

 

[bcrowell]

I would do it again. I teach physics at a community college, and I love my job.

I also don't want to be unemployed years down the line or the only employment option available is remaining an eternal post-doc.

If that's your worry, then it's not a realistic worry. Very few physicists end up unemployed.

 

[ParticleGrl]

You are taking away the carrot while the person is still on the treadmill.

Am I taking the carrot away? Or are they jogging for only an illusion of a carrot?

 

[StatGuy2000]

For my part, given a choice to do my phd again, I would not. I would have self taught some things after undergrad and jumped into my current career or something similar.

ParticleGrl, would you think you could have landed into your current career by self-teaching yourself some things after undergrad in physics alone, as opposed to self-teaching yourself with a PhD? I ask this because many statistics and "data science" positions frequently require applicants to have at least a masters degree in some quantitative field.

Perhaps for those considering a data science career, completing one's undergrad in physics and then pursuing a MS or PhD in a different quantitative field (statistics, applied math, industrial engineering, operations research, computer science) may open career doors.

 

[Choppy]

To all those who answered they would, how many of you have permanent jobs working as physicists in either academia or industry? Do you feel your the majority of your colleagues and or former classmates in graduate school feel the same way (assuming you have kept in touch with any of them)? Do you acknowledge that you may possibly be the exception to the rule and the average physics PhD, in fact, regrets going to graduate school?

I have a permanent job as a medical physicist. Just about all of my former graduate class mates are working in the field and seem quite happy, so I suspect they would do it over again.

To be honest I don't think I'm the exception to the rule at all. Even the former class mates outside of medical physics that I've kept in touch with who left academia seem happy with the choices they've made.

 

[ZapperZ]

Pick the wrong specialty, and the phd doesn't open up any research jobs at all. I think you underestimate the pain of finding something you truly enjoy and then having the opportunity to pursue it taken away.



What if you never get that research based career, and all that time spent preparing is just time wasted?

For my part, given a choice to do my phd again, I would not. I would have self taught some things after undergrad and jumped into my current career or something similar.

Given what you know now, and assuming that you still want to do a PhD in physics, would you have (i) chosen the same field of study and (ii) if you do, would you have made a more conscious effort to prepare for a backup plan?

You have to admit that the area of physics and the specialty that you had picked have had a very poor rate of hiring during the past decade! Even those who went into experimental particle physics, the ones that get hired are the ones who specialized in instrumentation and detectors, i.e. they have other useful abilities that make them attractive beyond just academia.

Physics PhD's do get jobs! But there are also Physics PhD's who don't, and can't find a job that is commensurate with ability/knowledge. The question now is, in what areas are those, and did they also do anything else in particular.

My take on this has always been that everyone needs to go in with their eyes wide open. If you KNOW that you are going into a very competitive, low-employment area (particle physics theory, anyone?), and you are hard-headed and resolved to study this, then make sure you make extra preparation for the strong possibility that you will not end up in that field, or even in physics! That is all anyone of us can do on here. Present the reality, and it is up to the individual and his/her comfort level if the risk is worth taking.

And in case people have missed it, the latest Obama Administration budget proposal for DOE Office of Science has a BUDGET CUT of 6.8% for High Energy Physics. This is after a miserable funding for HEP from this fiscal year. So while the overall budget for DOE Office of Science and NSF remain relatively flat, HEP continues to retract! And this is all before the US Congress, who have not been in any kind of a spending mood the last few years, get their hands on the budget proposal!

So draw your own conclusion on whether there is going to be a lot of new hiring if you are majoring in high energy physics. You may still be a student, and you may think you are immune to the ebb and flow of politics and the economy, but you are not.

Zz.

 

[jesse73]

Physics research as a whole at the more basic level has been suffering from cuts.

The process itself is in danger of being captured by rich agents . There is a lot more private money funding research and it is only a matter of time before some billionaire figures out he could get more bang for his buck by lobbying congress to fund his pet project instead of funding it directly.

There was nytimes article about the influx of private money for research last week.

 

[ZapperZ]

Physics research as a whole at the more basic level has been suffering from cuts.

The process itself is in danger of being captured by rich agents . There is a lot more private money funding research and it is only a matter of time before some billionaire figures out he could get more bang for his buck by lobbying congress to fund his pet project instead of funding it directly.

There was nytimes article about the influx of private money for research.

I disagree. There is very little private money funding BASIC physics research. In fact, private money, especially from large corporations, have been severely reduced. The demise of basic physics research at Bell Labs is one clear example.

Secondly, what private company or individual would fund the ILC, the various neutrino experiments, the LCLS, etc? Even building something useful that has a practical application, such as a synchrotron light source, hasn't been done by any private entity. The Synchrotron Reseach Center in Stoughton, Wis is about to shut down. I don't see any private entity rushing to take over.

Zz.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Given what you know now, and assuming that you still want to do a PhD in physics, would you have (i) chosen the same field of study and (ii) if you do, would you have made a more conscious effort to prepare for a backup plan?

You have to admit that the area of physics and the specialty that you had picked have had a very poor rate of hiring during the past decade! Even those who went into experimental particle physics, the ones that get hired are the ones who specialized in instrumentation and detectors, i.e. they have other useful abilities that make them attractive beyond just academia.

Physics PhD's do get jobs! But there are also Physics PhD's who don't, and can't find a job that is commensurate with ability/knowledge. The question now is, in what areas are those, and did they also do anything else in particular.

My take on this has always been that everyone needs to go in with their eyes wide open. If you KNOW that you are going into a very competitive, low-employment area (particle physics theory, anyone?), and you are hard-headed and resolved to study this, then make sure you make extra preparation for the strong possibility that you will not end up in that field, or even in physics! That is all anyone of us can do on here. Present the reality, and it is up to the individual and his/her comfort level if the risk is worth taking.

And in case people have missed it, the latest Obama Administration budget proposal for DOE Office of Science has a BUDGET CUT of 6.8% for High Energy Physics. This is after a miserable funding for HEP from this fiscal year. So while the overall budget for DOE Office of Science and NSF remain relatively flat, HEP continues to retract! And this is all before the US Congress, who have not been in any kind of a spending mood the last few years, get their hands on the budget proposal!

So draw your own conclusion on whether there is going to be a lot of new hiring if you are majoring in high energy physics. You may still be a student, and you may think you are immune to the ebb and flow of politics and the economy, but you are not.

Zz.

As an aside, you state that the overall budget for DOE Office of Science and NSF remains relatively flat, but HEP continues to retract (including the Obama Administration's budget proposal of a cut of 6.8% for HEP). If my arithmetic is correct, that would imply that cuts in HEP are being redirected to other areas within the DOE Office of Science and NSF budgets (or are being proposed to be redirected). I'm curious as to what those areas are.

 

[jesse73]

I disagree. There is very little private money funding BASIC physics research. In fact, private money, especially from large corporations, have been severely reduced. The demise of basic physics research at Bell Labs is one clear example.

Secondly, what private company or individual would fund the ILC, the various neutrino experiments, the LCLS, etc? Even building something useful that has a practical application, such as a synchrotron light source, hasn't been done by any private entity. The Synchrotron Reseach Center in Stoughton, Wis is about to shut down. I don't see any private entity rushing to take over.

Zz.

Bell Labs was largely funded by giving ATT a public monopoly. It was managed privately but its ability to exist was through public consent for a monopoly.

You missed the point about capture of the funding process. My point was that private money is starting to come into fund research while simultaneously our laws are allowing for bigger influence by private money PACs etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/s...as-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0

It is only a matter of time before a billionaire realizes that rather than giving 25 million to fund a science project he is interested in he could use that 25 million to lobby congress to move the levers to fund a grant for more than 25 million for the same project. It is a better return on investment.

 

[Lavabug]

Am I taking the carrot away? Or are they jogging for only an illusion of a carrot?

I really don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but did you not pass up a post-doc opportunity in your field at a very good institution? I understand there are personal reasons for doing this, you mentioned you wanted to settle down and start a family, but I think you should be a little more honest when talking about the job prospects. Jobs that involve personal life sacrifices != nonexistence of jobs.

I second ZZ's statement about US HEP funding (and perhaps it's also true for LENP funding?) and the lack of private interest in basic research, Bell Labs is the most glaringly obvious example of this. Industry wants short-term results and immediate commercialization. Fundamental science generally cannot provide this and probably never will.

 

[ParticleGrl]

]Given what you know now, and assuming that you still want to do a PhD in physics, would you have (i) chosen the same field of study and (ii) if you do, would you have made a more conscious effort to prepare for a backup plan?

How would I identify the field that WILL be hiring? No one I know from graduate school is still doing science for a living, probably because we graduated into the height of the recession. Their fields are quite far ranging (biophysics theory and experiment, high energy (obviously), condensed matter theory and experiment, etc). A few people are working as engineers at intel, which is the closest any of us got (they aren't doing research, but quality control/failure testing type stuff).

I didn't want a phd, I wanted a career in science, and it doesn't seem like trading places with anyone in my cohort would have gotten me there. I enjoyed the process of getting a phd, don't get me wrong, but its a lot of time to waste.

You have to admit that the area of physics and the specialty that you had picked have had a very poor rate of hiring during the past decade!

At the time I started, everyone in my department assured me that with the dawn of the LHC right as I was graduating there would be massive opportunities in high energy physics. Thats the problem with trying to guess what field is going to be popular 6+ years before hand.

I really don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but did you not pass up a post-doc opportunity in your field at a very good institution?

And I recently interviewed (and recommended hiring) the very person who took that postdoc. It was a dead end for him.

I second ZZ's statement about US HEP funding (and perhaps it's also true for LENP funding?) and the lack of private interest in basic research, Bell Labs is the most glaringly obvious example of this. Industry wants short-term results and immediate commercialization. Fundamental science generally cannot provide this and probably never will.

HEP shrinking in the DOE budget is part of an overall trend of basic research funding shrinking in both public and private settings. There is a reason engineering/CS phds have better job prospects then physics phds- basic research dollars are moving to applied research in both public and private settings.

 

[analogdesign]

As an aside, you state that the overall budget for DOE Office of Science and NSF remains relatively flat, but HEP continues to retract (including the Obama Administration's budget proposal of a cut of 6.8% for HEP). If my arithmetic is correct, that would imply that cuts in HEP are being redirected to other areas within the DOE Office of Science and NSF budgets (or are being proposed to be redirected). I'm curious as to what those areas are.

Besides HEP, there is a proposed 17% cut to Fusion Energy Sciences. The money will be redirected to all the other research programs funded by the Office of Science. The biggest percentage gain will go to Advance Scientific Computing Research (about 13% increase).

http://science.energy.gov/~/media/budget/pdf/sc-budget-request-to-congress/fy-2015/FY_2015_Budget_SC_Overview.pdf

 

[ZapperZ]

As an aside, you state that the overall budget for DOE Office of Science and NSF remains relatively flat, but HEP continues to retract (including the Obama Administration's budget proposal of a cut of 6.8% for HEP). If my arithmetic is correct, that would imply that cuts in HEP are being redirected to other areas within the DOE Office of Science and NSF budgets (or are being proposed to be redirected). I'm curious as to what those areas are.

They are being directed more towards energy efficient engines/cars, on the enviroment, etc... i.e. the Obama pet projects. Those areas are seeing rapid growth in funding.

Zz.

 

[analogdesign]

They are being directed more towards energy efficient engines/cars, on the enviroment, etc... i.e. the Obama pet projects. Those areas are seeing rapid growth in funding.

Zz.

That statement is not consistent with the facts as indicated in the budget summary.

 

[ZapperZ]

That statement is not consistent with the facts as indicated in the budget summary.

See similar conclusion by Morello et al, Nature v. 507, p.147 (2014).

To Andrew Lankford, a physicist at the University of California, Irvine, who leads the DOE’s High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, the move is not surprising, given Obama’s emphasis on climate and clean-energy research and development at the department — these saw a significant boost in the White House budget proposal. Lankford says that the proposal would make it “a challenge to maintain the vitality of our research community” — but he is confident that his panel’s report will be completed in time to influence budget negotiations in Congress

Zz.

 

[analogdesign]

That's a great citation, but it is not consistent with the facts as indicated in the budget summary. Have you looked at the budget summary? The biggest winner was scientific computing. The increase for BES will mostly go to planning for LCLS-II. I didn't see a lot of explicit "clean energy or climate" funding in the document. There is a bit of lip service to "clean energy" but not a lot of funding.

 

[Lavabug]

And I recently interviewed (and recommended hiring) the very person who took that postdoc. It was a dead end for him.

Good for him. I'm glad you added 'for him', there's no telling what would've happened if you ran the experiment again. I think the term 'dead end' is a little strong here, maybe you should have him post his opinion on whether he would do his PhD again in retrospect. Ending up in a good industry job like yours -which you claimed to like and probably would not have gotten with just a BS in Physics*- that pays well is not something to be dissatisfied about. Yes, PhD training is incredibly specific and didn't train you for your job, but so is practically anything that isn't trade school or an engineering undergrad curriculum, which according to 5 engineers I know personally isn't even remotely relevant to their jobs, something they actually pride themselves over (mainly macho bravado over having completed such a demanding undergrad curriculum).

*I insist on this because it appears that in this day in age, someone finishing his/her BS in Physics is not going to land any good industry position by a long shot. We see dozens of threads here and on other forums about bachelors spending 1-2 years to get even the most basic of entry level jobs, while I still haven't seen any phd's struggling to find employment of any sort at their level when they aren't taking time off for family or aren't geographically constrained (like any career in the globalized market we have).

Are you taking your generally *vastly* improved job prospects relative to physics BS holders into account? I think you're not seeing the bigger picture: you probably would not have been taken very seriously in the private job market with a science bachelors in this climate. So I don't think your idea here:

For my part, given a choice to do my phd again, I would not. I would have self taught some things after undergrad and jumped into my current career or something similar.

is a realistic one.

I also don't think getting to spend 6 years doing fundamental research on taxpayer dime to be a waste of time, but that's extremely subjective. If undergrad debt and solvency is the big issue for you, I completely understand why it would feel like a waste of time. Otherwise I really don't get you.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Ending up in a good industry job like yours -which you claimed to like and probably would not have gotten with just a BS in Physics*- that pays well is not something to be dissatisfied about.

We interview bachelors holders in technical fields all the time. They don't come in at the same level as phds, but can work their way to that level in a few years (about 3 or so) if they are good. We hired a recent math bachelors about 6 months ago, and I'd rather have had a physics major, but none applied.

I insist on this because it appears that in this day in age, someone finishing his/her BS in Physics is not going to land any good industry position by a long shot.

I think they are trying to find science and engineering-related jobs to the exclusion of others. At the companies I have worked for (largely in insurance), physics bachelors would have no problem getting an interview. The problem is largely that people who study physics want science or engineering jobs. They especially don't want "business" (finance,insurance,etc) jobs. The news I have is that getting a phd won't change things- you'll still likely end up in a business job.

Also, my first post phd job was bartending, which doesn't even require a high school degree.

I also don't think getting to spend 6 years doing fundamental research on taxpayer dime to be a waste of time

Sure, it was fun. Spending 6 years traveling the world would have been fun, spending 6 years playing video games would have been fun. I delayed adulthood (family, career,etc) purely to have fun scratching an intellectual itch. That is wasting time.

 

[Lavabug]

I think they are trying to find science and engineering-related jobs to the exclusion of others. At the companies I have worked for (largely in insurance), physics bachelors would have no problem getting an interview. The problem is largely that people who study physics want science or engineering jobs. They especially don't want "business" (finance,insurance,etc) jobs. The news I have is that getting a phd won't change things- you'll still likely end up in a business job.

I think you should speak for yourself here. The people I know who willingly stopped at the BS level did so out of lack of interest to pursue physics any further and yet they were systematically turned down for job interviews for jobs that involved programming or only a modicum of numerical literacy, the only 'real world' skills a physics graduate realistically has to offer at the entry level. I wouldn't call those science or engineering jobs.

Surely the average physics major's odds at getting an interview are higher than a humanities major's odds, but we're not beating the glut of CS, business/eco and engineering bachelors to these generalist business positions you are talking about with a bachelors in physics. You have to put yourself in the shoes of a physics bachelors today trying to get a job of any sort that isn't something they could have done straight out of high school. A career job. Any.

As for the subjective topic of time wasting, there are many worse and more permanent 'adulthood'-delaying things you could do in 6 years, like going to jail, getting bogged down in an addiction problem, etc. No need to kick yourself, you didn't do so badly.

 

[ParticleGrl]

You have to put yourself in the shoes of a physics bachelors today trying to get a job of any sort that isn't something they could have done straight out of high school. A career job. Any.

I've consulted at several insurance companies that would interview a physics bachelors for IT and data analyst positions, were one to apply. Get a few actuarial tests under your belt, and you also open up those actuary positions. If you know any physics bachelors actively pursuing insurance work and failing to land interviews, private message me.

 

[jesse73]

I think you should speak for yourself here. The people I know who willingly stopped at the BS level did so out of lack of interest to pursue physics any further and yet they were systematically turned down for job interviews for jobs that involved programming or only a modicum of numerical literacy, the only 'real world' skills a physics graduate realistically has to offer at the entry level. I wouldn't call those science or engineering jobs.

Arent you two saying nearly the same thing

The problem is largely that people who study physics want science or engineering jobs. They especially don't want "business" (finance,insurance,etc) jobs. The news I have is that getting a phd won't change things- you'll still likely end up in a business job.

As for the subjective topic of time wasting, there are many worse and more permanent 'adulthood'-delaying things you could do in 6 years, like going to jail, getting bogged down in an addiction problem, etc. No need to kick yourself, you didn't do so badly.

At least you didnt waste time being in jail or as a crack addict isn't a very compelling argument.

 

[Lavabug]

PM is in the works.

At least you didnt waste time being in jail or as a crack addict isn't a very compelling argument.

Ok, so that was a little facetious. The point was that getting to 'scratch an intellectual itch', get paid for it, and get immensely better job prospects than you would with a freshly minted BS afterwards is not terrible thing one should be embarassed about (nor is jailtime or addiction, but in contrast to a physics phd, that actually severely limits your job and earning prospects FOR LIFE).

IMO, the real problem is that some people (not just ParticleGrl) set some really unreasonably high bars for themselves as far as life acheivement goes (job, earnings, mortgage, and stable family before the age of 30, otherwise you are a failure that hasn't matured) and fail to realize what a relatively comfortable and priveleged position they are already in. You have options, and they are all pretty good. 6 years of academic work is not going to stunt you for life, we should stop pretending it does. High percentile first world problems, etc.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that a phd is the best thing they could do with their time by any stretch. I don't need to reassure myself either, I am dead set for one and fully accept the consequences. I just find it sad and slightly annoying that some people feel so unsatisfied with what I consider a massive acheivement and a step forward in their lives, because if that doesn't make someone feel happy I don't know what would. Yes, I am hippie with some semi-unrealistic ideals and I want everyone to be happy instead of bitter. Off I go.

 

[ParticleGrl]

get immensely better job prospects than you would with a freshly minted BS

I dispute this. I had much better job offers on the table before my phd then after. This was because of broad economic conditions, but its not a truism. Statistics seem to suggest that you'll earn more taking a job after a bachelors then waiting until after the phd.

IMO, the real problem is that some people (not just ParticleGrl) set some really unreasonably high bars for themselves as far as life acheivement goes (job, earnings, mortgage, and stable family before the age of 30, otherwise you are a failure that hasn't matured)

I'm looking at the opportunity cost of graduate school, and I'm comparing myself to my peers. Its not an unreasonable goal- its what every person I know who skipped grad school and went straight to work accomplished. Conservatively, grad school cost me at least $200,000 in just foregone earnings.

 

[Choppy]

Statistics seem to suggest that you'll earn more taking a job after a bachelors then waiting until after the phd.

It's probably worth noting that the statistics only say this when you work through them in most cases. Rarely do we see opportunity cost factored into these things. It's a lot more common to see median annual salaries striated by highest degree earned. And that suggests a different story.

Opportunity cost can of course be difficult to estimate, particularly for individuals looking at their own lives. But ParticleGrl makes a good point. The opportunity cost of graduate school is generally pretty high.

But perhaps we should keep this focussed on the question at hand. The original poster is asking for personal experiences and feelings. Whether it *is* better to have done the PhD or not is very subjective.

 

[ParticleGrl]

It's probably worth noting that the statistics only say this when you work through them in most cases. Rarely do we see opportunity cost factored into these things. It's a lot more common to see median annual salaries striated by highest degree earned. And that suggests a different story.

Also, you have to make the proper comparison- bachelors + 5 or more years experience vs. phd with no experience.

 

[jkl71]

You have to put yourself in the shoes of a physics bachelors today trying to get a job of any sort that isn't something they could have done straight out of high school. A career job. Any.

To a very good approximation I was as prepared to be a professional software developer the day I graduated high school as the day I got my PhD. It wouldn’t take much to enumerate what I learned in graduate school that has been useful in software, it’s very close to nothing. Not that I’m saying a physics PhD doesn’t look better on a resume (and it doesn’t really look that great) than a high school diploma, I’m only talking about doing the work.

I was one of the “would do it over again” people, but not because it did anything to enhance skills that I could use in a career.

 

[Lavabug]

I dispute this. I had much better job offers on the table before my phd then after. This was because of broad economic conditions, but its not a truism. Statistics seem to suggest that you'll earn more taking a job after a bachelors then waiting until after the phd.



I'm looking at the opportunity cost of graduate school, and I'm comparing myself to my peers. Its not an unreasonable goal- its what every person I know who skipped grad school and went straight to work accomplished. Conservatively, grad school cost me at least $200,000 in just foregone earnings.

Emphasis mine. Why do you do this? How is it constructive? Can't you do without it? What if your peers happen to be extremely high acheivers by all standards, are you going to kick yourself for not keeping up? If psychologists have taught me anything, it is that there's no quicker way to destroy your self-esteem and knock you off-track from any life goal than by doing this. Amongst my peers, almost none of who I went to high school with went to college and work menial jobs on and off when the economy permits. Some even have had several run ins with the law.

About 1/3 of my cohort in physics who actually graduated on time +/- a year got to go to grad school for a terminal masters. The rest are unemployed, and the rest about to graduate don't have much of any employment prospects to walk into.

I don't feel any better or worse than them. I admit I only managed this recently thanks to a lot of therapy to combat some pretty ugly opinions of myself and my acheivements.

Not that I’m saying a physics PhD doesn’t look better on a resume (and it doesn’t really look that great) than a high school diploma, I’m only talking about doing the work.

I was one of the “would do it over again” people, but not because it did anything to enhance skills that I could use in a career.

I wasn't suggesting it did give you career skills outside of academia (unless you did hardcore programming). I am suggesting you are more likely to get called for an interview than a bachelors for the same job in the present job market. I think you are downplaying how much a higher degree correlates with better employment prospects.

According to AIP, 60% of physics bachelors go back to school within the first year. Only 35% actually land a job of any sort:
https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/employment/bach1yrlater-p-10.pdf

Compare with physics PhD's a year after graduation, where 67% get postdocs/temp positions, 29% get permanent positions, with a marginally lower unemployment rate fwiw:
https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/employment/phd1yrlater-p-10.pdf

Maybe not a fair comparison since there is little practical incentive to go to school again after a phd. But looking at it coldly, 35% of bachelors get a job of any kind within the first year vs. 96% of phd's. I don't happen to think recent bachelors are stupid: if they could get meaningful employment fresh out of college I think they would take it no matter how set they were on grad school, all undergrad debts and the tightness of grad stipends considered. Especially in ones in their early 20's that can afford to start a phd later on. I know I would've if I could find it, taking the time to amass some savings and 'industry experience', but the prospect of toiling around for 1-2 years prepping for whatever career job that I had no college background in with no guarantee of getting hired is not very appealing compared to going straight to grad school (in my circumstances, as I am 27).

I cannot argue with what you could have done with those 6 years, you win on the opportunity cost argument. For all I know, you could have gone into stock trading and made a fortune during those years. You could have also done this fresh out of high school if you had the know how. If we want to do some peer-comparison, shouldn't we compare ourselves to the wizard young entrepeneurs that managed to do that without spending a lot of time in school? I'm sure there must've been at least one of those at your high schools.

 

[jkl71]

According to AIP, 60% of physics bachelors go back to school within the first year. Only 35% actually land a job of any sort

There may be a correlation, but I don’t know about causation. I would actually group the 60% going to grad school with the 35% that get jobs, since presumably most of them get some kind of TA/RA support, so the BS/PhD difference is only 95% to 96%.

Again I don’t know how things would have worked out for me without the PhD and anecdotal evidence isn’t that useful, but given the reaction I got looking for jobs out of grad school I don’t see how it could have helped much. One person was concerned that if they hired me I would bolt as soon as some (non-existent) great physics job opened up. Another explicitly said I seemed like a quitter since I was no longer doing physics and thought I would just quit his job on a whim (I’m not sure if this was a serious question, it may have just been to see how I handle rudeness, I did get an offer from this company, but I declined).

I also got a lot of “helpful” advice in the form of “why don’t you just …”. Nobody ever explicitly said this to me, and it could just be me being defensive, but sometimes there seemed to be an implication that if I were actually any good at physics, surely there would be something for me in that field (there were several times I wanted to show people my publication list along with the citations of my papers, again it could just be me being defensive).

Just one person’s experience for what it’s worth.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Just one person’s experience for what it’s worth.

I can add my own experience to that, my job hunt was similar.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I dispute this. I had much better job offers on the table before my phd then after. This was because of broad economic conditions, but its not a truism. Statistics seem to suggest that you'll earn more taking a job after a bachelors then waiting until after the phd.

Those statistics are deceptive because it is dependent on the economic conditions that the said bachelors graduates encounter that influence their overall earning potential. For example, a bachelor's graduate who graduated in the worst period of the financial crisis of 2008 faced a far grimmer employment situation than someone who earned a bachelors alone, say, in 2003. It would therefore not be surprising if, in 2014, that same individual may have reduced earning compared to his/her peer who may have graduated with a PhD.

 

[ChristinaJ]

Absolutely!

 

[-Dragoon-]

I think the only reason you should ever do a PhD in physics is for the love of it. It makes no sense on almost any other measure. If you are good enough to get your PhD, then you could make much more money doing something else. On the other hand money isn't that important once you have over a certain threshold, and you will still do just fine after getting your PhD; it's not like you will be homeless.

Please elaborate on the "doing something else" part. It seems many on here are under the impression that physics BSc's have employers kicking down their doors to hire them. From talking with the physics majors I know in upper years and my year, the vast majority feel they have about the same job prospects as they did when they graduated high school. Most are looking at doing more schooling, whether its graduate school or another degree.

 

[-Dragoon-]

I have a permanent job as a medical physicist. Just about all of my former graduate class mates are working in the field and seem quite happy, so I suspect they would do it over again.

To be honest I don't think I'm the exception to the rule at all. Even the former class mates outside of medical physics that I've kept in touch with who left academia seem happy with the choices they've made.

But medical physics is a licensed and regulated profession, so it's no wonder you are content with your choice as I'm sure there are no shortage of jobs in your field. I imagine the average medical physics PhD will easily find a good job in their field, while the average astrophysics PhD will likely never find a permanent position in their field.

Despite that, thanks for adding your perspective Choppy.

 

[George Jones]

To all those who answered they would, how many of you have permanent jobs working as physicists in either academia or industry?

I have stated this as part of my Mentor bio, but I'll repost

I have never been particularly interested in doing research, but I enjoy following research at a technical level, and I greatly enjoy teaching. I have taught, either as an instructor or as an assistant professor, at universities in five Canadian provinces, one U.S. state, and one U.S. Territory. In physics, engineering, and mathematics, I have taught 30 different lecture courses and the lab components of 15 different courses, from Physics and Society for non-science majors to Advanced Quantum Mechanics for grad students to (analog) labs for second-year Electrical Engineering students.

Currently, I am the Senior Lab Instructor (a faculty position) for the physics department at the University of Northern British Columbia. I came here as an assistant professor on an eight-month sabbatical replacement position, and it seems that I am going to stick around. Somewhat ironic, given my theoretical and mathematical tastes, but I really enjoy my work, my interactions with students and physics and math colleagues, and the fact that I get to teach some lecture courses

So, I do have a permanent job, but not as a professor, and it took me a long time to land the job. Also, because of my spouse (though, she wasn't then my spouse), I walked away from a continuing position at a small university, the University of the Virgin Islands.

 

[analogdesign]

Please elaborate on the "doing something else" part. It seems many on here are under the impression that physics BSc's have employers kicking down their doors to hire them. From talking with the physics majors I know in upper years and my year, the vast majority feel they have about the same job prospects as they did when they graduated high school. Most are looking at doing more schooling, whether its graduate school or another degree.

I think what Kurros was saying was that if you have the intellectual capabilities and work ethic to succeed in a Physics Ph.D. program you most likely have the capability to succeed in a more potentially secure and lucrative field such as engineering or medicine (note I said *more* secure, not secure). I agree with this statement. On the whole I would say Physicists form the class of the smartest people I've met.

If you're already a Physics B.S. student the die is cast to some extent and making the move to engineering or pre-med will be painful.