• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Possible to become a physicist these days?

  • Physics
  • Thread starter TysonM8
  • Start date
  • #1
25
1

Main Question or Discussion Point

After reading this, I'm having second thoughts on studying physics next year;

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html [Broken]

This is just one example of many discouraging articles I've read.

What's the point in studying something you love, when in the end you'll most likely have to do something completely different after you graduate? I don't want to end up working in finance because I was in the majority of PhD graduates who couldn't get a job in academia for physics. It just seems like a waste of time.

So I guess I'm asking whether or not it's worth spending your life pursuing a career that is almost impossible to obtain. Advice/opinions/comments? Thanks...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,535
4,304
  • #3
178
4
" The Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised Planck against going into physics, saying, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." Planck replied that he did not wish to discover new things, but only to understand the known fundamentals of the field, and so began his studies in 1874 at the University of Munich. "
i am not saying you are going to be the next max planck , but at least you wont sit down in an office 20 years from now wondering what could have happened if you did physics , who knows , one thing you need to know is that even though working chances are highly rare , there is always a couple of places for those who deserve it , maybe if you do deserve a nice position , you'll get one .
there are billions of stuff to research on in physics right now , quantum computers , atomic transistors , and alot of other stuff , try undergraduate , if you find yourself not on par with top students , go for engineering MsC , or maybe double major in engineering and physics
 
  • #4
25
1
" The Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised Planck against going into physics, saying, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." Planck replied that he did not wish to discover new things, but only to understand the known fundamentals of the field, and so began his studies in 1874 at the University of Munich. "
Wow, that was really helpful. Well I guess I'm going into physics with the right attitude; not necessarily to make new discoveries, but just for the thrill of learning how the universe works. Even if I don't make it as a professor, I'll still be happy.

but at least you wont sit down in an office 20 years from now wondering what could have happened if you did physics
I don't think I could handle the regret of not studying what I love.

Thanks for the advice. I'm just going to go into physics without the expectation of becoming a professor, while I enjoy the wonderful journey :)
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
19,398
5,541
Have you weighed the difficulty of the path in your decision?
 
  • #6
336
14
So I would say that you need to ask yourself what exactly you want. If you try to go the physics path, odds are high that you'll find yourself leaving science after your phd and some postdocs. Most of my cohort (myself included) are working in finance,software,data-mining/statistics,etc.

Will you be happy if you spend 6 years in a phd program after college, another 3-5 in postdocs, and end up with a job in insurance? If not, you should consider that most engineering majors end up working as engineers. If your preferences are job in physics > job in engineering > all other, it might not make sense to pursue physics.
 
  • #7
1,254
105
Honestly, the odds are high he/she wont end up in post docs. There is high attrition along each step, with the first year at undergrad being one of the highest.

OP, I would keep a backup plan in mind. A dual major in physics and engineering seems like a great idea.
 
  • #9
458
11
" The Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised Planck against going into physics, saying, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." Planck replied that he did not wish to discover new things, but only to understand the known fundamentals of the field, and so began his studies in 1874 at the University of Munich. "
i am not saying you are going to be the next max planck , but at least you wont sit down in an office 20 years from now wondering what could have happened if you did physics , who knows , one thing you need to know is that even though working chances are highly rare , there is always a couple of places for those who deserve it , maybe if you do deserve a nice position , you'll get one .
there are billions of stuff to research on in physics right now , quantum computers , atomic transistors , and alot of other stuff , try undergraduate , if you find yourself not on par with top students , go for engineering MsC , or maybe double major in engineering and physics
This is "pie in the sky" advice that you hear HS physics teachers give all the time. That assumes that the worst case is not becoming a tenured physics professor and if you do get tenure you can just do research on anything that is physics related.

This would be like telling a good HS basketball player to "follow his dream" into the NBA. It may be unlikely he will make it to be Lebron James but if things dont work out there are tons of other positions like head coach or general manager or other front office jobs as if there wasnt people training for those specific jobs who are more likely to get hired for them.

The reality is you can do research on what you can get a grant to do research on and you have to continuously apply for said grants.

The transition if you dont become a physics professor will be hard because it will be a transition out of physics into jobs where you will compete with people who have trained for those specific jobs and in companies who have bureaucratic requirements that may say they need a degree with certain keywords.

Odds are heavily against you that even if you try to work in physics you will not. Just like the road to the NBA there are people dropping off in every step.

My advice would be that if you are going to work in any field remotely covered by engineering (like say condensed matter which has a whole lot of overlap with materials science engineering programs) do the engineering program and get the degree with the keywords. Almost everything in physics is done in some capacity in some segment of engineering except for HEP and astro. Unless you are working in HEP and astro do the engineering program.

You will likely work on the exact same research field as you would in the physics program but you will come out with an engineering degree which employers will value. If you are working in the exact same thing why in the world would you choose a "physics" degree? to "signal" to employers that you are smart?

Employers dont care how smart you are. They care how practical you are. An "engineering" degree signals "practical".

And if you decide to want work in HEP and astro then I would give you the same advice I would give a HS basketball player with dreams of making the NBA, good luck and I hope you work on a back up plan.
 
  • #10
105
9
After reading this, I'm having second thoughts on studying physics next year;

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html [Broken]

This is just one example of many discouraging articles I've read.
I would say this article is fairly optimistic, probably because it was written a while ago. In addition to what is described in that blogpost, nowadays it is much harder to transition from physics to any other career. A good deal of my friends who are bright, determined, innovative individuals with Physics PhD degrees from leading universities are unemployed or are working as shop assistants / baristas / admin assistants. I believe eventually some of them may find better jobs, but that is not easy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Choppy
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
4,563
1,649
It is still possible to become a physicist these days. But it's important to understand two things:

(a) The odds are that most people simply do not make it into the ivory tower of tenured professorships. The numbers that get floated around are that on average every professor graduates ten PhD students in his or her life. The professor will retire eventually, but what happens to the other nine?

(b) For those who do become professors, it's not simply a case of working hard and being smart. Just about everyone who finishes a PhD can work hard and is pretty smart. You're in an extremely competitive pool of academic over-achievers.

By studying physics, you're earning an education in an academic field. You're developing the skills one needs to go further in academia. Along the way, you're probably satisfying your curiosity about how the world works, you're likely going to contribute in some minor way to the expansion of human knowledge, develop an intimate understanding of the principles behind modern technology, and even develop some minor tools/skills for advancing the state of that technology.

What you are NOT doing, in most cases, is credentialing yourself within the network of an established profession.

My advice is, if you're really sure about it... follow your dreams. But don't be blind about it. Have an exit strategy.
 
  • #12
105
9
The numbers that get floated around are that on average every professor graduates ten PhD students in his or her life.
By the way, is there any source that could confirm this number? In our department it seems to be more like 4-5 PhD students per Professor per year, which would result in about 150-300 PhD students graduated by a Professor.

To be fair we also have a couple of (currently untenured) Assistant Professors and Associate Professors who co-supervise these PhD students, so the overall number may be about 30-60 PhD graduates per professor if you also count assistant and associate professorships. Nevertheless it's much more than 10.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Choppy
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
4,563
1,649
By the way, is there any source that could confirm this number? In our department it seems to be more like 4-5 PhD students per Professor per year, which would result in about 150-300 PhD students graduated by a Professor.

To be fair we also have a couple of (currently untenured) Assistant Professors and Associate Professors who co-supervise these PhD students, so the overall number may be about 30-60 PhD graduates per professor if you also count assistant and associate professorships. Nevertheless it's much more than 10.
It's an order of magnitude estimate. I'm sure you could dig up some data on the number of tenured physics faculty and the number of PhDs awarded annually if you we're so inclined. I know I've scene a recent (within the last year) Physics Today article that had some solid numbers in it any they were consistent with this.

The thing is, whether the actual value is 1 in 10 or 1 in 40, is largely irrelevant to these kinds of discussions. The precise value doesn't really change the fact that getting "in" is unlikely for those graduating with a PhD and that developing a solid backup plan is prudent.
 
  • #14
George Jones
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,270
803
By the way, is there any source that could confirm this number? In our department it seems to be more like 4-5 PhD students per Professor per year, which would result in about 150-300 PhD students graduated by a Professor.

To be fair we also have a couple of (currently untenured) Assistant Professors and Associate Professors who co-supervise these PhD students, so the overall number may be about 30-60 PhD graduates per professor if you also count assistant and associate professorships. Nevertheless it's much more than 10.
On average, each professor graduates 4 or 5 Ph.D.s a year??? This number seems enormous to me; way, way above average for Ph.D.-granting institutions in North America.
 
  • #15
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
24,003
6,552
By the way, is there any source that could confirm this number? In our department it seems to be more like 4-5 PhD students per Professor per year, which would result in about 150-300 PhD students graduated by a Professor.
That would mean you have 25x as many PhD students as faculty. Do you?
 
  • #16
99
3
Would the chances for a professorship (Tenured or not) go up if you Had a Phd in Physics and also A Branch of mathematics? Also how can publishing and writing papers help you get to graduate schools and teaching positions?
 
  • #17
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
24,003
6,552
Two PhDs would probably hurt your chances, since while you are getting a PhD in your second field you are not gaining expertise in your first.

If you don't publish papers, you will not get or keep a job at a research university.
 
  • #18
Choppy
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
4,563
1,649
Here's a little more on that "1 in 10" estimate.

According to the AIP, there are roughly 1600 PhDs awarded in the US in physics every year.
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/physgrad2008.pdf

Further there are roughly 9400 physics full time equivalent faculty positions. Note that this includes positions where the highest degree the department confers is either a BSc or an MSc (about 3800 positions) and may be seen as "teaching" positions.
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/awf10/table1.htm

If we assume a 30 year career for a professor (starting at 35 and fnishing at 65), we might expect roughly 30*1600 = 48000 new PhDs over that time.

48000/9600 = 5.

I realize I've made some gross oversimplifications here. The number of physics graduates may not be stable over a 30 year period for example. But there you have it. Maybe it's a little better than I thought... but not enough to alter the advocacy for having a strong backup plan.
 
  • #19
StatGuy2000
Education Advisor
1,740
823
So I think it's a consensus among those responding to the thread that a PhD in physics is a waste of time and will make you essentially unemployable, at least without some type of backup skill that employers will find useful. The same could be said of a PhD in mathematics as well (with the exception of statistics and certain branches of applied mathematics).

Indeed, I sometimes wonder if all of those who are currently pursuing a physics PhD in the US (and elsewhere in the world, including Canada and Europe) should withdraw from the program immediately.
 
  • #20
1,254
105
No, because that is assuming that being employable is the only reason a person does a PhD. For many, its not. They do it because they like doing it and the experience itself is worth the consequences. This also applies to people who do even "worse" PhDs like art history, etc.
 
  • #21
StatGuy2000
Education Advisor
1,740
823
No, because that is assuming that being employable is the only reason a person does a PhD. For many, its not. They do it because they like doing it and the experience itself is worth the consequences. This also applies to people who do even "worse" PhDs like art history, etc.
I disagree.

Being employable may not be the only reason to pursue a PhD, but it is an important factor in whether an individual chooses to pursue the field or not.

No matter how much someone enjoys working in scientific research (in our discussion, let's restrict it to physics research), if he/she finds that after earning his/her PhD that he/she ends up being unemployed or underemployed (e.g. working as a waiter, bartender, barista, retail) then it is worth wondering if that PhD study was truly worthwhile for that individual, or whether he/she could have spent those years doing studying or doing something else instead.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
1,254
105
You can always look back and wonder what you could have done different, always. I don't think Phds are different than the rest of us in that regard.
 
  • #23
StatGuy2000
Education Advisor
1,740
823
ModusPwnd, with all due respect, we are not talking about a few individuals here and there with regrets about choices taken or not taken. We are talking about entire groups of people who find that their ambitions of becoming working physicists, making a livable, middle-class income, are being thwarted.

We have seen thread after thread replying how a PhD in physics how even after several postdocs, the tenure-track route is closed to the majority of physics PhDs and doors to non-academic jobs are closed. We have testimonials of people testifying to how many employers don't know what to do with physics PhDs; how many individuals are forced to either retool in a different career direction, work as waiters/baristas/retailers, or remain unemployed.

Is all of what I stated above is not proof positive that pursuing a physics PhD (or at the very least most PhD programs in physics outside of select subfields such as experimental condensed matter or certain areas of computational physics) is an absolute waste, then I don't know what is!
 
  • #24
336
14
So I think it's a consensus among those responding to the thread that a PhD in physics is a waste of time and will make you essentially unemployable, at least without some type of backup skill that employers will find useful.
While true, I'd point out that having the phd can be useful once you land a job. It took me a long time to break into a field, but now that I have I'm finding that I'm moving up the ranks substantially faster because I have a phd. My second "real" job was at a firm that did statistical/analytic consulting made no bones about it- they hired me because the phd was good advertising. I was sometimes handed off to clients with descriptions like "here is on of our rocket scientists to help you with your statistical problem."

Its not the use for my education I was hoping for, but at least its something.
 
  • #25
458
11
So I think it's a consensus among those responding to the thread that a PhD in physics is a waste of time and will make you essentially unemployable, at least without some type of backup skill that employers will find useful. The same could be said of a PhD in mathematics as well (with the exception of statistics and certain branches of applied mathematics).
Not quite.

Waste of time only if you are judging based on employability and your ability of getting your foot in the door.

You learn many skills that may be the same of as an engineering graduate but the key being that the skill set being signaled by the words in your degree will put you at a disadvantage. In some sense you are wasting your time.

The skill set you have and can apply to your job is different than the skillset your employer thinks you have and can apply to your job.

Your job is to convince the employer that your skill set is what he needs but the time wasting element is that for the skills you picked them up as part of your research and did not learn them in a formal class there is a disadvantage at convincing an employer . An example would signals processing which a physics experimentalist would pick up as part of his research and have hands on research but an engineering grad would have a taken a formal class for and therefore would have an advantage at convincing his employer he is better for the signals processing role.


But I agree with the general idea that the downsides tend to be swept under the rug
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Possible to become a physicist these days?

Replies
26
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
12K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
900
Replies
6
Views
23K
Top