1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Other Professors, students and careers

  1. Nov 12, 2016 #1
    Hello all,

    I wonder how professors of some fields that have no demand in the job market deal with this fact with their students, especially if they ask?

    Thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 12, 2016 #2

    Choppy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    The job of professors in non-professional, academic fields is to educate the student in that field. This is not equivalent to preparing him or her for a specific vocation. Nor should it be.
     
  4. Nov 12, 2016 #3

    symbolipoint

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor
    Gold Member

    They have very, very few research students to advise and assist with their research area. A while later, they retire. Their research students may still find opportunities with this professor while doing research tasks, to have unexpected or unplanned experiences which may later become beneficial in find employment.
     
  5. Nov 12, 2016 #4

    symbolipoint

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor
    Gold Member

    Again, understand that ahead of time, a student does not know the exact, full set of experiences he will have. One or two of these experiences could be related to some employment position which you could later discuss at a job interview. These are not often things the student knows to plan ahead of time.
     
  6. Nov 13, 2016 #5
    If you want a high probability of getting a job after completion of a doctoral program, you should get an MD, not a PhD. I tell undergrads considering a PhD in science and engineering that they should consider a PhD program to be an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. In the US at least, a grad school stint really is a job: for any grad school worth attending, you typically get full waiver of tuition and a stipend in the form of a teaching assistantship/research assistantship/fellowship/scholarship that is sufficient to cover your books, supplies, and living expenses. You can emerge with your PhD free of grad school debt. Contrast that with grads in humanities, med school, law school, business school ..... In return, you get formal academic training via coursework and formal research experience via your thesis program. And you get to pursue research of your choice for the sheer joy of it.

    How relevant the PhD program is to future employment is a decision that the grad student needs to make ... or not make. For example, if you really want to pursue a dissertation on string theory, that's your choice, but you should be aware that only a few select elite will continue a career in string theory.

    Here's a tale of two grad students I know. They were both grad students in materials science and engineering at the same university. Grad Student A did his thesis for an established prof heavily into applied engineering. The prof worked as a consultant for a major industrial corp and received grant money from the corp. Grad Student A's thesis addressed problems of interest to the corp; Grad Student A got a couple of summer internships working for the corp; Grad Student A had a job waiting for him at the corp upon completion of his PhD.

    Grad Student B did his thesis for a prof who was into marine biology and was interested in the properties of compounds secreted by certain marine creatures. A new prof with seed money from the dept. No particular industrial leanings. Grad student B was intrigued by the research, completed his PhD, spent ~9 frustrating mos hunting for a job (fortunately was able to TA and continue research during the search), and eventually did find a job in industry (based on applicable skills learned and due to the strong reputation of the dept in materials science and engineering).
     
  7. Nov 13, 2016 #6
    I received a full RA scholarship during my PhD, but that wasn't my goal from pursuing my PhD, and even then it wasn't enough because I was an international student at the time. I understand some people have interest in some subjects in themselves rather than the money and their future job, but I doubt most students fall in that category.

    I agree, but I think students need help from somewhere to make a wise decision. Maybe a PhD student will have some skills that can be used in other fields, but it's not always easy to go to other fields and compete with other PhD students who are specialized in that field. Also, undergrads probably won't have the skills that allow them to pursue other domains in the job market, which means they would have to spend more time and money to develop skills that enhance their chances in the market.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2016
  8. Nov 15, 2016 #7
    Being honest with a student about their career prospects in their field =/= preparation for a vocation. And they should be honest with the student about such things.
     
  9. Nov 15, 2016 #8

    Choppy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Of course professors need to be honest. I wasn't implying anything else.

    The question was how they "deal with" the fact there is no demand in the job market for their specific field. "Dealing with it" implies that they need to take some sort of action to correct for it. In most cases they don't deal with it at all because that's not really their job.
     
  10. Nov 15, 2016 #9

    Dr Transport

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If a professor has your best interests at heart, they will be up front with you and tell you that the possibility of going forward in your dissertation topic in the long term is minuscule.
     
  11. Nov 16, 2016 #10
    There is total dishonesty among departments on career prospects, they have a vested interest in maintaining a student body, fundamentally they are no different then for profit universities.

    To be honest aid needs to be cut to programs without a track record of getting their students jobs, this would solve the problem.
     
  12. Nov 16, 2016 #11
    I was thinking the same, that being honest jeopardize the professors themselves of being out of business. But the question is: is it a moral obligation to educate students on their future opportunities, or at least give them the skills that they can use in the future, given that education isn't an end in itself? I asked this question because I think my field isn't in demand, and I was wondering how I could help students if I taught someday!! I would feel very conflicted.
     
  13. Nov 16, 2016 #12

    StatGuy2000

    User Avatar
    Education Advisor

    My suggestion to all, please ignore anything that Crek posts on this thread. His/her argument from the get go (as can be seen in all of his/her posts on PF up to this point) is that a physics degree (or a math degree) is worthless (which, at least at an empirical level is false).
     
  14. Nov 16, 2016 #13
    I don't think any degree is worthless per se, but there should be a match in my opinion between supply and demand. Otherwise, many students will suffer unemployment, while the job market will suffer from a shortage of local skills, which is a double hit to the economy. I'm not sure what role professors must play in this, but I think universities must cooperate with the government and the industry to provide some guidelines to future students. If students decide to pursue their fields based on guidelines, then we can say they are completely responsible for their choices. But with the lack of guidance, they are not the only party responsible.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2016
  15. Nov 16, 2016 #14

    Andy Resnick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is the model used for MDs: 'match day'. The annual number of residency slots is tightly regulated by professional associations The process is not without controversy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Resident_Matching_Program

    Of course, this matching of supply and demand occurs after one has invested a large amount of time and money.

    I should add that I do not have a vested interest in producing either undergraduate or graduate degree holders; I do not require student labor to be a productive researcher.
     
  16. Nov 16, 2016 #15
    In the US, a bachelor's program typically takes 4 yrs, and a PhD program typically takes 4-7 yrs. Job market disruptions occur in shorter time periods. (1) Example 1. In the aftermath of the first oil crisis in the 70's, there was a strong demand for chem eng. So, one of my relatives decided to get his BS in ChemE. But by the time he graduated, demand had plummeted. He pivoted, headed off to med school, and became a doctor. (2) Example 2. In 1999, the InterNet Bubble was still inflating. There was actually a shortage of R&D scientists and engineers in various sectors of telcom. Just two years later, in 2001, the bubble had burst, and major telcom companies were downsizing 25 - 100%. Of particular interest for your situation, Nortel [a major Canadian hi-tech company and a major telcom (including wireless) player] headed into a death spiral and eventually kicked the bucket.

    Commencement speakers are fond of the cliche, "Follow your passions, and the money will follow." This is absolute nonsense. But there are times in which you want to follow your passions, and deal with the consequences later. Another relative majored in art. She was actually a decent sculptor, but couldn't make a living as such. So she got a masters in art management (or something like that) and got a job as a fundraiser for museums. But, after several years of that, her artistic spirit beckoned, and she started her own business designing and handcrafting jewelry.
     
  17. Nov 16, 2016 #16
    Absolutely, that's why I think there should be cooperation between universities, the government, and the market to give guidelines for the market after at least 4 years. The guidelines cannot be about now for students who will be graduating in 4 years, right? Individuals cannot predict the future. For example, now many universities tend to have independent programs for data science, and I suspect many students are trying to enroll in such programs because the demand now is high for data scientists. But would it be the case in 4 years? Without large scale cooperation between entities that have the data, it's difficult to know.

    To decide based on passion or money, ideally you would choose both, but unfortunately, we live in a world that doesn't give us the freedom to pursue our passions. We are constrained by obligations and responsibilities that only money can solve. The question is then: what is better to live with passion and poor, or to live a decent life with something satisfying somehow? Some people can transform passion into money, but it's not that common. A professor I know is passionate about music, but he didn't feel he was getting any where, so, he decided to go to school again and got his PhD, and now he is a professor. He is still playing music, but now he doesn't have to worry about the monetary aspect.
     
  18. Nov 16, 2016 #17

    Choppy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Do you have evidence of professors intentionally misrepresenting the job prospects associated with academic degrees? From time to time this question comes up around here. I don't doubt that some students may feel misguided in some respects, as that would seem self-evident from the question, but inevitably the concern is taken to some kind of extreme with the suggestion that professors are willfully misleading students. I've asked for evidence of it, but no one ever really seems to back it up.

    There is no great conspiracy to keep students enrolled in physics degrees to justify the departments' existence. In fact I'd venture to guess that most physics departments would get along just fine without undergraduate physics majors. Most people who take courses offered by the department are not physics majors - they're pre-meds, engineers, and humanities students trying to tick off a mandatory science credit. It's the PHYSICS 101 courses that draw the warm bodies and the funding money that comes with them. The other big source of money is in the research grants, and if you think about it, you'd probably be able to draw more grant money in if you didn't have to burden your professors with teaching.

    I understand what you're saying here, but there are two major arguments against doing this. The first goes back to my original point. The purpose of any academic degree is not to train the students for a particular vocation. It's to educate the student in that field. If you impose a limit on the number of physics majors that you'll educate based on the number of physics professors you think you'll need in then next decade, all you're really doing is denying people an education. How would you choose which ones get in? What would you do about those who think they like physics based on their experience in high school and then realize it's not for them once they get into second year and change majors? Overall you're just creating a population that's less educated about real physics, and you're shrinking the talent pool from which to pick your professors.

    The second argument is a more pragmatic one. The APS puts a substantial effort into tracking data on physics graduates. Unemployment amidst graduates, is consistently low and most physics majors seem to do quite well for themselves compared to other majors. So while it's true that you don't fine many professional physics jobs out there, it seems that most physics graduates find jobs that they are quite happy with in the long run. So by restricting enrollment, you're not actually solving anything.
     
  19. Nov 16, 2016 #18
    I didn't say professors are misleading their students intentionally. I was saying if it's a moral obligation for them to enlighten their students (especially if they (the students) ask), because they (the professors) are supposedly know more than their students about the job market. Also, I didn't say to restrict the number of students in universities based on majors, but rather to give general guidelines to the students about the needs of the job market in the near future, and then they (the students) can decide whatever they want.

    Eventually, everyone will find a job, but why not to make their jobs relevant to their study? What is the point of studying in itself if it's not to prepare them to find a job? You said it's to educate students in that field. But still why?

    Of course you can develop skills later, but you will need more time and more money to be prepared, while the whole idea (at least in my opinion as you don't seem to share my view in this) of getting a degree is to find a decent job.
     
  20. Nov 17, 2016 #19

    symbolipoint

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor
    Gold Member

    Choppy explained some of this well enough. A degree in Physics is to academically educate people interested in Physics; and about matter, energy, and interplay between matter and energy. The purpose of education of Physics (less than or up to full undergraduate) is to prepare ONLY IN PART, other future scientists and engineers, or also those few who have a strong interest in Physics.

    Make the job relevant to the study? No. The jobs exist. What must be done is to make the study relevant to the job. The jobs require the undergrad or grad degree; the degree requires the education and the education needs to include several different courses, some of which are Physics at the very minimum of one course each in Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, and some extra stuff often called "Modern Physics".

    Some studies for degrees are for qualifying for various professional jobs, but this is often not the same as "training" for those jobs. Some studies for degrees do involve the intent to help qualify the graduates to do research but as such are not intended to be training for jobs.
     
  21. Nov 17, 2016 #20
    Why does everyone think I'm talking about physics in specific? I'm not a physicist, and I'm talking in general about fields that have less chances in the market today. I wouldn't exclude physics as one of them, though.

    In the context of what I said, I meant that people can find a job eventually, but the question is is their job relevant to their studies? I read somewhere here that a person with a PhD in physics is working as a bus driver. He is working, but his job is completely irrelevant to his studies. That's what I meant.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Professors, students and careers
Loading...