Should I Switch Majors or Schools to Secure a Better Future?

[micromass]

Job satisfaction is not the issue, either.

Then what is the issue?

 

[atyy]

So you feel a difference of 0.5% is enough to advice people not to take physics and to take Computer Science instead?

But how about the APS recommendations I listed in post #44? Could it be that many physics majors do double majors in engineering or computer science?

 

[homeomorphic]

So Physics have a better job satisfaction rate than Computer science. Would this be part of the issue?

No. Now, you're guilty of the same thing you were accusing me of. It's not much better.

 

[homeomorphic]

Again, the issue is how much you will be able to use what you study. I am happy with my job. That is almost irrelevant to whether my PhD was worth it.

 

[micromass]

OK, ability to stay in the field: http://www.studentsreview.com/still_in_field_by_major.php3 (I think job satisfaction is the biggest issue here though, and not anything else)

Computer Science 80.6%
EE: 75.5%
General Engineering: 69.2%
Math: 66.5%
Physics 66.7%
Mechanical Engineering: 77.5%

Sure, physics and math are way worse here, but it's not really a surprise that physicists and mathematicians have to leave their field. What matters is job satisfaction, not whether you could land a professorship or something else.

 

[micromass]

But how about the APS recommendations I listed in post #44? Could it be that many physics majors do double majors in engineering or computer science?

That could be. I think it is a very good and sound recommendation to do that.

 

[homeomorphic]

Ta da!

Exactly my point. Sorry.

No, job satisfaction is not what matters, per se. I spent years studying something I am not really going to use. I could have just gotten the job and skipped that part.

 

[micromass]

No. Now, you're guilty of the same thing you were accusing me of. It's not much better.

Correct, but if you get to argue this way, I can too.

 

[homeomorphic]

Although, you are right that that is less of a concern in this particular context (BS physics).

 

[homeomorphic]

Correct, but if you get to argue this way, I can too.

I admitted my error, but if you remember what I said at the very beginning, it's not like I'm moving the goal posts if I say that is a different issue.

 

[micromass]

Ta da!

Exactly my point. Sorry.

No, job satisfaction is not what matters, per se. I spent years studying something I am not really going to use. I could have just gotten the job and skipped that part.

So is it really a surprise you can't use algebraic topology in industry? Really?

What matters is:
1) That you enjoy your studies and get to learn something you want to learn
2) That you can find a good job afterwards
3) That you are satisfied with your job.

In my opinion (and the numbers do agree with this): if you enjoy physics, then a major in physics is a solid choice.

 

[Choppy]

Again, the issue is how much you will be able to use what you study. I am happy with my job. That is almost irrelevant to whether my PhD was worth it.

No.

The issue is advice for the original poster who is struggling in his physics program and wondering if he (or she) should switch majors based on the assumption that there are no jobs for physics majors. This is an incorrect assumption.

 

[homeomorphic]

So is it really a surprise you can't use algebraic topology in industry? Really?

I got a little cocky, and I thought I was going to be a prof. Maybe at a community college, if I had to, but unfortunately, it turned out that teaching isn't my thing. If it had been, maybe it would have worked out.

Micromass, your opinion is fine. But it is not the opinion of every potential physics student. Some of them might want to use what they learn.

 

[homeomorphic]

The issue is advice for the original poster who is struggling in his physics program and wondering if he (or she) should switch majors based on the assumption that there are no jobs for physics majors. This is an incorrect assumption.

And it's also an incorrect assumption that I said that there were no jobs for physics majors. We did get off topic, yes, if that's what you mean. But sometimes, people say things and I have to explain myself.

 

[micromass]

Micromass, your opinion is fine. But it is not the opinion of every potential physics student. Some of them might want to use what they learn.

Ok sure. But I don't think that is the point of this thread. If the thread was "I want to be a physics professor or researcher", then yeah, I would definitely have said that there are not many job openings for that. I have said these things in the past many time. The issue in this thread is whether there are jobs at all, and there are.

I mean, I understand that you wanted to be a math professor. But not everybody will have such unrealistic expectations.

 

[atyy]

Correct, but if you get to argue this way, I can too.

Reductio ad absurdum? Proving the worth of a maths degree right there!

 

[micromass]

Reductio ad absurdum? Proving the worth of a maths degree right there!

Assume by contradiction that I have a job. Hey, I have a job, my life is great!

 

[homeomorphic]

Ok sure. But I don't think that is the point of this thread. If the thread was "I want to be a physics professor or researcher", then yeah, I would definitely have said that there are not many job openings for that. I have said these things in the past many time. The issue in this thread is whether there are jobs at all, and there are.

To which I just said, be prepared for the job search. Maybe the stats are not that bad because people prepare.

You know what?

I probably should have just said that and not brought up other things. But that job search was awful, and it's still fresh in my memory. A lot of people do have a hard time with it.

But part of the point was to clarify the issue by saying it's more an issue of getting a job where you can use physics, rather than being able to get some kind of okay job. So, it's a side-issue to the point of the thread, but when you put me on the defensive, I have to talk about what the more general issues are to clarify what I'm saying.

I mean, I understand that you wanted to be a math professor. But not everybody will have such unrealistic expectations.

I don't think it was that unrealistic. I finished my PhD. If I liked teaching, it's possible I'd be doing it.

 

[micromass]

I don't think it was that unrealistic. I finished my PhD.

It's very unrealistic, even with a PhD. Do the math: how many PhD's does a math professor deliver in his life? Only one of those will be needed to replace his jobs.
And as for teaching community colleges, the situation is very bad there.

 

[homeomorphic]

It's very unrealistic, even with a PhD. Do the math: how many PhD's does a math professor deliver in his life? Only one of those will be needed to replace his jobs.

I agree. But I got in the ballpark of being able to do it, and if I had been more interested in doing things the way I was expected to, maybe I could have pulled it off.

And as for teaching community colleges, the situation is very bad there.

Okay, maybe a 4 year college or something, but in any case, it turns out I don't like teaching, anyway, so it's not important.

 

[Mirero]

It's very unrealistic, even with a PhD. Do the math: how many PhD's does a math professor deliver in his life? Only one of those will be needed to replace his jobs.
And as for teaching community colleges, the situation is very bad there.

Is it so unrealistic that one should essentially consider the chances to be 0, even if it isn't at a top tier university? It is kind of disheartening to hear that most people won't be able to participate in academia as they would like. Perhaps I am viewing the academic track through rose-tinted glasses.

 

[homeomorphic]

Is it so unrealistic that one should essentially consider the chances to be 0, even if it isn't at a top tier university? It is kind of disheartening to hear that most people won't be able to participate in academia as they would like. Perhaps I am viewing the academic track through rose-tinted glasses.

It's basically a lottery where the prize is that you get to work really, really hard.

 

[Mirero]

It's basically a lottery where the prize is that you get to work really, really hard.

Welp, guess I should enjoy my undergraduate and (hopefully) graduate life while I still can.

 

[Almeisan]

Correct, but if you get to argue this way, I can too.

All his posts are about arguing the same thing.

I don't know what his problem is. Maybe he thinks that because he failed, he must convince everyone else is going to fail as well.

It is true that not all people that can succeed in getting a PhD can also succeed in getting PhD level jobs. I don't get this argument about saying that unless you achieve the highest you can possibly achieve within the reach of your degree, being a professor, you failed and you wasted your time.

If you want a shot at a career as a scientist/researcher, in academics or in industry, you need a PhD. True, more candidates than jobs, but that is the same all the way to the bottom of the job market. Many PhD grads will get stuck at MSc level. Many MSc grads will get stuck at BSc level. Many BSc grads will work jobs you can do without a full education.

If you want to go into engineering and become a big shot engineer or manager at a Fortune500 company, you are probably going to fail, so don't study engineering.
All that said, it does seem that the US has a problem with their BSc degree in physics. It doesn't prepare you for a profession. It is not a terminal degree. And the difference between graduating BSc and being successful in a PhD level career are big. So maybe it is better to go to Europe and do an MSc in physics where you get prepared to do a real job in physics.
If you decide not to go for a PhD, you do 1 year of business skills and relevant advanced courses and 1 year of applying your skill in a paid internship as part of your education.

And if you can't convince US companies that your degree is worth more than an Engineering MSc, stay in Europe because companies here know it is worth more and that an engineer is a poor substitute for someone with an MSc in physics when the job or company involves a lot of physics.

 

[homeomorphic]

I don't know what his problem is. Maybe he thinks that because he failed, he must convince everyone else is going to fail as well.

No, I succeeded. I got a job that I like better than being a professor.

All his posts are about arguing the same thing.

You should try reading my math posts sometime. Some people find them pretty helpful.

Maybe he thinks that because he failed, he must convince everyone else is going to fail as well.

You are now disagreeing with what everyone agrees on, which is that everyone else is going to fail to become a professor, except for a tiny handful of people.

I don't get this argument about saying that unless you achieve the highest you can possibly achieve within the reach of your degree, being a professor, you failed and you wasted your time.

Not necessarily ALL your time, but you could have made better use of it, maybe. I was spending hours and hours and hours studying insane theories. Was that really the best use of my time?

 

[Almeisan]

It wasn't, as you now do the job of an upper level BSc in CompSci.

You failed to get a PhD level entry job. You only get to fail to become a professor as your own research group fails and loses funding and you don't get a second shot at it, meaning that you have to become a university lecturer, assistant professor or move to industry.

All those doctorates that work at the department the professor heads, they don't exist? Or they could have gotten that same job with a BSc? You got to be kidding me.

All those industry research teams. They are headed by MBAs?If you want to argue that mathematics is a stale academic field, go ahead. But don't go tell people they have to do BSc level jobs in STEM because they can't become professors.

 

[homeomorphic]

It wasn't, as you now do the job of an upper level BSc in CompSci.

The decision to leave academia was mutual. I technically failed, but I wanted to fail at that point. It turns out that what I really wanted to do is only very tangentially relevant to what math professors are actually expected to do. So, I found that I was just chasing after a mirage. The goal was a mirage. Being a math professor is not the same job that I had in mind. So, it's not of much consequence to me that I failed to get an imaginary version of a job that I actually don't want. In any case, it is the statistics that say that just about everyone is going to fail, not me, if success is defined as being a professor. Anyway, I think that's about enough for this thread.

 

[Almeisan]

If you define success as being a professor, almost everyone fails in every endeavor.

Still not sure if by professor you mean a permanent job at a college or if you mean the head of a research group. Seems you are using the statistic you found of the last and saying everyone fails at the first and ignoring all those industry and government job where a PhD is mandatory.

But then again, if you really have a PhD in mathematics and you are a honest person, not sure which one I have to doubt, you should be able to interpret something as mundane as statistics correctly.

 

[homeomorphic]

If you want to argue that mathematics is a stale academic field, go ahead. But don't go tell people they have to do BSc level jobs in STEM because they can't become professors.

Stop accusing me of saying things I didn't, say, people. It seems like almost everyone who argued with me did so. You can go back and read what I said in my first post to verify that I was repeated accused of saying things I didn't actually say. I've been contemplating just not responding, except to leave a one sentence answer that says I'm not responding if you starting making things up that I supposedly said.

Seems you are using the statistic you found of the last and saying everyone fails at the first and ignoring all those industry and government job where a PhD is mandatory.

That definition is relevant if your GOAL is to become a professor. A PhD being mandatory is no guarantee that you'll be actually using the PhD (meaning what you learned during it).

I'm not going to continue arguing. I'll just say that it's fairly obvious to anyone who follows my math and physics posts and understands them that it's not a stretch to imagine that I have a math PhD.

 

[micromass]

I'll just say that it's fairly obvious to anyone who follows my math and physics posts and understands them that it's not a stretch to imagine that I have a math PhD.

I don't think anybody is not believing you have a math PhD? I don't get it.

 

[homeomorphic]

"But then again, if you really have a PhD in mathematics and you are a honest person, not sure which one I have to doubt, you should be able to interpret something as mundane as statistics correctly."

 

[micromass]

Oh, I missed that. Sorry. No, I think it should be clear to everybody who knows your math posts that you have a math PhD.

 

[Almeisan]

Then it is obvious you are a trickster. It's ok. Not every person is honest, not even on the internets.

 

[micromass]

Then it is obvious you are a trickster. It's ok. Not every person is honest, not even on the internets.

Nah, I don't think you can say that. Homeomorphic has very strong opinions which I don't agree with at all. But he does believe what he says. I believe that he had such a bad experience with mathematics and job searching that he can't see those things in a positive light anymore. What he says is often too far in my opinion, but he's not a liar.

 

[Almeisan]

Then what is he? Delusional? I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

And this isn't even about a math degree. I mean, if you want to convince me that a PhD in math has many limitations, I'd be convinced. But this is about physics and he talks about PhDs in general.