Regret your PhD? Would do it all over again?

[twofish-quant]

Perhaps for you, but I'd say a lot of people underestimate how little that actually says. Getting good grades in a theoretical subject and enjoying it is the absolute, absolute basic requirement to having any future at all doing that theory (which few people will pay you to do).

Also getting support from parents is really important if possible. Graduate school is a hard and difficult road, and it makes it a *lot* easier if your immediate family and friends are supportive. If the problem is just that the parents are worried about job prospects then having someone that knows the situation talk with the parents is going to save a huge amount of problem later on.

 

[jasonRF]

I earned a PhD in electrical engineering about a dozen years ago, and do not regret it at all. I specialized in plasma physics but do not use any plasma physics in my work: I do a lot of signal processing, experiments, feasibility studies and systems engineering. For me, by far the best result of having the PhD is that it opens doors - where I work folks with PhDs get the vast majority of the "interesting" work. Someone with a BS would likely be tasks to help someone like me by doing more routine programming tasks, doing tests in the lab, etc. - stuff that can be made enjoyable but typically doesn't leave as much room for autonomy. Of course, the better the person is, the more they will be recognized as someone you can "turn loose" on more interesting tasks that give them more flexibility. In any case, it isn't too surprising that the best folks that we hire in with BS degrees usually end up going to grad school after a few years. That is always an option - working and then deciding to go back at a later date (at least in the US).

I actually went to grad school hoping to become a professor. But I met with two of my advisors old students who became profs and between a post-doc or two plus the tenure fight, they claimed to have had about a decade of 70 hour weeks, which sounds miserable. Hence I went for a regular job. Yes, the sample size was 2, but further discussions with a few profs in my department confirmed that 40 or even 50 hour weeks was less than most people end up working during the tenure run, but 70 probably wasn't necessary either. I like having a life outside of work, so took the easy way, and for most of the years I have worked reasonable hours (the last few years have been brutal, though).

Anyway, whatever you chose I wish you the best.

jason

 

[hadsed]

Well, since you are looking for all fields, not just physics, I'd say I haven't regretted doing a Ph.D. in computer science at all. Aside from the fact that the entire process, while painful, was incredibly worthwhile, and introduced me to people and concepts I would have never been exposed to otherwise, I have no doubt that it has given me an increased freedom of career movement that I wouldn't have had if I had not done it.

And I'm paid bloody well too. I'm sure that the Ph.D. has repaid the opportunity cost of not going directly into industry after getting a BS several times over by now.

Would you mind elaborating a bit on your experiences? I'm interested in fields related to physics, particularly computer science. I wonder, because there is a lot of computer science that is just like physics or pure math, very esoteric and not seemingly useful in industry. So I'd like to know what you got your CS Ph.D in specifically, and what your job is now? Anything else you'd like to add would be nice too. I don't know too much about the CS field, so it's difficult for me to gauge these things so I'd like to learn more.

 

[Diracula]

ParticleGrl,
Did you consider applying to postdocs that aren't specifically in particle theory? It is my understanding that a lot of fields that are booming and in huge demand - or will be in the near future - eat up physics phds. But they aren't exactly 'physics' postdocs. Fields like systems, synthetic, or computational biology love people with physics backgrounds. I was curious if the same is true in engineering fields, so I googled engineering postdocs and the first two ads I saw listed physics phd as a requirement (engineering phd was listed as well, but believe or not it was listed after physics... not that this necessarily means anything). There's also obviously fields like medical physics.

There's a massive movement in biology and bioengineering for people with quantitative backgrounds, and funding is not hurting in these fields the way it is in the pure, traditional fields. I would be shocked if someone with your background couldn't land a systems biology or electrical engineering (just giving two examples) postdoc SOMEWHERE, and this would directly lead to experience in these technical fields you want to get into. If someone with a physics phd can't get a postdoc in any field, then my perception of the research landscape is completely off.

Also, are you still restricting yourself to living in a specific area for your job applications? Isn't this basically career suicide when you're looking for your very first job post-graduation? Unless you're just ridiculously lucky and can land something exactly where you want it. I'd think a more reasonable strategy would be to work anywhere for a couple years at the absolute best job you can find then try to land a job at your desired location after you have your experience/value built up?

Just some thoughts. I know the situation isn't as fantastic as it could be for physics phds, but a particle theory phd who can't land any scientific/technical postdoc or job anywhere regardless of trying is something I just can't comprehend.

 

[twofish-quant]

Did you consider applying to postdocs that aren't specifically in particle theory? It is my understanding that a lot of fields that are booming and in huge demand - or will be in the near future - eat up physics phds.

I think your understanding is incorrect. The problem with post-docs is that there are enough people with exactly the right credentials applying for a position, that there is no need to look for someone that has "almost the right credentials."

If someone with a physics phd can't get a postdoc in any field, then my perception of the research landscape is completely off.

Just curious what your background is. If you are (for example) a string theorist that found it easy to get a biological science post-doc then your information is better than mine, and I'll ask you a lot more questions. My perception is that it is practically impossible to get a post-doc "out of field" but I'd be glad to change that perception if you have better data than I do.

In particular, if your data is based on what professors in your department are telling you then, you (and they) need some spritzing with cold water.

Isn't this basically career suicide when you're looking for your very first job post-graduation?

It turns out that it makes life extremely difficult if you are geographically limited, but people need to know this before they get into graduate school. It becomes *very* difficult to move once you have settled done somewhere. Some of the barriers are psychological, but psychological barriers are still real barriers.

I'd think a more reasonable strategy would be to work anywhere for a couple years at the absolute best job you can find then try to land a job at your desired location after you have your experience/value built up?

The problem is that even after you have experience, you still don't have that much choice of location. If you are doing physics Ph.D.-type finance in the United States, then there is a 95% chance that you are going to live in NYC.

Just some thoughts. I know the situation isn't as fantastic as it could be for physics phds, but a particle theory phd who can't land any scientific/technical postdoc or job anywhere regardless of trying is something I just can't comprehend.

Get used to it.

The good news is that you won't starve, and everyone that I know has ended up with something decent. The bad news is that getting there can be quite traumatic.

 

[Diracula]

My opinion is coming from the fact that I see tons of 'theoretical biology' type positions (systems, synthetic, computational) advertised specifically for people with physics and related degrees. Not biology, unless it is bioengineering (and that is often listed after physics). I also did a quick google of engineering postdocs and they seem to list 'physics phd' as the desired qualification. I'm saying physics phd *IS* the exact right credential for a lot of these jobs; not that it is 'almost' the right credential.

Also have talked to quite a few professors in the past in the biological sciences and the feeling seems to be almost universal among the younger ones that there is a massive necessary shift towards people with quantitative backgrounds. Physics is no longer even considered 'out of field' to biology because they prefer physicists for biology related research positions.

I work at a biotech company, and the head of my research group straight up said that he 'doesn't need another molecular biologist'. He needs someone who thinks differently -- and he specifically said physicist.

I don't have published statistical data, however. Where are you getting your data that suggests it is impossible to find a post-doc 'out of field'? What exactly do you mean by 'out of field'?

The problem is that even after you have experience, you still don't have that much choice of location. If you are doing physics Ph.D.-type finance in the United States, then there is a 95% chance that you are going to live in NYC.

Yeah, that's if you are doing finance. There are plenty of other industries out there.

 

[twofish-quant]

I work at a biotech company, and the head of my research group straight up said that he 'doesn't need another molecular biologist'. He needs someone who thinks differently -- and he specifically said physicist.

That's also true where I work, but I've found that the bit of academia that I'm familiar with is quite siloed.

I don't have published statistical data, however. Where are you getting your data that suggests it is impossible to find a post-doc 'out of field'? What exactly do you mean by 'out of field'?

Personal experience in astrophysics. What happens is that if you have a principal investigator with funding to study pulsating white dwarfs, he'll look for someone that has experience in exactly that area. If your physics Ph.D. happens to be in pulsating cepheid variables then you are out of luck.

Nice to know that things are different elsewhere in the universe :-) :-) :-)

The information that you provide is really useful because if you see a post-doc position advertised in astrophysics and it happens that the people offering the astrophysics post-doc are researching anything that is even slightly different from what your dissertation was on, there is no point in even applying. It's nice to know that this *isn't* the case in other fields.

Yeah, that's if you are doing finance. There are plenty of other industries out there.

Yup, and one thing that we really, really, really need are diverse career paths, because mono-cultures are bad, and if finance is the only one hiring then it's bad if that collapses. So part of looking at other fields is so that I have a parachute in cause this all blows up.