Physics Shall I just focus on getting a good job?

[Rescy]

I often wonder people's life in developed countries, not for the recreational activities or big houses, but that the people there are encouraged to pursue what they want and to turn their individual dreams into reality. I have long been fascinated by physics, and maths, and have been dreaming about becoming a theoretical physicist, working on high energy physics or cosmology. However, reality seems to be that I don't have much chance to be an outstanding physicist and this makes me feel depressed. I don't know what to do next, and really hope to get some advice from you.
In this year after the summer holiday, I am going to apply to various universities in UK. Last year I still had hope of applying to Cambridge, one of the best universities in the UK, but now I feel I have completely messed up my study.
I am not a native speaker in English, and it often makes feel awkward to talk to British and American people because I feel embarrassed for my weird accent and my inability to express myself. Perhaps because of my poor communication skills, my application tutor dislike me.Application tutor is extremely important because they write recommendation letters, and these are of great weight to anyone's application. It made me feel stressed and, with also pressure from my peers, I lost my study habit and lost a lot of sleep. Consequently, I did not do well on my exams, and poor grades put me into a situation that I will be accepted only by universities with low quality. I know academic career put a great emphasis on the university one studied at as an undergraduate, and more importantly being at a poor university make it unlikely I will get into good graduate schools.
I have so many challenges ahead : I have virtually no communication skills with native English speakers; my social skills are poor; my level of understanding of maths and physics is still far from comparable to my elite peers in the US and UK; my own country is extremely political to an extent that politics has penetrated throughout universities which means I will not be able to pursue a real physics career in my own country...All of these make me feel having no future.
Should I stop thinking about pursuing my interests in physics, and think more about how be find a job after university?

 

[Borg]

It seems that you worry to the point of causing yourself to fail. If you didn't get into the first school of your choice, that doesn't guarantee failure in life. Your success is going to be based on how well you prepare yourself to take advantage of opportunities when they come. And, just because you aren't able to take advantage of one opportunity, doesn't mean that there won't be others. Just focus on doing the best that you can, strengthen your skills and the opportunities will come. Or, you could focus on "what if I fail scenarios" but I wouldn't recommend that.

 

[Hector Mata]

Rescy,

I am sorry you are in such a situation. I don't really know how important physics is to you, but if it's what you really want to do, you should pursue it as best as you can. Langauge will come with practice. No social skills? No problem: that's no different than most other physicists anyway. What you should think about is: "If I quit now, could I be happier doing something else? Will I regret the decision to quit when I am older?" It's one thing to have a "plan B" in case things get rough (you could learn how to code, or learn/teach a language, for example); it's another thing altogether to give up your dreams.

 

[DTM]

You should think about going into engineering. It is applying physics to real world problem solving. It is far more practical and there will be far more jobs available. You can focus on whatever type of physics you excel at or enjoy the most, and go into that branch of engineering; mechanical, electrical, materials, computer, etc.

 

[Almeisan]

As opposed to getting a physics degree and no job?

I don't understand. Aren't you studying to get a job either way?

I also don't understand that in once sentence you talk about going to Cambridge, in the other you say you know no math&physics or English. As for funny accents, what about the British, hahaha...

 

[Choppy]

It's always a shame when a person does not have the opportunities to do what one really desires to be doing.

But on the other hand, everyone faces obstacles. The fact of the matter is that there are very few professional cosmologists in the world. The odds are that even those graduating with a PhD are more likely than not to end up outside of academia.

In a way your question might be phrased... Hockey is my passion. I'd like to play in the NHL one day, but I live in a tropical country that doesn't even have an Olympic ice hockey team. I had the opportunity to go to a really cool training camp, but I was really nervous, lost sleep and I don't think the coaches liked me because I wore a Maple Leafs jersey. Now I have to go to a training camp that isn't as good as the first one. Should I give up on hockey all together?

Most people would say of course not. It you really love something, pursue it. But don't do it blindly. At the end of the day, it's important to set yourself up for a decent career. Pursuing physics as an undergraduate will give you an education in physics. That could lead to graduate studies. Or it could lead you to a job elsewhere.

 

[William White]

hey! there is nothing funny about our accents! (apart from those in Norfolk!)Getting into Cambridge is not going to be easy. But as they themselves say, the surest way not to get in is to not apply.

People all over the world dream of studying at Oxbridge. Some get in. There is no reason that cannot be you if you work hard. The odds might seem astronomical, but that's life. Not everybody can be the managing director of a FTSE100 firm, or own an Aston Martin, or climb Everest, or go into space, or date a victoria's secret model - but some do it!

Go for it.

And remember, you have your whole life to study. University is not something you have to do from age 17 to 20.

 

[Rescy]

It seems that you worry to the point of causing yourself to fail. If you didn't get into the first school of your choice, that doesn't guarantee failure in life. Your success is going to be based on how well you prepare yourself to take advantage of opportunities when they come. And, just because you aren't able to take advantage of one opportunity, doesn't mean that there won't be others. Just focus on doing the best that you can, strengthen your skills and the opportunities will come. Or, you could focus on "what if I fail scenarios" but I wouldn't recommend that.

You are right, perhaps I should spend my time focusing on developing my skills instead of worrying. Complaining and worrying are just wasting precious time. Thank you for the reply!

Rescy,

I am sorry you are in such a situation. I don't really know how important physics is to you, but if it's what you really want to do, you should pursue it as best as you can. Langauge will come with practice. No social skills? No problem: that's no different than most other physicists anyway. What you should think about is: "If I quit now, could I be happier doing something else? Will I regret the decision to quit when I am older?" It's one thing to have a "plan B" in case things get rough (you could learn how to code, or learn/teach a language, for example); it's another thing altogether to give up your dreams.

These are the best words for me today, thank you so much! I really can't imagine myself working in fields other than physics, I would be miserable. Never quit, that's it.

You should think about going into engineering. It is applying physics to real world problem solving. It is far more practical and there will be far more jobs available. You can focus on whatever type of physics you excel at or enjoy the most, and go into that branch of engineering; mechanical, electrical, materials, computer, etc.

Thanks for the suggestion. I think engineering is a good subject to learn for job, but is quiet different from physics. I am interested in High Energy physics and this makes engineering not suitable for me. Nevertheless I still appreciate your help.

As opposed to getting a physics degree and no job?

I don't understand. Aren't you studying to get a job either way?

I also don't understand that in once sentence you talk about going to Cambridge, in the other you say you know no math&physics or English. As for funny accents, what about the British, hahaha...

No I'm not a British, and I have no problem with British accents (I think they are good).

It's always a shame when a person does not have the opportunities to do what one really desires to be doing.

But on the other hand, everyone faces obstacles. The fact of the matter is that there are very few professional cosmologists in the world. The odds are that even those graduating with a PhD are more likely than not to end up outside of academia.

In a way your question might be phrased... Hockey is my passion. I'd like to play in the NHL one day, but I live in a tropical country that doesn't even have an Olympic ice hockey team. I had the opportunity to go to a really cool training camp, but I was really nervous, lost sleep and I don't think the coaches liked me because I wore a Maple Leafs jersey. Now I have to go to a training camp that isn't as good as the first one. Should I give up on hockey all together?

Most people would say of course not. It you really love something, pursue it. But don't do it blindly. At the end of the day, it's important to set yourself up for a decent career. Pursuing physics as an undergraduate will give you an education in physics. That could lead to graduate studies. Or it could lead you to a job elsewhere.

I find it relaxing to read the modified Rescy story, at least it reduces my pressure... Yeah it's still better to stay in the training camp than quit.

hey! there is nothing funny about our accents! (apart from those in Norfolk!)Getting into Cambridge is not going to be easy. But as they themselves say, the surest way not to get in is to not apply.

People all over the world dream of studying at Oxbridge. Some get in. There is no reason that cannot be you if you work hard. The odds might seem astronomical, but that's life. Not everybody can be the managing director of a FTSE100 firm, or own an Aston Martin, or climb Everest, or go into space, or date a victoria's secret model - but some do it!

Go for it.

And remember, you have your whole life to study. University is not something you have to do from age 17 to 20.

I will give it my best try. Thank you very much!

 

[Rika]

Guys don't be like that and don't tell OP fairy tales about not giving up etc. He is from developing country which means without good degree his situation will be far worse than in USA.

Yes, you should give up for your own good. 1st - being in high school means you have no idea if physics is what you really want to do. 2nd - you will regret not studying engineering later because with degree in Physics you will likely get a job that has nothing to do with any kind of science. From https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/switching-from-mechanical-engineering-to-physics.825528/ :

Most people who do degrees in physics regret it later, as it is very difficult to get a job with a PhD degree in physics. And obtaining a job with just a MS degree is impossible, in today's era. You will not be able to garner any money from physics and will remain jobless in the field unless you're a revolutionary (which is what everybody pursuing a degree thinks, but only 1 in 500,000 people end up doing so really), but there is one clever tactic; learn programming and work as a programmer while contemplating physics as a hobby. This is what 97% of Physics graduates do, and what I do.

 

[Almeisan]

It is very difficult to get a job with a PhD in physics, in the US. People get a physics PhD and expect to do engineering jobs in countries that undervalue STEM degrees and that have professional certification protecting certified engineering degrees.Anyway, OP never says where he is from or what job he is aiming for. Also, if you are willing to get a PhD you should be willing to move to about any place on Earth to get a temp job and to build your scientific resume. If you aren't, don't get a PhD.

Studying engineering and getting a job at the local tech firm is completely different from getting a PhD, doing research, and getting patents and publications behind your name. They do not compare at all.

If you talk cosmology and theoretical physics, sure. Those are hard markets. But there's tons of research done all over the world where people with physics degrees are needed. Are there to many PhD people, sure. People have gotten in the habit of getting a PhD because of a poor job market and uni's have been accepting subpar talent into PhD programs because they are cheap and expendable workforce. But if you want a job doing research, a PhD is the minimum.

In my country you can get an MSc in physics and you will have the same job prospects as an engineering grad with an MSc. You just have different skillsets. Companies hire both engineers and physicists, because they aren't the same and because their tech involves both physics problems and engineering problems, which are different.
I guess if you have a physics BSc program that sets you up only for doing a PhD and academic research, then yes, you can't convince industry that you can make their company a profit.

 

[Choppy]

The data show that people with degrees in physics (including PhDs)...

• have low unemployment rates
• work in STEM fields
• work on technical problems
• have high job satisfaction

See: APS statistics

Usually whenever I challenge anyone to provide data to back up assertions such as "it is very difficult to get a job with a PhD in physics" the best they can come up with is an anecdote or an attempt to poke holes in the existing data. The realty is that pursing a PhD in physics is unlikely to lead to a professor position - particularly in fields such as cosmology. So the it may not be likely that one will end up doing the specific job that one might envision on the outset, but it's not the dead end that many people would make it out to be.

Look at the data. Interpret it in your specific context. And draw your own conclusions.

 

[praveena]

Hai friend,
i had watched many peoples who were seeing problems as a vast one & also as dangerous one. First remove all your negative thought . This is your life so you are the best one to choose your path.Don't think about failures & your marks.It doesnot judge you.Forget the past & think about present.There is still time for you to choose your decision.you had mentioned that your english communication is poor.I am not think soo,still you are good at english.In my country eventhough we didnot know english. We used to show that we are good at english.For your scores you couldnot able to get into cambridge it doesn't matter.If you are interested in your wish then you would pursue your studies in other universities."you can make your life a beautiful one by showing your talents & not by the grades".
If you want to go job then select a job in which you are interested & show your talents. My mom always used to insist me that "Don't think about , what others will say about you, it's your life, you can live as your wish"
"Built your heart strong, don't fear for failures otherwise you will become a coward".
"start your life from this minute,still there is time,enjoy the life in your way"
Have good time.

 

[Dale]

I really can't imagine myself working in fields other than physics, I would be miserable.

I don't believe this. Your enjoyment of physics is not something inexplicable, there are some specific things about physics that you like. If you understand what those are then you will find that many other things also have those same features.

 

[WWGD]

I know people who have stayed home with their parents for two years, after graduating high school ( with a side job), spending those years getting prepared for university intensively . Maybe you can do that, and apply , take necessary exams, after those two years?

 

[homeomorphic]

The realty is that pursing a PhD in physics is unlikely to lead to a professor position - particularly in fields such as cosmology.

Yes, that's sort of the point. The part that you are leaving out is the whole thing where you work ridiculously hard for 5-7 years and don't get paid that much for it. That, by itself, is grounds for reconsidering for many people, depending on their preferences. And I'm sorry, but that is a subjective judgment that you can't overrule with all the data in the world. The objection that it's not all about the money might not hold enough weight if the thing you are working for is not going to come to fruition after all your efforts. The fact is that no matter how much data there is about what happens after the PhD, there's still a strong case to be made against it for many people, based on the opportunity cost, and it all boils down to factors that are highly sensitive to the individual who is making the decision, rather than some sort of blanket answer like, "physics is a great career" or "physics is a terrible career".

it may not be likely that one will end up doing the specific job that one might envision on the outset, but it's not the dead end that many people would make it out to be.

The devil is in the details, here. Exactly how far is the job from what you envision? Does it really make sense to put such a huge effort into one thing if you end up doing something different? I know of many people who have high job satisfaction, work on technical problems, and all that good stuff, but they use almost nothing of what they learned in grad school.

Yes, for some people, doing a physics PhD is the right decision, but there are risks that have to be taken, as well as absolutely certain sacrifices that need to be made.

 

[Choppy]

The part that you are leaving out is the whole thing where you work ridiculously hard for 5-7 years and don't get paid that much for it. That, by itself, is grounds for reconsidering for many people, depending on their preferences. And I'm sorry, but that is a subjective judgment that you can't overrule with all the data in the world. The objection that it's not all about the money might not hold enough weight if the thing you are working for is not going to come to fruition after all your efforts. The fact is that no matter how much data there is about what happens after the PhD, there's still a strong case to be made against it for many people, based on the opportunity cost, and it all boils down to factors that are highly sensitive to the individual who is making the decision, rather than some sort of blanket answer like, "physics is a great career" or "physics is a terrible career".

I don't think I was leaving that part out, much in the same way that I didn't leave out that the student will have to breathe during the entire course of the PhD. Some facts are pretty obvious. If someone is smart enough to get into graduate school they are smart enough to realize that (i) it's going to take a long time to complete the PhD and (ii) that they won't make a lot of money doing it. Even if they didn't figure that out as an undergrad, these facts are spelled out in the letter of acceptance.

I agree with you that blanket statements are not generally constructive. That's why it helps to look at data rather than make decisions based off of anecdotes and complaints. (And I would think that it goes without saying that the data also needs to be critically analyzed.)

A student facing a decision of whether to study physics, or whether to go on to graduate school should have a reasonable idea of what kind of life these decisions are likely to lead to, or what is reasonable to expect.

The devil is in the details, here. Exactly how far is the job from what you envision? Does it really make sense to put such a huge effort into one thing if you end up doing something different? I know of many people who have high job satisfaction, work on technical problems, and all that good stuff, but they use almost nothing of what they learned in grad school.

You're applying a trade-training model to an advanced education system, here. If the sole purpose of graduate school was to prepare the student for a job exclusively in that field then yes, it does not do a good job. But that's not the point.

In graduate school, the student gets an advanced education in his or her subject of choice. The student gets to perform cutting edge research and make a novel contribution to the field. The student learns how to independently conduct research, how to write papers, how to present work at conferences. In a field like physics a student almost has to go out of his or her way to avoid learning practical skills like computer programming.

I'd like to draw an analogy with judo.

The probability that I'll ever be attacked on the street is quite low - a lot lower than the chances of a PhD graduate getting a professorship. But the opportunity cost of attending the weekly classes is high. It costs money. I have to wear silly pyjamas. There's a risk of injury. It's embarrassing when I get thrown by a kid who's half my age. There's a high opportunity cost that comes with it.

So why on Earth would I do it?

Because I get to practice judo. I get exercise. I get to socialize. Once in a while I land a pretty impressive throw or make someone younger and stronger than me tap out. I get to learn new things.

 

[homeomorphic]

I don't think I was leaving that part out, much in the same way that I didn't leave out that the student will have to breathe during the entire course of the PhD. Some facts are pretty obvious.

I get attacked on here for not dwelling too much on the obvious and talking about all sorts of side issues. People then think that my side points are meant to be my main argument, but no, the real reason is just the obvious. Everything else is just bonus stuff.

That's why it helps to look at data rather than make decisions based off of anecdotes and complaints. (And I would think that it goes without saying that the data also needs to be critically analyzed.)

Sure, you should look at the data. But I don't think you can blame me too much for disagreeing because I made my decision partly based on the data because I didn't think it was that bad, and it was the wrong decision. It's a straw man to say that I am suggesting that people should base their ENTIRE decisions on stories like mine. All I'm saying is that it's worth asking yourself if some of the anecdotes might be you. For example, in pure math, I think you really have to think through whether you are okay with doing something that might not be very practical, yet is extremely complicated. And it's obvious, so everyone has thought it through to a point, but I mean, really think it through. If I had done that, rather than look at the stats, I might have had a chance to make the right decision. It's not all about looking at the stats. It just isn't that simple. Do you think it's bad advice to visit departments and talk to grad students? That's just gathering anecdotes.

You're applying a trade-training model to an advanced education system, here. If the sole purpose of graduate school was to prepare the student for a job exclusively in that field then yes, it does not do a good job. But that's not the point.

It's up to the people making the decision to go to grad school whether it is the point or not. Not you or me.

In graduate school, the student gets an advanced education in his or her subject of choice.

And becomes a narrow specialist who may not have that much time to know about things outside that subject. I'm not saying that grad students are all one trick ponies--I wasn't (which I think actually contributed fairly significantly to why I didn't do that well)--but it can hamper one's ability to keep up with things outside your own field.

The student gets to perform cutting edge research and make a novel contribution to the field.

You have a point there. Some grad students actually help with advancing the science. I made a contribution, but it was a lame one that no one cares about, and that's probably true of a lot of people. PhD is usually not anything earth-shattering.

The student learns how to independently conduct research, how to write papers, how to present work at conferences.

But if they are not going to be physics professors, I'm not sure how much of that is going to be transferable and regardless of that, they might be better off actually studying the thing that they are going to be doing. I spent 6-8 hours a day over the summer one time studying 3-manifolds for my qualifying exam. Will that really make any sort of meaningful contribution to my life, after leaving math?

In a field like physics a student almost has to go out of his or her way to avoid learning practical skills like computer programming.

I'm not so sure about that. I have come across a lot of physics students who haven't done a lot of programming.

 

[Almeisan]

What are the odds of becoming a CEO of a middle-sized or over company with a BSc in engineering? Better just find an apprenticeship from a local technician.

Let's open up a can of sour engineers to counter-balance this whole issue.

 

[homeomorphic]

Oh, and I don't want to dismiss your point that grad school can be a good experience for some people. That's true. Even for me, the first 2-3 years were good in some ways, although not uniformly good. But inevitably, you can expect a counter point from me here.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2014_02_04/caredit.a1400031

 

[homeomorphic]

What are the odds of becoming a CEO of a middle-sized or over company with a BSc in engineering? Better just find an apprenticeship from a local technician.

Not sure what this has to do with the thread. I would think if you wanted to be a CEO, you ought to get an MBA or something, rather than study physics, but what do I know?

 

[Almeisan]

If you want to be the CEO of the new Enron, sure, get an MBA. You learn exactly how to scientifically run a company down into the ground. Furthermore, you have to be in the US even to get an MBA as it is an US invention and often doesn't even exist outside.

Why criticize a degree in physics for the small odds to get a job as a professor when you don't do the same for similar degrees? No degree is going to guarantee you a top 1% job.

 

[homeomorphic]

If you want to be the CEO of the new Enron, sure, get an MBA. You learn exactly how to scientifically run a company down into the ground. Furthermore, you have to be in the US even to get an MBA as it is an US invention and often doesn't even exist outside.

Let's not get off topic, but I think that not many math and physics types are interested in being CEOs.

Why criticize a degree in physics for the small odds to get a job as a professor when you don't do the same for similar degrees?

What makes you think I don't do the same for similar degrees? My opinion on getting an English or history PhD is pretty close to being a flat out "just don't go". With physics, I am willing to concede that for some people, it makes sense to do it.

No degree is going to guarantee you a top 1% job.

An engineering PhD typically will have a closer connection to industry jobs. Certain areas of physics may also be better in this regard.

 

[Almeisan]

Let's not get off topic, but I think that not many math and physics types are interested in being CEOs.

But they are interested in becoming professors? A CEO in business is the same as a professor in academics.

 

[homeomorphic]

But they are interested in becoming professors? A CEO in business is the same as a professor in academics.

Same? Really? I am sorry, but you are mistaken. CEOs do research and publish in papers in journals now? And they teach classes? Interesting.

 

[Almeisan]

What?

 

[homeomorphic]

CEOs run a company. It is not like being a professor. Maybe if you are the chair of the department or something.

 

[Almeisan]

Don't know what you think a professor is. A professor will rarely teach or do research himself/herself. Their main job is to get funding and to make sure the funding is put to good use by being in charge of all the researchers that get paid with said funding.

If you call everyone a professor, then it becomes moot to say that not all PhD candidates become professors, because then most of them will, unless they decide not to.

 

[homeomorphic]

My dad is a professor. He teaches classes and does research himself. Getting funding is part of his job, but not his main job. I know what a professor is.

 

[Almeisan]

Well, my dad is a CEO.

 

[WWGD]

Could you two please take a break? This discussion is going nowhere. I am not preaching to you, I have fallen into the same pattern, but you are at a dead -end.

 

[homeomorphic]

Yes, we can take a break, but only after pointing out that I went to grad school and working with professors all day, so I know what they do. It may be different in different countries. But trust me, most math and physics people aren't interested in being CEOs. A few may be.

 

[Almeisan]

And most people in business schools have little interest in heading an archeology research department.

 

[micromass]

A professor will rarely teach or do research himself/herself.

What? Where did you get this from?

 

[Almeisan]

A professor heads the research group. They are very busy. They have one or two specialty courses a year that they give. Most of the stuff they do is manage all the researchers in their research group, the post docs, the university lectures and all the other tenured staff.

I know some of you call everyone that stands in front of a class beyond high school a 'professor', but professors are the CEO's of the academic world. How do I know? How do you not know? A big physics forum pins 'staff emeritus', 'science advisor' and 'education advisor' next to your name but you have no experience in the academic world?

Yes, I admit it depends a lot on what type of lab is run. But sometimes a professor has 50 people working under him, with more than half of them having doctorates. And yes, in business or academics, not everyone gets to boss around 50 other people.
And if you have that many people working for you, you already have a full-time job just keeping up with what everyone is doing.

I don't see how you can stand in the lecture hall every morning, do measurements yourself in the lab every afternoon, and help read every relevant publication and get all the post-docs and tenured researchers unstuck the moment they can't figure it out themselves, and make sure that the PhD candidates that are managed by your staff actually live up to the standards. Because that last thing is the main thing that differentiates a professor from all other academic staff.

 

[micromass]

Now I'm really curious for your experience in the academic world. Either you have no such experience, or it is in experimental science. Am I right?

 

[Almeisan]

I have no such experience.

 

[micromass]

Alright, that's what I thought. Maybe you shouldn't be making such statements if you have no experience in the academic world.

I actually do have such experience. I'm a post-doc in mathematics and I work with professors every single day. Yes, writing grands is a big part of their job. But so is teaching. A professor here usually has an assigned amount of hours that he has to teach, it is very rare that he doesn't have to teach (this is probably different at other universities). But the main job of a professor is research. I know that all the professors I know actively do research and wouldn't be professor if they had to write grants all day and not do research. Furthermore, while a professor supervising 50 people happens in experimental science, I don't know any such example in theoretical science like physics or math. My current supervisor has about 7 students. Yes, she has a very busy job, but supervising students really doesn't take as much time as you think it does.

 

[Almeisan]

You got to be kidding.

Anyway, mathematics isn't strictly science and since mathematics differs so vastly, we should be applying it strictest sense. Come back when you have actual academic experience in an actual science.

In my setting it is the PhD candidates that supervise the students. Professors can manage PhD candidates, but that depends on how much staff that lab has. If the lab is big enough, there's likely to be an assistant or at least a post-doc that can do a better job.

If all your supervisor has is 7 students and you, how is that person a professor. How do you call the person she/he reports to?

 

[micromass]

OK, I'm going to ignore your troll comments about math not being science (it's not a science, but you're intentionally missing the point). Just know that this forum isn't like youtube comments. I think you'll find that out quickly.

In my setting it is the PhD candidates that supervise the students.

And what is that setting? You said you had no academic experience.

 

[Almeisan]

Ok so now I am trolling. I put down a wall of text and you put down a one-liner that's a veiled insult. Take your bullshit elsewhere, Mr Emeritus post-doc.

I have been at this place for over 10 years. Why should I be insulted by you and just suck it up?

 

[micromass]

Again, what is your exact status at the moment? Undergrad student? Grad student? In what field?

If all your supervisor has is 7 students and you, how is that person a professor. How do you call the person she/he reports to?

Professors work independently. But in terms of academic structure, above the professor is the department head and then the faculty dean. They're not exactly the bosses of the professor though.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Again, what is your exact status at the moment? Undergrad student? Grad student? In what field?

Here is a thread started by Almeisan below, back in Oct 2014.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ith-phd-in-physical-molecular-biology.778153/

 

[micromass]

OK, so his background is biology. That makes a lot of sense, because such large research groups as he describes do happen there as far as I'm aware. So given that background, his replies make a lot of sense. I just wish he mentioned this immediately so we could have a constructive talk about this.

 

[atyy]

Even in biology, there is a lot of variability depending on research group. 50 is pretty much the upper end, even for a big lab. I've worked in 4 biology labs in the United States with 2 professors and 2 assistant professors, the largest lab had not more than 10 people at its largest, and more usually the size was between 4 and 8 people. My experience might be on the smaller end of things because I specialized in "small data" :)

 

[micromass]

I guess we have to take country in consideration too. From his writing style, I think I can deduce he's from the netherlands. So I don't really know what the specific culture there is. Aside from country, it depends a lot on the specifics of the university too. I'm just surprised that he said that professors don't have to do teaching. In my country -which should have the same specifics as the netherlands- university professors are required to teach a certain amount of courses; sometimes that is a lot of courses, sometimes it is only one each semester. The PhD students are usually there to guide the exercise sessions, but rarely to do the actual lectures themselves. I really wish he would return to this thread and clear up that he is in fact from the netherlands, and what the teaching requirement is on professors in his university. I'm really curious now.

 

[Dale]

closed pending moderation

Edit: we will leave it closed at this point.