Should I Quit My Job to Pursue Aerospace Engineering Projects?

[Nugso]

Hello PF again! I'm really what I think in a very difficult situation. I've got an undergrad degree in Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering, and I'm now doing my masters in the same field and working a job that pays really well and my prof asked me to join one of his projects. There are I think two scenarios:

1) I leave the job, and start working with my prof. I'm thinking of doing a PhD right now, so it'll be a better choice for me. I'll earn only at most half of what I'm currently earning, but in the long run I'll be doing what I really like.

2) I leave the job, and start working with my prof, then I decide to not do my PhD. So now after 1.5 years I'll have quitted my job, worked with my prof for 1.5 years. Earned enough to live somewhat comfortably.

Now, what I am rather confused is that, in the second scenario, would a year or 1.5 years gap put me at a disadvantage if I later on decide to just complete my masters and then go into industry?

Would it be worth leaving my job just to work on a project (which I really like), later on to discover that after completing my masters I'll just go back to industry. I'm 24 years old, so I'll be ~25 26 when I'm done with masters.

Do you think it is a good idea to leave the job, work with my prof for a while and see if I really want to do a PhD, because if I decide to do so, it will be far more beneficial, and even if I decide not do a PhD, I'll just have "wasted" 1.5 years, and can go back to industry?

I'm also not in the US if that helps. Apologize in case I couldn't make myself clearer.

 

[Dale]

What long term career advantages do you envision for a masters over undergrad and for a PhD over a masters?

 

[Nugso]

What long term career advantages do you envision for a masters over undergrad and for a PhD over a masters?

Sorry for the late reply!

If I really think I'm cut out for PhD, then academia. As for masters, well I'm already doing it (2 semesters in, starting the 3rd semester in 2 weeks), and I really want to add useful to stuff to my CV as I wasn't the brightest student in undergrad, and really learn the subject.

Also, what this project will do is that, I want to sort of change my main interest to data science/machine learning, and I'll be working on a machine learning project for a year which I think will help me put useful stuff on my C.V if I later on want to work as a data scientist.

 

[Joshy]

Two good choices are always the most challenging. It sounds like you can't go wrong with either choice and you're going to have to accept some tradeoffs.

Do you like your current job? I'm wondering if it's good enough to chase the silver or bronze even though it sounds like your gold is with pursuing your passion.

 

[Nugso]

Two good choices are always the most challenging. It sounds like you can't go wrong with either choice and you're going to have to accept some tradeoffs.

Do you like your current job? I'm wondering if it's good enough to chase the silver or bronze even though it sounds like your gold is with pursuing your passion.

Hi jprz! Actually, I'm not doing anything at my job right now because there is currently no project, but it isn't really relevant to my major. It's systems engineering, which I think doesn't fit me.

 

[Dr.D]

If you are not dead certain about getting a PhD, I'd recommend you stay where you are. With an MS you can do almost any job other than university teaching, and you are already started on the career path. That is worth a lot; do not give it up casually because it could be very difficult to recover.

 

[Nugso]

If you are not dead certain about getting a PhD, I'd recommend you stay where you are. With an MS you can do almost any job other than university teaching, and you are already started on the career path. That is worth a lot; do not give it up casually because it could be very difficult to recover.

Hi Dr. D! Actually, I got into this job just to save some money before I start my PhD (which I've not decided yet, but I've still got at least ~1.5 years), so I always had the idea of leaving it.

 

[Scrumhalf]

If you really want to get a PhD and feel you are cut out for it, and your job is not that interesting and you are not working on anything specific at the moment, why WOULDN'T you go for the PhD. Yes, your disposable income will be cut substantially, but that's the reality of grad school. I can't tell what your family situation is based on your post, but if you are single without any financial commitments (like kids, etc.), I would go for it if it felt right.

 

[Nugso]

If you really want to get a PhD and feel you are cut out for it, and your job is not that interesting and you are not working on anything specific at the moment, why WOULDN'T you go for the PhD. Yes, your disposable income will be cut substantially, but that's the reality of grad school. I can't tell what your family situation is based on your post, but if you are single without any financial commitments (like kids, etc.), I would go for it if it felt right.

Hi Scrumhalf. It actually feels right (for the time being at least). But I'm not really sure if it is the reasonable choice. Also, yes, I'm single, so I only need to take care of myself.

 

[gleem]

First of all if you really like what your prof is doing you are not wasting anything so get over that. The lost income is the price of your enjoyment. You will probably pay more for less in your lifetime. You get your MS and move on or start your doctorate. Actually it seems to me that getting a doctorate in aerospace/aeronautical engineering might be more problematic. will it be worth the extra three or four years of lost income? Only you know or should about the value of the PhD vs MS.

 

[ModusPwnd]

With an MS you can do almost any job other than university teaching, and you are already started on the career path.

That is not the case in my area. You need a PhD just to be a process engineer at my fab. A PhD is the standard science degree and there are plenty of them to fill all the coveted positions. Those of us without are very limited in opportunity and stuck in dead end, glorified technician roles. A PhD is the difference between a career and a dead end job where I work.

 

[StatGuy2000]

That is not the case in my area. You need a PhD just to be a process engineer at my fab. A PhD is the standard science degree and there are plenty of them to fill all the coveted positions. Those of us without are very limited in opportunity and stuck in dead end, glorified technician roles. A PhD is the difference between a career and a dead end job where I work.

That may be the case where you work at present, but from everything I've heard, your particular job may well be an outlier. Most engineering jobs in the private sector I'm familiar with (in both Canada and the US) do not require a PhD, and it is very far from being the standard science degree of choice.

 

[CrysPhys]

If you are not dead certain about getting a PhD, I'd recommend you stay where you are. With an MS you can do almost any job other than university teaching, and you are already started on the career path. That is worth a lot; do not give it up casually because it could be very difficult to recover.

<<Emphasis added.>> Could you please clarify whether you intend the highlighted statement to apply only to the OP's field (aeronautical and aerospace engineering) or to all branches of engineering (and science?) in general?

 

[Scrumhalf]

I think that in general (and there are always exceptions), most R&D labs and facilities (govt or industrial) will require PhDs to get an MTS (member of the technical staff) position. Non PhDs are more likely to have a support staff position (like being in charge of keeping the lab running versus doing the research). So, if you are interested in being part of the R&D staff, a PhD may well be the price of admission. And this could certainly be different in smaller companies - my experience is entirely with large fortune-500 companies.

In my opinion, a master's degree is well worth it, because it definitely gives you a leg up on the competition with a B.S. in pretty much any environment. A PhD is murkier and you need to think through it a bit more carefully and do your background research to see if you can justify the 3-4 year additional time investment.

 

[ModusPwnd]

That may be the case where you work at present, but from everything I've heard, your particular job may well be an outlier. Most engineering jobs in the private sector I'm familiar with (in both Canada and the US) do not require a PhD, and it is very far from being the standard science degree of choice.

Maybe an outlier… It is the biggest private employer in the state though. There are low tech places around that take non-PhDs. The pay is relatively low and the jobs are dead end. Good in a pinch and for an older person, not so good for a new graduate.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Maybe an outlier… It is the biggest private employer in the state though. There are low tech places around that take non-PhDs. The pay is relatively low and the jobs are dead end. Good in a pinch and for an older person, not so good for a new graduate.

If you don't mind my asking, what state do you live in currently?

I know in past posts you mentioned you live in the Pacific Northwest, so I thought you lived in Washington state. I would have thought that there are many high tech firms in Washington (Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, etc.) All of these companies hire engineers of various types (particular electrical engineers), and I'm quite certain not all of these positions require a PhD.

 

[CrysPhys]

In regard to the posts concerning the necessity of a PhD: Based on my personal experience (and those of friends and colleagues in various companies), I would say that there are too many factors to make a generalization (at least in the US). Depends, e.g., on the industry, size of company, division within the company, and function within the company.

I spent most of my professional career in R&D in the equipment division of a major US telcom company. As in Scrumhalf's company, a member of technical staff (MTS) referred to a lead scientist or engineer, in distinction to support staff (technicians). I first started in the microelectronics division (which made silicon ICs, compound semiconductor ICs, compound semiconductor optical emitters and detectors). For an MTS in R&D, a PhD was practically de rigeur. Non-PhDs were true outliers, typically people who worked up the ranks over the course of a couple of decades.

As a result of reorgs, I later transferred to systems divisions (lightwave and wireless). There, PhDs, while not true outliers, were in the minority. The bulk of MTSs had MSs, with many BSs as well. A lot of this reflects the complexity of the work. A mechanical engineer working on the design of laser packages in microelectronics, e.g., requires a more sophisticated skill set than a mechanical engineer working on the design of cabinets in wireless systems.

Large companies are more hierarchical than small companies. E.g., large companies will have distinct organizations for research, development, manufacturing, sales, and product support. Large companies will also have distinct organizations for different phases of product lifecycle: next generation, current generation, and legacy. Many large companies also have separate organizations for equipment and services. The base credentials for an engineer will depend strongly on the organization.

So, back to the OP, who is specifically interested in aerospace and aeronautical engineering. The question is what are the opportunities for the OP with a MS instead of a PhD in that field.

 

[ChrisVer]

Combination is not an option?

 

[CrysPhys]

Combination is not an option?

Not clear which post you are referring to, and which combination you are referring to.

 

[ChrisVer]

Not clear which post you are referring to, and which combination you are referring to.

The OP's dilemma...I asked if it's possible to go for the PhD but also work in parallel.

 

[analogdesign]

The OP's dilemma...I asked if it's possible to go for the PhD but also work in parallel.

Sure, lots of people in Engineering do a PhD while they work. Two of my coworkers got their PhDs doing this (but it took a them long time). I also knew a few part-time students when I was in grad school. None of them ended up getting a PhD.

A professional job in engineering is like a gas. It will expand to occupy all available space in your life. It is really hard to carve out time for family, let alone something as demanding as PhD research, but obviously, it can be done. I can't imagine putting myself through that.

 

[ChrisVer]

A professional job in engineering is like a gas. It will expand to occupy all available space in your life. It is really hard to carve out time for family, let alone something as demanding as PhD research, but obviously, it can be done. I can't imagine putting myself through that.

In general I agree that it's not easy. In fact it needs a very organized personality and it in the end it depends on the nature of the job you are taking... A demanding job + phd is probably impossible, but from the person's answers I think that's not the case (as right now he is not working much).
However, let's agree that it's great for a CV - especially outside academia, where PhDs don't count that much. Inside academia the competition is unimaginable, and to be honest at the end of the day (after the postdoc), you won't be "working" on any research field you like so much - your work will be bureaucratic (from research papers you'll have to do other paperworks) and ensuring funds for your group. That means, once the title of professor is added in your name, your time in research will be at most 10% (because you will have to know what happens), but you won't participate. 40% will be teaching I'd say and the rest 50% is indeed money-hunting.

 

[CrysPhys]

Sure, lots of people in Engineering do a PhD while they work.

Not sure it's all that common. Have no stats, but in my experience, it's rare. The few that I'm aware of were able to pull it off because they were pursuing a PhD as part of an employer-sponsored program; so their work load and schedule were adjusted to accommodate their PhD program.

 

[CrysPhys]

However, let's agree that it's great for a CV - especially outside academia, where PhDs don't count that much.

<<Emphasis added.>> Not sure what you mean here. If we assume that a PhD does not count that much outside of academia, then why would having a PhD be great for a CV (or resume) for an engineer applying for a non-academic job? Or are you saying that since the PhD doesn't count, it's important to have the work experience on the CV (or resume)?

Also, at least in the US, a PhD is very desirable for certain jobs in industry (depending on the field, company, and function).

 

[ChrisVer]

then why would having a PhD be great for a CV (or resume) for an engineer applying for a non-academic job

I would doubt that it's desirable in the market. At special cases, in my opinion/experience, it can be bad for the CV (if it delayed your participation in the industry).

 

[Scrumhalf]

In my personal opinion, having been an R&D engineer, working in a semiconductor fab for 28 years, and leading large engineering groups since 1995, you've got to be extraordinarily lucky to be able to work on a PhD while working full time. A master's degree can be done while working because it is largely coursework, and the coursework requirements for a PhD can be similarly done, although both will likely take much longer because there is no way to take multiple courses simultaneously while still doing justice to your employment. However, I don't see any way to do PhD-quality research while being employed full time unless you can somehow leverage the work you do at your job into your thesis. And that is going to be extraordinarily rare. I've seen it happen, but it's not very common. Doing thesis research while being employed full time (at least in engineering) is a pipe dream IMO.