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

[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.

 

[micromass]

I just don't think it is a good idea to start calling somebody names because you disagree with them. Just call somebody out who you think made a mistake and argue about the facts.

 

[homeomorphic]

micromass, thanks for sticking up for me.

Almeisan, you have created a fake version of me in your mind that has tons opinions that I don't actually have. That's why you can't understand my point of view. To get a PhD, you have to work very hard for a very long time and not making very much money to get the degree. That's the bottom line. So, I don't see what you don't understand. It's very simple.
.

 

[Almeisan]

It is not an issue of disagreeing. I might agree with him. I have an ethical problem with the way he tries to argue. Why doesn't he just tell his honest story and leave it at that.

Not this bullshit about almost no one ever going to become a professor, the only reason why you ever need a PhD.

 

[micromass]

It is not an issue of disagreeing. I might agree with him. I have an ethical problem with the way he tries to argue. Why doesn't he just tell his honest story and leave it at that.

Not this bullshit about almost no one ever going to become a professor, the only reason why you ever need a PhD.

Because in his reasoning (which again: I disagree with), if you do something else than a professorship in math, then you're not really doing something related to your PhD anymore. Say you did you PhD in homological algebra. Then you might land a nice job which requires a PhD but which won't allow you to do homological algebra (or other pure math) again. So in his mind, the entire 4-6 years of the PhD is wasted time. Keep in mind that he really really disliked his PhD.

 

[Almeisan]

Same goes for every degree. You learn more than you need. You need 5 years to get an MSc. Then you do a thesis on something you may never need again, but you need to prove that you can do it because you don't get a high lvl job for free.

There's industry jobs that ask a math PhD and nothing less. If it is his expericen the job market is very competitive where he tried to get a job; fine. I believe him.

Don't take a statistic about the number of heads of research departments, compare it to the number of PhD graduates, then conclude these people are just trying to win a lottery. And don't tell me I misrepresent him, because he said exactly that.

For everyone it is true, the higher education you received, the bigger the risk you learned stuff you never need again.

He disliked his PhD. Fine. He is he. People make mistakes. He ended up fine. Good for him. He got a job he had zero training in, maybe thanks to his pretty face, or maybe thanks to his math PhD?

Be honest, is that too much to ask?

 

[micromass]

OK, but you don't do a math PhD just so you can land a good industry job with it. Landing a good industry job is a very good bonus, but it shouldn't be the main goal; otherwise you're going to have a bad time. You do a math PhD mainly because you either enjoy doing math or because you can get to a professorship (or equivalent) with it. Since he neither enjoyed his PhD, nor was able (or willing) to land a professorship, he sees it as wasted.

 

[Almeisan]

True, but if he had gotten a degree CompSci BSc, he may have ended up selling stuff in a computer shop or as a menial technician. And in that case he would have actually known how a compiler functions and how memory is handled.
He got a job in an area he wasn't even educated for thanks to his math PhD. His employee took a risk and it paid of for both of them. The PhD cost him 4 years and hard work, but it also saved his ass from making the wrong decision.

If all you want is a good industry job, I also wouldn't recommend doing a PhD. But, no one would. So how is it not a moot point?

Doesn't mean there aren't actually math PhD jobs in industry out there.
If you want to do math research or work on some of the most advanced math problems in industry at the few companies that actually work on those, you do need one.

And some people actually do become professors. Some undergrads posting here might win a Fields medal one day, who knows. So why doesn't he 'just' say; "If you have doubts, don't do it" or "Make sure the subject of your PhD has applications in industry, as a backup" or something along the lines.

 

[micromass]

That I agree with.

 

[atyy]

OK, but you don't do a math PhD just so you can land a good industry job with it. Landing a good industry job is a very good bonus, but it shouldn't be the main goal; otherwise you're going to have a bad time. You do a math PhD mainly because you either enjoy doing math or because you can get to a professorship (or equivalent) with it. Since he neither enjoyed his PhD, nor was able (or willing) to land a professorship, he sees it as wasted.

Well, but if most maths PhDs don't end up in mathematics, then wouldn't a good industry job be an aim of a maths PhD?

If I recall ParticleGrl's posts, her PhD experience was very different from homeomorphic's, in that she enjoyed it. What was common to both of their experiences is the good industry job took a long time to find, though it seems both managed to find one after a year or more. I am not sure I am representing her correctly, but her initial posts had reservations about doing a physics PhD because of the difficulty of the job search, but her later posts indicated that she would recommend a physics PhD but to be prepared for a very difficult job search.

 

[Mirero]

Doesn't mean there aren't actually math PhD jobs in industry out there.
If you want to do math research or work on some of the most advanced math problems in industry at the few companies that actually work on those, you do need one.

Wait, you don't need to have a job in a university to do research? That actually makes me less disappointed in my future job prospects.

Although I'm guessing it's less about actual research and more about producing useful results for the company you are working under.

 

[micromass]

Well, but if most maths PhDs don't end up in mathematics, then wouldn't a good industry job be an aim of a maths PhD?

If I recall ParticleGrl's posts, her PhD experience was very different from homeomorphic's, in that she enjoyed it. What was common to both of their experiences is the good industry job took a long time to find, though it seems both managed to find one after a year or more. I am not sure I am representing her correctly, but her initial posts had reservations about doing a physics PhD because of the difficulty of the job search, but her later posts indicated that she would recommend a physics PhD but to be prepared for a very difficult job search.

I guess it's really a very personal experience. I'm sure there are many people out there (in fact most people I know are like that) who land a job easily with a math/physics degree. Then there are homeomorphic and ParticleGrl. And there are people who enjoy a PhD and those who absolutely hate it.

I guess the advice people should take from this thread is to do a lot of research and introspection to whether a PhD is worth it for them. Not everybody is cut out for research, even though they might be smart. Being able to do research and intelligence are correlated, but they certainly don't imply each other (neither way). Finding the right advisor and research topic is pretty essential too. These are things you shouldn't take lightly, because it's going to take years of hard work.

And yes, I do think many people don't realize what they're going to do after a math PhD. Some might dream of professorship, some might just not know and go into grad school because they have no other option they like. I don't think many people in grad school have a clear idea on what to do after grad school. This is very bad though, since in your undergrad and grad years you could be preparing for later by learning useful skills (like social skills, programming skills, and so much more). Many people don't take that opportunity for many reasons. So yeah, if you end up with a math PhD and essentially no useful skills, then I'm sure you'll land a nice job, but it might not be the job you really enjoy doing or the job you really wanted.

 

[micromass]

Wait, you don't need to have a job in a university to do research? That actually makes me less disappointed in my future job prospects.

Although I'm guessing it's less about actual research and more about producing useful results for the company you are working under.

It really depends on what you mean with research. If you're talking about pure math (for example), then you essentially need a job at the university. But there are other jobs a mathematician could be doing in industry, but it won't be pure math. For example, math PhD's I've known now do research in a medical company developing imaging results.

 

[Almeisan]

Wait, you don't need to have a job in a university to do research? That actually makes me less disappointed in my future job prospects.

Although I'm guessing it's less about actual research and more about producing useful results for the company you are working under.

Of course not. And it is not just industry that does R&D, there is also research institutes, either funded with public or private money.

And besides that, there's non-research jobs that require or benefit highly from a technical PhD, like consultancy or managing a technical department.

That doesn't mean that your odds of getting a PhD job as a PhD graduate isn't lower than getting an MSc job as an MSc graduate.
Doesn't mean that a physics BSc in, especially the US, doesn't have problems. You can't expect a student to decide to go for a PhD career fresh out of high school, and it looks to me that in the US this seems to be the case.

I don't hear many convincing stories about how a physics BSc in the US prepares you for industry jobs.

 

[micromass]

You can't expect a student to decide to go for a PhD career fresh out of high school

Since you're probably not from the US: high school in the US means the school you attend to until 18. After that you go to college/university.

 

[Almeisan]

But at that point you decide your BSc, and people from the US here convince me a BSc in physics isn't a terminal degree.

Since I know in the US there isn't a mandatory internship and little focus on job competencies, I am likely to be convinced on this.
In my country, the only terminal BSc degree in physics is a technical physics degree, that educates you to be a lab technician and it involves job competencies like giving advice, negotiation, teamwork, having meetings, heavily and includes several internships where you get job experience.
When you are finished you are ready for jobs that actually exist.
You can't even enter a PhD track with this degree.

The other option is an MSc, and when you go this track and you know you won't do a PhD, you spend at least a year taking general courses that help build competencies functioning as someone with a high level education inside a company.

But as this is a physics forum and job markets inside physics vary highly and we are both discussing a math PhD specifically and a PhD in science in general, we need to be careful about this and always consider the local job market or the potential job market.