Programs Should You Pursue a Physics PhD? Advice from Brian Schwartz

[J77]

In general: Do a PhD because you want to -- not for the career prospects or increased earning potential.

If you want the latter, go into a bank's fast stream program after your first degree.

I think it good to carry the flow through from your first degrees into PhD, get it done quickly and move onto research; does anyone read a PhD thesis except the student himself and his supervisors/reading committee? I always refer to my publications when people ask of my PhD work.

Finally, the "letters after the name" thing only lasts for a year -- especially if you're living somewhere like I do where they call everyone Mr/Mrs regardless of prefixes/suffixes.

 

[rahuldandekar]

Hungrychemist, that's so true. I'm currently studying my last year of undergrad physics, and I have the same problem: I can't enjoy anything else... Physics will make my life better, even if it'll not get me money. You put it so nicely. :)

 

[iacephysics]

wow, this thread really swayed my conviction of my physics career in the future. I am an undergrad right now. I have been pretty certain that I will go to graduate school and get a PH.D. I think I will still go to graduate school, maybe get a PH.D, but I am just not so sure any more. By the way, I am still a freshman. I was really fascinated by particle, high energy physics and astrophysics. I was thinking that becoming a particle physicist would be something I want to do. And just yesterday I was debating with myself if I should take a second major in astronomy.
But now after reading all these, I feel like slapped in the face by the reality. I am still 100% sure that physics is the field for me. Perhaps I just need to find something more practical than astrophysics. I will probably develop interest in quantum information or condensed matter physics. I have the option of doing another major or two minors. So instead of doing an astronomy major, a computer science major or tons of electrical engineering classes will make myself more employable?

 

[gravenewworld]

wow, this thread really swayed my conviction of my physics career in the future. I am an undergrad right now. I have been pretty certain that I will go to graduate school and get a PH.D. I think I will still go to graduate school, maybe get a PH.D, but I am just not so sure any more. By the way, I am still a freshman. I was really fascinated by particle, high energy physics and astrophysics. I was thinking that becoming a particle physicist would be something I want to do. And just yesterday I was debating with myself if I should take a second major in astronomy.
But now after reading all these, I feel like slapped in the face by the reality. I am still 100% sure that physics is the field for me. Perhaps I just need to find something more practical than astrophysics. I will probably develop interest in quantum information or condensed matter physics. I have the option of doing another major or two minors. So instead of doing an astronomy major, a computer science major or tons of electrical engineering classes will make myself more employable?

GET AN INTERNSHIP! See what it is like in the real world for a summer and get paid for it! Experience makes one extremely employable. Someone with a Masters and 10 years experience is much more employable than a fresh PhD with no working experience except summer job they worked all during college and grad school. I know members on the board who have Phds probably hate me or find me annoying, but I am just trying to speak the truth. I am not putting down anyone for their choice to pursue a PhD. I feel like a ton of people who go on to get their PhD, when they really know they shouldn't have mid way through, simply finish because they invested so much time into it and would hate to waste all those years of their life for nothing.

There is a middle ground- It is called a Master's degree. A master's is much more versatile than a BS and a PhD in the real world. BS maybe too unfamiliar with some things while a PhD is simply too specialized in a certain area. A master's has advanced knowledge of the subject without becoming narrowly focused on a certain topic that no one except academic institutions would be able to use.

Masters students can take the same grad classes as PhD students for the most part (and even take the same required classes that are required for PhD students too) so you still get almost the same classes as a PhD. The big difference is the fact that as a Masters student you won't have to write a huge dissertation. PhD students might be required to take several more classes than a Master student also.

The first people axed whenever a company downsizes are the PhDs so a company can save the most money. We had countless job inquiries at our company from PhDs who were victims of the massive layoffs from Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer. It is sad to see so many qualified and educated people struggling to make ends meet, while sports players, movie stars, and these jokers on American Idol get paid obscene amounts of money. But hey, life sucks.

 

[Mororvia]

So instead of doing an astronomy major, a computer science major or tons of electrical engineering classes will make myself more employable?

Having skills is always nice. As ZapperZ and others have said, you can learn skills and still major in physics... you just have to plan your electives accordingly. Programming, engineering (sometimes physics) courses WITH LABS!, chemistry labs, any sort of course where you can learn something that employers might find useful.

 

[ZapperZ]

GET AN INTERNSHIP! See what it is like in the real world for a summer and get paid for it! Experience makes one extremely employable. Someone with a Masters and 10 years experience is much more employable than a fresh PhD with no working experience except summer job they worked all during college and grad school. I know members on the board who have Phds probably hate me or find me annoying, but I am just trying to speak the truth. I am not putting down anyone for their choice to pursue a PhD. I feel like a ton of people who go on to get their PhD, when they really know they shouldn't have mid way through, simply finish because they invested so much time into it and would hate to waste all those years of their life for nothing.

No, you do not speak "THE truth", because there is no such thing as ONE and only ONE version of it. And that is my main objection from the very beginning of your tirade. You have somehow create this illusion that YOUR version is the only prevailing standard that should be applied to ALL cases. Forget about the fact that (i) you are dealing with a completely different field than physics and (ii) that you appear to be surrounded by losers who can't seem to be able to complete their education or hang on to their jobs.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. For every example you can come up, I can come up with the contrary. So now what has that left us with?

You seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that each year there are A LOT of people with Ph.D's that DO get decent jobs. That is not an anecdotal observation, but rather from the statistics, which you probably put less emphasis on as "evidence" when compared to your "anecdotal evidence".

iacephysics: The irony in all this is that, while particle physics/high energy physics have never been something I recommend people to do (I personally got disillusioned by it when I did my internship at Fermilab as an undergraduate), this is as good as a time as any to get into high energy physics due to the LHC about to go online and the ILC looming in the horizon. The group of universities and institutions that participate in this WILL be recruiting and hiring many physicists by the time you are done with your undergraduate studies and about to go into graduate school. My only advice is that for you not to close the doors on other areas while you continue to decide, and if you do decide to go into this field, that you should always keep in mind of how your skills can be expanded to be more employable just in case you can't make a living in that field.

To me, that IS the middle ground for people who have the passion for this subject matter, but do not forget the reality of having to make a living. Most of us who do get into this field is not to make $500,000 in 5 or 6 years, because if we care about that, we would not even consider any field of science. Rather, it is something we can't imagine not doing. But we also simply cannot ignore the ugly reality that we may not be able to do what we love for a living, or even if we can, it may not be what we all had in mind when we started. I certainly didn't think I end up where I am now, but I am awfully glad I stuck with it. I can say that I am making a decent living, but more importantly, I can say without a doubt that there's hardly a day that I do not look forward to coming into work. I know many people who can't say that.

Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

No, you do not speak "THE truth", because there is no such thing as ONE and only ONE version of it. And that is my main objection from the very beginning of your tirade. You have somehow create this illusion that YOUR version is the only prevailing standard that should be applied to ALL cases. Forget about the fact that (i) you are dealing with a completely different field than physics and (ii) that you appear to be surrounded by losers who can't seem to be able to complete their education.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. For every example you can come up, I can come up with the contrary. So now what has that left us with?

You seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that each year there are A LOT of people with Ph.D's that DO get decent jobs. That is not an anecdotal observation, but rather from the statistics, which you probably put less emphasis on as "evidence" when compared to your "anecdotal evidence".

Please. What are these jobs that "A LOT OF PHDs" get? Temp jobs? Post doc positions. What is the average amount of time it takes a Phd to find a permanent STABLE job? The chemical industry is a giant when you compare the amount of businesses that would higher a chemist versus the amount of companies that would higher a physicist. If PhD chemists are having a hell of a time finding permanent positions, there is a pretty good chance that PhDs in other fields of science are as well. Let me ask you, where did you have the privilege of going to school for your doctorate? Did you go to a big name school like Harvard, MIT, Cal tech. etc? Well most people with PhDs didn't go the few big name schools out there, so YOUR standards (if you did go to one of those schools) of how easily one can find a job don't apply to most doctorate students since they won't have the same connections or recognition with their PhD from a smaller university. You want a reliable source for information? How about the US government's Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Outlook for Physicists?

Job Outlook [About this section] Back to Top Back to Top

Employment of physicists and astronomers is expected to grow more slowly than average for all occupations through 2014. Federal research expenditures are the major source of physics-related and astronomy-related research funds, especially for basic research. Although these expenditures are expected to increase over the 2004–14 projection period, resulting in some growth in employment and opportunities, the limited science research funds available still will result in competition for basic research jobs among Ph.D. holders. The need to replace physicists and astronomers who retire or otherwise leave the occupation permanently will account for most expected job openings.

Although research and development expenditures in private industry will continue to grow, many research laboratories in private industry are expected to continue to reduce basic research, which includes much physics research, in favor of applied or manufacturing research and product and software development. Nevertheless, persons with a physics background continue to be in demand in the areas of information technology, semiconductor technology, and other applied sciences. This trend is expected to continue; however, many of the new workers will have job titles such as computer software engineer, computer programmer, or systems analyst or developer, rather than physicist.

Throughout the 1990s, the number of doctorates granted in physics was much greater than the number of job openings for physicists, resulting in keen competition, particularly for research positions in colleges and universities and in research and development centers. Recent increases in undergraduate physics enrollments, however, may lead to growth in enrollments in graduate physics programs, so that toward the end of the projection period, there may be an increase in the number of doctoral degrees granted that will intensify the competition for job openings.

Opportunities may be more numerous for those with a master’s degree, particularly graduates from programs preparing students for applied research and development, product design, and manufacturing positions in private industry. Many of these positions, however, will have titles other than physicist, such as engineer or computer scientist.

Persons with only a bachelor’s degree in physics or astronomy are not qualified to enter most physicist or astronomer research jobs, but may qualify for a wide range of positions related to engineering, mathematics, computer science, environmental science, and, for those with the appropriate background, some nonscience fields, such as finance. Those who meet State certification requirements can become high school physics teachers, an occupation in strong demand in many school districts. Most States require new teachers to obtain a master’s degree in education within a certain time. (See the statement on teachers—preschool, kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary elsewhere in the Handbook.) Despite competition for traditional physics and astronomy research jobs, graduates with a physics or astronomy degree at any level will find their knowledge of science and mathematics useful for entry into many other occupations.

 

[ZapperZ]

Please. What are these jobs that "A LOT OF PHDs" get? Temp jobs? Post doc positions. What is the average amount of time it takes a Phd to find a permanent STABLE job?

1. Research staff positions in US Nat'l Labs

2. Faculty positions in universities

3. "Engineering" position in semiconductor and electronics industries.

And no, I did not graduate from one of the "brand name" universities. Yet, 4 out of 5 people who graduated in the same year as I did with our Ph.D's ended up in one of the 3 positions that I mentioned above. The 4th opened a business back in his home country.

The chemical industry is a giant when you compare the amount of businesses that would higher a chemist versus the amount of companies that would higher a physicist. If PhD chemists are having a hell of a time finding permanent positions, there is a pretty good chance that PhDs in other fields of science are as well.

But there are also more chemists graduating per year than there are physicists! For physicists, and I've mentioned this already elsewhere, if one wants to pursue a traditional physics career, more often than not, one has to do a postdoc, and for physicists, this is the larger portion of available jobs. This is because only a smaller percentage have the appropriate skill to go into industries without making a significant change in specialization. Such fields would include "experimental condensed matter" or "experimental optics", etc... This is why I said that using your example in the chemical industry isn't valid. Extremely few physics graduates at a B.Sc level can practice as a physicist.

Let me ask you, where did you have the privilege of going to school for your doctorate? Did you go to a big name school like Harvard, MIT, Cal tech. etc? Well most people with PhDs didn't go the few big name schools out there, so YOUR standards (if you did go to one of those schools) of how easily one can find a job don't apply to most doctorate students since they won't have the same connections or recognition with their PhD from a smaller university.

I hate to repeat the things I've already said in my So You Want To Be A Physicist essay, and what I've already said in here with regards to the dichotomy between experimentalists and theorists. Notice that I have mentioned about PEDIGREE, and I don't mean the dog food either, and how it tends to apply a lot, especially for those pursuing theoretical studies! But for experimentalists, they tend to be less dependent on it. You could come from a small school and you can still make quite an impact if that school specializes in only a few well-done experimental area, and especially if it is situated near a Nat'l Lab that provides the necessary facility. People seldom here about schools such as Iowa State or University of Illinois at Chicago, yet, many of their physics graduate students go on to get faculty position jobs simply because they made names for themselves in particular experimental areas that those schools specialize in or through their associations with various Nat'l Labs. If you have been here long enough, you would have seen several of my posts where I tell kids who think that they must attend only the brand name schools or bust to get out of that myth.

You want a reliable source for information? How about the US government's Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Outlook for Physicists?

.. and how did this contradicts what I have said? Again, there are several issues here that you continue to miss:

1. I have never said that being a physicist was easy, and that one will make a lot of money like you.

2. My objection was to your characterization that one should stop at a B.Sc level and go find a job. This is utterly irresponsible, because the job outlook for a B.Sc level physics major wanting to stay in physics is abysmal! There are extremely few to none, and the AIP has graphical details of the types of jobs such degree holder eventually end up with.

3. The job statistics that you quoted should be saved for a thread titled "Don't Do Physics!"

4. The bleak hiring rate in physics happens to coincide with the stagnant federal funding in physical sciences during the 90's and early this decade, while the NIH funding doubled in roughly that period. However, that doesn't reflect (i) the explosive growth in the medical physics and biophysics during that time as the result of doubling of NIH funding and (ii) the fact that the tables are now beginning to turn with the current FY2007 increase in DOE and NSF fundings AND the upcoming FY2008 budget increase. Both the current congress and the president have a strong agreement to pursue the doubling of funding for physical sciences over the next 10 years similar to what was done for the NIH. So if one were to follow the trend of funding versus job opportunities, there is every indication that more jobs will be available. Still, even under current situations, I've seen places that simply cannot hire people fast enough. Example: various nanoscience and nanotechnology centers that have just opened at several places around the country. If one could have forseen such an explosion 4 years ago, people who specializes in this area not only have unbelievable job opportunities at these places, but IBM, Xerox, and others are clamoring for such people right now!

This thread has now deteriorated from defending why one wants to consider continuing with a Ph.D in physics, into why one would even want to major in physics in the first place. If that is your original intention, then we can certainly switch gears and argue about that so that I can be clear what the battle lines are. However, if we are going back to the OP, then asking someone to stop at doing a B.Sc in physics by giving him/her the false impression that the job opportunities are wider and more plentiful based on such a degree alone, even in being able to continue in the same field, then that is a misinformation.

Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

This thread has now deteriorated from defending why one wants to consider continuing with a Ph.D in physics, into why one would even want to major in physics in the first place. If that is your original intention, then we can certainly switch gears and argue about that so that I can be clear what the battle lines are.

Of course that was my intention all along. You know how much we chemistry students love physics

 

[L62]

IMO, you will be happy getting a PhD if you truly love doing the research enough to endure the hardships of (1) the phd process (2) the postdoc process (3) the tenure process, and by tenure I don't just mean academia because even in most national labs nowadays getting a permanent position requires you to first have a postdoc and such positions are also pretty scarce. And throughout all these stages you will have reduced income and geographic instability, which in turn can play havoc with your personal life.

If you don't plan on making your career in research or academia, then I think there isn't a practical reason to get a PhD. In industry it doesn't really enhance your career or open new doors (except maybe in R&D), as having a masters and experience is equivalent in most cases.

If your concerns about money, job stability, or employability outweigh your love for research and academic study, then don't get a PhD.

You CAN get a job in industry in spite of having a PhD, you just need to know how to market yourself. big problem is that so many science/engineering PhDs and postdocs don't take the time to develop their social skills to market themselves. True it will be harder in some fields than others, but in the end coming out of a PhD or postdoc you will have some transferable skills, whether experimental, analytical, mathematical or what not. e.g. a friend of mine (postdoc in atomic physics) said many of his lab mates got jobs on wall street. Other physics postdocs I know got jobs as engineers in industry doing things related to their lab skills. I recently got a job offer from a high-tech company based on the skills I had picked up along the way through the course of my phd and postdoc, and not because of my extensive knowledge in my tiny arcane area of expertise...besides many job ads request "MS with X years of experience, or PhD".

so I guess my advice to prospective grad students is, do you plan on trying for a career in academia (do you want to become a professor?) or doing research in a national lab or research isntitute? Such jobs are scarce and thus the road to getting them are long and tough and competitive and the chance of meeting a dead end are high. Do you still want to try for these careers? If yes, then by all means proceed with getting a phD. If not, then with the other option (industry) you are probably better off without a phD.

since IMO the only benefit to getting a phD is if you want a career in research or academia, and since the job outlook is so bleak in research/academia, that's why in general I think in the end the purely practical thing to do is don't get a phD.

 

[imy786]

wow great comments, it was good idea that i did start off this thread, anywayz at one time i was keen on persuing a PHD in physics, defintely not now.

 

[J77]

wow great comments, it was good idea that i did start off this thread, anywayz at one time i was keen on persuing a PHD in physics, defintely not now.

I don't see how one could persue a PhD.

For me, it was an extension to my studies, as my research work for the past 6 years has been to my PhD.

(And when I say extension, I don't mean that it's all been based on the same subject. More an extension to my knowledge.)

 

[J77]

Yes there are jobs that require a PhD. But just remember, for that position there are 30 other applicants for that spot, not only are you competing against people that have graduated from places like MIT, Harvard, etc. you are competing against a TON of individuals who have gotten their PhDs from over seas. 99% of people who go to grad school aren't fortunate enough to go to the top 5 schools in the country and will have extreme difficulty getting a job with their PhD.

This kind of answers why PhDs are still special -- imo, you have to go to a good "school" to do your PhD; ie. one with world-class researchers.

While someone is in grad school for 5 years, then doing a post doc for another 4 years I have already worked for almost 10 years and have made $500,000+, bought a decent house and car, started a family, and my retirement account has compounded exponentially for all that time, while someone who has decided that they want a PhD only starts making real money by the time they are 30-35. And by then with 10+ years experience I could probably make about 60-65 grand, while a fresh PhD would start at around 60-70 grand. All that time too I have the opportunity to earn a Masters degree while my company pays for everything which could even increase my salary further.
Also remember, that if you have any student loans, the interest piles on the entire time while you are pursuing a PhD which can add on thousands of dollars that will be due on a student loan.

Ahhh, the money thing.

Well, I wouldn't do a PhD without a grant. In the UK you get around 10k plus another 6ish through teaching. Thia makse it around $30,000 tax-free -- which is quite nice for a 21/22 year old; especially considering they're pretty much their own boss.

And, good postdocs in Europe would typically be on a start of 27k (gbp) or high 30s (euro) -- over $50,000. Which is even nicer when you consider a UK PhD comes when you're 25/26 (central Europe a bit later, around 30).

I would highly recommend that everyone who is an undergrad now, but wants to go to grad school for a PhD live out in the real world first for 2 or 3 years. Grad school will always be there for you, you can always go back if you want. See what it is like to pay rent/mortgage, student loans, car payments, utilities, groceries, etc. After that, if you think you are comfortable living on 20-25 grand per year, then by all means go to grad school.

I would say don't live out in the "real world" -- a PhD requires a continuation of knowledge -- and you probably get money concerns which stop you doing your PhD.

In summary, everyone only has their opinions.

Mine comes from liking the university lifestyle.

I think yours comes from having gone into industry -- which begs the question, how can you advise against a PhD when you haven't done one?

 

[gravenewworld]

I think yours comes from having gone into industry -- which begs the question, how can you advise against a PhD when you haven't done one?

Do I need to gouge my eyes out with a pencil to advise against doing it? No, I already know it is bad without ever having to experience it. I have straight up asked the PhDs where I work, that if they could do it all over again, would they still have gotten their PhD. A lot of them say no, and the ones that say yes, say yes, but only if the market conditions were like they were back when they were getting their PhDs, not like the markets today. You can get a PhD and hope that you will get a position in a government lab, but just remember that government funding is directly tied to the economy. Whenever the economy tanks, one of the first things cut is R&D spending. Remember a few years back when the Bush administration promised billions and billions of dollars for funding for a new space station? Well, where is that money? It is no where to be found. You can't count on government promises for funding for R&D all the time. The government can stop spending money on science research in an instant.

With a PhD you have to ready for the fact that you might not get a job doing what you studied. YOu have to be prepared to accept that. If you want a PhD in say physics, are willing to hold a job say working as a computer scientist? I doubt that the unemployment rate among PhDs is very high, but you have to dig deeper. What jobs are PhDs doing? How many are actually doing jobs related closely related to their field? If I were the manager at McDonald's and I had to choose between someone with a PhD and a high school teenager for a cashier position, I would definitely choose the PhD. Just because the number for unemployment maybe low for PhDs doesn't mean they are getting jobs doing what they are trained for. I know several physics people who ended up getting jobs as commodities traders on wall street, business analysts, and computer programmers.

 

[Quaoar]

...which begs the question...

Off-topic, but I think you mean raises the question. Begs the question implies circular logic.

 

[cristo]

I know several physics people who ended up getting jobs as commodities traders on wall street, business analysts, and computer programmers.

Is that a bad thing? Just because someone earns a PhD in a subject does not necessarily mean that they intend to pursue a career in academia. In my opinion, one does not have any idea as to what a career in academia would entail after finishing their undergraduate degree, and a PhD is a good way of seeing whether the career suits them. This is by no means a waste of time! As J77 mentions above, a student (in the UK) gets paid to undertake a PhD (I think it's more like £12k nowadays), which is not a bad wage to start on. By the end of a PhD, a student will know whether he will fit into a career in academia, and whether he is good enough! If not, then one could start a job in, say, a graduate scheme for a bank, or something like that, having learned many transferable skills, and only being three years older than his undergraduate counterparts.

Earlier on in the thread, you gave the impression that obtaining a PhD implies that one is pretty much unemployable, and that it is a waste of time! Well, 3 extra years of study in a subject that one enjoys, at the age of 21/22 is hardly a waste of time, no matter how you look at it.

It seems to me that this thread has deteriorated into a "doom and gloom" thread spelling out the dangers of studying for a PhD. I'm not sure that this is helping any student balance the pro's and con's of further study!

 

[gravenewworld]

Is that a bad thing? Just because someone earns a PhD in a subject does not necessarily mean that they intend to pursue a career in academia. In my opinion, one does not have any idea as to what a career in academia would entail after finishing their undergraduate degree, and a PhD is a good way of seeing whether the career suits them. This is by no means a waste of time! As J77 mentions above, a student (in the UK) gets paid to undertake a PhD (I think it's more like £12k nowadays), which is not a bad wage to start on. By the end of a PhD, a student will know whether he will fit into a career in academia, and whether he is good enough! If not, then one could start a job in, say, a graduate scheme for a bank, or something like that, having learned many transferable skills, and only being three years older than his undergraduate counterparts.

Earlier on in the thread, you gave the impression that obtaining a PhD implies that one is pretty much unemployable, and that it is a waste of time! Well, 3 extra years of study in a subject that one enjoys, at the age of 21/22 is hardly a waste of time, no matter how you look at it.

It seems to me that this thread has deteriorated into a "doom and gloom" thread spelling out the dangers of studying for a PhD. I'm not sure that this is helping any student balance the pro's and con's of further study!

Well, sorry I wasn't clearer. What I am trying to say that with a PhD you have to be ready for the fact that you might not get job doing what you are trained for. I was simply trying to respond to posts that said that their life wouldn't be complete without doing physics for the rest of their life. I was trying say that with a PhD in physics, employment as a "Physicist" may be awfully difficult to find. If you can live with this fact, then getting a PhD might not be so bad. But don't be upset over the fact that once you leave grad school with a PhD, you may never do a physics lab experiment ever again if you can't find employment as a physicist. So the question you should really ask is "Am I willing to get a PhD in physics if I may not be employed as physicist but rather find a job as a ____ ?" (you can fill in the blank with any job you can think of).

 

[Cyrus]

Is that a bad thing? Just because someone earns a PhD in a subject does not necessarily mean that they intend to pursue a career in academia. In my opinion, one does not have any idea as to what a career in academia would entail after finishing their undergraduate degree, and a PhD is a good way of seeing whether the career suits them. This is by no means a waste of time! As J77 mentions above, a student (in the UK) gets paid to undertake a PhD (I think it's more like £12k nowadays), which is not a bad wage to start on. By the end of a PhD, a student will know whether he will fit into a career in academia, and whether he is good enough! If not, then one could start a job in, say, a graduate scheme for a bank, or something like that, having learned many transferable skills, and only being three years older than his undergraduate counterparts.

Earlier on in the thread, you gave the impression that obtaining a PhD implies that one is pretty much unemployable, and that it is a waste of time! Well, 3 extra years of study in a subject that one enjoys, at the age of 21/22 is hardly a waste of time, no matter how you look at it.

It seems to me that this thread has deteriorated into a "doom and gloom" thread spelling out the dangers of studying for a PhD. I'm not sure that this is helping any student balance the pro's and con's of further study!

Youtch. 12k a year is pitiful. Most entry level engineers get starting of around 45-50k per year. Thats more than double.

 

[cristo]

Youtch. 12k a year is pitiful. Most entry level engineers get starting of around 45-50k per year. Thats more than double.

It's not that bad. ~$25k plus $x depending on how much tutoring/marking you want to do. Admittedly, it doesn't compare to industry, but $30k is enough to live on!

 

[cristo]

Well, sorry I wasn't clearer. What I am trying to say that with a PhD you have to be ready for the fact that you might not get job doing what you are trained for. I was simply trying to respond to posts that said that their life wouldn't be complete without doing physics for the rest of their life. I was trying say that with a PhD in physics, employment as a "Physicist" may be awfully difficult to find. If you can live with this fact, then getting a PhD might not be so bad. But don't be upset over the fact that once you leave grad school with a PhD, you may never do a physics lab experiment ever again if you can't find employment as a physicist. So the question you should really ask is "Am I willing to get a PhD in physics if I may not be employed as physicist but rather find a job as a ____ ?" (you can fill in the blank with any job you can think of).

Sorry, I must've misinterpreted your responses! I agree that the number of graduating PhD students each year must be greater than the number of postdoc positions available!

 

[Cyrus]

It's not that bad. ~$25k plus $x depending on how much tutoring/marking you want to do. Admittedly, it doesn't compare to industry, but $30k is enough to live on!

Its a big hit on the pay for 4-6 years if your getting a PhD. It works out to 120K if you do your PhD in 4 years, and don't consider that in 4 years your pay will go up. At school, it wont.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is the latest statistics from the AIP regarding employment for Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D's in physics, including "satisfaction" in their choices of field of study and where they end up.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp.pdf

Judge for yourself. This is THE most complete study of this type anywhere for the job situation in the US.

Zz.

 

[Cyrus]

This is the latest statistics from the AIP regarding employment for Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D's in physics, including "satisfaction" in their choices of field of study and where they end up.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp.pdf

Judge for yourself. This is THE most complete study of this type anywhere for the job situation in the US.

Zz.

That pay is sad all across the board.

 

[ZapperZ]

That pay is sad all across the board.

But is this news?

Have you seen the pay scale for other academic areas? Note that for those accepting academic positions, these are roughly the SAME pay scale for all assistant professor position. So this isn't JUST unique for physics.

Zz.

 

[Cyrus]

But is this news?

Have you seen the pay scale for other academic areas? Note that for those accepting academic positions, these are roughly the SAME pay scale for all assistant professor position. So this isn't JUST unique for physics.

Zz.

I agree, its sad all around. That is as much pay as a high school dropout working at McDonalds. At the very least, a BS should start at 50k, MS 70K and a PhD at 80-90k.

It's insulting to be offered 20k a year for a technical position when you can clean garbage cans for the same amount of pay. If someone offered me 20k for a job, Id laugh at their face and walk out the interview office.

 

[Astronuc]

There are some great opportunities in Astrophysics at U of Leicester!

http://www.star.le.ac.uk/phd/


I was trying to post the other day, and the browser choked.

Anyway, I was going to say that I agree with Dr. Transport and gravennewworld. However, I think one should also consider ZapperZ's experience and most adamantly I recommed Zz's thread on "So you want to be a physicisit."

Anyway, I would say "don't do a PhD just to do a PhD and get those letters or Dr. attached to one's name." One should do a PhD because one wishes to contribute to the advancement of the state-of-the-art, or because one wishes to teach and do research, particular in academia.

I think one however needs to maintain a realistic perspective of the market out there in the world and the fluctuating demand and supply of PhD's. Engineers face the same challenge.

The economy is volatile at the moment, and that may be reality for sometime. New technologies come to market and are sometimes superceded shortly after they mature. Different sectors of the economy seem to move through boom and bust cycles more rapidly than in the past.

There are two companies, which still have strong R&D facilities, IBM and GE. There are others, but those two have maintained a strong commitment, while I've seen others decimate their R&D groups.

Where one does a PhD and in what subject/field one does a PhD is important in terms of opportunities. If one picks an esoteric field, then one may very well limit one's opportunities - other than teaching. So be versatile and diverse.

Money can be good, but then one's salary is subject to the vagaries of 'supply and demand'.

If one is contemplating a PhD - look ahead, keep all options open, diversify one's skills and knowledge.

 

[Quaoar]

I agree, its sad all around. That is as much pay as a high school dropout working at McDonalds. At the very least, a BS should start at 50k, MS 70K and a PhD at 80-90k.

It's insulting to be offered 20k a year for a technical position when you can clean garbage cans for the same amount of pay. If someone offered me 20k for a job, Id laugh at their face and walk out the interview office.

You're forgetting that you ARE getting something out of the process, namely, an education!

 

[Cyrus]

No, I can get an education while working. I get the best of BOTH worlds, but it will take longer and be harder.

I don't need to be an underpaid slave for 25k a year. And I could get a PhD in something related to my work, thus benifiting both myself and my company.

Also, those are pay for someone out of school. Your not getting any education based on that chart. You are just doing work for some company.

 

[Quaoar]

No, I can get an education while working. I get the best of BOTH worlds, but it will take longer and be harder.

I don't need to be an underpaid slave for 25k a year. And I could get a PhD in something related to my work, thus benifiting both myself and my company.

Also, those are pay for someone out of school. Your not getting any educatoin based on that chart. You are just doing work for some company.

Not every topic is available in industry. You can't get an education for certain topics outside of academia.

 

[Cyrus]

And those are exactly the topics that will keep you unemployed.