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

[leright]

Whats so special about being a grad student? If you are going to work in industry, I promise you that your co-workers with experience know more than you after you graduate with your graduate degree.

Not necessarily. While the people in industry are doing paper work and administrative duties and dealing with red tape (which isn't necessarily hard to learn...just boring and annoying) the graduate students are spending almost all of their time learning technical subject matter and working on their research.

 

[Cyrus]

The point of any company is to put out a product fast that works. They don't care two cents about the theory of why it works. Thats YOUR job in getting a PhD. Thats NOT what the company cares about.

Not necessarily. While the people in industry are doing paper work and administrative duties and dealing with red tape (which isn't necessarily hard to learn...just boring and annoying) the graduate students are spending almost all of their time learning technical subject matter and working on their research.

What? No, they are doing engineering work and analysis. Things like FEA, PDP, and the like. They have experience doing what you read in a book.

For one of my classes, we work with DeWalt power tools. We took a tour of their design facilities. They were doing technical work and analysis. Maybe you should visit more companies and see the real work that people do. Its not sitting behind a desk doing paperwork.

 

[leright]

What? No, they are doing engineering work and analysis. Things like FEA, PDP, and the like. They have experience doing what you read in a book.

You keep telling yourself that.

And if some engineers get the opportunity to do that, trust me...the grad students are doing it too. The grad students where I am doing my REU use cadence, ansys, labview, etc extensively, but are not burdened with the red tape of industrial processes.

However, I will say learning how to deal with beauracracy is a very important skill, but a few months at the company you are working for is all you need in order to master this.

Grad school is very much unlike ugrad school...

 

[Cyrus]

What experience are you telling me this from leright? The fact is, most engineers do go into product development, and that involves engineering analysis and testing on the product.

You as a graduate student do not use labview cadence or ansys to the full level that industry does. Maybe I should take you to the DeWalt company and show you the parts they have on Catia that have hundreds of man-hours dedicated to them.

 

[gravenewworld]

Not necessarily. While the people in industry are doing paper work and administrative duties and dealing with red tape (which isn't necessarily hard to learn...just boring and annoying) the graduate students are spending almost all of their time learning technical subject matter and working on their research.

trust me, if you met the MA and BS people where I work that have 10-20+ years experience in industry, you would definitely mistake them for PhDs. One of our BS chemists wrote a paper on a reaction he accidentally discovered while working on a project. Emails started flooding into his mail box with questions about his reaction. Most of them started with "Dear Dr. _____".

Whenever we interview a candidate for a post doc position we ask them if they know or ever have carried out what is known as a "suzuki coupling". Most of the time the PhDs have only barely heard of it and have never done one. I have done suzuki reactions many times over as it is one of the most useful reactions in the real world and know how it works. Industry teaches you what is practical and most efficient, university teaches you theory. What grad students learn in a textbook, myself and others are actually doing it in the lab. If you read one of my posts earlier, we had a phd one time deviate from a synthetic scheme that was already known to work because he thought he could come up with a better way. The theory said his way should work, but guess what? His proposed scheme was an abysmal failure and it ended up costing thousands of dollars in wasted precious chemicals.

 

[StatusX]

I don't think there's anything wrong with industry if you kind of like understanding as much as possible about the world and really like money and success. But if your priorities are the other way around, there's nothing wrong with a PhD. Of course, passion isn't enough, and only a select few actually get through the process and have a career in academia, and the rest face a harder time getting by. But that's the risk you take, and it's more than worth it to a lot of people. Anyone who's actually persuaded by this thread not to pursue a PhD shouldn't pursue a PhD, so as much I disagree with some of the things said here, it's good that they're being said.

 

[leright]

What experience are you telling me this from leright? The fact is, most engineers do go into product development.

yes, and 'product development' consists of lots of beaurocracy. Nearly all engineers working in industry will spend well over half of their time dealing with 'paperwork' that often has absolutely nothing to do with technical subject matter, or has very little to do with technical subject matter.

 

[Cyrus]

And the other half of the time, there doing what...analysis at a level you WONT do as a graduate student. Things that involve teams of qualified individuals and hundreds of hours of labor.

Lets say you work at Boeing. Do you think as a graduate student your going to do work at the same level as the engineers designing the new 747? At best, you will look at a small small subsystem or an overall generalized picture. You won't have to worry about buying the actual parts, you won't have to worry about subsystem integration. You won't worry about cost.

There are so many little things that you just DONT pick up in graduate school that you must pick up in industry.

 

[gravenewworld]

yes, and 'product development' consists of lots of beaurocracy. Nearly all engineers working in industry will spend well over half of their time dealing with 'paperwork' that often has absolutely nothing to do with technical subject matter, or has very little to do with technical subject matter.

To be honest paper work SUCKS. I won't lie to you, yes I do it. You have to do it for legal reasons (patents etc.) It really isn't that much of a burden like you make it out to be. My paper work consists of 1.) writing a monthly report summarizing everything I did for the month (which takes about 2 hours per month) 2.) writing up my lab notebook (which takes 1-2 hours per week). Everyone has pretty much converted to electronic notebooks, so it really isn't all that bad.

You want to know who does the most paper work? THE PHDS!
The PhDs hardly ever set foot in the lab they are busy coming up with ideas for synthesis, writing reports, and doing presentations. Where do you live? You can come shadow me at my work, I would have no problem with it. No one except the PhDs are qualified enough to write up rough drafts for legal patents on new ideas/chemical entities. The PhDs spend most of their time doing that kind of stuff where I work. All the PhDs at my work are also required EVERY YEAR to submit at least 1 article to a journal, which is a huge pain in the arse. You should see how long it takes to write up, collect all the data, revise, critique, and submit an article to a decent journal.

 

[leright]

Lets say you work at Boeing. Do you think as a graduate student your going to do work at the same level as the engineers designing the new 747?

Perhaps. The immense task of designing a 747 is divided up between thousands of people.

 

[leright]

You want to know who does the most paper work? THE PHDS!
The PhDs hardly ever set foot in the lab they are busy coming up with ideas for synthesis, writing reports, and doing presentations. Where do you live? You can come shadow me at my work, I would have no problem with it. No one except the PhDs are qualified enough to write up rough drafts for legal patents on new ideas/chemical entities. The PhDs spend most of their time doing that kind of stuff where I work. All the PhDs at my work are also required EVERY YEAR to submit at least 1 article to a journal, which is a huge pain in the arse. You should see how long it takes to write up, collect all the data, revise, critique, and submit an article to a decent journal.

Well, I would rather like to be in the PhD's position at your company, despite the level of stress it carries. It is technical paperwork they are usually doing.

 

[Cyrus]

I would like to know out of all the people who get a PhD, how many actually get a post-doc and how many get kicked to the curb. It just seems that the number of positions has to be so small compared to the number of positions in industry that its a BIG risk in getting a PhD and thinking you will ever see any work in academia.

It feels like an unnecessary and stupid risk, IMO.

You can always go back and get a PhD, so why not look before you leap and work first?

 

[leright]

I would like to know out of all the people who get a PhD, how many actually get a post-doc and how many get kicked to the curb. It just seems that the number of positions has to be so small compared to the number of positions in industry that its a BIG risk in getting a PhD and thinking you will ever see any work in academia.

It feels like an unnecessary and stupid risk, IMO.

You can always go back and get a PhD, so why not look before you leap and work first?

It's very hard to go back and get a PhD. I am doing it now because I have a feeling that if I don't I will never do it. The PhD is not a part time endevour and it's not something I see myself considering in my mid-thirties. At that point, after working in industry for 10 years, I would probably be considering an MBA instead.

Look at the link Zz provided. That provides a lot of (promising) information for physics PhDs and will answer you question.

And I am doing a PhD simply because I really like physics and graduate school is the best place for my to advance my physics understanding. Period.

 

[Cyrus]

Chroot and Bekerman work in the semiconductor industry, I think. Id like to hear what they have to say about this.

Also, Fred can tell us about the Aerospace industry, and Astronuc about the Nuclear Industry.

Lets see what people with experience have to say on the issue.


Also, people in academia or teachers. How many new hires do you all have for PhDs?

 

[Quaoar]

I make roughly $50k per year with my BS straight out of college. Sometimes I even have trouble making ends meet with all the bills I have and that salary, especially when gas was over $3.00 per gallon. I don't even have a family for christ's sake! I would definitely have to work two jobs if I had a family to support. You should definitely keep in the back of your mind how much you stand to make in the future with the education you are going to pursue. Those that don't tend to end up in miserable conditions. Money is what makes the world go round, if you are going to completely ignore this aspect you are living in a dream world my friend. The world is not a nice place.

Some people can handle living frugally, others can't. I current live in one of the most expensive areas in the country, and my current salary is in the 50k range. Yet somehow, magically, I still manage to put away a grand in my savings account every month.

Some people NEED to spend money on all sorts of extra-curricular activities to stay sane. And perhaps a career as an academic is not appropriate for these sorts of people. What I'm trying to get at is that blanket statements about how an academic career sucks because the money isn't as good as industry alternatives are silly, because there are people out there who can live that life and enjoy it.

 

[gravenewworld]

Some people can handle living frugally, others can't. I current live in one of the most expensive areas in the country, and my current salary is in the 50k range. Yet somehow, magically, I still manage to put away a grand in my savings account every month.

Some people NEED to spend money on all sorts of extra-curricular activities to stay sane. And perhaps a career as an academic is not appropriate for these sorts of people. What I'm trying to get at is that blanket statements about how an academic career sucks because the money isn't as good as industry alternatives are silly, because there are people out there who can live that life and enjoy it.

Maybe it is the fact that I am burdened with a 50 grand in college loans and just had to buy a new car because I was in a car accident are the reasons why I have no money left. It isn't like i am blowing hundreds of dollars on slot machines in Atlantic City. Actually, out of all of my friends, I am probably the most frugal.

My monthly income minus tax=$2300

Monthly expenses:
rent: $433
gas: $125 during winter
electric: $30
student loans: $260 (I usually don't pay more than $50 over what is due so I can keep the nice big fat tax deduction on the interest payments)
car payments: $411
car insurance: $125
cable: $50
gasoline: $160
groceries:$300-400
health club membership: $40


that leaves roughly $400 per month that I have for random crap like investing, health care payments that might come up, paying credit card bills, entertainment, and saving in general.

 

[chroot]

Chroot and Bekerman work in the semiconductor industry, I think. Id like to hear what they have to say about this.

...say about what, exactly? I don't have time to read this enormous thread.

- Warren

 

[Dr Transport]

I work in industry, I won't say which but it is as challenging as any day I spent in grad school. There isn't a day that goes by where I do not do some type of physics. Yes, I do a lot of paperwork, but if I don't I won't get funded next year and I won't have the freedom to work problems of my choosing. I am constrained in the type of research I can do but it took me 5 years before I could go out and market myself and my groups cababilities to get external funding to work important issues.

The group I work in is multisite and multidiscipline. We have degrees in engineering, physics, chemistry amd materials science. Our collective experience makes us an industry leader in what we do and our methodical approach to issues and problems has convinced our customer that we are the ones to fund.

Anyone who thinks that a physicist going into industry will be bored is sorely mistaken. I spent the first year reading something everynight pertaining to my job. I worked out more fundamental theory to help me learn what my coworkers already knew from years of expierence and I thought I had a decent background from getting my degree, I was mistaken, I still didn't know jack but I asked questions, observed and ran all kinds of experiments to gain some knowledge. After about 3-4 months of working day and night to learn, I started to put my two cents in in meetings, after a year, they were asking my opinion and two years later I was leading design tasks as a junior level engineer. Even though I changed areas of thrust, I still get phone calls from people in my former area asking questions and still contact many of my former coworkers for help in solving problems.

Anyone else?

 

[colin.mcenroe]

Dr Transport, do you think you would have been able to attain the same status with respect to your job had you foregone a phd and simply left grad school with a masters? Similarly, are your coworkers all phds? If not, how are the ones with masters doing?

Thank you for your reply!

Colin

 

[Quaoar]

Maybe it is the fact that I am burdened with a 50 grand in college loans and just had to buy a new car because I was in a car accident are the reasons why I have no money left. It isn't like i am blowing hundreds of dollars on slot machines in Atlantic City. Actually, out of all of my friends, I am probably the most frugal.

My monthly income minus tax=$2300

Monthly expenses:
rent: $433
gas: $125 during winter
electric: $30
student loans: $260 (I usually don't pay more than $50 over what is due so I can keep the nice big fat tax deduction on the interest payments)
car payments: $411
car insurance: $125
cable: $50
gasoline: $160
groceries:$300-400
health club membership: $40


that leaves roughly $400 per month that I have for random crap like investing, health care payments that might come up, paying credit card bills, entertainment, and saving in general.

In that case, I would say that getting a PhD is not for you.

But that's OK! The point I'm making is that its not appropriate for everyone, only those who are willing to make some sacrifices. If you have a ton of familial or financial commitments, you probably won't be focused enough to succeed in your graduate career anyway.

 

[Dr Transport]

Dr Transport, do you think you would have been able to attain the same status with respect to your job had you foregone a phd and simply left grad school with a masters? Similarly, are your coworkers all phds? If not, how are the ones with masters doing?

Thank you for your reply!

Colin

Yes I would have, it would have taken a few more years, probably about the same amount of time I spent geting my PhD after my Masters.

The department I work in has an extraordinate level of PhD's, about 10% which is unusually high for my company. Their degrees are in EE, Physics, Math & ME. A large portion of the others have Masters degrees in the above subjects and are all doing quite well. The young ones and their are not that many, are catching up. One thing that needs to be said, the department did not hire anyone for about 15 years, so there are only about 5 of us who are in theeir early 40's and then maybe about 15 or so in their late 20's, the rest are in their 50's and 60's and could walk out the door in about 3-5 years. By virtue of that I'll be the ruler of the roost in about 10 years if I want it.

 

[colin.mcenroe]

I am very strongly considering reducing my education from a phd to a masters in physics based upon what I have been reading in this thread. I really have no desire to go into acedamia; I would much rather go into industry. I could care less what my title is, I don't need to be Dr. in order to be happy. It seems highly probable that I could find work in industry that is satisfactory and will allow me to advance to a similar level without the stress of doing academic research.

Any advice for me from anyone with more years?

Thanks!

 

[imy786]

its great that i did post this up...more people are now aggreing with my, that to do a phd in physics is not such a good idea after all..

 

[ZapperZ]

its great that i did post this up...more people are now aggreing with my, that to do a phd in physics is not such a good idea after all..

You will note that in most of the "nay" opinion, it is more of an argument against doing physics completely and has nothing to do with doing a Ph.D in physics. If one thinks that one can get a B.Sc. in physics and then hope to actually get a job as a physicist, one is seriously mistaken. Look at the job distribution inthe AIP statistics of Physics Bachelor holders if you don't believe me.

So, if you don't want to get a Ph.D in physics, but want to work in physics, you might as well not even major in physics as an undergraduate, because the chances of you working in the field is very slim. Go do engineering and get a job.

Zz.

 

[hage567]

its great that i did post this up...more people are now aggreing with my, that to do a phd in physics is not such a good idea after all..

I would hope people would still decide for themselves what they want to do with their life/career. For some careers you will need a PhD, plain and simple. You have to decide if it is for you. As others have said, do your research first and be sure you know what you're getting into. Do as much as possible to keep all of your options open.

If money counts, remember that a person with a PhD has the higher earning potential in the long run. I have a BSc and work in medical physics. The PhD medical physicists easily start at a salary double what a person in my position starts at. I have no real opportunity for growth in my job, I will be stuck doing the same thing for the rest of my time there. The PhD physicists can get involved in research, teaching and management. Several of the PhD physicists did not start out in the medical physics field, but they saw the benefits the field provided (like a steady, secure job and good money), and went with it.

I would agree a fulfilling "physics job" is somewhat harder to find if you only have a BSc in physics, but they are out there. Personally, if I could do it over again I would go for the engineering degree. It really is much more versatile in terms of employability at the BSc level.

 

[G01]

One thing I thought about after reading Zz's link is that the job prospects for a Physics PhD depend on their subfield. A string theorist may have trouble getting a job. While some one in some other other more applied field would have an easier time. Job prospects also would depend on whether someone was a theorist or an experimentalist.

I'm sorry if all of this was already mentioned in this thread but I don't have the time to go through it all, plus is can't hurt to post it again.

I do have a question for someone knowledgeable in this area though. Currently I am an undergrad in physics. My interests, as of now, lie in solid state and maybe condensed matter physics, though these may change as I get more experience. I also see myself leaning more towards theory at this point. What are the job prospects, inside and out of acedemia, for PhD's in these fields?

 

[Cyrus]

So, if you don't want to get a Ph.D in physics, but want to work in physics, you might as well not even major in physics as an undergraduate, because the chances of you working in the field is very slim.

What do you define as "work in physics". If you are talking about a University or a National Lab, then Id call that working in academia, which is an important distinction. Those jobs are much more limited and are going to require a PhD, as you said.

On the other hand, I don't see why a BSc in physics can't get a good job in industry.

 

[ZapperZ]

What do you define as "work in physics". If you are talking about a University or a National Lab, then Id call that working in academia, which is an important distinction. Those jobs are much more limited and are going to require a PhD, as you said.

On the other hand, I don't see why a BSc in physics can't get a good job in industry.

When most of us started out majoring in physics, what do we envisioned ourselves working as after we graduate? As an engineer? A technical supervisor? No. I would say that most of us who started out studying in this field wants to work doing "physics". In fact, the ultimate dream for many of us is to do research work on unsolved problems and new areas.

That goal is not easily accessible without a Ph.D in Physics. Period.

In fact, this is not a unique situation in physics only. My group here has graduated many Ph.D's in electrical engineering as well. These people didn't jump right off into their profession right after their B.Sc. simply because they wanted to study an advanced level in their particular area of study - in this case, designing energy coupler and waveguides from wakefields in a dielectric tube and testing them. These are not the level one would get in a typical undergraduate curriculum or something one would be assigned to work on fresh out of school. Needless to say, all of them had job offers months before they officially graduated.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

Private industry that supplies primarily to the government is just as likely to take a hit. In fact, while the government will first cut funding to castles-in-the-air projects like the one above, funding for "quickly useful science" will rarely take a big hit.

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.

In 2004, about 3% of Physics PHDs were unemployed during the year following graduation.

What jobs are PhDs doing? How many are actually doing jobs related closely related to their field?

About two-thirds of all PHDs get a postdoc - most of them in or near their field of expertise. At least half of the remaining 30% work in physics. A fairly tiny fraction of Physics PHDs actually ends up in an area like finance or management.

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.

Only 17% of physics PHDs consider themselves overqualified for their jobs. And I'm guessing that it's a very small fraction of these that work as unskilled labor.

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.

I just looked up the employment data for the PHds that graduated from my department over the last decade. Out of the first 50 names that had provided their employment information, 15 got postdocs in academia, 3 had postdocs in Government Labs/Industry, 7 had been employed as scientists in Government labs, 9 as scientists/engineers in industry, 13 had accepted positions (lecturer/tenure track/scientist) in academia, 2 were in Finance and 1 was hired to work in Computing.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp/figure16.htm
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp/table3.htm
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp/table5.htm

 

[gravenewworld]

Private industry that supplies primarily to the government is just as likely to take a hit. In fact, while the government will first cut funding to castles-in-the-air projects like the one above, funding for "quickly useful science" will rarely take a big hit.

In 2004, about 3% of Physics PHDs were unemployed during the year following graduation.

About two-thirds of all PHDs get a postdoc - most of them in or near their field of expertise. About half of the remaining 30% work in physics. A fairly tiny fraction of Physics PHDs actually ends up in an area like finance or management.

Only 17% of physics PHDs consider themselves overqualified for their jobs. And I'm guessing that it's a very small fraction of these that work as unskilled labor.

I just looked up the employment data for the PHds that graduated from my department over the last decade. Out of the first 50 names that had provided their employment information, 15 got postdocs in academia, 3 had postdocs in Government Labs/Industry, 7 had been employed as scientists in Government labs, 9 as scientists/engineers in industry, 13 had accepted positions (lecturer/tenure track/scientist) in academia, 2 were in Finance and 1 was hired to work in Computing.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp/figure16.htm
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp/table3.htm
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp/table5.htm

Like I said, I expect that PhDs in pretty much all fields of science have low unemployment rates. However, that doesn't mean that PhDs in physics or biology are getting jobs with the job title "physicist" or "biologist", if you can live with that, then OK. Also, how many work as temps? A LOT Phds get jobs only as temps (and therefore aren't considered unemployed). I read science and nature everyweek, and I have seen several articles published by PhDs describing what it is like to move from job to job as a temp. 2/3 of PhDs get a postdoc? No one really wants to be a postdoc. Sure you get experience, but you are missing out on things like higher income and stuff like stock options and retirement benefits that you would get if a company hired you. Then after you spend 4-5 years of doing a post doc comes the game of competing with a horde of other PhDs in industry trying to get the same job as you.

All the stuff that I posted before was in reference to pursuing a PhD to work in industry, not academia. So out of the 50 post grads from your school 3 are postdocs in govt labs and 7 hired full time in government labs. 9 were actually employed in industry. That's great, but don't they worry just a tad in the government labs? The economy is already looking like it is going south due to the housing bubble that is going to explode in our faces, there is a good chance the upcoming recession could be quite severe. The government could easily cut funding for places like NASA in an instant. I would want to at least keep my options open if I were working for a govt. lab right now. So really only roughly 20% of the 50 PhDs polled got an actual job in private industry?


yeah you can call me paranoid, but whatever. since my company is about to go bankrupt, I have been asking everyone what their plans are. Many of the PhDs are going to scrounge around for jobs, a lot of them are probably going to have to sell their houses and move since ther are no jobs around here. One, who is 46 yo, even stated that he doesn't even plan on retiring as a chemist because of the way industry is right now. He said he was definitely going back to study to be a CPA or tax preparer. Granted it isn't physics, but the stories are similar across the board in all the sciences right now in industry.


Like I said in the general discussion board, I am pretty much done with the physical sciences. I definitely don't want to teach and industry is horrible right now. I am probably going to go back for a MD or PharmD. And if not that, then probably graduate training in economics to work in business.

And another thing not even mentioned was the fact that a PhD must also be willing to relocate more often/or travel a lot further to find jobs. How many PhDs polled actually get to live in areas that they really desire or how long of a commute do they have everyday? I believe it was Nature the other month that published a story of two PhDs who were married. The husband found a job in 1 place , while the wife couldn't find a job except one that was 200+ miles away. The couple even had children, but their situation forced the wife, who had the job 200+ miles away, to live all week in a house that they rented closer to her job. She would only come home on the weekends to be with her family. I'm sorry, but that is just insanity. Not only will this put a strain on their marriage in the long run, she is going to miss out on her kids growing up.

 

[Werg22]

Like I said in the general discussion board, I am pretty much done with the physical sciences. I definitely don't want to teach and industry is horrible right now.

Well then, if it only took that much to blow you off the track, you weren't going to succeed anyway.

 

[Cyrus]

Says the 17 year old.

 

[Werg22]

How old do you need to be to know that little motivation doesn't get you very far?

 

[Cyrus]

He is making a statement based on his facts from dealing with the real world and making an informed decision.

You can't tell him " if it only took that much to blow you off the track, you weren't going to succeed anyway." He is between a rock and a hard place. Read what he wrote eariler and then see if what you said makes any sense.

 

[Werg22]

I understand that physicists do not lead the most comfortable of lives and that his decision was the more practical. However, I doubt that most physicists who have made a success out of their career would have renounced to their field under the same circumstances.

 

[CPL.Luke]

keep in mind that a phd can always find decent work teaching high school.

if you decide you don't want to work as a postdoc anymore you can take a job at the locl high school and do research work over the summer.

 

[J77]

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.

I think you're asking the wrong (or, more likely, those with the same views) "PhDs" then; ie. the ones which have gone into industry after obtaining their PhD.

Your statement of "knowing it is bad" seems very ill-informed.

 

[gravenewworld]

I think you're asking the wrong (or, more likely, those with the same views) "PhDs" then; ie. the ones which have gone into industry after obtaining their PhD.

Your statement of "knowing it is bad" seems very ill-informed.

All I have to say is do what you want to. You don't have to listen to me, after all I think learning by experience I believe is the best way to learn. I'm just telling you my experience. Why is it that the only people who have ever wanted me to go on to get a PhD in grad school were college professors, while those who have been working out in the industry for 10-20 years have said "just get a Masters"? Am I just "ill informed" or just telling you something you really don't want to hear?

How many PhD scientists do you know of that have worked at theSAME job at the SAME company for 10-15+ years? Don't know any? Hey, look at that, we have something in common becuase I don't know any either. People wonder why the business school at universities gets 10,000 times more students as the schools for the arts and sciences. Maybe it is because of the sad state of industry in America today. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of scientific/engineering jobs are being outsourced to India and China where people will for work for 50 cents a day. We outsource a lot of our projects all the time.


If you just had a chance to read through the resumes of post docs and potential hirees that I have read for candidates that we interview you would see that most of them have had at least 1 or 2 postdocs and have had 3 or 4 jobs already by the time they are 40-45. Do you really want to have to constantly search for a job? What if you have a family? Would you be willing then to get up and move and sell your house on a dime if things started heading south?


I'm done wasting energy on this thread. Do what you want to do. Learn by trial by fire. You may lucky and may not get burned, or you might. It is up to you if you are willing to take the risk.

 

[ZapperZ]

How many PhD scientists do you know of that have worked at theSAME job at the SAME company for 10-15+ years? Don't know any?

I know of 24, personally, and about 50 by name (total).

You should start another thread called "Don't do a Ph.D", rather than continue with this thread and perpetuating the illusion that it is ONLY a "ph.D in physics" that you are against. All your diatribe has been directed towards a higher degree in science, AND, as far as I can tell, ANY degree in science at all levels.

Why is it that the only people who have ever wanted me to go on to get a PhD in grad school were college professors, while those who have been working out in the industry for 10-20 years have said "just get a Masters"? Am I just "ill informed" or just telling you something you really don't want to hear?

Or maybe it is just specific to YOUR line of work and field? Maybe chemists are already well-equipped to go into their field by the time one gets a B.Sc. or masters degree, but in physics, this is really not that common. The overwhelming majority of occupations in which one actually does physics require a Ph.D in physics, even in industrial jobs such as Xerox, Intel, Motorola, Applied Materials, HP, etc. I know because I interviewed with many of them! So how come my "life experience" here doesn't count and only yours do, especially when yours in a different field of study?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I just find that this whole situation is highly amusing - not the thread, but really the situation that I'm in. As often is the case, I find myself in the middle once again.

I have often "harass" students who are dead set in either doing String theory, or some esoteric theoretical studies by asking them if they care about being employable when they graduate. Of course, I often get dirty looks after I asked them that. {have you also noticed that no one who is majoring in that field of study, or working in that field, have responded to defend their choices in this thread? Why is that?}

As someone who came from condensed matter physics and also being an experimentalist, I have tried to inform as many students as I can about the choices one takes and the chances one can give oneself in not only pursuing one's dream, but also facing the reality of finding a job. Anyone who has read my essay on So You Want To Be A Physicist would have noticed a constant theme going through them - being flexible and always hedging your bets by doing as wide of an area as you can so that in case you can't make it, you will end up with all of these knowledge and skills that can actually make you very employable right off the bat. I am extremely passionate about that because I had encountered, while I was a graduate student, of students pursuing theoretical work who won't even consider involving themselves in any kind of experimental project, even if that project is within their own field of study. It is as if doing any experiments is beneath them, or by doing something else would "dilute" their stature as theorists. I know where some of these people have "landed", and I know for a fact that those places are not what they had in mind.

So that is why I find it amusing that here, I somehow have to defend not only the possibility that one can actually pursue one's goal AND give one as large of a chance as possible about landing a solid job, but also to defend the whole field of physics as a viable field to find a job. That is a daunting task because, as has been said many times, it is such a varied field of study that one field could be in a drought as far as job openings are concerned while another field could not find enough people to filled all the jobs! It has happened a few times, and it continues to happen even today. And I think this is no different in many areas of the job market, so it isn't unique to just physics or the sciences.

Go ahead and pursue your dreams. But at least, go in with both eyes wide open. When you can see at least the stuff that you could face when you graduate, it allows you to make better and more appropriate choices during your school years while you still can. I hate to see someone who could potentially be the next physicist that makes the big contribution to physics drop out, but I also hate to see someone who have such a narrow and shortsighted view of the profession that he/she didn't leave himself enough room just in case he/she didn't make it. Either one would be tragic.

Zz.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Things don't stay the same. I was at University of Florida when "Aeros-space" engineering was big. My last year there (1972) the aerospace department advised all majors who were not yet seniors to change their major!

 

[Gokul43201]

Like I said, I expect that PhDs in pretty much all fields of science have low unemployment rates. However, that doesn't mean that PhDs in physics or biology are getting jobs with the job title "physicist" or "biologist", if you can live with that, then OK. Also, how many work as temps?

I do not personally know anyone that has graduated from my department in the last 5 years has not been employed within physics or an interdisciplinary area between physics and engineering as an initial appointent (this is not to say that there aren't any - but they're likely a small fraction). Also see the AIP stats - only 14% of Physics PHDs that are beyond their postdoc appointments work in areas outside of physics.

A LOT Phds get jobs only as temps (and therefore aren't considered unemployed). I read science and nature everyweek, and I have seen several articles published by PhDs describing what it is like to move from job to job as a temp.

I do not know of a single student from my department that got hired as a temp. Are you referring to a postdoc as a temp?

2/3 of PhDs get a postdoc? No one really wants to be a postdoc.

Are you kidding? The majority of Physics PHDs WANTS a postdoc once they graduate. I know folks that very reluctantly accepted jobs at Intel because they couldn't land a good postdoc appointment. There are, however, people that accept a postdoc only because they couldn't land a permanent position. This fraction makes up a minority among the postdocs.

Sure you get experience, but you are missing out on things like higher income and stuff like stock options and retirement benefits that you would get if a company hired you.

You don't go into physics for stock options!

Then after you spend 4-5 years of doing a post doc comes the game of competing with a horde of other PhDs in industry trying to get the same job as you.

Your chemistry perspective is completely warping your input here. Many (probably a majority of) physics PHDs PREFER to go into academia so they have the freedom to pursue research of their interest. If I can not land a good postdoc (and subsequently, a good academic/national lab position) I'll consider going into industry.

All the stuff that I posted before was in reference to pursuing a PhD to work in industry, not academia. So out of the 50 post grads from your school 3 are postdocs in govt labs and 7 hired full time in government labs. 9 were actually employed in industry. That's great, but don't they worry just a tad in the government labs?

I government lab position is a dream position for many physicists, as it balances between the funding squeeze felt by academia and the loss of research freedom and intellectual density in industry.

The economy is already looking like it is going south due to the housing bubble that is going to explode in our faces, there is a good chance the upcoming recession could be quite severe.

All the more reason to be worried about getting a job in the private sector.

... since my company is about to go bankrupt...

There - that should provide some perspective. When was the last time that DOE or NSF or NIH went bankrupt? How often does a government lab (Los Alamos, Argonne, Lawrence Livermore, Oakridge, etc.) shut down and fire all its employees?

Currently about half of all physics PHDs eventually go into industry and this fraction has an upward trend (up by about 20% since 1970). While there are a large number that prefer working in industry, many often take an industry position only because they can not land the highly competitive positions in academia and the national labs.

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

 

[Ki Man]

its great that i did post this up...more people are now aggreing with my, that to do a phd in physics is not such a good idea after all..

SO you come into a forum dedicated to PHYSICS, post an outdated article about why people SHOULD NOT DO PHYSICS as a PhD, start a debate on whether a PhD will be worth it in the end, which then became a debate on whether physics is a reasonable major at all, which then became a debate between academia vs industry, and people are now starting to turn away from their dreams of becoming professors.

And you are proud of this?

 

[colin.mcenroe]

I don't know if others would agree, but I think it is better to decide before you give your life to something. I wouldn't say that this thread has crushed any dreams, but perhaps in a more optimistic light made me aware that a masters may be all I need to work in industry (I never wanted to be a professor anyway). I would be much happier to start working in my career and start a family than to give over 3-4 years to finish a phd that will give me little advantage in an industry position. I personally love school, but at the same time I can't wait to work 9-5 and be done when I get home from work.

 

[colin.mcenroe]

There - that should provide some perspective. When was the last time that DOE or NSF or NIH went bankrupt? How often does a government lab (Los Alamos, Argonne, Lawrence Livermore, Oakridge, etc.) shut down and fire all its employees?

I know a couple of people that work for Lawrence Livermore. One of them said that the last layoff was ~35 years ago. And he also said that the current generation is starting to retire, so new positions will be opening in the future.

 

[Ki Man]

I don't know if others would agree, but I think it is better to decide before you give your life to something. I wouldn't say that this thread has crushed any dreams

ok maybe that was a wee bit of an exageration...

 

[Cyrus]

ok maybe that was a wee bit of an exageration...

It was.

Text

 

[Ki Man]

yeah.. over exagerating...

I'm still going to go into physics once i go into college. oney problems i can work around with outside jobs and tutoring for money, its the field that really matters to me.

If i was in it for the money, I'd be a stock broker

 

[mathwonk]

i think he is pulling our legs in this thread. to see how long we will react.

 

[arunma]

SO you come into a forum dedicated to PHYSICS, post an outdated article about why people SHOULD NOT DO PHYSICS as a PhD, start a debate on whether a PhD will be worth it in the end, which then became a debate on whether physics is a reasonable major at all, which then became a debate between academia vs industry, and people are now starting to turn away from their dreams of becoming professors.

And you are proud of this?

If it's any encouragement, I'm one person who's been following this thread, and who has no intention to alter his plan to become a physics professor. Those of us who've finished our BS degrees in physics have a small taste of the ardurous nature of the PhD program, and if that didn't dissuade us, then a thread on an Internet forum won't do so either. Heck, just studying for my PhD qualifying exam is driving me crazy right now. If I didn't like physics so much, I'd have ditched it a long time ago, thread or no thread.