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

[imy786]

yea stickey this thread...

and its my thread...wicked innit guys...so end of it if you aint wealthy don't do a PHD in physics...if you got enough money and brains go for it...it will be one of the best acheivements..but remeber how hard you gona have to work

 

[fizziks]

yea stickey this thread...

and its my thread...wicked innit guys...so end of it if you aint wealthy don't do a PHD in physics...if you got enough money and brains go for it...it will be one of the best acheivements..but remeber how hard you gona have to work

True scientists aren't in it for the money and it sometimes takes loads of money to become one too. To them, fame is more important than fortune. So don't expect to get paid half a million a year because you spent 8-10 years for a doctoral or be in high demand for positions around the world.

If you're seeking for a job that pays well and are in high demand, go do business, marketing, finance, pharmacy, medicine, etc. There are so many other majors and fields where you work less but get paid more at the end (well, except a doctor and pharmacist obviously, but they are greatly rewarded at the end).

Some people need to open their eyes and see how the real world is. Talk to anyone in general and they would give jack about how a CPU works, all they care about is that it runs fast and doesn't overheat when overclocked. The majority of the world doesn't care much about science, instead they are more interested and worried about other things. If they were really interested about science, then it should be nerds, physicists, scientists on the red carpet, not actors, CEOs, directors, etc. It's sad, but that's the real world for ya. Welcome to the United States of America, where ignorant is bliss.


Go do a PhD because you are in love with it, not because you expect high in-demand positions and high pay at the end. If you are so concerned with what job you get at the end, then you should not work on a doctoral. The reward you get is self-satisfaction and that you can successfully write a 300 page paper and defend it.

 

[Locrian]

True scientists aren't in it for the money

Some are. The above phrase is tossed around in this forum a lot, and it shouldn't be.

 

[gravenewworld]

People who have PhDs definitely are in it for the money. There are PhDs who charge $300 per hour to do consulting for lawyers to talk to juries about evidence during a trial. There are also many many scientists out there who start up their own companies hoping to eventually cash in big time.

 

[Astronuc]

True scientists aren't in it for the money and it sometimes takes loads of money to become one too. To them, fame is more important than fortune. So don't expect to get paid half a million a year because you spent 8-10 years for a doctoral or be in high demand for positions around the world.

If you're seeking for a job that pays well and are in high demand, go do business, marketing, finance, pharmacy, medicine, etc. There are so many other majors and fields where you work less but get paid more at the end (well, except a doctor and pharmacist obviously, but they are greatly rewarded at the end).

Not necessarily true.

Look at folks like Andrew (Andy) Grove or Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel. Both PhD's, and very successful businessmen.

Grove had a PhD in Chem. Eng., and Noyce in Physics. Noyce co-founded Fairchild Semiconductor in 1957 (at age 30) and Intel in 1968 (at 41). Grove was a co-founder of Intel.

It really depends on the individual, and perhaps the subject or field. A PhD in applied physics might get one further than one in theoretical physics.

I know several PhDs who either started their own companies or provide consultation. Many of the top managers, especially those heading up the R&D groups, have PhDs.

 

[mathwonk]

although astronuc is one of those people who can give hope by providing good answers to poor questions, i tend to agree with Norman.

 

[RufusDawes]

i think all fields today... engineering, conmmerce, science, law... etc. have this problem of "over-production" where there are more graduates than job positions... exception: GPs and medical practitioners are short in supply. Govt.'s wish to push for a "knowledge nation" and that 90% or more of population should go to college or is encouraged to go, as a result, standard at uni/college is falling and usually only the better graduates will get a job.

every year we get yet another "record high" enrolment numbers to gradute school, does that mean PhD gives ppl a better a career flexibility or better future? Does that means now we have more reserach/academic jobs available? ...doubtful... more like faculty wanting more money and down grading requirements.

Exactly but the problem is if you do not do this employers won't want to locate in your country. The problem is not with the education system (well it is but not in this context), but in my opinion employers are the problem. They want a flood of entry level applicants but aren't willing to train any large number of people.

They demand 'quality' education that is painful, expensive, time consuming and very risky for the student.

The majority of degrees, business, humanities, commerce, economics, could be comopleted in one year. If you cannot grasp simple algebra by University you should not be there. First year courses are a total joke. The problem is if you cut down the time frame it exposes these degrees for what they are : less valuabe than an engineering or degree in the hard sciences.

I have been through an economics degree and my first year was a waste of time. My degree should have taken no longer than one and a half years. Exclude the useless finance and general business education subjects I was forced to take and my degree could easily be completed in 3 terms, summer and one full academic year. My general business education units could have been crammed into the one unit.

Pardon the rant I've had a few ,at the moment I am toying with the idea of postgraduate studies in economics, truck driving or other employment, or starting a degree in Civil Engineering.

 

[eastside00_99]

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.
Zz.

Pluralism! I love it.

 

[moustafa]

hi, actually for me i am not thinking to have job after my phd, i want to study phd in physics coz i love physics and i want to do more research about it... i still don't have master in it yet but i want to know details about how steps are to be in the right path!
i am working right now and my work is in advertising agency working as flash developer i love math and physics and i want to continue in this... please guide me to that

 

[imy786]

now in the middle of the recession we are in.

Is it more useful or less to have a PHD in Physics?

 

[Astronuc]

I believe it is always useful to have a PhD. A PhD represents a certain level of aptitude and competency/proficiency.

See this - http://web.mit.edu/nse/education/grad/phd.html

Although it is from MIT, it reflects the expectations for a PhD candidate at any university.

The purpose of the oral exam is to test students' ability to think spontaneously and soundly, and to communicate, about a technical problem or area for which they should have the technical background. The examination committee will conduct the exam to lead a student to such new areas, loosely related to the original question. The committee may exercise a wide range of discretion in the particulars of each individual oral exam, and consequently, different committees may vary in the details of how the oral exam is conducted.

This is a key point, and it applies in academia as well as industry.

In addition to problem solving, one is expected to contribute to the field of one's study, or one can move orthogonally into another field, usually related somehow one's specialization.