Physics Theoretical Physics PhD worthless nowadays?

[arunma]

You are forgetting all the hundreds of Post-Docs who are looking for faculty positions, the ratio is more like 10:1, and departments are getting hundreds of applications for every position. The academic community needs to start training their graduate students to work in industry, not just as an academic someplace after working as a slave post-doc for 4-5 years. You are correct, condensed matter is most likely one of the few disciplines where you have many of the skills out of a PhD program to slide into industry, optical physics is another. Experimentalists have an easier path in because of the amount of lab work in many industrial disciplines, theoreticians have it harder but can hack it, if they learn how to work with the other areas.

Having worked in industry for the past 10 years with a PhD in Solid State, I can talk with some authority on this matter.

Good point Dr. Transport. I was making simplifying assumptions to show that getting an academic position with a PhD in physics is really hard. But I guess it's even harder than these assumptions would suggest.

In this economy I'll take any job I can get. But if I have any ability to choose, I'm really looking for the following criteria (in order of importance):

1. Minimal risk of being laid off.
2. Work that involves doing actual physics. Since I was trained to take data and make scientific conclusions, I would like to do this. And since I'm a physicist, I'd like to be doing physics and not computational biology (or whatever it is high energy PhDs do these days).
3. I don't want to be a programmer. These days it sounds like the transferrable skills of a physics PhD lands most people in programming jobs. Don't get me wrong, I can program so long as there's a non-computer end goal in mind. In my current research most of my time is spent programming, but that programming is done with some astrophysics objective. I don't want to end up working for Microsoft developing software.

If I can get these criteria met in industry, great. But it sounds like academia is the only way to go. How do you compete for an academic position when there are so many candidates? Again, Twofish said that there is a shortage of candidates for academic jobs. If so, I'd like to hear more about this. Or if anyone knows how I can get into an industry job (as a physicist, not a programmer), I'd really like to know how to do this too.

 

[Choppy]

Twofish says that there's a shortage of candidates for tenure-track positions. Now if only someone will find a way to explain the AIP data to me...

Where did he say that? From what I've seen in this forum, he's a strong proponent of the "don't go into graduate study with the expectation of getting an academic job" school of thought.

I think he's saying that just because you can't find work as a professor, doesn't mean you're condemned to a career at McDonalds. There are other options for people who've completed graduate degrees and there are many cases of people who end up doing quite well financially because they've figured out how to parlay the scienctific skills they've acquired into marketable assets.

The trick, I suppose, is really figuring out how to do that. How does someone who's spent the last four years running stellar evolution simulations convince a financial company that she's worth $200k per year? And if she does managed to do that, how does she find enough personal fulfillment to remain committed to whatever they need her to do?

 

[Dr Transport]

In this economy I'll take any job I can get. But if I have any ability to choose, I'm really looking for the following criteria (in order of importance):

1. Minimal risk of being laid off.
2. Work that involves doing actual physics. Since I was trained to take data and make scientific conclusions, I would like to do this. And since I'm a physicist, I'd like to be doing physics and not computational biology (or whatever it is high energy PhDs do these days).
3. I don't want to be a programmer. These days it sounds like the transferrable skills of a physics PhD lands most people in programming jobs. Don't get me wrong, I can program so long as there's a non-computer end goal in mind. In my current research most of my time is spent programming, but that programming is done with some astrophysics objective. I don't want to end up working for Microsoft developing software.

In this day and age, lay-offs are always an issue, minimal risk means that you are indispensable, that takes time and energy on your part to get there.

All engineering work involves some physics and engineers know this, the lead in my group is a mechanical engineer and says all the time "Physics works, you just need to know how to apply it".

All jobs have programming as part of the duties, remember, you're analyzing data on a daily basis and you have to model the experiments.

 

[twofish-quant]

Where did he say that? From what I've seen in this forum, he's a strong proponent of the "don't go into graduate study with the expectation of getting an academic job" school of thought.

I'm curious what I said that gave people the idea that I think there a shortage of Ph.D.'s for academic jobs. There is a *VAST* oversupply of Ph.D.'s for tenure track academic positions. What I do believe is that the job prospects for Ph.D. physicists is extremely good, you just have to broaden your perspective a bit.

The trick, I suppose, is really figuring out how to do that. How does someone who's spent the last four years running stellar evolution simulations convince a financial company that she's worth $200k per year?

It's pretty easy to do that, since the hiring manager is someone that has done numerical relativity or something similar.

And if she does managed to do that, how does she find enough personal fulfillment to remain committed to whatever they need her to do?

Depends on the environment, but it helps that the work environment is very much like graduate school.

 

[twofish-quant]

1. Minimal risk of being laid off.

The problem with minimal risk of being laid off is that usually means "boring job" with no prospects. I've been laid off twice so far. I expect to be laid off several times in the future. It's not the worst thing in the world. As far as the goal of programming, keeping the world financial system from collapsing, seems to me a worthy goal. It's certainly an interesting one.

If I can get these criteria met in industry, great. But it sounds like academia is the only way to go.

I lot of it depends on what you can get. If someone offered me a tenured faculty position at Princeton doing supernova models, of course I'd take it, but no one is knocking down my door for that. People are knocking down my door to run monte carlo financial models, and life isn't that bad.

Again, Twofish said that there is a shortage of candidates for academic jobs.

I said no such thing. There is something of a shortage of qualified teachers at community college and high school teachers, but the pay isn't good. The jobs prospects for academia truly stinks, and you should not go into a Ph.D. program with any hope of getting a job in traditional academia.

I said that that job prospects for physics Ph.D.'s is good. That's a different statement.

Or if anyone knows how I can get into an industry job (as a physicist, not a programmer), I'd really like to know how to do this too.

It depends what you define as physicist. I spend most of my time writing and debugging numerical code, but I spend most of graduate school writing and debugging numerical code, so it's not that much different.

 

[twofish-quant]

Twofish says that there's a shortage of candidates for tenure-track positions.

I said no such thing. I said that the job prospects for Ph.D. physicists is extremely good. Those are two separate statements.

 

[arunma]

I said no such thing. There is something of a shortage of qualified teachers at community college and high school teachers, but the pay isn't good. The jobs prospects for academia truly stinks, and you should not go into a Ph.D. program with any hope of getting a job in traditional academia.

I said that that job prospects for physics Ph.D.'s is good. That's a different statement.

Hi Twofish, sorry for misreading your posts. I can certainly see why you say that one shouldn't go into a PhD program with the hope of getting an academic position. Problem is, I'm just starting my fourth year, so it would be sort of pointless to quit now. Honestly if someone told me all of this back when I was an undergrad, I would have dropped my physics major at the earliest opportunity and done something that could get me a normal job. Alas, it's spilled milk now, so I'm trying to see what I can squeeze out of this PhD thing in terms of employment.

Regarding the job security issue, I know many people don't mind moving from job to job. I'm looking more for the kind of job I can hold down for life. And I don't mind if the tradeoff is a low wage. One thing I did know from the outset is that you don't go into physics to get rich.

It depends what you define as physicist. I spend most of my time writing and debugging numerical code, but I spend most of graduate school writing and debugging numerical code, so it's not that much different.

Same here. Personally I don't like computers all that much. But I don't mind developing C++ code and stuff, because I know that at the end of the day, I'm detecting gamma rays and deriving AGN spectra. I know that the average day as a financial analyst is much like the average day of a physicist, but to me it matters to know that what I'm doing is science and not finance. Nothing against finance, it's just not my cup of tea. So I guess I would define "being a physicist" as working on problems whose solutions will be used to answer some sort of physics question. Are there any jobs like this in industry?

 

[twofish-quant]

Regarding the job security issue, I know many people don't mind moving from job to job. I'm looking more for the kind of job I can hold down for life.

One should point out that academia is a pretty horrible thing to do for this. You will get job security if you get tenure, but your odds of getting tenure even if you assume tenure track isn't that good. The nice thing about industry is that if you have skills, and you lose one job, you find another one.

The other thing is that just because you have a physics Ph.D. doesn't mean that you have to do physics. You can sell used cars or run a pizza parlor.

One thing I did know from the outset is that you don't go into physics to get rich.

But you can if you want, and there really is nothing wrong with getting rich, and if that's what you want to do with your life a physics Ph.D. is a pretty good route to make pretty large sums of money.

One thing that you do have to ask yourself (and a lot of people don't) is "so why do you want to get rich?" For me, it's the intellectual challenge, which means that I act in different ways than someone whose motive is to impress other people with consumption.

I know that the average day as a financial analyst is much like the average day of a physicist, but to me it matters to know that what I'm doing is science and not finance.

Why? (Not a rhetoric question?) At some point, you'll likely find that you just can get what you what, and I've found it useful in these situations to ask the question, "so why is it that I want what it is that I want?" I got into physics because I'm interested in figuring out how the universe works, and money is part of the universe.

Also, on the one hand you say that you want to do science and aren't interesting in industry, but then you also regret going into the program in the first place.

 

[BenTheMan]

Regarding the job security issue, I know many people don't mind moving from job to job. I'm looking more for the kind of job I can hold down for life. And I don't mind if the tradeoff is a low wage. One thing I did know from the outset is that you don't go into physics to get rich.
...
So I guess I would define "being a physicist" as working on problems whose solutions will be used to answer some sort of physics question. Are there any jobs like this in industry?

I don't know about industry, but I have spent a lot of time looking for jobs like this in government. Ultimately, I decided I didn't want to go down that road.

There are a lot of cool jobs like this in Federally Funded Research and Development companies: The Center for Naval Analysis, MITRE, RAND, Institute for Defense Analysis. You typically have to be a US citizen eligible for security clearance (read: don't donate to Islamic charities or smoke pot for a few years). These are government consultancies, who work primarily for the military, and (to some extent) for local and state governments. The CNA, for example, is currently consulting on the air traffic control problems in America (which are pretty huge). These jobs are not very ``science-y'', but you will use the scientific method (loosely defined) in terms of the way you attack problems.

There are also jobs at the national labs, and other places like Lincoln Labs at MIT. These are more science-based jobs, (as the name implies) you'll be working in a lab. Citizenship in the US is required for most of these positions, as well as security clearance.

I also looked into non-proliferation jobs for a while---check out the NNSA's non-proliferation graduate fellowship program (just google it). There are also jobs in science policy that are tougher to get, and may depend on your personal political views. There are a lot fellowhsips that you can do to get your foot in the door, but few that actually pay well. Your best bet is to talk your advisor or department into funding you in one of these positions, but that may be hard. Some fellowships come with a stipend, but living in D.C. is expensive. If you think you really want to do science policy, then it may pay to take one semester of student loans.

In general, though, most of these jobs are in D.C./Alexandria. You can expect a lot of job security, and structured raises (~2-5% a year), and top notch benefits including retirement funds. On the down-side, there's no real ``pay-for-performance'' (which ultimately turned me off), and promotions are based almost strictly on tenure, which means incompetent people who have been around longer will always be your boss. This is another reason not to take these jobs---the government is in the business of employing people, and not in the business of running efficiently, especially (it seems) when the democrats are in office. (Republicans, on the other hand, hire less people, but still seem to make things inefficient.) Note that this problem is much worse in Europe than America. A friend of mine calls DOE the ``Department of Entropy''.

That being said, you can have a real impact in science policy, or national defense, or whatever, in these jobs. You will be hooked in with the world's power brokers, and D.C. is a pretty cool town. One of the professors here has a friend (with a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics) who is now in charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), appointed by Obama.

 

[arunma]

Why? (Not a rhetoric question?) At some point, you'll likely find that you just can get what you what, and I've found it useful in these situations to ask the question, "so why is it that I want what it is that I want?" I got into physics because I'm interested in figuring out how the universe works, and money is part of the universe.

Also, on the one hand you say that you want to do science and aren't interesting in industry, but then you also regret going into the program in the first place.

Heh, I suppose I do sound like I'm contradicting myself, don't I? I guess for me, collecting data, analyzing it, and getting a result that explains some physical phenomenon is pretty cool. If I did finance, I'm sure I would use many of the same tools, but my end result wouldn't have anything to do with physics. I know that finance is interesting to many people (which is convenient, since you can also make a lot of money doing this). But it's not as interesting to me. Which isn't to say I'm ruling out the financial route completely. As I said, I'll take any job I can get, and I don't have too many qualifiers on the word "any."

Now as for my wanting to do pure science, it's not that I'm opposed to going into industry. If I could work for some pharmaceutical company doing biophysics, I'd be perfectly happy doing that. As long as I'm doing actual physics, it doesn't really matter to me if it's in an academic or industrial setting. But the reason I regret going into physics in the first place is because after three years in grad school, I've seen the poor job prospects of physics PhDs. Getting a relatively stable job is more important to me than intellectual fulfillment, and I could have gotten a job with an engineering or computer science degree. Neither of those subjects is interesting to me, but they are highly employable.

But like I said, no sense worrying about that now. As it stands I'll have a physics PhD in two or three years. And given this, I'd like to see if there's any possibility that I can spend the rest of my career doing physics.

 

[arunma]

I don't know about industry, but I have spent a lot of time looking for jobs like this in government. Ultimately, I decided I didn't want to go down that road.

There are a lot of cool jobs like this in Federally Funded Research and Development companies: The Center for Naval Analysis, MITRE, RAND, Institute for Defense Analysis. You typically have to be a US citizen eligible for security clearance (read: don't donate to Islamic charities or smoke pot for a few years). These are government consultancies, who work primarily for the military, and (to some extent) for local and state governments. The CNA, for example, is currently consulting on the air traffic control problems in America (which are pretty huge). These jobs are not very ``science-y'', but you will use the scientific method (loosely defined) in terms of the way you attack problems.

There are also jobs at the national labs, and other places like Lincoln Labs at MIT. These are more science-based jobs, (as the name implies) you'll be working in a lab. Citizenship in the US is required for most of these positions, as well as security clearance.

I also looked into non-proliferation jobs for a while---check out the NNSA's non-proliferation graduate fellowship program (just google it). There are also jobs in science policy that are tougher to get, and may depend on your personal political views. There are a lot fellowhsips that you can do to get your foot in the door, but few that actually pay well. Your best bet is to talk your advisor or department into funding you in one of these positions, but that may be hard. Some fellowships come with a stipend, but living in D.C. is expensive. If you think you really want to do science policy, then it may pay to take one semester of student loans.

In general, though, most of these jobs are in D.C./Alexandria. You can expect a lot of job security, and structured raises (~2-5% a year), and top notch benefits including retirement funds. On the down-side, there's no real ``pay-for-performance'' (which ultimately turned me off), and promotions are based almost strictly on tenure, which means incompetent people who have been around longer will always be your boss. This is another reason not to take these jobs---the government is in the business of employing people, and not in the business of running efficiently, especially (it seems) when the democrats are in office. (Republicans, on the other hand, hire less people, but still seem to make things inefficient.) Note that this problem is much worse in Europe than America. A friend of mine calls DOE the ``Department of Entropy''.

That being said, you can have a real impact in science policy, or national defense, or whatever, in these jobs. You will be hooked in with the world's power brokers, and D.C. is a pretty cool town. One of the professors here has a friend (with a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics) who is now in charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), appointed by Obama.

Hi Ben, thanks for the info. Citizenship requirements are no problem for me since I'm a born citizen, so I'll certainly look at the national lab route.

The science policy path is on I've heard about, but never looked into very much. Political views aren't aproblem for me, since I'm willing to believe whatever my employer tells me to believe. I guess the downside here is that I wouldn't be doing physics. But hey, nothing beats a steady paycheck.

 

[twofish-quant]

If I did finance, I'm sure I would use many of the same tools, but my end result wouldn't have anything to do with physics.

Curiously enough one reason why I didn't see much of a future for me in academia is that I'm a bit too curious. I like asking "so how does this work?" and I didn't like the fact that people wanted me to be curious about some things and not others.

But the reason I regret going into physics in the first place is because after three years in grad school, I've seen the poor job prospects of physics PhDs.

You've seen poor career counseling. The job prospects of physics Ph.D.'s are actually incredibly good. The problem is that people get career advice from people that have never been outside of academia, and have no idea what life is like on the outside.

Getting a relatively stable job is more important to me than intellectual fulfillment, and I could have gotten a job with an engineering or computer science degree. Neither of those subjects is interesting to me, but they are highly employable.

You do seem to be contradicting yourself here. Let me point out that with a physics Ph.D. you can get a job that is makes just as much money and has as much job security as anything that you can get with an engineering and computer science degree. But when this is pointed out, then the standards for what constitutes a good job changes. A physics Ph.D. is a very employable degree. Just not in physics academia.

But like I said, no sense worrying about that now. As it stands I'll have a physics PhD in two or three years. And given this, I'd like to see if there's any possibility that I can spend the rest of my career doing physics.

If you go into academia, then you are looking at two post-docs followed by junior faculty heck, which means you are looking at about ten years before you end up with anything stable.

 

[twofish-quant]

Political views aren't aproblem for me, since I'm willing to believe whatever my employer tells me to believe.

Just one piece of advice. If you want to survive in the corporate world, it is critically important that you *DON'T* believe what people tell you to believe. You can pretend and fake your beliefs if you have to, but at the end of the day, people can force you to say anything, but they can't force you to believe what you are saying.

The reason this matters is that there are people in the world that will actively lie to you and get you to believe something that isn't in your own interest to believe. Also, one good thing about having marketable skills, is that you can walk out of a situation that you don't like.

 

[BenTheMan]

You've seen poor career counseling. The job prospects of physics Ph.D.'s are actually incredibly good. The problem is that people get career advice from people that have never been outside of academia, and have no idea what life is like on the outside.

This is a general problem. Most academic physicists look down on grad students who leave. After I mentioned that I was leaving, one of my advisor's former students, now faculty, said ``Why would you ever want to do a thing like that?'' He was only HALF-joking.

Unless you're at a top tier place (like Princeton, Stanford, etc.), you don't have a lot of contact with people who have left. I spent a few months at Stanford visiting, and there all of the high energy grad students knew people who worked on Wall Street and in industry, and they all KNEW their choices if they didn't want to stay in academia. In my dept., no one knows ****! There is no lore about past grad students, like there is in other places. My guess is that you are in a similar situation---you KNOW that some students in the past have left, but you don't have any idea where they went or what they did.

This is exacerbated byt he fact that your department, like mine, is probably pretty awful at actually letting you know what kind of opportunities there are for you. My department's idea of career counseling is to forward a half-dozen open post-doc positions around the dept. email once a month. Everyone is completely clueless about the real world, with some less-so than others: one of my committee members has kept contact with his friends who left the field (this is the guy who knows Mr. NRC).

 

[arunma]

You've seen poor career counseling. The job prospects of physics Ph.D.'s are actually incredibly good. The problem is that people get career advice from people that have never been outside of academia, and have no idea what life is like on the outside.

Perhaps this is the case. That's why I always like talking to physics PhDs (like yourslf) who are in industry.

You do seem to be contradicting yourself here. Let me point out that with a physics Ph.D. you can get a job that is makes just as much money and has as much job security as anything that you can get with an engineering and computer science degree. But when this is pointed out, then the standards for what constitutes a good job changes. A physics Ph.D. is a very employable degree. Just not in physics academia.

Actually I'm glad to hear this. While I'd prefer getting a job related to physics in some way, I'd be just fine doing engineering. But what sorts of engineering jobs are available to a particle astrophysicist?

If you go into academia, then you are looking at two post-docs followed by junior faculty heck, which means you are looking at about ten years before you end up with anything stable.

Yeah, that's the one career path I do know a lot about. The part that concerns me is the post-doc to junior faculty transition, which I'm told has a very low probability amplitude.

Just one piece of advice. If you want to survive in the corporate world, it is critically important that you *DON'T* believe what people tell you to believe. You can pretend and fake your beliefs if you have to, but at the end of the day, people can force you to say anything, but they can't force you to believe what you are saying.

The reason this matters is that there are people in the world that will actively lie to you and get you to believe something that isn't in your own interest to believe. Also, one good thing about having marketable skills, is that you can walk out of a situation that you don't like.

Yes, I can see the importance of this, and I'll keep it in mind. What I meant when I said that I'll believe whatever anyone tells me to believe is that I'll regurgitate whatever political platform someone wants me to so long as they keep writing me paychecks. I wouldn't necessarily believe something just because someone tells me to. But hey, if they pay me to tell them what they want to hear, that's fine wth me. Some might call this selling out. But I figure it beats being unemployed.

 

[twofish-quant]

Actually I'm glad to hear this. While I'd prefer getting a job related to physics in some way, I'd be just fine doing engineering. But what sorts of engineering jobs are available to a particle astrophysicist?

If you can pick up some basic programming skills, there is lots of stuff available. I worked in the oil industry, then flipped to logistics, then jumped to finance. The one common factor is that it all involved numerical simulation of rather nasty equations.

I wouldn't necessarily believe something just because someone tells me to. But hey, if they pay me to tell them what they want to hear, that's fine wth me. Some might call this selling out. But I figure it beats being unemployed.

1) You just aren't that desperate. It's really important to realize that you are extremely unlikely to be in a situation were you have to make a choice between lying and starving. Something that I've found out is that if you think you are desperate with no choices then people will take advantage of you, whereas if you are able and willing to just quit, you end up with nicer jobs. Unemployment is annoying, but its not the worst thing in the world.

2) One big problem is that if someone is paying you not to hear the truth, then there is a pretty good chance that they are detached from reality, and if they are detached from reality there's a good chance that they will quickly run out of money to pay you.

 

[DrRocket]

Actually I'm glad to hear this. While I'd prefer getting a job related to physics in some way, I'd be just fine doing engineering. But what sorts of engineering jobs are available to a particle astrophysicist?

If you demand a job that is directly related to your thesis, then your chances in industry are slim to one.

But if you are willing, and you seem to be, to do work that will take advantage of broad technical knowledge, then there are all sort of jobs that might be available to a particle astrophysicist.

I once had a colleague who had a PhD in elementary particle physics. He job was basically engineering. In one assignment he was the resident expert on the statistics of reliability. Then he quit to buy and run a bar. But that was his choice.

The bottom line is that I have found very few people in industry who actually work in the narrow speciality in which they were educated. But I know lots of people with all sorts of degrees who have applied their education in a broad way and are quite successful.

So, to be specific, your chances of an industrial job as a particle astrophysicist are just about zero. But your chances of finding a good job that will challenge you to apply a broad education and to learn some new areas are very good.

It will help a lot if you can explain technical issues to people with a wide variety of backgrounds -- i.e. speak English to management people who have not slightest idea about quantum mechanics or Hermitian operators.

FYI non-destructive testing groups in the aerospace industry have a high percentage of physicists in the population. Their job is to develop new and sophisticated means of inspecting high value systems, using techiques that include radiography, ultrasound, eddy current methods, etc.

 

[Dr Transport]

You've seen poor career counseling. The job prospects of physics Ph.D.'s are actually incredibly good. The problem is that people get career advice from people that have never been outside of academia, and have no idea what life is like on the outside.

Here is a story that will amplify the above quote:

When I was in grad school, a friend of my advisor asked that he and I go to a meeting that she had set up with the physics department. This individual had a company in town and tended to hire people with physics degrees, both bachelors and advanced degrees. She also had a PhD in physics along with her husband and other key members of the corporation. They also hired co-op students but were not too happy with their preparation. We all showed up to this meeting and they outlined a plan to work with the university and department to better prepare the students and make them more marketable. The department chair, who had NEVER set foot outside of academia listened then said "I'll tell you what the students need to learn to be more marketable...". At this point my advisors friend stood up and told him that they were leaving and how dare someone without an industrial background tell them what skills people needed outside of academia.

Nothing was said until the next semester when students in town who were co-oping started to loose their positions, i.e. they were not renewed. The students had not a clue as to why. They went back to the placement office to get new work when the head of the placement office started to make phone calls. Every answer was about the same, the students didn't have the necessary skills to continue. The next semester after that was graduation, and there were not any placements outside of the government labs nearby. Again, curious, the placement office started to make phone calls, the answer was the same. Another meeting was called, this time with the dean and a couple of the major research center directors and the physics department chair. Industry told the dean that they were offended that the department chair tried to tell them how to run their business and what skills were needed outside of academia and that they were not going to hire any graduates until the program was made better to their satisfaction.

Magically, after the next faculty meeting a committee was formed to investigate how to change the curriculum to better place the students. The faculty was out canvasing industry trying to get a handle on the skills needed by their students. The department chair remained in place, but had his hand slapped by the university, a year later he was promoted, but 3 years later he was forced to retire early in order to a harassment suit dropped.

A long story, but one that drives the point home about academics and their lack of reality.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Wow! Very interesting anecdote! I know you can't name the institution or company but may we at least get the state where this happened?

 

[arunma]

This is exacerbated byt he fact that your department, like mine, is probably pretty awful at actually letting you know what kind of opportunities there are for you. My department's idea of career counseling is to forward a half-dozen open post-doc positions around the dept. email once a month. Everyone is completely clueless about the real world, with some less-so than others: one of my committee members has kept contact with his friends who left the field (this is the guy who knows Mr. NRC).

Yeah, that's more or less how my department is too. Most of the astro and high energy people recite the meaningless platitude "if you're good, you'll find a job somewhere." Some of the condensed matter people have actually laughed at me when I ask about employment after grad school, and only offer the advice "don't major in particle astrophysics." They've done a good job of making me kick myself for doing this; if I could go back to first year I'd certainly join the CMP group with the most practical research I could find. But it's a bit late to switch, and as you say, no one seems to have any clue how the real world works.

If you demand a job that is directly related to your thesis, then your chances in industry are slim to one.

But if you are willing, and you seem to be, to do work that will take advantage of broad technical knowledge, then there are all sort of jobs that might be available to a particle astrophysicist.

I once had a colleague who had a PhD in elementary particle physics. He job was basically engineering. In one assignment he was the resident expert on the statistics of reliability. Then he quit to buy and run a bar. But that was his choice.

The bottom line is that I have found very few people in industry who actually work in the narrow speciality in which they were educated. But I know lots of people with all sorts of degrees who have applied their education in a broad way and are quite successful.

So, to be specific, your chances of an industrial job as a particle astrophysicist are just about zero. But your chances of finding a good job that will challenge you to apply a broad education and to learn some new areas are very good.

It will help a lot if you can explain technical issues to people with a wide variety of backgrounds -- i.e. speak English to management people who have not slightest idea about quantum mechanics or Hermitian operators.

FYI non-destructive testing groups in the aerospace industry have a high percentage of physicists in the population. Their job is to develop new and sophisticated means of inspecting high value systems, using techiques that include radiography, ultrasound, eddy current methods, etc.

I'm fine with not having an industry job as a particle astrophysicist. Actually I'd prefer not to. All of my engineering friends, who are now in industry with their BS degrees, actually get to calculate forces and moments of inertia on the job. This is the sort of stuff that got me interested in physics, but I don't do any of it these days. I wouldn't mind having a job where I have to sit down with a piece of paper and calculate something once in awhile. Really, anything where I'm not programming for programming's sake would be fine (as much as I hate programming, I'll even do it as long as there's some physics involved too).

Anyway, thanks for the info!

 

[Goldbeetle]

Dr Transport,
what were skills that those students were missing?

Here is a story that will amplify the above quote:

When I was in grad school, a friend of my advisor asked that he and I go to a meeting that she had set up with the physics department. This individual had a company in town and tended to hire people with physics degrees, both bachelors and advanced degrees. She also had a PhD in physics along with her husband and other key members of the corporation. They also hired co-op students but were not too happy with their preparation. We all showed up to this meeting and they outlined a plan to work with the university and department to better prepare the students and make them more marketable. The department chair, who had NEVER set foot outside of academia listened then said "I'll tell you what the students need to learn to be more marketable...". At this point my advisors friend stood up and told him that they were leaving and how dare someone without an industrial background tell them what skills people needed outside of academia.

Nothing was said until the next semester when students in town who were co-oping started to loose their positions, i.e. they were not renewed. The students had not a clue as to why. They went back to the placement office to get new work when the head of the placement office started to make phone calls. Every answer was about the same, the students didn't have the necessary skills to continue. The next semester after that was graduation, and there were not any placements outside of the government labs nearby. Again, curious, the placement office started to make phone calls, the answer was the same. Another meeting was called, this time with the dean and a couple of the major research center directors and the physics department chair. Industry told the dean that they were offended that the department chair tried to tell them how to run their business and what skills were needed outside of academia and that they were not going to hire any graduates until the program was made better to their satisfaction.

Magically, after the next faculty meeting a committee was formed to investigate how to change the curriculum to better place the students. The faculty was out canvasing industry trying to get a handle on the skills needed by their students. The department chair remained in place, but had his hand slapped by the university, a year later he was promoted, but 3 years later he was forced to retire early in order to a harassment suit dropped.

A long story, but one that drives the point home about academics and their lack of reality.

 

[BenTheMan]

Yeah, that's more or less how my department is too. Most of the astro and high energy people recite the meaningless platitude "if you're good, you'll find a job somewhere." Some of the condensed matter people have actually laughed at me when I ask about employment after grad school, and only offer the advice "don't major in particle astrophysics." They've done a good job of making me kick myself for doing this; if I could go back to first year I'd certainly join the CMP group with the most practical research I could find. But it's a bit late to switch, and as you say, no one seems to have any clue how the real world works.

I'm not sure why people are down on high energy theory, in this regard. You probably could have done condensed matter blah blah blah, but who cares? It's not interesting. The condensed matter experimentalists who spent their six years wishing they were good enough to do theory can console themselves with the fact that it may be easier to get a lab monkey job in industry with their experience. (Tell that to the next CME who laughs at you.)

The point is, you have to bust YOUR *** to get a job, figuring out what your skill set is, and improving it where need-be. I think this is probably true for most people, whether they be MBAs, PhDs or anyone who's trying to find a job in a buyer's market. Sure, you could have done condensed matter experiment, but then you'd be doing that for the rest of your life, and I'd rather stick a pin in my eye. Do you really think that you can't learn what you need to? Do you think that someone with an online degree from University of Phoenix would trade places with you? Would you trade places with someone from some state university with a B.B.A.?

There are some people who don't have trouble finding a job: but these are the same people who wouldn't have trouble doing ANYthing. Most of the people (within 2 sigma of the mean) actually have to work to find a job. That shouldn't surprise you. Buy a suit. Learn how to tie a tie. Get a LinkedIn account (PM me and I'll give you my name so you can look me up).

Most people who you talk to who actually have PhD's in physics aren't working as Wal-Mart greeters, if you know what I mean. It's just a matter of getting out into the world and working for what you want :)

 

[BenTheMan]

A long story, but one that drives the point home about academics and their lack of reality.

So...are you currently working in academia?

 

[Locrian]

It’s good to see at least “theoretical PhD” is being broken down into some different categories, because it doesn’t make the least bit of sense to try to value a “theoretical physics PhD”. The area of study has tremendous impact on its value in both a subjective sense and a measure of financial value. I don’t think most theoretical physics PhDs are worthless, but I think it can come pretty close (or worse!) if one isn’t careful.

If people want to argue that the kind of person that can get a PhD in physics can end up doing reasonably well in life if they keep their options open, I’m on board. However I know a few students that managed to become Dr. Soandso with no marketable skills in any line of work except teaching, and it doesn’t take very long teaching physics to realize it isn’t the same as doing physics. Unfortunately some of these people – imagine this! – went into physics because that’s what they wanted to do, and the harder they hung onto that dream, the worse things got.

And after four years of reading posts in this forum that say “Yea, physics is awesome, so long as you don’t plan to do physics!” the sentiment rings really hollow. There are some areas of study in physics that don’t have any industry application and that have little to no chance of academic employment. Those PhD’s might be worse than worthless – they might represent a serious loss in net present/future earnings combined with a sense of failure and lack of personal achievements. Anyone reading this thread that is still making decisions about graduate school would do well to read between the lines and start making smart decisions now, before they end up making hard ones later.

Just so we’re clear, I loved studying physics, and consider it one of the more rewarding things I’ve done in my life. Not everyone is so lucky.

 

[arunma]

It’s good to see at least “theoretical PhD” is being broken down into some different categories, because it doesn’t make the least bit of sense to try to value a “theoretical physics PhD”. The area of study has tremendous impact on its value in both a subjective sense and a measure of financial value. I don’t think most theoretical physics PhDs are worthless, but I think it can come pretty close (or worse!) if one isn’t careful.

If people want to argue that the kind of person that can get a PhD in physics can end up doing reasonably well in life if they keep their options open, I’m on board. However I know a few students that managed to become Dr. Soandso with no marketable skills in any line of work except teaching, and it doesn’t take very long teaching physics to realize it isn’t the same as doing physics. Unfortunately some of these people – imagine this! – went into physics because that’s what they wanted to do, and the harder they hung onto that dream, the worse things got.

And after four years of reading posts in this forum that say “Yea, physics is awesome, so long as you don’t plan to do physics!” the sentiment rings really hollow. There are some areas of study in physics that don’t have any industry application and that have little to no chance of academic employment. Those PhD’s might be worse than worthless – they might represent a serious loss in net present/future earnings combined with a sense of failure and lack of personal achievements. Anyone reading this thread that is still making decisions about graduate school would do well to read between the lines and start making smart decisions now, before they end up making hard ones later.

Just so we’re clear, I loved studying physics, and consider it one of the more rewarding things I’ve done in my life. Not everyone is so lucky.

Heh, I guess I'm not so lucky. While I'm doing experimental physics rather than theory, I feel that astrophysics is "worthless" enough (in the employment sense) that I really see what you're saying about the loss of present and future earnings. As much as I like physics, I have to say that deciding to major in it back in undergrad was probably the biggest blunder I've ever made. I hope the high schoolers and college freshmen who frequent this forum will think very seriously about going down this route, because you're basically gambling with your economic future just for the sake of satisfying intelletual curiosity.

But one thing I've figured out so far is that if you are decided on the physics PhD route, you shouldn't even think about looking outside of condensed matter.

 

[Niles]

But one thing I've figured out so far is that if you are decided on the physics PhD route, you shouldn't even think about looking outside of condensed matter.

I agree with you, but I think the competition in the theoretical CMP departments is high as well. But the numerical CMP-guys and the experimental X-ray department seem to be doing pretty good (especially the latter at my school).

 

[Rika]

I think it's much better to find sth more employable outside of physics that you are passionate about rather than forcing yourself into CMP. I guess PhD is for people who are interested in certain field, not for people who want to do anything "scientific". Experimental CMP is very interesting field and it would be sad if it was filled with frustrated wanted-to-be string theorists.

 

[arunma]

I think it's much better to find sth more employable outside of physics that you are passionate about rather than forcing yourself into CMP. I guess PhD is for people who are interested in certain field, not for people who want to do anything "scientific". Experimental CMP is very interesting field and it would be sad if it was filled with frustrated wanted-to-be string theorists.

Actually I think I'd find CMP to be more interesting than what I currently do. "Particle astrophysics" sounds really science-ish, but I spend most of my time programming. It's not so bad, since I am doing science at the end of the day. But most of my CMP friends are setting up samples and taking actual data every day. They also get to do a lot of calculations. I can't remember the last time I actually did a physics problem as part of my research, but the CMP folks actually put their quantum and Jackson E&M knowledge to use every day at work. If I could go back to first year of grad school I'd definitely do experimental CMP, and not just because it's so much more employable.

If I stay in academia after grad school, I'm definitely going to veer away from astrophysics and go into something where I'll actually sit down with a piece of paper and do a physics calculation at least once a month. Heck, maybe I'll see if someone is willing to take me on to do CMP (assuming this is even remotely possible). Any suggestions?

 

[BenTheMan]

There are some areas of study in physics that don’t have any industry application and that have little to no chance of academic employment. Those PhD’s might be worse than worthless – they might represent a serious loss in net present/future earnings combined with a sense of failure and lack of personal achievements.

This statement pretty much directly contradicts my personal experience, I can say. After spending some time as a string theory grad student, I can say that my former colleagues have gone on to do lots of interesting things, some of which pay ridiculously well, some of which pay pretty good, but all of which pay more than their advisors, except, of course, for those who stayed in physics.

 

[BenTheMan]

but I spend most of my time programming.

Marketable skill. Check

But most of my CMP friends are setting up samples and taking actual data every day. They also get to do a lot of calculations. I can't remember the last time I actually did a physics problem as part of my research, but the CMP folks actually put their quantum and Jackson E&M knowledge to use every day at work.

That's appealing to you?

If I stay in academia after grad school, I'm definitely going to veer away from astrophysics and go into something where I'll actually sit down with a piece of paper and do a physics calculation at least once a month. Heck, maybe I'll see if someone is willing to take me on to do CMP (assuming this is even remotely possible). Any suggestions?

Particle astrophysics would be what I would do if I stayed in academia. Man---you're not excited about the WMAP haze, COGENT/DAMA/CDMS, Pamela, Fermi, ATIC (...) ?