Physics Theoretical Physics PhD worthless nowadays?

[BenTheMan]

Papers on theoretical subject can be written up much faster. I've once done it in less than two weeks. I had an interesting idea, thought for it for two days, I then decided to write an article about it and ten days later I was done.

I'm pretty sure twofish knows the procedure :)

 

[epicurean]

The point is I'm in my 2nd year of college as a physics major and am wondering if I should end at a B.S. in Physics and apply to medical school.

Or switch over to computer science. You've already got all the math you need for comp sci from your physics major, and your physics knowledge could be useful for say, computational chemistry (my area of interest). Or your skills could be useful in things like game design (physics engines for new computer games). Or switch over to some sort of engineering?

 

[twofish-quant]

If Bayer wants to deal with process engineers in academia then why WS wouldn't want to deal with theoretical physicists?

Because Wall Street has enough money to hire theoretical physicists directly and to run their internal in house research divisions. Your typical investment bank has about 100 or so physics Ph.D.'s on staff, and afford to pay them salaries that no academic institution can dream of matching. There's no reason for a formal partnership with universities, although there are a lot of informal conversations between individuals.

But in US do you only have big name institutions and research grants for superstars? No scholarships and grants for young scientists? No commercial grants from government or firms? No small institutions small grants for small science?

You do have those things, but even those are highly competitive meaning that if you try to make a living by writing grants, you'll spend most of your time writing grants and very little of your time actually doing science. Much of the reason universities exist is that dealing with grants is a very labor intensive activity.

Can you apply this to the med or eng technicians? Do Med technicians or nurses demand more money and power?

Nurses and medical technicians make very good incomes in comparison to graduate students. Also, I don't think you can run a physics department with the same sort of institutional hierarchy that you find in hospitals. Part of it is that it's part of the medical culture that doctors know more than nurses and can order them around, whereas physics departments are based on the idea that graduate students should be taught to challenge their teachers, and you aren't going to get the Ph.D. unless you can prove that you know more on a given topic than your teachers.

One other issue is that physics Ph.D.'s tend to be extremely ambitious people. It takes a huge amount of arrogance to think that you can understand the beginning of the universe, and people with this sort of intellectual arrogance aren't likely to be satisfied with being a second-class technician for their entire life.

And if that's case then who are the people who stay in academia? Someone needs to stay because PhDs from 70' won't live forever.

Since one professor produces about five Ph.D.'s, you just need one in five to stay in the system for the system to be stable.

Also something that is very interesting is how the dynamics are very different for different Ph.D.'s. Finance Ph.D.'s for example, are pretty much guaranteed a high paying faculty position on graduation, but the limiting factor is the number of people that are accepted into the top finance programs.

 

[twofish-quant]

Papers on theoretical subject can be written up much faster. I've once done it in less than two weeks. I had an interesting idea, thought for it for two days, I then decided to write an article about it and ten days later I was done.

Astrophysics is cool because it's particularly open to publication. All you really need to do to publish is upload a paper onto the Los Alamos Preprints Server. Part of the culture of astrophysics is that the peer reviewers have a "publish and let the reader sort things out" philosophy. I recall the editor of Ap.J. mentioning that it has something like a 70% acceptance rate, which of course means that some nutty stuff gets into Ap.J.

One thing about astrophysics is that on some "hot topics", it's almost like an online chat in which someone uploads a preprint and then a week later, someone uploads a response. Astrophysics is also useful since all of the important papers are online and publicly available. One good thing about astrophysics is that all of the major journals are controlled by the professional societies which avoids a lot of the silliness you see in biology.

A lot of papers are "I pointed the telescope at this object and saw this." This can be very interesting in situations where you have something like a new supernova, when there is a race to publish results first.

 

[arunma]

I am talking about people who want to be a doctor.

Heh, it's funny you guys are talking about the medical career. As everyone can tell by now, I'm fairly paranoid about having a stable job and not being laid off. Call me irrational, but I know way too many people who got laid off from engineering jobs and ended up behind a proverbial fast food counter. Medicine seems to be the only job that offers the sort of security I'm looking for. Strangely enough I was premed for most of my undergrad (though still a physics major), and only got lured into the grad school thing my junior year. At the time I wasn't aware that most physics PhDs don't make it to the tenure track. I've actually thought about finishing up my premed prereqs after grad school and taking another shot at this, though I don't know if that's a crazy idea or not. I'm not sure that anyone goes to med school (or any school) after gettng a PhD...

 

[Ryker]

I think you have to think really hard about whether it's actually worth going through all the trouble of med school "just" for job security. From what I hear, doctors in the US work all the damn time, and yeah, sure, you get paid a lot and you don't have to worry about being laid off, but if your heart's not in it I bet you'd be pretty miserable. Though, as you said, you won't necessarily get a dream job in physics, either, but I was always of the opinion that if you're working hours as long as doctors' ones, unless you really love the profession you're just wasting your life away.

 

[Rika]

Since one professor produces about five Ph.D.'s, you just need one in five to stay in the system for the system to be stable.

So it's all about luck and connections?

Also something that is very interesting is how the dynamics are very different for different Ph.D.'s. Finance Ph.D.'s for example, are pretty much guaranteed a high paying faculty position on graduation, but the limiting factor is the number of people that are accepted into the top finance programs.

Why is that? No grunt work in finance?

 

[twofish-quant]

As everyone can tell by now, I'm fairly paranoid about having a stable job and not being laid off. Call me irrational, but I know way too many people who got laid off from engineering jobs and ended up behind a proverbial fast food counter.

Do you know of any physics Ph.D.'s that have lost their jobs and are working behind the fast food counter? I don't. I've been laid off twice, and each time, I've ended up with a better job, so I'm actively looking forward to the next set of lay offs.

Medicine seems to be the only job that offers the sort of security I'm looking for.

Then again maybe not. You really need to talk to some doctors in another forum to see what's going on. However, one thing that I do know is that with Finance Ph.D.'s there *is* a very strong effort to limit the number of Ph.D.'s, which means that someone with a Finance Ph.D. is assured of getting a tenure track position, but it's very hard to get admitted to the program.

 

[arunma]

I think you have to think really hard about whether it's actually worth going through all the trouble of med school "just" for job security. From what I hear, doctors in the US work all the damn time, and yeah, sure, you get paid a lot and you don't have to worry about being laid off, but if your heart's not in it I bet you'd be pretty miserable. Though, as you said, you won't necessarily get a dream job in physics, either, but I was always of the opinion that if you're working hours as long as doctors' ones, unless you really love the profession you're just wasting your life away.

Yeah, I've also heard that you really need to love what you're doing to be a doctor. But I work pretty long hours as a grad student, and these days I'm starting to think that physics is pretty lame. But to be honest, grad school isn't that bad. And it's not as though I'm not interested in medicine either. I've always liked biological sciences (keep in mind I did the premed thing for half of my undergrad). Strange as it sounds, I also like blood and guts. I've actually done a fair bit of research into the medical profession, and I'm pretty sure that I'd enjoy it. But I will admit that job security is by far my primary motivation.

Do you know of any physics Ph.D.'s that have lost their jobs and are working behind the fast food counter? I don't. I've been laid off twice, and each time, I've ended up with a better job, so I'm actively looking forward to the next set of lay offs.

Right, you mentioned this earlier in the thread. Your experience in finance is pretty encouraging, and I'm certainly going to take a second look at this field.

Then again maybe not. You really need to talk to some doctors in another forum to see what's going on. However, one thing that I do know is that with Finance Ph.D.'s there *is* a very strong effort to limit the number of Ph.D.'s, which means that someone with a Finance Ph.D. is assured of getting a tenure track position, but it's very hard to get admitted to the program.

Heh, I've spent more time in medical forums than I ought to. From what I've heard, pretty much the only way to fail in medicine is to start your own practice and be consumed by malpractice insurance. And since I don't care so much about high salaries, I'd be perfectly happy working for a hospital and making a low but consistent salary. But as with finance, admission to medical programs is exceedingly difficult. That's why I'm trying to consider as many options as I reasonably can.

 

[twofish-quant]

So it's all about luck and connections?

It's not all about luck and connections, but as the number of jobs decreases luck and connections become more important. If the top 50% of people got academic jobs, then you can be less than perfect and still get a job. Since the hire rate is 15%, you have to not only walk on water, but be able to walk on water and be able to tap dance. If there is anything non-optimal about your CV, you don't get the job.

Basically, if you have a room full of ten hypergeniuses and you just have to pick one, what possible criterion can you use other than luck and connections?

One amusing thought that may be true is that the only real chance that I ever had of being a big name astrophysics professor was to have married a high-power biology professor.

Why is that? No grunt work in finance?

Finance is very different because most of the grunt work happens in industry, and people with finance Ph.D.'s tend to look down on people that stay in academia. Different world.

 

[ferm]

Hi twofish,

Personally, it's very hard for me to imagine a field of physics that doesn't have major industry application if you do a few things while you are getting the Ph.D. The fact that people aren't taught some skills that increases the marketability of their Ph.D. enormously is a problem with academic advising.

So, could you please list some of these skills one should get? (and what to do to get them).

 

[Rika]

If there is anything non-optimal about your CV, you don't get the job.

What can you call "non-optimal"?


It's all funny because:

1. Whole world still sees US as science paradise.
2. People can work effecitvely only at "healthy" stress level. This stress level is too high and sometimes "non-optimal" people can be more creative than perfect hypergeniuses. I don't think that current system is good for science.
3. It seems that science is more competetive than showbiz or sports.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Hi twofish,
So, could you please list some of these skills one should get? (and what to do to get them).

You should develop "useful" skills. What skills are useful depends (of course) on what career/job you are trying to get.

It's tough to make general statements, but a useful skill is the ability implement something new: a new measurement technique, a new data analysis technique a new analytical method. But I mean doing something *new*- being an early adopter, not 'tweaking' someone else's canned program that is 10 years old.

Another useful skill- the ability to give a good presentation to an audience of non-experts.

Another skill- to not have to be told what to do. If you are given an ill-defined problem and can come up with 5 possible solutions, 2 of which work and 1 works well, you are in good shape.

 

[Dr Transport]

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

Programming and a basic ability to look at a problem/issue and tell whether or not the answer was physical in nature.

So...are you currently working in academia?

No, I am not, Industry all the way...

My experience (which may not be normal) is that I need 6 months - 1 year to take the data, 6 months-1 year writing the paper (which may require going back into the lab to take more data), and then 6 months-1 year in the peer-review process.

For experimental physics, a reasonable rule of thumb is 1 paper/year.

Theory papers also...

 

[twofish-quant]

So, could you please list some of these skills one should get? (and what to do to get them).

Resume writing. Working in a team. Taking orders from someone. Time management. Project management. General selling. Reading and writing corporate memos. Reading and writing balance sheets. Getting some skill when there is no class for it. :-) :-)

Probably the best way to get those skills is to put yourself in some situation where you have to sell something, or where you are watching someone sell something. There are a lot of books on Amazon about resume writing and selling, some of those books are good, some are bad, and you can't tell which is is which until you actually try out some things.

 

[twofish-quant]

1. Whole world still sees US as science paradise.

That's because it is compared to anywhere else. The problem with the US, is that we have too many Ph.D.'s for academic jobs. Most other countries don't have this problem since it's practically impossible for most people to get a Ph.D.

2. People can work effecitvely only at "healthy" stress level. This stress level is too high and sometimes "non-optimal" people can be more creative than perfect hypergeniuses. I don't think that current system is good for science.

Your not the only one that has made that point. It's just extremely difficult to think of another one. Part of the problem is that like most power structures the people that make the decisions as to whether to change the system or not tend to be the people that won at it.

3. It seems that science is more competitive than showbiz or sports.

I don't think that it is. The number of people that get tenure track is 1 in 5, but I think that's higher than the "success rate" for showbiz or professional sports. One thing that these fields have in common is that feast or famine. Tiny differences in inputs make huge differences in outcomes. If you are slightly better or luckier, then there is a positive feedback cycle that pushes you up or down.

 

[Rika]

That's because it is compared to anywhere else. The problem with the US, is that we have too many Ph.D.'s for academic jobs. Most other countries don't have this problem since it's practically impossible for most people to get a Ph.D

That's true but then if other countries do not produce too many PhDs then why do they have the same problem with rare academic positions as US?

I don't think that it is. The number of people that get tenure track is 1 in 5, but I think that's higher than the "success rate" for showbiz or professional sports. One thing that these fields have in common is that feast or famine. Tiny differences in inputs make huge differences in outcomes. If you are slightly better or luckier, then there is a positive feedback cycle that pushes you up or down.

I don't know about US but generally you need to for example run under X seconds in order to join professional team. It's not true for academia, right? Skills and results are not enough because you don't need 5 scientist more. But you always need skilled sportsman or showman. The more, the better because every single sportsman will bring $$$. That's my guess but it may be wrong.

 

[Choppy]

I don't think that it is. The number of people that get tenure track is 1 in 5, but I think that's higher than the "success rate" for showbiz or professional sports. One thing that these fields have in common is that feast or famine. Tiny differences in inputs make huge differences in outcomes. If you are slightly better or luckier, then there is a positive feedback cycle that pushes you up or down.

I agree completely.

Say for example, you have to roughly equal undergrads. Both do a reseach internship in their first summer. One ends up on a project that turns into a hot area over the next decade. Even though she's essentially turning the crank in the lab, she does enough work to produce some good results that a post-doc on the project quickly writes up. She ends up with three solid publications before entering graduate school. The other works his butt off that same summer on a very similar project, but the results aren't quite so successful because hey, it's research. He ends up with some good experience, but no publications.

She receives a prestigious scholarship for graduate school. She doesn't have to TA and can focus on her project full time. She also has the advantage of already having experience in a hot field. She wins a young investigators award at a conference.

He gets into graduate school, but gets no additional funding beyond a standard stipend. As a consequence, he has to TA and take on a part-time job. It take him longer to finish, and he has no funding to attend conferences.

She gets a prestigious post-doc. Her field is now super-hot and she's a leading expert in it. She earns a few decent grants which demonstrate a clear ability to bring income into a department, which then make her a prime candidate for a tenture-track position.

His field is quickly becoming obsolete and when he eventually graduates, there are no post-doctoral positions for him, so he has to compete with others with more experience for a post-doc in an area that's brand new for him.

And these are solid, tangible examples. I think there can be a psychological effect there as well. People with a history of doing well are often treated better than those with a mediocre history, even when their current performance is the same. Anyway, you get the idea - subtle, arbitrary differences in initial conditions can make huge differences in outcomes.

 

[DrRocket]

Programming and a basic ability to look at a problem/issue and tell whether or not the answer was physical in nature.

This is an interesting and most surprising observation. How is it possible for someone with a solid background in physics to lack this capability.

This strikes me as similar to statements that I have heard to the effect that "he understands the theory but cannot apply it", which is really an oxymoron. Anyone who actually understands a theory, not who simply can parrot derivations, can most certainly apply it -- that is what theory is all about. Similarly, anyone who actually understands even basic physics should be able to look at a problem and determine not only whether the problem is physical, but what subdisciplines apply.

What I have encountered are people who understand the theory very well but seem unable to make simple approximations and produce quick and accurate approximate answers -- you don't need a full-blown solution to the Navier-Stokes equation in order to determine and approximate pressure drop sufficient to determine if something is about to explode.

I am also a bit surprised by the criticism of programming ability. Most of the younger physicists of my acquaintence are extremely good programmers. The experimentalists tend to also be very competent at circuit design.

Was there something unusual about this particular instance ?

 

[akhil999in]

Ideally there would be no one-to-one link between education and making a living.

A free people would be able to study whatever subject they feel without having to use it as the means of earning a livelihood. Something like aristocracy.

 

[DrRocket]

Ideally there would be no one-to-one link between education and making a living.

A free people would be able to study whatever subject they feel without having to use it as the means of earning a livelihood. Something like aristocracy.

Free people are most certainly able to study whatever subject they feel without having to use it as means of earning a livelihood. There is no one-to-one link between education and making a living, and never was.

That has nothing whatever to do with a link between education and making a living. It is also most certainly true that education increases one's capability to produce things of value. And there is clearly a link between the ability to earn a livelihood and the ability to produce things of value -- especially in a free society. In a totalitarian or socialistic society things are a bit different and there the connection is more rigid.

I know very few people who earn a livelihood doing exactly those tasks specifically related to their education. That applies especially to those with the highest incomes.

Eugene Wigner was educated as a chemical engineer. Randolph Scott was a voice coach. Lindsey Lohan has apparently talent only for inheriting wealth. Bill Gates dropped out of college.

 

[Dr Transport]

This is an interesting and most surprising observation. How is it possible for someone with a solid background in physics to lack this capability.

This strikes me as similar to statements that I have heard to the effect that "he understands the theory but cannot apply it", which is really an oxymoron. Anyone who actually understands a theory, not who simply can parrot derivations, can most certainly apply it -- that is what theory is all about. Similarly, anyone who actually understands even basic physics should be able to look at a problem and determine not only whether the problem is physical, but what subdisciplines apply.

What I have encountered are people who understand the theory very well but seem unable to make simple approximations and produce quick and accurate approximate answers -- you don't need a full-blown solution to the Navier-Stokes equation in order to determine and approximate pressure drop sufficient to determine if something is about to explode.

I am also a bit surprised by the criticism of programming ability. Most of the younger physicists of my acquaintence are extremely good programmers. The experimentalists tend to also be very competent at circuit design.

Was there something unusual about this particular instance ?

This particular university required no programming expertise/competency in any of their physics degree programs as a prerequisite for graduation.

As for the inability to look at a solution and judge its physical reality, the program didn't give a solid background in physics. As an example, after I was admitted to their graduate program (I was changing fields from QED to Optical Physics) I found that all of the graduate courses I was required to take were taught a lower level than the previous university I attended for my masters and if they were comparable, they didn't cover the same amount of material, i.e. I had to fight to not take Jackson's E&M again, it took my bringing in my course notes and comparing them and my worked homework solutions to the syllabus and the previous years instructors notes to convince them that I actually had more of Jackson than they taught traditionally. I had courses at my previous university that they had no comparable course, for example, computational methods, Advanced QM, QED, Quantum Theory of Fields... My only challenges were in the pure optics courses, but I was willing to live with it because I was entirely changing fields of study.

 

[DrRocket]

This particular university required no programming expertise/competency in any of their physics degree programs as a prerequisite for graduation.

As for the inability to look at a solution and judge its physical reality, the program didn't give a solid background in physics. As an example, after I was admitted to their graduate program (I was changing fields from QED to Optical Physics) I found that all of the graduate courses I was required to take were taught a lower level than the previous university I attended for my masters and if they were comparable, they didn't cover the same amount of material, i.e. I had to fight to not take Jackson's E&M again, it took my bringing in my course notes and comparing them and my worked homework solutions to the syllabus and the previous years instructors notes to convince them that I actually had more of Jackson than they taught traditionally. I had courses at my previous university that they had no comparable course, for example, computational methods, Advanced QM, QED, Quantum Theory of Fields... My only challenges were in the pure optics courses, but I was willing to live with it because I was entirely changing fields of study.

It sounds as though your comments are completely justifiable. But also that the situation is rather unique -- you might read that as weird.

I am rather taken aback at your having to fight not to take some introductory graduate E&M course given your background. I am in fact surprised that ANY classes were rigidly required. At the level of a PhD program what I am accustomed to is the only hard and fast requirement being an acceptable dissertation, with great freedom to select appropriate course work -- or take only research seminars which amount to formal classes at all.

As to the statement that the program dis not give a solid background in physics -- it speaks volumes. I would advise anyone in such a situation to go elsewhere post haste.

 

[Dr Transport]

I am rather taken aback at your having to fight not to take some introductory graduate E&M course given your background. I am in fact surprised that ANY classes were rigidly required. At the level of a PhD program what I am accustomed to is the only hard and fast requirement being an acceptable dissertation, with great freedom to select appropriate course work -- or take only research seminars which amount to formal classes at all.

There were hard and fast rules about the courses that had to be taken towards a graduate degree. I already had a Masters from another university and had taken E&M once during a normal course sequence, I had also taken a comps/prelim review course where I had an abbreviated course in Jackson (i.e. about 75% of the normal 2 semester sequence in ~10 weeks).

Another funny aside, the courses had no alignment in course numbers at all between the two places, this is normal, but in my case E&M was for grins we'll say, Phy 514 & 515. At the other university, it was Phy 550 and Phy 730 and they had the audacity to claim that neither of my original courses was taught at as high a level and I had to write a letter to the registrars office and get my previous masters adviser to write a letter detailing the course content so that I could graduate. Even with my background, I could not be allowed to register as a PhD student until after I passed my comprehensive exams even though I had for the most part taken every course they offered at a higher level previously.

Hind sight is 20/20, the only fond memories I have are of my adviser and another couple of my professors whom I still talk/email fairly regularly. My adviser taught me three things, good physics, fine wines and Manhattans (a powerful drink which if you're not careful will put you on your butt for a couple of days).

 

[filegraphy]

I have a problem. Can somebody help me solve it?

Here it is: I want to be a theoretical physicist. I love physics both on the quantum scale and on the macroscopic scale. See the problem is that physicist do not make that much money. Can I get anyone's advice on this? Please anything works. Thank you.

 

[filegraphy]

Theorectical Physics vs. Money

I love theoretical physics. I read and learn of it all day. It is so mystifying. The problem is that this job does not make a lot of money. I am stuck. Please help me.

 

[mgb_phys]

The problem is that this job does not make a lot of money. I am stuck. Please help me.

Actually theoretical physics tend to make more money than any other branch
Just head to Wall St / the city (london) / Grand cayman

 

[filegraphy]

How much money are we talking?

 

[Leptos]

How much money are we talking?

I'm guessing that most probably, you're still in grade school. In any case, your job prospects will depend upon how good you are and not just what you've studied.
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/salary/salary06.htm

Physics major performance on MCAT and LSAT:
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/mcat2009.pdf

 

[Academic]

Actually theoretical physics tend to make more money than any other branch
Just head to Wall St / the city (london) / Grand cayman

? You are suggesting doing finance rather than theoretical physics.