What is the job outlook for physicists in the next decade?

[Andy Resnick]

Er... but I could say the same thing about "accelerator physics" (in fact, most students have to go to a specially designed externally conducted school to get the full curriculum), "superconductivity", "nanoscience", etc... etc. That do not make them "not physics" principles just because they are "not generally covered". And continujm mechanics and Fourier optics are even more popular than the subjects that I've just described in terms of official curriculum. Certainly, to claim that these are "... physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree... " is false. Fourier optics is extremely common, for example, in condensed matter physics. FTIR is a common technique used in optical transport studies to characterize the phonon structure of solids. And it IS based on "physical principles" out of physics - classical electromagnetism!

Zz.

This is a fake argument- look at this forum as evidence. Students are learning a 60+ year old (i.e. outdated) physics curriculum and wondering why the job market is so bad.

You will get no argument from me that many current areas of physics research are left out of the standard curriculum. Just because someone goes through Jackson's book in a class doesn't mean they understand FTIR.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Look at the various instruments you use. There's a very good chance that the principle behind the working of that instrument, and even the origin of that instrument, came out of physics. Mass spectrometer? Out of physics. Electron microscope? Tell me where the principle for the electron gun in there came from. SEM? Even more physics!

I can list ad nauseum many things that was used eons ago in physics experiments that are now slowly being adapted to be used in other fields, including yours. This isn't meant to indicate one field is more important than the other. If you think I was doing that, you are mistaken. However, many outside of physics simply are not aware of the tremendous impact of cutting edge reserach work that was done or originated out of physics. The Nobel Prize for physics that was given just this past year on GMR material permeates through all of our modern civilization. The fact that we are even having this discussion clearly shows that there is a major ignorance on what have come out of the investment in physics research.

I'm not here to claim that physics can cure diseases. If we can do that, there's no need for the medical profession. However, you are claiming that you don't need us, or that we can simply disappear and you can function as usual. That is what I don't want to see happen. No one should take another profession for granted. I don't intend to dimish the importance of other fields, because in such a modern civilization such as what we have now, we depend on each other. But to marginalize an area of study such as physics, even after I had explictly described how you are using the fruits of its labor, is extremely puzzling.

Zz.

I have to admit, this post implying that I am outside of physics research ('other fields... including yours', 'you don't need us') is unexpectedly gratifying, for several reasons.

Let me be clear: I believe that the future of research is multidisciplinary. I don't know anyone who thinks that an entire scientific discipline is useless. Neither can any particular discipline claim central importance in any large problem worth solving. But, let's go to your original post:

"People also forget that advancement in Medicine depends on the advancement in physics first."

Surely you must admit you had overstated the case?

 

[ZapperZ]

This is a fake argument- look at this forum as evidence. Students are learning a 60+ year old (i.e. outdated) physics curriculum and wondering why the job market is so bad.

You will get no argument from me that many current areas of physics research are left out of the standard curriculum. Just because someone goes through Jackson's book in a class doesn't mean they understand FTIR.

And I didn't say they did. But without understanding E&M, you can't do FTIR!

But this gives the fallacy that EVERY other standard curriculum in school somehow gives sufficient knowledge for someone to start research! I've seen engineering students complain that what they learn in schools barely even match what they finally have to use in their work! The same with computer science students. They don't! And they're not supposed to either because there's no way to anticipate the kinds of problems that is being faced when someone is doing research-front work or even daily grind a profession. So why are we picking on physics here in particular?

And for your information, I did Fourier Optics while I was still an undergraduate at UW-Madison. We used Goodman's text. So that already blows your assertion away that this isn't part of ANY standard curriculum. And this was in the 1980's!

I have to admit, this post implying that I am outside of physics research ('other fields... including yours', 'you don't need us') is unexpectedly gratifying, for several reasons.

Let me be clear: I believe that the future of research is multidisciplinary. I don't know anyone who thinks that an entire scientific discipline is useless. Neither can any particular discipline claim central importance in any large problem worth solving. But, let's go to your original post:

"People also forget that advancement in Medicine depends on the advancement in physics first."

Surely you must admit you had overstated the case?

I never claim of physics having "central importance". Instead, I was countering the claim made by you that medical advances does not need anything from physics. I suggest you re-read where I started to counter your post.

State any advancement in medicine, and I'll show you where it benefited from what we learn out of physics, be it in the physics principles, or the technique/equipment that we used. Unfortunately, when I do that, people seem to think that I am undermining medicine. Nowhere have I done that. I could easily then say the advancement in medicine allows us to produce healthier scientists who in return can make those advancements in their respective fields. Does that then somehow undermines physics because physicists needs to have medical professionals? That makes no sense!

Every time you get an x-ray or an MRI or laser treatment, etc., you are using something that came out of physics. If this proton therapy thing actually takes off, that would be another aspect of something that came directly out of high energy physics that would be another example that the medical profession has adapted. Nowhere in here does it undermines the importance of medicine!

And oh, as far as being aware of "interdisciplinary" nature of many fields right now, you should have read this post that I made early this morning.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1645409&postcount=287

Zz.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>

State any advancement in medicine, and I'll show you where it benefited from what we learn out of physics, be it in the physics principles, or the technique/equipment that we used. <snip>


Zz.

Ok, I'll bite. Here's my list:

blood transfusions
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Polio and smallpox vaccine
PCR
viagra

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok, I'll bite. Here's my list:

blood transfusions
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Polio and smallpox vaccine
PCR
viagra

.. and how, do you think, they are able to know the chemical compounds and the amount used in these drugs? How were the nature of the disease/pathogens identified in the first place?

Zz.

 

[Andy Resnick]

.. and how, do you think, they are able to know the chemical compounds and the amount used in these drugs? How were the nature of the disease/pathogens identified in the first place?

Zz.

You're joking, right?

So, you asked for "Any advancement in medicine", and I duly provided several that have benefited untold numbers of people. You promised to "show where it benefited from what we learn out of physics, be it the principles or techniques" and you mumble something along the lines of "Physics studies atoms. Things are made of atoms."

Having successfully bridged the divide between physics and medicine (given your previous comments), I resent that you make pronouncements about the practice of medicine and the nature of biomedical research when (apparently) you have no idea about how a cell works. That's akin to a biologist making pronouncements about physics research when the biologist has no idea about the structure of an atom.

 

[Locrian]

This argument has really wandered off the subject - see the OP.

The question of whether physics is useful in medicine is almost completely irrelevant to how useful a physics degree is. This shouldn't be the case - a physics degree should be as useful as physics is. They're not, and a discussion of whether, why and what to do about it would be much more in line with the discussion on the first page.

 

[nebuqalia]

The question of whether physics is useful in medicine is almost completely irrelevant to how useful a physics degree is.

I disagree. The discussion on the relationship between physics and medicine is a strong argument against "physics prepares you for a wide variety of fields" kind of statements. They often have this wishy-washy view that physics is the "most fundamental & important thing" and hence a good preparation for "a wide variety of fields."

The discussion of physics vs. medicine is a proof that many still have this overtly idealistic (romantic) view of physics. The discussion clearly showed the detachment of physics from other practical professions. I strongly agree with the points raised by Andy Resnick.

In other words, this discussion is a reality check for those who have unrealistic expectations from a physics/science degree.

 

[thinkies]

@nebuqalia

Can you share your "anti-physics" thoughts elsewhere? Beside, it seems like you once mentioned having an engineering degree. Why pursue something you hate so much(physics)? Physics is an important field in science. Job prospects for all fields in science aren't as bad as you are describing.

 

[nebuqalia]

Can you share your "anti-physics" thoughts elsewhere? Beside, it seems like you once mentioned having an engineering degree.

What I said before in physics applies to engineering as well. I used "physics" as a general keyword of the "physical sciences/engineering." I don't hate physics/science/engineering. I love these fields, and have said so many times. It is considering them as career fields, however, that I would not recommend.

I apologize if my statements were understood as "anti-physics." That's just the exact opposite of what I feel. All what am trying to do is provide some realistic advice on the recent career issues related to science/engineering.

 

[thinkies]

I hope you will consider those recommendations you provided for yourself as well. You should also stop pursuing your engineer degree (if you haven't yet).

 

[nebuqalia]

I hope you will consider those recommendations you provided for yourself as well. You should also stop pursuing your engineer degree (if you haven't yet).

I already graduated. And, I moved out from streamline science/engineering to another field (management consultations).

 

[thinkies]

I already graduated. And, I moved out from streamline science/engineering to another field (management consultations).

Then stop posting negative comments. Job prospects for careers related with physics/engineering aren't as bad as you are describing.

 

[thinkies]

It seems like you are purposely discouraging people to avoid a career in these fields.

 

[RasslinGod]

i think negublia is right on this. it's REALLY hard to find a job w/ a physics degree. even if it has been the foundation for a lot of the other sciences. I mean it's possible there are few jobs openned. SO it's out there. Just very few.

i just think of physics as somehting really fun to do and study, but i really donty expect much of an iccupation out of it. breaking into academia is tough, so u better hope the old geezers retire lol.

 

[symbolipoint]

i think negublia is right on this. it's REALLY hard to find a job w/ a physics degree. even if it has been the foundation for a lot of the other sciences. I mean it's possible there are few jobs openned. SO it's out there. Just very few.

i just think of physics as somehting really fun to do and study, but i really donty expect much of an iccupation out of it. breaking into academia is tough, so u better hope the old geezers retire lol.

That stuff has been discussed plenty already. If Physics degree by itself may not be enough, people should be encouraged to study a few other subjects too. Do a few engineering courses, and become an engineer or a technician; study for a minor in Chemistry, and become a chemical lab technician; do a few more Math courses and some computer programming courses and find work as a programmer; do a variety of other computer and biological & other physical science courses and maybe become a teacher (secondary schools). If some of us could do our education over again... WOW.

 

[RasslinGod]

agreeed w/ symbolipoint.

i guess the problem is that most of us arent going to go out of our way to study these extra courses to expand our job field. I also just don't feel like takign a bunch of extra classes to cover jobs such as programming and lab technicians.

even if we take a few engineering courses, it's still pretty tough to compete w/ the ppl hose got engineering degrees.

For some of us, including me, I don't want to study hard for a physics phd and end up in like finance or something non-related to physics. Engineering is ok..., but physics is desirable. it just sucks to study so much and do something else.

oh yeah back to the topic. I am just spectualiting, so i see physics (including other engineering fields) going into nanoscale, with applications to biology and medicine. Also, there's a new collider in the works in europe, so once that's done, there's going to be even more excitement for particle physics. (man i wonder if the graviton is real??) i also see science in general moving to renewable anergy and green energy. physics will be useful there because u got to understand the physics of diff. materials and hopefulyl exploit the physics for new tech.

 

[RufusDawes]

Neb I will believe what you're saying about engineering if you do the following.

1) quit your job
2) remove engineering degree/reference to engineering experience degree from resume
3) job seek without it
or
4) get a degree in Business Management, exclude all reference to engineering experience or degrees, then tackle this job market you believe is superior.

(ridiculous isn't it)

My guess is you've got a bad case of the grass is greener. I highly suspect you're knocking a good thing and you don't realize how good you've got it. I suspect...

With regards to science careers, you're very much correct. However, I know a few people who have pursued careers is microbiology/genetics and are now happily working in laboratories. They don't make much money in the scheme of things but they thoroughly enjoy their work.

 

[nebuqalia]

Neb I will believe what you're saying about engineering if you do the following.

1) quit your job
2) remove engineering degree/reference to engineering experience degree from resume
3) job seek without it
or
4) get a degree in Business Management, exclude all reference to engineering experience or degrees, then tackle this job market you believe is superior.

Well guess what, I already did that! I'm now in the management consultations field and my resume is all about that.

Guys, I really know how annoying and sensitive this issue could be. Please don't consider my statements as discouraging and negative. We can't just "take our negative comments elsewhere" because that wouldn't magically solve the problem.

I'm just trying, as much as I can, to save them (the college students) from the agonies they'll face if they went into science/engineering. With ever-increasing offshoring and H-1Bs, and the pathetic lie of shortage in scientists/engineers (read: low demand, high supply), my recommendations could be taken as anything but negative. I'm conveying realistic career issues.

I'm doing this because I truly believe that those who are interested in science/engineering are truly smart people. They are really a great asset for America (and their countries). However, they typically lack realistic, up to date, views on their future career. I don't like seeing any of them troubled because of lack of information on realistic career prospects.

Another thing. Some members think that this whole discussion is a sky-is-falling doomsday post. And that is totally incorrect. In fact, outsourcing has many economical benefits for America: better global competitiveness, expansion into more markets, cost savings, etc. So as far as the US economy is concerned, there are some good evidence that it'll be better overall. The negative side of this (and the point that I've been saying all the time), it'll be on the expense of the science/engineering profession.

Consider the example of American factories that used to produce clothes back in the 1980s. Those factories were moved to places like China, Mexico, etc. Of course, the manufacturing workers at the factories were very upset. However, for all other Americans, this meant much cheaper clothes.

On a larger scale, a similar trend is happening in science/engineering. We (workers in science/engineering) are very upset with high-tech and advanced R&D outsourcing. However, for America at large, this means much cheaper products and technologies, and therefore much more productivity and much higher standard of living. Bottom line: outsourcing is bad for us (scientists/engineers), but very good for the overall economy.

I've noticed that some of our members (here at the forum) are not Americans, so I'm including some links to increase their awareness on the topic:

Surplus of Scientists/Engineers, shortage of Jobs


H1B Tech Workers Visa Hurts American Science/Engineering Grads


Our Kids Future Heading for China/India


So let's just stop accusing each other, and focus on the future of America's youth.

 

[hemotep]

A lot of u guys are saying the job opportunity depends on the area of physics u specialize in. could u list some of these arenas? I know the medical field for sure, but other then that, what's in demand as far as research is concerned? I've been leaning more towards condensed matter, since its used a lot in developing nano technologies, and still stays true to my personal interest.

 

[ZapperZ]

A lot of u guys are saying the job opportunity depends on the area of physics u specialize in. could u list some of these arena? I know the medical field for sure, but other then that, what's in demand as far as research is concerned? I've been learning more towards condensed matter, since its used a lot in developing nano technologies, and still stay true to my personal interest.

I would single out condensed matter physics (experimental) and optics. Both fields have excellent demand beyond academia. And even within academia itself, you'll notice that there's a lot more job opening for tenure-track position in these fields. A quick look at the job ads in Physics Today seems to indicate that.

If you're doing experimental condensed matter physics, even if your area doesn't involve any kind of thin film fabrication, I would still strongly recommend people learn such techniques, such as laser ablation, atomic layer deposition, sputtering, etc. You'll be surprised just how valuable those skills are when you're looking for a job at Intel, Applied Materials, Xerox, etc.

Zz.

 

[hemotep]

I would single out condensed matter physics (experimental) and optics. Both fields have excellent demand beyond academia. And even within academia itself, you'll notice that there's a lot more job opening for tenure-track position in these fields. A quick look at the job ads in Physics Today seems to indicate that.

If you're doing experimental condensed matter physics, even if your area doesn't involve any kind of thin film fabrication, I would still strongly recommend people learn such techniques, such as laser ablation, atomic layer deposition, sputtering, etc. You'll be surprised just how valuable those skills are when you're looking for a job at Intel, Applied Materials, Xerox, etc.

Zz.

thanks again zz.

 

[RufusDawes]

Hey Neb I don't mean to be offensive, sorry. I'll make another example, so engineering is a tough field right ?

Are you suggesting the kids should go and get degrees in humanities ? If engineers are finding it tough, a degree in 'liberal arts' could be darn right useless.

 

[Mathemaniac]

Incidentally, Bill Gates apparently doesn't think the job market is saturated enough:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702241.html

Are you suggesting the kids should go and get degrees in humanities ? If engineers are finding it tough, a degree in 'liberal arts' could be darn right useless.

That's kind of what I was wondering. I mean, so engineering and science have it rough as far as the job market goes, but we can't possibly be the worst. I'd say (though I could be wrong here, as I'm working off of my intuition) that the only professions that are significantly better off than science or engineering are medicine or law. Maybe the business sector is good? I don't know. I barf at the thought of getting a job in business or finance, but that's just me. What else is there?

Anyway, some of you are being a little harsh on Nebuqalia. His perspective on this matter is important, whether it's negative or not. If there's any reason to be "negative," we can't hope to get anywhere by ignoring the problems with blind optimism.

On the other hand, some people on these forums can make it sound like aspiring to be a physicist is like aspiring to be a rock star. How bad can it be, really?

 

[RufusDawes]

I think he is on the mark as far as science goes. I just think the employment market for engineers is particularily good at least right now and in my country.

 

[ElNino]

Great point...I'm just a kid, but I couldn't imagine doing anything else...But in my opinion there aren't too many Physicists as such...There has been the thought in my had of commiting to a life of academia without personal jets and sports cars...I know its idealistic to say follow your passion but for scientists I really think if you aren't willing to take the risk of financial/job related difficulty you shouldn't be thinking about it...SOme of us in 10 years will most definitely end up with rubbish jobs and salaries...But you put that possibility on the line when you take up a subject like this...Some famous guy quoted that science chooses the scientists and not the other way around...If you have the ability and the passion...doing anything else is a waste of it...Just my 2 cents

 

[Andy Resnick]

I'm confused why statements like "there's more to science than just physics" are interpreted to mean "a degree in physics is useless", or that there's some anti-physics bias.

Certainly I have benefited from my degree in Physics, and I claim that my research has, is, and (is likely to) continue to have a physical component. But as I've said before, my getting a degree did not imply that my learning was complete.

Since this is a subforum on 'Career Advice', my advice would be simply this, taken from a speech given in 1988 by Robert Horton- his words resonated with me deeply, and I have been very influenced by them:

"If the world doesn't care; if you are not likely to change civilization; and if time flies, what can you do, now that you clutch your precious baccalaureate degree beneath your arm and face reality? You can do good work. I'm not speaking here of charitable work... I mean sound work, first-rate work, excellent work. [...] Since work we must, like breathing in and out, let me share the greatest secret in the world with you. I tell you that good first-rate work is glory."

 

[cscott]

<snip>
So, you asked for "Any advancement in medicine", and I duly provided several that have benefited untold numbers of people. You promised to "show where it benefited from what we learn out of physics, be it the principles or techniques" and you mumble something along the lines of "Physics studies atoms. Things are made of atoms."
<snip>
.

So can you tell me, someone with minor knowledge in biology, how these advancements were made with no knowledge of fundamental physics? i.e. what explicitly WAS used to make these breakthroughs?
edit: I guess I might of strayed off topic a bit :\

 

[nebuqalia]

Are you suggesting the kids should go and get degrees in humanities? If engineers are finding it tough, a degree in 'liberal arts' could be darn right useless.

That's kind of what I was wondering. I mean, so engineering and science have it rough as far as the job market goes, but we can't possibly be the worst. I'd say (though I could be wrong here, as I'm working off of my intuition) that the only professions that are significantly better off than science or engineering are medicine or law. Maybe the business sector is good? I don't know. I barf at the thought of getting a job in business or finance, but that's just me. What else is there?

Excellent points. Now THATs what I call positive, and forward, thinking.

First of all, I'd like to stress out that we should think in terms of career fields *not* specific positions or degrees. For example, you might not enjoy the job and daily activities of a marketing manager in a cosmetics company, but could be very interested in being a marketing manager in a satellite communication systems company. We should try, as much as we can, to be open and aware of the job itself and should not be misled by its title.

Another thing. When we talk about job security and prosperity, we are actually talking about the industry itself. For example, a marketing manager who has been working his entire life in the IT industry is in a comparable danger to the software engineers and electrical engineers who were at the centre of the storm. The bottom line: it is entire industries that usually rise and fall, but not typically a certain position.

Now back to our main question. We can now ask: which industries have more security and prosperity? and (for college students) what degrees would provide a good entry point to that industry? or (for graduates) how can you capitalize on your existing skill and knowledge base to shift into these industries? and how to make the transition as smooth as possible?

I'll list some of the highly growing and prosperous industries first.

Education and Health Services
No, it's absolutely not just being a teacher or a doctor. This is a giant industrial supersector that is expected to provide about 6 million new jobs by 2016. About 4 out of every 10 new jobs in the entire US economy will be in this industry. Those physicists/engineers who manage to get a position in this industry can easily get into the $120k+ zone. You could, for example, get into the sales of medical devices or marketing teaching tools and equipments. You could also assist doctors about appropriate dosage of a radiation treatment. And of course you still have the option of being a doctor yourself.

Professional and Business Services
The second major supersector, adding 4.1 million new jobs by 2016. You'll get into positions in business administration and support. A large sector (with the largest employment growth) is management consulting. Typically, you would be in a large team providing help in a very wide range of topics to the higher management in other organizations. You would typically hop from one client to another, serving a wide range of industries.

Source of data: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition.



For already graduated scientists /engineers, here are some useful suggestions:

1. By all means, try to be as less technical as you can. The more technical your position is, the more likely it'll be outsourced. A well known fact in engineering and high-tech companies is that those who are good scientists/engineers are promoted to less technical positions (such as management, sales, marketing, etc.).

2. Get more "people" exposure. A position as a marketing or sales engineer greatly enhance many of the essential survival qualities, such as negotiation, leadership, business acumen, etc. When your daily activities involve lots of human interaction (instead of equipment/bench/process interaction), you'll have a much clearer picture of what's out there in the real, dirty, "non-linear", human world. You will also have a great list of contacts for any future need.

3. Capitalize, as much as possible, on your non-standard skills. One of the reasons behind the mass offshoring of science/engineering is (ironically) being a universal and standard profession. A voltage is always, well, a voltage. A current is a flow of electricity, everywhere. A VHDL code (used to design chips) contain the same set of commands used by all engineers worldwide. However, a marketing campaign in the US is substantially different from an Indian campaign. As a scientist/engineer, you will greatly improve your job security by focusing on and nourishing your niche, non-standard, non-technical, abilities.



For college students:

1. Begin with the end in mind. Start with your target career/industry, and walk back to a suitable degree. Although this may sound obvious, many students begin with a certain major and usually end up force-fitting their majors to real life industries, eventually feeling unfulfilled and over-qualified. Once again, note the difference between an industry and a position. The same position/title could be very different for various industries.

2. Be very flexible. Many students focus on the details and minute differences between various degrees. Should I do ComputerScience or SoftwareEngineering? A dual degree in physics and math, or a mathematical physics degree? and the list goes on. This scene is way distant from reality. In almost all job positions, they'll lump sum all those (seemingly different positions) in a single category. You will typically see: Position XYZ, a minimum of BSc in CompSci, EE, MechE, or related fields. The distinct degrees at your university are not distinct job positions.

3. You are (much) more than the sum of courses you take. That is, don't limit your possible future career and positions on the degree or courses you took. As a matter of fact, many comapnies could very probably hire you for a skill, attitude, or knowledge that you personally have, irrespective of what courses you took. And trust me, this happens all the time.


Hope that helps ..

 

[RasslinGod]

medicine + physics?

im curious, does going into something like radiology or nuclear medicine use physics regularly? Will physics be useful for more than just passing the lscencing exam? WIll much sophisticated physics concepts be used while youre a doctor?

This is something I am really interested in.

also, out of curiosity, does the stuff one learn in physics help out at all w/ medical school?

 

[RufusDawes]

I wish I was a Engineer.

 

[electrifice]

Nebuqalia... reading your previous post, I feel that I agree with you if you put it that way. Its different from the "doom and gloom" type of focus of your previous posts.

Along this line of thinking then, what do you feel is the value of an engineering degree as compared with others, especially for undergrad. Does it put you in a better or worse position if you seek to branch out and develop skills outside of just engineering itself?

 

[Pythagorean]

I'll be getting my Bachelor's in Physics soon enough. Whether I'll continue on to a PhD or not I'm uncertain about. I kind of like the idea of being diverse. I've considered taking ground school afterwards and becoming a bush pilot up in here in the North. I've also considered working for the CIA, DIA, or some other alphabet soup intelligence agency.

Designing medical equipment (or tech/bio interactions in general) also appeals to me, but not as much as the others.

 

[RufusDawes]

Nebuqalia... reading your previous post, I feel that I agree with you if you put it that way. Its different from the "doom and gloom" type of focus of your previous posts.

Along this line of thinking then, what do you feel is the value of an engineering degree as compared with others, especially for undergrad. Does it put you in a better or worse position if you seek to branch out and develop skills outside of just engineering itself?

there is a flapping shortage of engineers... in the next few years baby boomers are retiring, there will be massive undersupply, especially in OZ.

Engineers will be commanding ridiculous salaries as what has happened with Geologists.

Why ?

You can't live without Engineers.
The reasons for shortage - backwards employers and people don't value engineering.
Worship doctors, lawyers, and business people.
'My arts degree just as hard as your engineering' mentality.

- Most Engineers are going to be retiring soon - society cannot function without them -

Backwards employers.

If you're not a 22-25 year old white male from a prestigious school they dub. you a graduate who 'isn't worth anything', complain about lack of people. Backwards HR practices and short term accounting views lead to lay off of skills.

In Australia Geologists got the worst of it. Now they're all back in employ experienced candidates can earn $500,000 no problem, graduates can start on 100k. The same will happen with engineering. The geophysicist mentioned in previos posts would be naming his own price.

Already seeing it with the experienced people in engineering getting huge salaries. Don't worry about what bankers earn, they're always been there it is a different ball game. Will they be there in another ten years ? Remember we've been in one of the biggest if not the biggest equity booms in history.

Engineering is a skill that will be with you for life.A business degree is a union ticket to maybe join their little club for. But when the HR specialists and investment bankers start retiring, that skill disolves and so does the indstry.

In 10 - 15 years time it is not going to be a question 'how do you add profitability to our company','bull **** your way through HR', is it going to be 'can you make this work' because our business doesn't exist without it.

Not to mention the various factors that will erode our dollar not limited to mass retirements meaning you're going to see a flux of backsourcing from India and china. The only concern is going to be how you're going to find time for all of your work.

 

[Andy Resnick]

im curious, does going into something like radiology or nuclear medicine use physics regularly? Will physics be useful for more than just passing the lscencing exam? WIll much sophisticated physics concepts be used while youre a doctor?

This is something I am really interested in.

also, out of curiosity, does the stuff one learn in physics help out at all w/ medical school?

Understanding physics is immensely useful- it gives you a grounded understanding of how 'stuff works'.

To be a doctor, having a good quantitative basic science background is essential, although one could argue that biochemistry is more applicable than physics.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So can you tell me, someone with minor knowledge in biology, how these advancements were made with no knowledge of fundamental physics? i.e. what explicitly WAS used to make these breakthroughs?

<snip>

I think you missed my point entirely.

 

[Carolyn]

Though outsourcing is a reality, it is not as bad as some people think it is. Being an Asian myself, I would say China and India still do not have the capacity to make advanced technological development/products, given their weak foundation/culture in technology/Science and the questionable political/social atmosphere. Don't worry, companies will realize this fact very soon once they move their R&D to China/India.

It's just like while a lot of products are "made in China" nowadays, people are getting concerned about the qualities and safeness of these products.

 

[Carolyn]

To arunma who said US universities should give US students an edge when applying to grad School, I have to disagree. What makes US a great country is its welcoming attitude to foreign talents. By attracting the best and the brightest from all over the world, the US government actually saves money since those people have finished their elementary education elsewhere without using US taxpayer's money. US is just getting talents for free.

To Nebuqalia who said foreign students study engineering because they want to go back to their home countries to practice, this is simply not true. They came to North America to stay because engineers do not get paid much in Asia. Usually foreign students study engineering because they are better at Math/Science and worse at Humanities/Langauge subjects than native speakers. Since everybody wants a nice salary, if engineering jobs are all shipped to Asia, soon the Asian engineers will begin to demand high wages too.

Have you considered the probablity that maybe some people can not find engineering jobs simply because they are not very good engineers, not because of outsourcing as you suggested?

Another point to add is that legal and medical careers require much more education than engineering, and the stress is much greater since in both cases, human lives are at stake. To make a lot of money in law or medicine, you have to be really good. If you are not the top lawyer from Harvard or the Whiz Surgeon, you end up making slightly above average money and carrying a much above average debt. There are no guaranteed scholarships for Med/Law school, unlike for graduate school.

Point is, every career has its pro and con. I don't think focusing on the money is a wise idea, doing what you love is more important and a guarantee for life-long happiness. Of course, the money shouldn't be too bad, neither.

One last note: nebuqalia sounds like a typical American "teenager" who believes scientist/engineers are nerds/geeks with no street/life wisdoms. It is exactly this anti-intellectual mentality that makes US youngsters turn away from science/engineering, and if this kind of attitude continues, soon enough US will lose its lead in scientific/technological development. Of course, I don't think this will happen soon considering there are still some "idealistic silly stubborn geeks/nerds" around! =)

 

[Carolyn]

Sure: electrochemistry/electrophysiology. Ion/solute transport through a semi-permeable membrane. Continuum mechanics. Fourier Optics.

I'm not saying *no* physics program teaches these, just that these topics are not generally covered.

I believe they learn those in biophysics?

To add to the how physics can be applied to medicine topic. I am a engineering physics student and have recently applied to several research projects in our medical school. I got accepted into every position I applied despite my "useless" backgound in physics and engineering. Right now biomedical engineering and biophysics are really hot fields to get into.

 

[electrifice]

I agree with Carolyn that there are pros and cons to each career and if we look at the averages then I would say that its silly to choose a career based on something like money. Of course, at the very top things are probably different and engineering loses to medical, law, and especially business if you go high enough.
Also, Carolyn mentioned that engineers in other countries will begin to demand higher salaries. While that may be true, there is a HUGE gap to cover between salaries in the US and those in third world countries like India/Pakistan... The avg engineer there earns ballpark RS60k a month (to the best of my knowledge)... that's less than $US 1k. And one can live pretty well on this amount out there compared to the majority.

 

[physics_arete]

Andy, I think you underestimate just how much your graduate study in condensed matter physics prepared you for what you are doing now; or more to the point, in how it enabled you to get to where you are now.

When my advisor told me that the problem he wanted me to tackle was critical phenomena in binary liquid thin films using ellipsometry and neutron reflectometry, my mind went to the catalog of knowledge stored from my undergraduate and graduate coursework, and came up with absolutely nothing. My reaction, of course, was a very timid sounding 'Huh?' Reading the papers he gave me did absolutely nothing to make me feel better. I didn't understand the problem at all, but since my Ph.D. lie on the other side, I tackled it anyway. I accomplished the task, and in the process I learned quite a bit about things that have shockingly little to do directly with physics. I'm sure you, and most Ph.D's here had a similar experience: starting from the ground with a problem you didn't really understand, and with no clue how to accomplish it. 95% of what you learned in coursework was completely irrelevant, and 95% of what you would needed to know you had to learn on your own. And of course some of what you needed to know you had to figure out by yourself, cause no one on Earth knew the answer yet.

This is the experience that prepared you to work in a diversity of fields. How many humanity majors make the kind of career transition you were able to make? How many former insurance salesmen do you work with? Employers generally know that we as a group can learn new fields, and tackle problems that we (and often noone) understand initially. That's probably the main reason they hire us (it's a big part of why I got my job).

Graduate coursework could be a bit more practical, but as it is, it does teach some important things. Aside from the mathematical background it provides, it also teaches students how to problem solve, and how to think at higher levels of abstraction. I won't go into this here, as this post is getting long enough.

Yes, a Ph.D in physics, even if it doesn't give you a technical skill an employer is likely to want, does prepare people for careers. This is why our unimployment rate is generaly extremely low.

I agree that outsourcing is overrated. China does produce a huge number of engineers, but only a small fraction of those engineers are of a quality that come out of American universities. Same in other fields. There is a reason they come here.

I end my diatribe with some advice to people in school. And this does apply to any field, not just physics. Diversify. I got my job because my physics background was combined with a good deal of knowledge about software development (no, not just having read a Schaum's outline on C). Learn about some other field, whether it be sales, management, chemistry, or whatever, and you will make yourself a lot more attractive to some employers, even though you are being hired primarily because you are a physicist.

 

[Thomas Pace]

Being an engineer myself, I strongly do not recommend pursuing a career in science/engineering (whatever the specialty is).

These days, almost everything related to science, technology, research, and development is being moved to China and India. This is becoming the norm, not the exception. And I'm not talking about day-to-day routine manufacturing and assembly operations; I am talking about innovative advanced R&D.

All of us (in this forum) are physics lovers. It is indeed a very intellectually stimulating field. Nothing rivals those thrilling moments of "Ah-ha!" in physics. However, and I really hate to say this, science won't bring food on the table.

For those considering a science/engineering major, I know that you are ambitious and genuinely interested in these fields. I know you probably don't care much about money. However, you would eventually realize the significance of these issues when you graduate. By then, it would be too late and expensive (time-, money-, and effort-wise) for you to make career adjustments. A bit of reality, however harsh it may be, would hopefully help you in making better career decisions.

But by all means, if you like these topics, don't give up on them. Consider it as a hobby. Read some books on these topics every now and then. Studying as a hobby is way more interesting than studying as a career necessity, any hobbyist and (do-it-yourself)er would tell you that.

I would also suggest being open minded on the various opportunities available. Your mathematical aptitude (as someone interested in science and engineering) would be very useful in a very wide range of careers, such as management, law, finance, accounting, etc. You would be amazed by how much you can contribute to those fields.

I don't really agree with this. As far as engineering goes, there is a SHORTAGE of engineers in this country and virtually every kind of engineer can count on getting a job right out of school--at least where I live. Trust me, there is plenty of engineering work in this country that hasn't been shipped over seas. But as far as the sciences go, you should consider your goals carefully before pursuing a graduate level education in physics or other science related field. As a scientist you will not get paid as much as an engineer, it is also difficult to find a research position after you get your PhD. So, if your primary goals are economic, you probably should choose an engineering discipline. But if you want to go into science strictly for other reasons, by all means do it.

 

[adastra]

er can we stop fighting on this topic? we have many more stuff to do!

 

[bravernix]

er can we stop fighting on this topic? we have many more stuff to do!

Considering the last post was three weeks old, I think the the argument was finished. Perhaps until you bumped it, that is.