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

[hemotep]

after troll through the forums for a hour or so, i noticed an overwhelming feeling concerning the job accessibility of a physicist, mainly in the USA. so i decided to make a post and try to gather everyones opinions about the direction physics is heading in the next 10 or so years. i think this'll be helpful for those considering a major in physics.

mainly i think most people want to know, "after i graduate will there be a job market for me?" this is a big one for me. as much as i love physics, i have to think realistically. i can't spend 7+ years in college and pay it back on a walmart salary, while i wait for a job opening.

I think most of us aren't really concerned about money in general, otherwise we wouldn't be studying physics. although I think we'd all like to know, after we poured all that time and money into it, there would be some type of job awaiting us.

 

[nebuqalia]

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.

 

[RufusDawes]

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.

HOW DO THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE AREAS WITHOUT AND ENGINEERING DEGREE OR BACKGROUND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SKILLS THAT YOU DESCRIBE.

THEY WILL JUST BE ANOTHER WASHED UP WANT TO BE BUSINESS MAN WHO KNOWS WHAT CALC IS BUT CAN'T FIND A USE FOR IT BECAUSE HE IS BUSY RECONCILING A BANK ACCOUNT.

 

[hks85]

when it comes to a Carrier in physics or engineering I've always thought the most amazing Carrier would be one in R&D on military applications. there will always be a market for that. it would require a thorough background check, but if your clean then you should be good!

 

[hks85]

HOW DO THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE AREAS WITHOUT AND ENGINEERING DEGREE OR BACKGROUND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SKILLS THAT YOU DESCRIBE.

THEY WILL JUST BE ANOTHER WASHED UP WANT TO BE BUSINESS MAN WHO KNOWS WHAT CALC IS BUT CAN'T FIND A USE FOR IT BECAUSE HE IS BUSY RECONCILING A BANK ACCOUNT.

i agree, but seriously, calm down stop yelling

 

[nebuqalia]

HOW DO THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE AREAS WITHOUT AND ENGINEERING DEGREE OR BACKGROUND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SKILLS THAT YOU DESCRIBE.

Calm down pal :). My mistake; by this sentence I mean already graduated engineers/scientists.

when it comes to a Carrier in physics or engineering I've always thought the most amazing Carrier would be one in R&D on military applications.

Totally agree. Military engineering would definitely remain. However, what percentage does it demand from the overall engineering workforce? I would say 10-15% at max.

Another thing guys. My opinions are based on various published data and changes in the global engineering workforce. To clarify some of the points discussed here, and in some other threads as well, I will come back soon with a list of documents. In the mean time, I hope we will have a fruitful positive discussion.

 

[Locrian]

In my opinion, the problem isn't just the physics jobs available. The problem is that the typical physics education doesn't prepare you for them. Physics BS programs typically fail to prepare the students for anything except graduate programs, and graduate programs almost all have only University work in mind.

The difficulty different people with a physics degree have getting a job can vary wildly depending on their area of research, which school they attended, and what their goals are. I do believe that with a lot of dedication, very specific career goals and a bit of luck one can get a physics Masters or PhD and do very well. If you just wander into the field and graduate 12 years after you start with a thesis in non-commutative geometry then you will pay harshly.

I'm looking forward to your further posts nebuqalia.

 

[hemotep]

Calm down pal :). My mistake; by this sentence I mean already graduated engineers/scientists.


Totally agree. Military engineering would definitely remain. However, what percentage does it demand from the overall engineering workforce? I would say 10-15% at max.

Another thing guys. My opinions are based on various published data and changes in the global engineering workforce. To clarify some of the points discussed here, and in some other threads as well, I will come back soon with a list of documents. In the mean time, I hope we will have a fruitful positive discussion.

that would be awesome, id love to see some statistics on this.

In my opinion, the problem isn't just the physics jobs available. The problem is that the typical physics education doesn't prepare you for them. Physics BS programs typically fail to prepare the students for anything except graduate programs, and graduate programs almost all have only University work in mind.

The difficulty different people with a physics degree have getting a job can vary wildly depending on their area of research, which school they attended, and what their goals are. I do believe that with a lot of dedication, very specific career goals and a bit of luck one can get a physics Masters or PhD and do very well. If you just wander into the field and graduate 12 years after you start with a thesis in non-commutative geometry then you will pay harshly.

I'm looking forward to your further posts nebuqalia.

I like your mentality =).

 

[G01]

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 have to disagree. I think the situation is the reverse of what you are describing. Jobs are being outsourced to foreign scientists and engineers mainly because there are not enough people going into science and engineering in the U.S.

I know a good deal (10-20) of people in engineering who have all gotten good jobs with defense contractors, government jobs, etc. and who get paid very well. A couple had starting salaries near $70,000. Remember these 10-20 are just people who I know personally and have gone to school with. All went to a small engineering school and have succeeded in the field.

While pure science fields may not pay as much as these engineering jobs, there are still jobs out there for all people in science and engineering. I don't think the situation is nearly as bad as you have described it.

 

[arunma]

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.

Hate to say it, but Nebuqalia is right. I've seen many highly trained engineers who've lost their jobs to offshore outsourcing. My dad, for example, was one of hundreds of IBM engineers who were laid off when their jobs were shipped overseas (which is ironic, since he emigrated from India to be an engineer here in the U.S.). Mind you, my dad and most of these other engineers are people with 25+ years experience. Like G01, I have many friends who graduated with engineering degrees and found employment very quickly. But one must wonder: what will be the status of their employment in 20 years? In five years? Yes, there's all the rhetoric about how we need to prove that we Americans can do science and engineering better than anyone else in the world. But to my knowledge, IBM is now performing yearly layoffs of its older workers. If the older and more experienced engineers are being laid off, it's pretty obvious that you can't count on a stable career in this field. But hey, maybe I don't have all the facts, and maybe I'm wrong about this. I hope so. But for the next three years after the layoff, my dad kept finding new jobs and being laid off (not because he isn't a good worker, but because entire departments were laid off), and he eventually went for a nursing degree. I've heard similar stories from other engineers.

To answer Hemotep's question: as a first year grad student in astrophysics the issue of employment is quite important to me. I didn't go into physics for the money (there isn't any, never was), but I do need to make a living somehow. I've asked a lot of professors in my department about what happens to their recently graduated grad students. All of them have found employment very quickly. Many become postdocs and professors, but many more go into finance, technology, and other industry jobs. I guess the short answer is that you'll definitely get a job with a physics PhD, but not necessarily doing what you want. I would respectfully disagree with Nebuqalia's suggestion that you not pursue a career in science, because there are indeed many academic jobs to be had here in America. However, you can't simply quit with a BS degree. I don't know where you're at in your career (if you're a grad student then you know as much as or more than me, and should ignore me from this point on). But if you're still in college, then you should really start thinking about graduate school now. With a PhD you've got an excellent shot at employment, but physics BS degrees aren't all that employable.

One more thing about your comment on paying off 7 years worth of school. You get paid to go to grad school in physics, so you won't have to pay off your graduate education.

I have to disagree. I think the situation is the reverse of what you are describing. Jobs are being outsourced to foreign scientists and engineers mainly because there are not enough people going into science and engineering in the U.S.

Well...can't comment on engineering, but in science I'm not sure that's true. In my current department I'm part of a first year class of 14 students. Half of them are foreigners. Heck, sometimes I'm the only American in the classroom (professor included). Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having foreign students around is a bad thing. I'm friends with many of them; my dad was a foreign student when he came here for grad school. But one must question the wisdom of using an American school to educate as many foreigners as Americans. Alas, that's what's happening. Out of the ~150 applicants who applied to my department, 8 Americans and 6 internationals ended up coming. I'm assuming they admitted somewhere on the order of 15 Americans and 10 internationals. I find it hard to believe that American number 16 had a significantly worse academic record than international number 10. What I mean to say is that physics departments could do a far better job of showing preference to Americans over internationals (as they should, it being an American school) than they currently do.

Again, I admit that don't know enough about the sociology of science to speak with too much authority here. But from what I observe, American systems do nothing to give Americans any edge in our own country. Maybe it's just that we suck at science. Either way, it's not as easy as one would think to get a science job.

 

[nebuqalia]

Physics BS programs typically fail to prepare the students for anything except graduate programs, and graduate programs almost all have only University work in mind.

Totally agree. In my opinion, it boils down to two options: 1) pursue physics/science for 10+ years and become a professor. 2) let physics/science be a hobby, study for 4 years B.Sc. in a field with better prospects, and get a career with wider opportunities.

Let's not forget another issue. The research budget is increasingly tight. In addition, NIH (National Institute of Health) lobbyists are securing more grants for medical research, which is typically steered away from physical sciences. I totally don't blame them; it's our health that is being invested in.

I'm looking forward to your further posts nebuqalia.

My pleasure :)

I think the situation is the reverse of what you are describing. Jobs are being outsourced to foreign scientists and engineers mainly because there are not enough people going into science and engineering in the U.S.

Unfortunately, G01, the work of many existing and experienced engineers and scientists is being indeed outsourced. Therefore, we can not say that there are not enough people in science/engineering. I'll quote the real life example provided by arunma ...

Hate to say it, but Nebuqalia is right. I've seen many highly trained engineers who've lost their jobs to offshore outsourcing. My dad, for example, was one of hundreds of IBM engineers who were laid off when their jobs were shipped overseas ... Mind you, my dad and most of these other engineers are people with 25+ years experience.

... for the next three years after the layoff, my dad kept finding new jobs and being laid off (not because he isn't a good worker, but because entire departments were laid off)

Now, if IBM engineers with 25+ years of experience are being laid off, how can we expect a recent engineer to have job security? The fact that entire departments are being outsourced shows you that this is an industry trend; it's not just individual cases here or there.

As arunma have put it,

I have many friends who graduated with engineering degrees and found employment very quickly. But one must wonder: what will be the status of their employment in 20 years? In five years?

So the question is not about finding some temporary employment; neither it is about a temporary shortage of engineers in a certain field. The main point is the absence of job security in engineering.

Once again, I emphasize the importance of the not-so-typical opportunities available. Your skills and aptitude would be very useful in a very wide range of careers, such as management, law, finance, accounting, etc. And, once again, arunma shows a good point here:

I've asked a lot of professors in my department about what happens to their recently graduated grad students ... Many become postdocs and professors, but many more go into finance, technology, and other industry jobs.

I'm really interested in hearing more opinions and insights from you guys.

 

[RufusDawes]

I just had a look on seek.com.au and there are a lot of advertisements for electrical engineers, well, any engineers really, with a minimum of 15 years experience paying $170,000 plus.

Another advertisement for electronics engineers with the defense departments, $67,000 per annum starting salary plus super (effectively increase salary by 10%).

Compared to say.. a biology or chemistry graduate, you'll get a 30k lab position if you're lucky. Ten years experience get a PHD you might get 65k on a 1-2 year contract. There is an example of an industry with an over supply problem. People aren't paid close to 200,000 per year in industries that are experiencing an over supply of candidates.

Accounting or business grad outside of the big four will count him or herself lucky if they start on $35,000. This is in Australia btw.

For a reference point our minimum wage is $13.42 per hour, and a job at kmart will earn you roughly $17 per hour as an adult, average wage is $55,000, a modest home in a major city will cost around 2-300,000 in a modest outer sub. area.

Engineering looks to be pretty decent compared to the other sciences.

 

[RufusDawes]

Now, if IBM engineers with 25+ years of experience are being laid off, how can we expect a recent engineer to have job security? The fact that entire departments are being outsourced shows you that this is an industry trend; it's not just individual cases here or there.


So the question is not about finding some temporary employment; neither it is about a temporary shortage of engineers in a certain field. The main point is the absence of job security in engineering.

I'd imagine that in almost any professional field that after 25 years experience you have better be in management or they're going to get rid of you for someone less experience and cheaper.

Plus 25 years brings you close to retirement age, technically, assuming you graduate at age 22, you'd be 47 years old so I can understand them cleaning house in that regard.

 

[G01]

Well...can't comment on engineering, but in science I'm not sure that's true. In my current department I'm part of a first year class of 14 students. Half of them are foreigners. Heck, sometimes I'm the only American in the classroom (professor included). Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having foreign students around is a bad thing. I'm friends with many of them; my dad was a foreign student when he came here for grad school. But one must question the wisdom of using an American school to educate as many foreigners as Americans. Alas, that's what's happening. Out of the ~150 applicants who applied to my department, 8 Americans and 6 internationals ended up coming. I'm assuming they admitted somewhere on the order of 15 Americans and 10 internationals. I find it hard to believe that American number 16 had a significantly worse academic record than international number 10. What I mean to say is that physics departments could do a far better job of showing preference to Americans over internationals (as they should, it being an American school) than they currently do.

Again, I admit that don't know enough about the sociology of science to speak with too much authority here. But from what I observe, American systems do nothing to give Americans any edge in our own country. Maybe it's just that we suck at science. Either way, it's not as easy as one would think to get a science job.

Unfortunately, G01, the work of many existing and experienced engineers and scientists is being indeed outsourced. Therefore, we can not say that there are not enough people in science/engineering. I'll quote the real life example provided by arunma

As aruma said, I may be looking at things more from a research science point of view rather than an engineering point of view. In research fields, I still think that foreigners are holding more and more jobs mainly because there are just not enough Americans going into those fields. I have less experience with the state of jobs in engineering fields, since I am not planning on a career in engineering, so I'll leave that to those of you that do.

Either way, if what you say is true, I think that encouraging Americans not to go into engineering will just make the problem worse. The problem doesn't seem to be a problem with engineering and science fields in particular, but with the state of our economy as a whole. All different types of jobs are being outsourced to overseas workers, not just engineering jobs. Fixing this issue is what we should be concentrating on, not discouraging our young engineers and scientists.

 

[nebuqalia]

Rufus, that's good news. I just hope Australia won't be on-board the outsourcing train anytime soon. The US is leading the world in terms of outsourcing. Many other European states are catching on too. So I guess it won't take that long before the phenomena becomes popular in Australia.

... In research fields, I still think that foreigners are holding more and more jobs mainly because there are just not enough Americans going into those fields ...

That actually illustrates my point! Americans are not going into those fields, because the fields themselves do not provide stable jobs for Americans. On the other hand, there is a large number of foreign students because there are vast opportunities for them in their home countries.

Is it merely a coincident that most foreign engineering and science students are Indians and Chinese? They come to our universities because there are many stable job opportunities for them in their home countries. Americans don't come because there are no stable job opportunities in the US.

... I think that encouraging Americans not to go into engineering will just make the problem worse ...

I would've certainly appreciated some realistic career advice in my college days. I'm just giving my opinion and advice as an engineer who already graduated and facing these issues. I am trying to suggest ways on how to land a better career. How to widen your opportunities. How to choose a career field that has better security. How you could be flexible and open minded enough to apply your skills to other industries.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I have to agree that engineering or science looks like a good field to me and is one I've done well in. I think that some of the negativity towards it may grow from people who had been in old-economy jobs where you expected to work for one company for decades straight doing the same thing.

These days, whatever field you're in but science or engineering especially, I think you have to expect to be learning and innovating and updating your skills constantly. And expect to switch jobs every few years - including dipping into another profession when you want to. I've known many engineers who have taken both temporary and permanent detours into entrepreneurship or marketing or even sales (and if you've got the skills the $ you can make in sales can be hard to pass up - especially in a sales field where only an experienced tech-savvy person can sell the product.) Neither of those are bad things, from my point of view - it will add variety to your life and actually make you much more valuable than someone fresh out of college as the entire workforce ages.

P.S. One more thing, to Rufus - I don't know if you already did this but you would have to adjust the salary figures coming from an .au site for being in Australian dollars.

⚛​

 

[RufusDawes]

I have to agree that engineering or science looks like a good field to me and is one I've done well in. I think that some of the negativity towards it may grow from people who had been in old-economy jobs where you expected to work for one company for decades straight doing the same thing.

These days, whatever field you're in but science or engineering especially, I think you have to expect to be learning and innovating and updating your skills constantly. And expect to switch jobs every few years - including dipping into another profession when you want to. I've known many engineers who have taken both temporary and permanent detours into entrepreneurship or marketing or even sales (and if you've got the skills the $ you can make in sales can be hard to pass up - especially in a sales field where only an experienced tech-savvy person can sell the product.) Neither of those are bad things, from my point of view - it will add variety to your life and actually make you much more valuable than someone fresh out of college as the entire workforce ages.

P.S. One more thing, to Rufus - I don't know if you already did this but you would have to adjust the salary figures coming from an .au site for being in Australian dollars.

⚛​

Exchange rate are a little bit misleading, particularily considering the way US markets are at the moment.

The accurate way would be a PPP conversion, but I don't know how to do that : (

 

[RasslinGod]

so people have brought up the idea of physics phds going into finance. so I am curious how does that work? do u need to go back to school to take a bunch of finance courses and then look for a company? are there companies that directly hire physicists who have no experience in finance?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

so people have brought up the idea of physics phds going into finance. so I am curious how does that work? do u need to go back to school to take a bunch of finance courses and then look for a company? are there companies that directly hire physicists who have no experience in finance?

I don't know of physicists specifically, but I met one mathematician who went into finance. He had a deep specialty in statistics and statistical modeling and spends most of his time constructing custom stock market metrics and I think working on software that tries to do short-term modeling predictions. I didn't get the impression he had taken a whole lot of finance coursework but I do think he decided on that career and began preparing for it while he was still in school.

From the little experience I've had working with clients in finance I would think you couldn't expect them to be out looking to hire physics PhDs straight off the street. I would think you'd probably need to directly woo prospective employers and find out what they may need - maybe do some hard-core business-oriented math coursework like operations research or actuarial science, perhaps an academic project or paper targeted at the field on the business side you'd want to work in.

⚛​

 

[ZapperZ]

This news article may be of interest to some people and again, supports what I've been saying all along, that your "employability" depends very much on what you specialize in and what skills you acquire by the time you graduate.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/...careers_find_funding_fulfillment_in_medicine/

Other physics "refugees" or "expatriates," as they call themselves, often choose engineering or computer programming, according to Gary White, director of the Society for Physics Students, who speaks with students regularly about the future of physics. White often recommends that they look into medical physics.

"It's a lucrative option for them," he said. "There are few accredited graduate programs, but I've seen students graduate from those programs and receive five job offers right away."

I know of similar desirability for someone graduating with a law degree, but having also either an undergraduate or graduate physics degree.

Zz.

 

[Oerg]

I know it wasn't meant to be funny, but i laughed at the first paragraph of the article!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Looking at all these posts, most of which contain valid points, I'd like to offer some perspective.

My degree is in straight experimental physics- fluids and optics, studying contact angle dynamics and liquid bridges. After that, I worked for a military contractor doing weapons simulations, NASA building a microscope for some condensed matter research, and now I'm doing NIH-funded research in a medical school, studying the cellular basis for mechanosensation. Through it all, I have labeled myself a 'physicist', even though most of the military/NASA work was engineering and I've been learning biology and chemistry recently.

What I can tell everyone is that if you think you can do the same thing for 10 years, let alone 25, you too will end up unemployed. The world is moving faster and faster, and the skills needed are always changing. It's not enough to be willing to change jobs; one must be willing to change *careers*.

So, what to do?

First off, say this over and over again until you believe it: "Never Stop Learning".

For a career in research- the days of a solitary 'mad scientist' churing away in a dusty lab or office is over, and has been for some time. If you think you can go off into a corner, think for a while, and emerge with the solution to a useful problem, think again. I need to be able to collaborate with teams of scientists, each of whom has expertise in things I have never heard of. And I mean collaborate- you have to bring something to the table.

For a career in industry- you need to stay at the forefront of new developments in the field- go to conferences, take short courses, constantly be on the lookout for what is new and relevant to your job. You may be the world's expert in growing crystals of some material, or the world's expert in some computational protocol, but that technology is going to be exploited and surpassed after a few years. Your goal is to make your boss look good, but also ensure that you are an asset to the company.

Is any of this a guaruntee of success? Of course not. There are none. Even so- we (I refer to my colleagues, professional scientists) got into science because we love learning new things. So "Never Stop Learning" is a very natural dictum to follow. Is it easy? no- coming over here, for biology, has been very difficult. For the first year, I sat in classes with undergrads that knew WAY more than I. Has it been rewarding? ABSOLUTELY.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Good points, Andy, and I agree with all of them.

The crazy thing is that obsolescence of skills and experience is even having a large impact on an institutional level - entire companies are getting left at the wayside who have better operational leadership, better financing, better HR management, etc. but just can't keep up with the technology or switch to new markets when the wind blows that way.

⚛​

 

[electrifice]

As an undergrad student in engineering I totally agree with CaptainQuasar and Andy. I think many times engineers are looked upon by companies as commodities, a separate and modular part that can be revised and revamped as necessary, just like machinery. Heck, as an engineer I find that many (well-paying) jobs offered to engineers are really not very interesting, routine and probably math-heavy in some way important only to the company and not at all stimulating to the engineering mind. Maybe the older engineers are used to all this, it has a certain stability and ease to it... you just do your job, which you're probably pretty good at, and get paid for it. Sounds like a good deal.
Not really... not to me, and not to many others who want to be engineers. For me, an engineering education is not even about engineering... its about thinking, its about innovation, and its about LEARNING. I don't want to sit in an office and do the same thing over and over everyday, even though it may be mathematically challenging. I realize that that is what a lot of engineering may be about, but what about innovation? Regardless, of what the job situation is, there is a lot of innovation going on and it IS coming from somewhere. I feel that with an engineering education, one is most easily able to add to that innovation, regardless of what field it may be in. I am good at math, I'm good at physics, but I'm also very interested in economics, in history, in theology, and I'm even pretty good at writing, not to mention my interest in entrepreneurship and research. I actually want to tap into each of these interests of mine, in a constantly changing, exciting and maybe even risky environment.
To many people this probably sounds a bit naive and unrealistic. But I think the new generation is evolving to fit into this harsh world where you have to make a difference or you're out. Some of us even want it to be that way. Let's not forget that regardless of field there are still successful people around and they did get there somehow. Maybe engineering is a good way to get there, maybe not. In the end what matters is not just your education but how well you evolve, how much you take initiative, how much you lead, innovate, and develop, all in an interdisciplinary way. Nobody wants to be known as a calculator in the end... or do you?
So maybe engineering is no longer a good education for those who want a simple stress-free life where you're put on a "career track" and you climb the ladder and get more respect and money and then retire with a good pension, or whatever. To me that's boring... I don't want my education to dictate the rest of my life, but rather define a loose direction that I can take. The rest is up to the winds of time, and of course my personal drive and ambition. For all this, I think engineering is the best education if you're also looking for any amount of intellectual stimulation.

 

[RufusDawes]

engineers just get better jobs.. I don't know how else to put that

if you're really good, you're really good and you'll get a better job that the engineers

but there is nothing stopping an engineering being really good too

 

[nebuqalia]

This news article may be of interest to some people and again, supports what I've been saying all along, that your "employability" depends very much on what you specialize in and what skills you acquire by the time you graduate.

Allow me to rephrase this a little bit: your "employability" depends very much on what you specialize in. That is, either:

a) stay in a mainstream science research career and be at the mercy of funding cut-backs, new regulations, government restrictions, etc.

b) move out to much more stable (and typically higher-paying) careers, be it in medicine, law, management, etc.

My degree is in straight experimental physics- fluids and optics, studying contact angle dynamics and liquid bridges. After that, I worked for a military contractor doing weapons simulations, NASA building a microscope for some condensed matter research, and now I'm doing NIH-funded research in a medical school, studying the cellular basis for mechanosensation. Through it all, I have labeled myself a 'physicist', even though most of the military/NASA work was engineering and I've been learning biology and chemistry recently.

Impressive! I bet you had lots of fun doing all that ;)

What I can tell everyone is that if you think you can do the same thing for 10 years, let alone 25, you too will end up unemployed. The world is moving faster and faster, and the skills needed are always changing. It's not enough to be willing to change jobs; one must be willing to change *careers*.

That is partially true. In science/engineering, definitely you are right. However, in other professional fields, such as medicine and law, the adoption of new techniques/laws/ideas is relatively slower. Even if something new arises, it would be in a "peripheral" kind. That is, not at the core of the profession. Besides, you have ultra strong professional bodies that makes sure that, in case of any possible dramatic change, sufficient measures are taken to ensure their professionals have enough time to adapt.

Compare this with the overwhelming explosion in communication technology, and exponentially decreasing prices of computers and networks in a very short time. These advancements have significantly catalyzed the offshoring of engineering, IT, and R&D jobs to many other countries. These technologies jeopardized the very own existence of many engineering positions, let alone their fitness or employability.

This can be attributed, partially, to the fact that science/engineering is often viewed as a commodity. Want to cut costs? fine, offshore your entire engineering department to China. That would, minimally, guarantee more than 70% cost reduction. An electrical engineer in India would be extremely happily to work for $10,000/yr. Who will train them for this new job? the soon to be layed-off US engineer whose salary is $75,000+. However ironic this might sound, it has happened many, many, times.

The basic message getting across is: science/engineering is disposable. Compare this with, say, medicine. Hospitals can not even fantasize about replacing a $670,000/yr US spine surgery doctor, neither a $541,000/yr US neurosurgery doctor by Indian or Chinese doctors. Why? because this profession is important, and science/engineering (as the acts of explosive offshoring shows) is not. This is the message getting across.

I think many times engineers are looked upon by companies as commodities, a separate and modular part that can be revised and revamped as necessary, just like machinery.

That's what I've been trying to say all the time.

Heck, as an engineer I find that many (well-paying) jobs offered to engineers are really not very interesting, routine and probably math-heavy in some way important only to the company and not at all stimulating to the engineering mind.

Very true. The real engineering work (as in, "creative design") is very rare in the real world. This fact is unfortunately overlooked by those excited about majoring in engineering. I faced the exact problem that you are talking about. I chose engineering because I thought it was all about creativity, challenges, dynamic change, etc.

After graduation I discovered that, unfortunately, the majority of engineering positions (even though highly paid) is basically sitting in an office and doing the same thing over and over again. Most positions are indeed highly paying because you are doing work that is significant for the company. However, it rarely is for you!

... Maybe engineering is a good way to get there, maybe not. In the end what matters is not just your education but how well you evolve, how much you take initiative, how much you lead, innovate, and develop, all in an interdisciplinary way.

I want to rephrase. My point is: formal education doesn't matter at all! When you come up with a new idea or product in science/engineering, you can simply patent it or contract a manufacturer to produce it. Nobody says "well, you don't have an engineering background, so we're sorry, we can not accept your new gadget." Compare this with coming up with a new law or a new medication or surgery. The first thing that is checked is your formal education. Now THATs what I call a stable career. You know that the time and effort you invested in your education is well respected and valued.

This is the main advice that I'm constantly trying to suggest. Keep your interest in innovation, science, technology, entrepreneurship as a hobby. Something extra-curricular. And, get a stable, secure career along with that. In this way, you have nothing to lose. You still have the intellectual stimulation, the ability to innovate and develop, and also a stable secure career.

 

[RufusDawes]

The basic message getting across is: science/engineering is disposable. Compare this with, say, medicine. Hospitals can not even fantasize about replacing a $670,000/yr US spine surgery doctor, neither a $541,000/yr US neurosurgery doctor by Indian or Chinese doctors. Why? because this profession is important, and science/engineering (as the acts of explosive offshoring shows) is not. This is the message getting across.

OH now I see if you're the best and the brightest and want to make $$$ go into investment banking or medicine - duh.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This can be attributed, partially, to the fact that science/engineering is often viewed as a commodity. Want to cut costs? fine, offshore your entire engineering department to China. That would, minimally, guarantee more than 70% cost reduction. An electrical engineer in India would be extremely happily to work for $10,000/yr. Who will train them for this new job? the soon to be layed-off US engineer whose salary is $75,000+. However ironic this might sound, it has happened many, many, times.

The basic message getting across is: science/engineering is disposable. Compare this with, say, medicine. Hospitals can not even fantasize about replacing a $670,000/yr US spine surgery doctor, neither a $541,000/yr US neurosurgery doctor by Indian or Chinese doctors. Why? because this profession is important, and science/engineering (as the acts of explosive offshoring shows) is not. This is the message getting across.

I don't think you have an entirely reasoned and truthful view of this. From what I've read in my own field, Indian software engineers make between 50% and 75% of what their U.S. counterparts make. It doesn't seem right to me that the difference in EE is so drastic that an Indian engineer would be happy to make $10,000/yr.

Also, as far as comparison with doctors and lawyers: to some degree differences in compensation may represent arbitrary societal valuation of a profession, but in many ways doctors and lawyers simply actually generate much more money than a research scientist would.

Also, there are comparable engineering positions to what you appear to be citing, the best specialist medical surgeons in the world; for example if you're a geophysicist specializing in advanced computer modeling for finding petroleum sources (some applications I know to involve really heavy-duty stuff like artificial intelligence) and you're finding oil wells for prospecting petrochemical companies, I bet you could easily be making half a million per year and be completely irreplaceable.

⚛​

 

[ZapperZ]

Allow me to rephrase this a little bit: your "employability" depends very much on what you specialize in. That is, either:

a) stay in a mainstream science research career and be at the mercy of funding cut-backs, new regulations, government restrictions, etc.

b) move out to much more stable (and typically higher-paying) careers, be it in medicine, law, management, etc.

Moving out of "mainstream science research career" does not just mean going out of physics and doing medicine, law, management, etc. For example, I still see today someone going through the "mainstream science research career" getting 2 to 3 job offers even before finishing with their thesis defense! The difference? Their research work were in fields that have wide-ranging commercial application. I know of someone who received a lucrative offer at Intel last year because he could fabricate multi-layer structures using atomic layer deposition. And he went through a traditional condensed matter physics program.

This is why I said that one's field of study and the skills that one acquired during the process can strongly determine one's employability.

Zz.

 

[nebuqalia]

I don't think you have an entirely reasoned and truthful view of this. From what I've read in my own field, Indian software engineers make between 50% and 75% of what their U.S. counterparts make. It doesn't seem right to me that the difference in EE is so drastic that an Indian engineer would be happy to make $10,000/yr.

Make that 20, or even $30,000/yr (though I'm sure its way lower); the point here is - it's still a huge cost saving. Almost all surveys clearly indicate cheaper labor as the number one factor favoring offshoring. That's a fact.

Also, there are comparable engineering positions to what you appear to be citing, the best specialist medical surgeons in the world; for example if you're a geophysicist specializing in advanced computer modeling for finding petroleum sources (some applications I know to involve really heavy-duty stuff like artificial intelligence) and you're finding oil wells for prospecting petrochemical companies, I bet you could easily be making half a million per year and be completely irreplaceable.

See how long it took you to describe the job? You are comparing a very specific position (a geophysicist oil well computer modeler) vs. an entire career field (i.e. doctor, or whatever). In the first case, the stability is an exception. In the later, it is the norm. It's just misleading to compare a very specific position with an entire professional career field.

I know of someone who received a lucrative offer at Intel last year because he could fabricate multi-layer structures using atomic layer deposition.

Again, a very specific position. Guys, I know these cases might truly be lucrative. All what I'm saying is, you can't pull that onto the whole profession. This case is an "outlier," if you wish. The only reliable facts that you can get on a career is from average statistics, and we all know the where the average science/engineering position stands with respect to other professionals.

Guys, let's just not get into details. We should focus and not keeping it hanging like this.

Yesterday, I passed by an article in Seattle Post-Intelligencer on this issue. I'm quoting an excerpt here:

Bellevue-based Talisma, a maker of customer-relationship-management software, employs about 200 of its 275 workers in Bangalore. Click2learn, Aventail, Watchmark-Comnitel and others have set up centers in India. Last year, Microsoft opened a technical support operation in Bangalore -- a move that angered Seattle labor organization WashTech, which said it would threaten American jobs. Microsoft already operates a software-development center in Hyderabad, India, with plans to staff it with 500 programmers.

Technology companies say they need a global work force to compete and that the current wave of outsourcing follows a trend that began when international barriers started tumbling in the 1990s.

But don't tell that to Myra Bronstein, a Mercer Island resident who lost her software-testing job last year when her company shifted the work to India. Before she was laid off from Watchmark-Comnitel, Bronstein was making $76,500 a year. And if she wanted exit benefits, Bronstein had to retrain her replacement.

Now with her paycheck gone and unemployment benefits exhausted, Bronstein has resorted to selling furniture and collectibles on eBay.

She blames outsourcing.

"The fact that they not only outsourced my job, but my entire industry, makes me feel powerless and paralyzed," said Bronstein. "Frankly, this situation has created problems that are way too big for one person like me to solve."

I believe we are responsible to clearly, and honestly, communicate the true career status of science/engineering with the younger generation. We should not let our emotional attachment to science/engineering become an obstacle against objective analysis. It's people future & jobs that's on the line here.

Could we seriously say that science/engineering is (stabler/more lucrative) than other professional careers (law, management, medicine)?

Can we refrain from telling the youngsters that, should they pursue science/engineering, they will have to compete with offshore scientists/engineers willing to work for a fraction of their salary?

I believe we owe it to the young generation to tell them the truth. As professionals, we must express a high degree of objectivity. We are morally and ethically entitled to provide sincere advice to the younger generation.

 

[Helical]

Nebuqalia, you seem to be forgetting something important and that is happiness. A career in law/medicine/management will NOT necessarily appeal to someone interested in physics. Job security is important but going into law or medicine is definitely not easy (maybe management too I don't really know), especially if you are not interested in the field. You seem to have overlooked this and I feel that it is a pretty important aspect of any persons career search (perhaps the most important factor).

 

[RufusDawes]

I don't like the way you're lumping science and engineerng into the same career path.

From my understanding they lead to very different careers.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Make that 20, or even $30,000/yr (though I'm sure its way lower); the point here is - it's still a huge cost saving. Almost all surveys clearly indicate cheaper labor as the number one factor favoring offshoring. That's a fact.

Yes, certainly; the lower labor costs are what make executives believe that the total cost of offshoring is going to be lower than maintaining domestic operations. But I can tell you than in the software engineering field this has most frequently turned out to be completely wrong - like you, the executives have a completely unrealistic understanding of the level of labor costs overseas, and the lower labor costs simply can't compensate for the other costs involved in running a multi-continental, multi-timezone operation where the various factors almost never get to speak to each other face-to-face.

Quite a few software engineering and IT offshoring efforts in the last decade have failed spectacularly and resulted in the company losing huge amounts of money, wrecking projects, and sometimes being overwhelmed by their competitors.

See how long it took you to describe the job? You are comparing a very specific position (a geophysicist oil well computer modeler) vs. an entire career field (i.e. doctor, or whatever). In the first case, the stability is an exception. In the later, it is the norm. It's just misleading to compare a very specific position with an entire professional career field.

No, I'm not. All doctors do not make more than half a million dollars per year like your very specific examples of a top-end spinal surgeon or top-end neurosurgeon. The difference in average salaries is about commensurate to the difference in length and cost of education required between the two professions. You're being startled by ghosts.

I believe we are responsible to clearly, and honestly, communicate the true career status of science/engineering with the younger generation. We should not let our emotional attachment to science/engineering become an obstacle against objective analysis. It's people future & jobs that's on the line here.

Similarly, we should not let personal insecurity or fear exaggerate the down sides and prohibit objective analysis that way.

Could we seriously say that science/engineering is (stabler/more lucrative) than other professional careers (law, management, medicine)?

For someone who knows how to navigate the job field and keep up with an engineering career, it's just as stable, lucrative commensurate to the years of schooling you put into it, and for the right person is more personally rewarding than those other professions.

And it's not an either/or situation. In software engineering I know of a number of engineers who also went to law school and became intellectual property lawyers, and who thereby straddle the line.

Can we refrain from telling the youngsters that, should they pursue science/engineering, they will have to compete with offshore scientists/engineers willing to work for a fraction of their salary?

They would be working in companies that have overseas competitors anyways even if there wasn't any offshoring. Yes, through the past several decades U.S. firms have faced increasing global competition. If the U.S. economy is besieged and brought down by overseas competitors in the science and technology fields it's not just engineers who are going to feel it, doctors and lawyers will find themselves hurting too (and probably more locked into their particular profession and specialty than the average engineer or scientist is.) You aren't providing any real information by telling these ghost stories.

The one thing I think it's worth it to say is, don't automatically assume that a PhD is going to have a substantial value in the job market. Either get your PhD because you want to and you enjoy it, or do the research to find out how much a particular PhD and skill set is worth and don't expect your school to do any of that for you. They're busy counting your tuition money.

⚛​

 

[RufusDawes]

Accounting will be outsourced.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Allow me to rephrase this a little bit: your "employability" depends very much on what you specialize in. That is, either:

a) stay in a mainstream science research career and be at the mercy of funding cut-backs, new regulations, government restrictions, etc.

b) move out to much more stable (and typically higher-paying) careers, be it in medicine, law, management, etc.

<snip>

That is partially true. In science/engineering, definitely you are right. However, in other professional fields, such as medicine and law, the adoption of new techniques/laws/ideas is relatively slower. Even if something new arises, it would be in a "peripheral" kind. That is, not at the core of the profession. Besides, you have ultra strong professional bodies that makes sure that, in case of any possible dramatic change, sufficient measures are taken to ensure their professionals have enough time to adapt.

<snip>

I take issue with this- have you spoken to any docs lately? Ask them about all the changes in insurance billing. Be prepared to listen to one long invective spew about what a pain in the butt it is and ho wmuch of their time is wasted dealing with morons. Med students get out of training now with *on average* $300k in debt. That's a house. And changes in the way medicine is practiced means more and more docs are part of a large hospital system where the focus is on... profit margins. Docs don't like spending 10 minutes per patient any more than the patient. I'm sorry... I meant 'CLIENT'.

But the job market is stable because people are always breaking down, that's true. But how many times could you lance yet another boil before wondering if there's more to life than dealing with fools who lick frozen metal poles?

Lawyers... well, there's some stability because there's always human misery. But again, there's not much room for creativity and new ideas. Precedence, and all that.

 

[nebuqalia]

Nebuqalia, you seem to be forgetting something important and that is happiness.

I totally agree! In fact, happiness is the reason why I advised the youngsters to keep working on science/engineering, but only as a hobby. This way, they would get the fun of doing something that make them happy, but in the same time enjoy the stability of other career paths.

Anyways...

Instead of making "ghost" descriptions, I'll exclusively list a number of solid facts (from various reports by the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Science):

When asked in spring 2005 what is the most attractive place in the world in which to “lead a good life”, respondents in only one of the 16 countries polled indicated the United States.

Reference: Pew Global Attitudes Project, July 23, 2005.

For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the United States, a company can hire about five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India.

Reference: PayScale.com tracks and compares pay scales in many countries. Ron Hira, of Rochester Institute of Technology, calculates average salaries for engineers in the United States and India as $70,000 and $13,580, respectively.

For the first time, the most capable high-energy particle accelerator on Earth resides outside the United States.

Reference: CERN

The United States is today a net importer of high-technology products. Its share of global high-technology exports has fallen in the last 2 decades from 30% to 17%, and its trade balance in high-technology manufactured goods shifted from plus $33 billion in 1990 to a negative $24 billion in 2004.

Reference: Appendix Table 6-01 of National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2004.

Chemical companies closed 70 facilities in the United States in 2004 and have tagged 40 more for shutdown. Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 in China.

Reference: "No Longer The Lab Of The World: U.S. chemical plants are closing in droves as production heads abroad", BusinessWeek (May 2, 2005).

In 2001 (the most recent year for which data are available), US industry spent more on tort litigation than on R&D.

Reference: Leonard, Jeremy A. 2003. "How Structural Costs Imposed on U.S.
Manufacturers Harm Workers and Threaten Competitiveness." Prepared for the Manufacturing Institute of the National Association of Manufacturers. http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=216&DID=227525&DOC=FILE.PDF.

In 2003, only three American companies ranked among the top 10 recipients of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Reference: US Patent and Trademark Office, Preliminary list of top patenting organizations.

The Conclusion
--------------
* It doesn't matter what field you choose to specialize in; whether manufacturing, software, IT, or high-energy particle physics and chemicals production. Science, high-tech R&D, and Engineering is carried outside America much more than the inside.

* Governments, Companies, and to some exten the society, don't seriously consider innovation and R&D as an important thing. What are the important things? Law, helping people through their misery. Medicine, saving lives and sick ones. Science/Engineering/Innovation .. nah, that's so "Indian/Chinese."

 

[ZapperZ]

At the same time, you also seem to ignore all the current "records" being held within the US:

1. The most brilliant synchrotron light source available today at the Advanced Photon source

2. The most intense neutron source already being achieved at the still-being-commissioned Spallation Neutron Source

3. The most intense coherent light FEL source being built at the LCLS at SLAC.

So the loss of "leadership" in high energy physics does not mean the loss of in all of physics. Even within the physics community itself, there are divided support for such large scale particle collider. And considering that high energy physics isn't even a large division under the wing of the APS, the shift in high energy physics focus certainly does not reflect an overall shift in the importance of physics.

People also forget that advancement in Medicine depends on the advancement in physics first. What is being used in medicine are "old" techniques that came down from physics. Medical accelerators that are now common in medicine are considered "crude" by today's particle accelerator standard (see the requirement of an FEL and compare that with a medical accelerators). So what we learn in physics now will only trickle down to such areas 5, 10 years from now. You can't make advances in Medicine without advances in physics first.

Is the US losing grounds in terms of scientific innovation? Sure! I've mentioned this many times. But it certainly doesn't fit into your conclusion where "... Science, high-tech R&D, and Engineering is carried outside America much more than the inside ..." Individually, no one country even come close to the amount of research work and spending being done in the US, even today after the recent budget disaster (so one can only imagine how much more it is during the "prosperous years"). One can look at the statistics from the NSF http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/" study It is why many US companies and institutions are still quite attractive for many bright students and scientists.

Zz.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

nebuqualia, I don't know where you are in regards to retirement. But if you really believe that all of these things are the heralds of doom, rather than the heralds of global competition, are you making plans and efforts to transition into another career? Because if it's not quite bad enough for that it doesn't seem reasonable to tell people they should avoid the career in the first place.

* It doesn't matter what field you choose to specialize in; whether manufacturing, software, IT, or high-energy particle physics and chemicals production. Science, high-tech R&D, and Engineering is carried outside America much more than the inside.

The United States represents something like one thirtieth of the global population... how does what you say above not make perfect sense? Why should that be scary to someone considering a career in science or engineering?

Fifteen years ago Indians who wanted to go into science or engineering could have told themselves the same thing - that it was hopeless and foolish because too much of the big science and engineering is done outside of India.

⚛​

 

[Helical]

I totally agree! In fact, happiness is the reason why I advised the youngsters to keep working on science/engineering, but only as a hobby. This way, they would get the fun of doing something that make them happy, but in the same time enjoy the stability of other career paths.

I don't understand why you assume why someone potentially interested in physics would be interested in law/management/medicine. Why would having a stable career but one you don't like make you happy? Why would going to school for many years studying a topic that you're not so interested in make you happy? You seem to be alluding to money and stability being equivalent to happiness.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
People also forget that advancement in Medicine depends on the advancement in physics first. What is being used in medicine are "old" techniques that came down from physics. Medical accelerators that are now common in medicine are considered "crude" by today's particle accelerator standard (see the requirement of an FEL and compare that with a medical accelerators). So what we learn in physics now will only trickle down to such areas 5, 10 years from now. You can't make advances in Medicine without advances in physics first.

This is not true! Granted, some instrumentation and software developed for physics has been adapted by the medical community (mass spectroscopy, CT, MRI), and physics is slowly developing tools to analyze biological phenomena, but the daily practice of medicine is so far removed from *science* it's really shocking. Biomedical research, which slowly alters the practice of medicine, is as far removed from physics as brewing beer.

Let's start with diagnosis- medical diagnosis is performed by physical examination and blood/urine analysis. The analysis uses biochemistry and the interpretation of the test and exam results is based on "lore" which has been handed down for centuries. For example- how much serum albumin is normal? What is normal blood pressure? What is the normal concentration of calcium in the urine? On what basis is 'normal' established?

From diagnosis to treatment options- medications. Again, it's all based on biochemistry. No physics. I defy anyone to provide a physics-only picture of the cell growth cycle or muscle contraction that has a shred of utility. The tools and techniques used in drug discovery are derived from biochemistry. Western blots were not invented by a physicist.

Surgery- surgery should be considered an art. There is a mystique about surgery that colors all discussions (and rightly so: errors in surgery tend to have more dire consequences than a sign error), and the tools used in surgery have generally developed by surgeons. Has anyone consulted a physicist before performing an organ transplant? Even seen a cystoscope? Do you think a physicist designed that?

Yeah, yeah... physics is at the foundation of all science, physics or stamp collecting, blah blah blah. Please. That is a provincial view of the world.

So yes, advances in medicine occur routinely without any reference to physics. And much of biomedical research- my research included- uses physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree. Do some tools used in physics diffuse their way over to biology? Of course. Is that diffusion required? Definitely not, and to claim otherwise flies in the face of reality.

 

[nebuqalia]

So the loss of "leadership" in high energy physics does not mean the loss of in all of physics. Even within the physics community itself, there are divided support for such large scale particle collider. And considering that high energy physics isn't even a large division under the wing of the APS, the shift in high energy physics focus certainly does not reflect an overall shift in the importance of physics.

OK. So do I have to list an example in every subfield of physics to show you that we are lagging behind? Look at the bigger picture. The instances of the accelerator, the closing of chemicals plants, the increased offshoring .. bring the pieces together, and it gives you an indication of the overall science and engineering climate.

Is the US losing grounds in terms of scientific innovation? Sure! I've mentioned this many times. But it certainly doesn't fit into your conclusion where "... Science, high-tech R&D, and Engineering is carried outside America much more than the inside ..." Individually, no one country even come close to the amount of research work and spending being done in the US

If you examine the research activity and spending closely, you will easily observe that the greater emphasis is on biomedical sciences. We can not say "well, we spend the most on research, so our physical sciences/engineering status must be pretty strong."

One can look at the statistics from the NSF 2008 Science and Engineering indicators study It is why many US companies and institutions are still quite attractive for many bright students and scientists.

How did you come up with that conclusion? On what basis did you say that US institutions are still quite attractive for bright students?

... Why should that be scary to someone considering a career in science or engineering?

One word: trends. The alarming trend of offshoring should seriously scare the hell out of anyone thinking about science/engineering. First, it begun in manufacturing. Then, microelectronics. After which came IT and software engineering. Now, R&D. Does it really take so much effort to see where things are heading to? The major reason behind offshoring is cheap labor. The bottom line is: unless you are ready to work for $15,000/yr (by the time you graduate), or willing to move to India or China .. don't consider science/engineering.

I don't understand why you assume why someone potentially interested in physics would be interested in law/management/medicine.

Those are just examples, I'm not saying that physicists would find those particular fields interesting. The point here is -- think outside the box when considering your possible career.

This is not true! Granted, some instrumentation and software developed for physics has been adapted by the medical community (mass spectroscopy, CT, MRI) ... but the daily practice of medicine is so far removed from *science* ...

I totally agree, 100% correct.

surgery should be considered an art. There is a mystique about surgery that colors all discussions (and rightly so: errors in surgery tend to have more dire consequences than a sign error), and the tools used in surgery have generally developed by surgeons. Has anyone consulted a physicist before performing an organ transplant? Even seen a cystoscope? Do you think a physicist designed that?

Yeah, yeah... physics is at the foundation of all science, physics or stamp collecting, blah blah blah. Please. That is a provincial view of the world.

Excellent points. You are very right, especially with the last sentence. This attitude, that physics is the foundation of all science, is misleading .. especially for many of the youngsters. I believe the problem is (and this also one of the reasons that scientists are detached from the reality of offshoring and other career issues) is that scientists/engineers are too focused on their topics to consider the real-life, realistic, no-nonsense, status of their profession and what it can *practically* provide.

A good example I always like to tell about this issue is the typical "war" that youngsters experience when they ask a very common question: "What is the difference between CompSci and CompEng?" This would result in a 400 pages discussion on the very minute differences. Want a real-life, no-nonsense, practical opinion? Get any, they are all the same thing.

It is this sense of practicality that is very rare in scientists, especially the youngsters. They have this view that every job and every position in this world is somehow available in a giant academic catalog that you choose the suitable degree from.

And much of biomedical research- my research included- uses physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree.

Just out of curiosity .. can you give some examples of those physical principles? I'm interested

 

[ZapperZ]

This is not true! Granted, some instrumentation and software developed for physics has been adapted by the medical community (mass spectroscopy, CT, MRI), and physics is slowly developing tools to analyze biological phenomena, but the daily practice of medicine is so far removed from *science* it's really shocking. Biomedical research, which slowly alters the practice of medicine, is as far removed from physics as brewing beer.

Let's start with diagnosis- medical diagnosis is performed by physical examination and blood/urine analysis. The analysis uses biochemistry and the interpretation of the test and exam results is based on "lore" which has been handed down for centuries. For example- how much serum albumin is normal? What is normal blood pressure? What is the normal concentration of calcium in the urine? On what basis is 'normal' established?

From diagnosis to treatment options- medications. Again, it's all based on biochemistry. No physics. I defy anyone to provide a physics-only picture of the cell growth cycle or muscle contraction that has a shred of utility. The tools and techniques used in drug discovery are derived from biochemistry. Western blots were not invented by a physicist.

Surgery- surgery should be considered an art. There is a mystique about surgery that colors all discussions (and rightly so: errors in surgery tend to have more dire consequences than a sign error), and the tools used in surgery have generally developed by surgeons. Has anyone consulted a physicist before performing an organ transplant? Even seen a cystoscope? Do you think a physicist designed that?

Yeah, yeah... physics is at the foundation of all science, physics or stamp collecting, blah blah blah. Please. That is a provincial view of the world.

So yes, advances in medicine occur routinely without any reference to physics. And much of biomedical research- my research included- uses physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree. Do some tools used in physics diffuse their way over to biology? Of course. Is that diffusion required? Definitely not, and to claim otherwise flies in the face of reality.

If you look at the various beamlines at the Advanced Photon Source, you'll be surprised that almost half of them are filled with biomedical/pharmaceutical research projects! And I wasn't talking the "daily" practices, even though one can easily point out laser surgeries, and CAT scans, and PET scans, etc as coming directly out of physics. I'm talking about the advances made in medicine that benefited from the advances and techniques that came out of physics. The LCLS was built because there was a need in biomedicine for light sources of that intensity. And in the June US particle accelerator school, there's a session on medical accelerators which are now more common than you think. Even something as mundane as an electron microscope came out of our understanding of physics AND out of something that we used in physics.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK. So do I have to list an example in every subfield of physics to show you that we are lagging behind? Look at the bigger picture. The instances of the accelerator, the closing of chemicals plants, the increased offshoring .. bring the pieces together, and it gives you an indication of the overall science and engineering climate.

Actually, there are many accelerators in operation in the US. In fact, nowhere else are there more particle accelerators than in the US. What is closing is high-energy physics particle collider experiment. RHIC and CEBAF are very healthy, and so are all the various synchrotron source. LCLS is an accelerator as well. It is nearing completion. And this year, the DOE will put out bids to build a rare-ion accelerator. There are a lot of major accelerator facilities being built or about to be built.

If you examine the research activity and spending closely, you will easily observe that the greater emphasis is on biomedical sciences. We can not say "well, we spend the most on research, so our physical sciences/engineering status must be pretty strong."

Sure! This occurred because the doubling of spending for the NIH that was instituted during the Clinton Administration. Yet, at the same time, many of the funded projects at the NIH ended up at DOE's BES facilities such as the various synchrotron light sources in the country.

The new America Competes act was supposed to reverse that, and bring funding of the DOE and NSF on par with NIH. Already there are cuts being made to NIH funding, and the FY09 proposal would make it flat, while substantial increase are being proposed for DOE and NSF. So this does not fit into what you have described.

Zz.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Does it really take so much effort to see where things are heading to? The major reason behind offshoring is cheap labor. The bottom line is: unless you are ready to work for $15,000/yr (by the time you graduate), or willing to move to India or China .. don't consider science/engineering.

You realize that jobs leave India and China to go elsewhere too, right? A couple of decades ago it was “OMG all of the jobs will leave the U.S. and go to Japan!” but Japan has had an economic collapse and recession since then, the U.S. hasn't done too badly at all by comparison, and companies are closing factories in Japan and moving them overseas.

If all global science and technology jobs are going to be unstoppably and inevitably sucked into India and China, as well as the entirety of those U.S. industrial sectors, (which I do not believe) then it won't matter whether someone goes into science and engineering, it's going to be a doomsday cataclysm for the entire U.S. economy. A few years after they graduate $15,000/yr won't seem like a bad salary. My house will probably be crushed by a piece of falling sky.

⚛​

 

[Vid]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/05/1837235

ScienceNOW Daily News
4 February 2008
President George W. Bush today proposed a flat budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2009 while asking for double-digit increases at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The numbers, part of his request to Congress for the 2009 fiscal year that begins 1 October, mirror previous budgets by emphasizing the physical sciences at the expense of the biomedical sciences.

Just like to point this out supporting what Zapper has already said.

 

[RufusDawes]

From what I understand it is uber gay to be an employee in the USA no matter what you do. Your college tuition money would be better spent becoming a nurse, teacher or fireman and getting the hell out of the USA to one of Canada, Australia or some small recource producing European nation.

Because the economy is about to implode and at that time you may'd as well be living in south America, infact you probably will, because NAFTA will fix that one up for you.

Just thought I'd add a little more to the dooms day scenario.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>


Just out of curiosity .. can you give some examples of those physical principles? I'm interested

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.

 

[Andy Resnick]

If you look at the various beamlines at the Advanced Photon Source, you'll be surprised that almost half of them are filled with biomedical/pharmaceutical research projects! And I wasn't talking the "daily" practices, even though one can easily point out laser surgeries, and CAT scans, and PET scans, etc as coming directly out of physics. I'm talking about the advances made in medicine that benefited from the advances and techniques that came out of physics. The LCLS was built because there was a need in biomedicine for light sources of that intensity. And in the June US particle accelerator school, there's a session on medical accelerators which are now more common than you think. Even something as mundane as an electron microscope came out of our understanding of physics AND out of something that we used in physics.

Zz.

Obviously medicine has benefited from physics research- so have many other fields. As new tools are developed, scientists will use them. I use tools developed by biochemists: Ussing chambers, gel chromatography, immunohistochemistry, fluorophores, etc. Just because Minsky has a degree in Mathematics does not imply that all of confocal microscopy hinges on advances in Mathematics.

Also, you can't point to a single session which occurs in a summer program and claim the impact is anything like NIH's multi-billion dollar annual budget (which is in addition to all the other granting agencies: American Heart Association, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, March of Dimes...)

Furthermore, it's not entirely clear how high-end instrumentation, like the gamma knife, PET scans, proton sources, etc. really imapct the day-to-day types of cases physicians deal with. Physics is unlikely to develop a cure for the common cold. Or the flu.

As for the APS, the reason why the beamline is filled with biomedical projects is because that's where the money is, simple as that. They won't be there in 5 years- new tools, new science.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

Obviously medicine has benefited from physics research- so have many other fields. As new tools are developed, scientists will use them. I use tools developed by biochemists: Ussing chambers, gel chromatography, immunohistochemistry, fluorophores, etc. Just because Minsky has a degree in Mathematics does not imply that all of confocal microscopy hinges on advances in Mathematics.

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.