Physics What options are available for a physics graduate struggling to find a job?

[Arsenic&Lace]

justsomeguy, are you actually doing programming/serious software engineering or whatever or are you more of a "lab tech" kind of person? I'm not sure how to define the distinction but are you doing really interesting stuff or just maintenance? I missed it in your post...

 

[justsomeguy]

justsomeguy, are you actually doing programming/serious software engineering or whatever or are you more of a "lab tech" kind of person? I'm not sure how to define the distinction but are you doing really interesting stuff or just maintenance? I missed it in your post...

I'm a serious coder. Not desktop support or a dilettante if that's what you mean. I've done everything from tiny websites to huge multiuser n-tier enterprise apps shoveling millions of dollars a day around. For a while I was writing EM (RF and IR) simulation management software for a fortune 500 defense contractor.

Solving problems is what I find interesting, so I'm happy no matter what space the company is in as long as the problems are an intellectual challenge, but that's not always the case, in any job. Once the big mysteries are solved in any project, you're left with the mundane task of actually implementing the myriad tiny details, which is always boring.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Want to hear something really funny? When I was an undergrad I actually thought that progressing through my Universities undergrad physics curriculum was teaching me useful skills! Like "critical thinking". I thought that getting to know the various professors and meeting professors from other universities was networking! And I believed all those people when they told me that employers needed people with the background I was building.

God I was stupid. The idea that professors and universities have their student's interests at heart seems so naive it's making me blush just writing it.

So much this- I relied on what I thought were the experts to know more than I did about the field. It wasn't until I asked my adviser where his former students had ended up, and he knew where everyone did their postdoc, but had no idea where they had gone after that I realized what a horrible mistake I had made.

 

[smb360rewind]

Consider a trade certificate at a community college or look into a local union. A friend of mine was a sheet metal grunt fabricating all kinds stuff when he was recruited from within to the engineering dept. Many unions and some employers will train or pay for your (additional) schooling. HVAC and electrical certificates or AAS degrees could get you making $25-30k in about 5 years. This approach would require you to apprentice (slave :P ) for a bit, but with some hands-on plus your education you would see more doors open. Most union trades pay really well if you stick around and climb the ladder. Www.payscale.com shows a pipefitter topping out at $84k. Same for a sheet metal worker, master electrician, or HVAC engineer.

 

[Rika]

Want to hear something really funny? When I was an undergrad I actually thought that progressing through my Universities undergrad physics curriculum was teaching me useful skills! Like "critical thinking". I thought that getting to know the various professors and meeting professors from other universities was networking! And I believed all those people when they told me that employers needed people with the background I was building.

God I was stupid. The idea that professors and universities have their student's interests at heart seems so naive it's making me blush just writing it.

So I get where you're coming from, but I'm not in any position to throw stones.

I have learned all that stuff from Physic degree. I knew that I need to do research interships, network with other scientists, present stuff during conference etc.

I did it in physics field so I didn't have any problem with doing it in any other field.

That's why I find it strange. If OP did what I did he shouldn't have any problems with transfering his skills to the job market.

 

[tahayassen]

Can someone please give me a easy-to-understand good-advice summary of this thread?

I read it all, but I'm so confused because it seems no one can agree with each other. I'm a first-year computer engineering student.

From what I understand so far, co-op and internships are really important, right?

 

[geophysics10]

Many people have suggested grad school.

Have you considered certification for a specific positions that might interest you? As a physics major, certification in medical/radiological/health physics could be an option if you're interested in maintaining diagnostic imaging equipment (NMR, CT) as a medical physicist. It's a good-paying job and uses your specialized skillset in physics to solve technical problems and help diagnose patients along-side doctors. Some universities even offer a 4-year degree in medical physics, or at least a medical physics track. The flip side to medical physics is radiological/health engineering. (Word of caution however, many medical physicists have at least a masters, but its not uncommon for them to have a bachelor's with supporting education such as certification and/or addition courses.)

Have you considered certification for Nuclear Power? Many community college and universities offer 12-credit-hr programs for nuclear power technology. You'll learn reactor physics and engineering/design/operations aspects of BWR and PWR reactor plant designs. This sets you up as a great candidate for entry into the nuke field as a non-license reactor operator, as most applicants only have a high school diploma, some college, or an associates degree... and you'll be more than equipped to ace the qualifying exams.

Just a couple of things to think about.

 

[Choppy]

Have you considered certification for a specific positions that might interest you? As a physics major, certification in medical/radiological/health physics could be an option if you're interested in maintaining diagnostic imaging equipment (NMR, CT) as a medical physicist. It's a good-paying job and uses your specialized skillset in physics to solve technical problems and help diagnose patients along-side doctors. Some universities even offer a 4-year degree in medical physics, or at least a medical physics track. The flip side to medical physics is radiological/health engineering. (Word of caution however, many medical physicists have at least a masters, but its not uncommon for them to have a bachelor's with supporting education such as certification and/or addition courses.)

Just a side-note: if you're looking at becoming a medical physicist today, graduate school is a must, and an accredited graduate program is a must if you want board certification. It's not really a profession you can enter with only a bachelor's degree these days. That said, you can work as a medical physics assistant or a health physicist with a BSc.

 

[ChaseRLewis]

Can someone please give me a easy-to-understand good-advice summary of this thread?

I read it all, but I'm so confused because it seems no one can agree with each other. I'm a first-year computer engineering student.

From what I understand so far, co-op and internships are really important, right?

For an engineer Internships are EVERYTHING. I'm not garbageting you when a 2.5 GPA with good internships / Co-ops will make you more competitive than 3.5GPA+ without them. When I graduated 2010 Chemical Engineering jobs were on the downturn and literally despite having a great GPA and working at a professors company for 2 years doing optimization for Oil refineries I can tell you it meant squat. I thought saying **** like I traveled to foreign companies doing real work and whatnot would mean something but the refining companies at the career fair looked down on it just because if I was so good why didn't I get an internship with Shell or Chevron? You need an internship from a reputable company if you want to do well in engineering out of the gate. Else your going to have to take the slower route of going to a small company getting the 3-5 years experience then moving to a better company and starting out near where you could have been 3 to 5 years ago in your life.

I went into the oil field and only reason they gave me a job was that I got a recommendation from someone really high up in the company that was a family friend. Fact I had been doing research / working with computers most of the time was pretty much universally looked down upon in my job search to be honest (wouldn't be the same for a CS degree, but chemical engineering in the non-academic areas is actually still pretty old school in how they take care of things). Now I'm going back to get my masters in petroleum engineering next year since that's where my work experience is and will make me more competitive in the industry I started working in.

Honestly though it was probably a blessing in disguise because I'm making more money doing this then I ever could as a chemical engineer (without like 20 years experience and a PHD).

 

[G01]

Maybe this has been pointed out. I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread:

Does your resume explicitly state the skills that you have received with your degree? A lot of employers just don't know what a physics B.S. means. They are not aware that someone with a B.S. in physics might have programming and electronics experience. Do you have any experience with AutoCAD, MATLAB, LabVIEW, C++ FORTRAN, Java? What equipment did you learn how to use in your Advanced Lab class? Get any machine shop experience along the way? This is important information! List it!

Many people think a Physics degree means you spent four years talking about particles in a square well and twins on spaceships. If your resume doesn't explicitly mention the applicable skills you've acquired in pursuit of a physics degree, of course they are not going to consider your for a job. Tailor your resume to the employer and the job!

 

[ModusPwnd]

Many people think a Physics degree means you spent four years talking about particles in a square well and twins on spaceships.

And you are implying this is not the case? Or rather you are suggesting that one should list marketable skills gained outside the curriculum?

 

[G01]

And you are implying this is not the case? Or rather you are suggesting that one should list marketable skills gained outside the curriculum?

I am implying that it is not necessarily the case that a physics degree is all about twins on spaceships.

Also, The skills I mentioned can most certainly be gained from within a good physics curriculum. I learned MATLAB, Mathematica, and Java in core and cognate courses from my degree. I learned how to use oscilloscopes and lock in amplifiers during advanced lab. I learned circuit analysis from an engineering elective. I learned how to write technical papers from a required writing intensive course. During my undergrad research experience I learned LabVIEW, how to solder, and how to do basic optics alignment, and how to use an AFM and STM. I also did my fair share of twins on spaceships and particles in wells.

It's quite possible that one could go through a different physics program at a different university and not gain these skills. It could be that your university allows students freedom to ignore the courses in which one would gain these skills, or perhaps one could have professors that never considered these things important. It's also possible that students did not get sufficient research experience as an undergrad.

However all of the issues mentioned above are issues with the student, the program, or the educators, NOT the degree itself. A physics B.S. is not a free ticket to a high paying job. However, it's increasingly apparent that no college degree is. Like any other college degree it what you and your program put into it.

 

[ModusPwnd]

In my experience nearly all of that is learned outside of the physics curriculum. I see what you mean by explicitly listing your skills rather than the umbrella term of "physics", particularly since most of it has nothing to do with physics but deals with STEM areas in general.

A physics BS is nothing without the student, the program, or the educators behind it so I fail to see why such a distinction should be made. I think the "issue" is with the degree itself. Its an academic degree, not technical training for a job or career. And that's ok, because we have engineering and the like for technical job and career training. One should not expect many marketable skills from any academic degree, what you should expect is to gain an esoteric knowledge base. Marketable skills have to be acquired in addition to the curriculum and in many cases, in spite of it. I know there where many times where I could have been working on my curriculum requirements of twins and particles in a box, but I was instead working on my research or TAing/Tutoring. Each of which are the only places I got marketable skills, neither of which was part of the curriculum and each competed for time and took time away from my curriculum.

 

[pi-r8]

I agree with ModusPwnd- one of the major problems with the standard physics degree is that all of the most useful stuff is either packed into one senior lab class, or only taught as part of optional research projects, and even there it's mostly self-taught anyway. The core of what physics classes actually teach you is classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and electrodynamics- basically "twins and infinite square wells". Very important knowledge if you eventually become a physicist, but completely useless in any other job.

 

[chill_factor]

classical mechanics is not that useless. EM is not that bad either. parts of both classes can be reasonably applied to real life.

however QM is just totally useless the way it is taught in physics and it is basically inapplicable.

 

[pi-r8]

classical mechanics is not that useless. EM is not that bad either. parts of both classes can be reasonably applied to real life.

however QM is just totally useless the way it is taught in physics and it is basically inapplicable.

How would you apply classical mechanics or EM to a real job situation? It's hard to think of any realistic situations(referring specifically to junior/senior level physics classes here, not the basic freshman level classes that engineers take).

 

[G01]

How would you apply classical mechanics or EM to a real job situation? It's hard to think of any realistic situations(referring specifically to junior/senior level physics classes here, not the basic freshman level classes that engineers take).

For whatever it's worth, I have a friend who worked for a defense contractor on satellite related work. (Security clearance meant he really couldn't give details.) They hired him specifically because he had a physics background and through his physics degree learned programming and had knowledge of orbital mechanics, which he learned in an upper level mechanics class.

 

[Locrian]

How would you apply classical mechanics or EM to a real job situation? It's hard to think of any realistic situations(referring specifically to junior/senior level physics classes here, not the basic freshman level classes that engineers take).

Design of specialized waveguides, modeling of peculiar magnetic materials, applying negative index metamaterials in new industrial applications, designing specialized plasma deposition systems. . .

Are those the kinds of examples you’re looking for?

 

[ModusPwnd]

Design of specialized waveguides, modeling of peculiar magnetic materials, applying negative index metamaterials in new industrial applications, designing specialized plasma deposition systems. . .

Are those the kinds of examples you’re looking for?

People get hired with a physics BS to do those jobs? I doubt it. Thats EE and MSEE work.

 

[clope023]

People get hired with a physics BS to do those jobs? I doubt it. Thats EE and MSEE work.

You're wrong, Northrop Grumman mentions physicists by name when stating the degrees they hire specifically for satellite design work.

 

[G01]

People get hired with a physics BS to do those jobs? I doubt it. Thats EE and MSEE work.

See my above post:

For whatever it's worth, I have a friend who worked for a defense contractor on satellite related work. (Security clearance meant he really couldn't give details.) They hired him specifically because he had a physics background and through his physics degree learned programming and had knowledge of orbital mechanics, which he learned in an upper level mechanics class.

 

[pi-r8]

Design of specialized waveguides, modeling of peculiar magnetic materials, applying negative index metamaterials in new industrial applications, designing specialized plasma deposition systems. . .

Are those the kinds of examples you’re looking for?

None of those topics is taught in an undergrad EM class (or a grad class either, for that matter). You would need a lot of training to get from the basics taught in undergrad EM to the level of being able to design modern devices, and companies these days aren't exactly keen on paying for a new hire to take long training classes.

I searched Northrop Grumman new hires section for the keyword "physics" and couldn't find anything like this. The closest I could find was a job doing software modeling, for which they preferrede engineering degrees but "would consider" math or physics.

I don't know the details of GMs friend of course, but I think he must have been very lucky to get that job.

 

[jesse73]

None of those topics is taught in an undergrad EM class (or a grad class either, for that matter). You would need a lot of training to get from the basics taught in undergrad EM to the level of being able to design modern devices, and companies these days aren't exactly keen on paying for a new hire to take long training classes.

I searched Northrop Grumman new hires section for the keyword "physics" and couldn't find anything like this. The closest I could find was a job doing software modeling, for which they preferrede engineering degrees but "would consider" math or physics.

I don't know the details of GMs friend of course, but I think he must have been very lucky to get that job.

Do engineering degrees teach you the exact topic you will work on in your job?

 

[Locrian]

None of those topics is taught in an undergrad EM class (or a grad class either, for that matter).

Are you serious?? Jackson alone should get you ready to start with a few on that list, and the others can be found in elective courses.

As for undergrads, if they got a good background in E&M and took some advanced lab courses, they should be able to work in a job in those areas and pick up the specialized knowledge they need, so long as they're working with other people.

Go back and read the post I quoted to be sure you know where I'm coming from. E&M and CM provide great knowledge bases that are useful in many jobs. That's just not enough to get hired. We probably agree about the quality of the typical BS in physics. However, we definitely disagree on why the degree isn't very useful.

And I have no idea what they're teaching at your grad school.

 

[Lavabug]

FWIW, I did see some practical stuff like transmission line theory and waveguides/resonant cavities, and antennas in a junior EM course, but it comprised of <10% of the whole syllabus. E. Engineers at my university have entire courses dedicated to these subjects.

 

[rhombusjr]

But I can't understand how people can be so clueless when they graduate.

How come that during those all years people:

- didn't learn any usefull skills
- didn't do any networking
- didn't do any job market research (the best quotes of this thread are question like this: "what's job market research? how do you do it?" or "what is conference?")
- didn't learn about interships

I was too busy doing research, keeping my GPA high, working and preparing for GREs. Y'know, the things you do in physics undergrad...

How can you be do "research," but not learn any useful skills?! If this is the case, I think you're doing "research" wrong…

Too busy? You can't spend 10 minutes going online and seeing who hires physics graduates and reading the job descriptions to see if your qualifications line up? You never thought "maybe I should get an internship"? Maybe your college's career services center sucks, but these seem like common things that every college student does. You can't be expected to be spoon-fed everything. You have to be a "self starter" and figure things out on your own.

Also, if your GPA is high, you have "research" experience, and did well on the GREs, you'll surely get into graduate school somewhere. Why are you complaining about not being prepared for industry if you're going into academia?

I don't know what all this crap is with "physics departments don't want to prepare students for industry and blah blah blah." I've studied numerous physics departments for graduate school, and I've picked up on some of their undergraduate school philosophy as well. I frequently see that departments want to prepare students for academia and industry.

To Physics B.S. holders looking for a job: Try looking into government/military labs. The military is always looking into cutting edge/obscure technology and they want physicists working on them. I did an internship in the DoD and I was told that I was hired because I was a physicist. They told me an engineer wouldn't have the background necessary.

Another good industry to check out is nanotechnology. Can't do nanotechnology without knowing quantum mechanics.

I think the greatest trait of a physicist, is their broad knowledge base. Sell this quality! Engineers (especially at the B.S. level) are specialized and don't know much outside their specialty. Ask a chemical engineer about circuits and they'll likely draw a blank. An electrical engineer how a refrigerator works? Probably have no idea. This broad knowledge base means that even if a physicist doesn't know something technical, they can probably figure out the basics in a much shorter time than an engineer.

 

[Locrian]

How can you be do "research," but not learn any useful skills?! If this is the case, I think you're doing "research" wrong…

Nah, there's lots of research that's just useless. Anything that's theory and doesn't include computational work may fall into that category. My grad school roommates were great examples - non-comm geometry and string theory. They learned zero useful skills in their 7 years.

 

[G01]

Nah, there's lots of research that's just useless. Anything that's theory and doesn't include computational work may fall into that category. My grad school roommates were great examples - non-comm geometry and string theory. They learned zero useful skills in their 7 years.

Exactly, a physics degree is what you make it. If you want an industry job after your degree, focus your courses around optics, lasers and electronics (which are taught in physics departments too by the way: http://physics.bu.edu/courses/schedule/371) and perhaps a computational methods course (again physics departments offer these too: http://physics.bu.edu/courses/schedule/421)

On a graduate level, if you focus your thesis work around ultrafast spectroscopy, you will be much more employable outside academia than someone who focuses their work on string theory. The degree is what you make of it, and knowing what type of job you want after its all said and done really helps.

We all agree that the standard bare minimum physics curricula do not emphasize the important industry skills as much as they should. However, Locrian is correct when he says this is not to be blamed on the subject of physics.

Also anyone who thinks that having the word "Engineering" in your degree will result in companies throwing jobs at you is sorely mistaken. I know quite a few engineers who floundered for years trying to get a job. Believe it or not what held them back was bad interview skills, lack of internships,experience and other things that were not a core requirement of their Engineering degree.

 

[ModusPwnd]

How can you be do "research," but not learn any useful skills?! If this is the case, I think you're doing "research" wrong…

Too busy? You can't spend 10 minutes going online and seeing who hires physics graduates and reading the job descriptions to see if your qualifications line up? You never thought "maybe I should get an internship"?

No, I never thought that because physics undergrads don't do internships. Physics departments and professors rarely have much in terms of industry contacts. And physics programs never organize internships. They are organized by the engineering department for engineers.

BTW, if you read carefully you will see that I was too busy to get useful marketable skills rather than doing some 10 minute search... Too busy with my physics curriculum to try crashing the engineer's party and get one of their internships.

Also, if your GPA is high, you have "research" experience, and did well on the GREs, you'll surely get into graduate school somewhere. Why are you complaining about not being prepared for industry if you're going into academia?

Good point. Physics is academic. One shouldn't expect it to be marketable for industry.

I don't know what all this crap is with "physics departments don't want to prepare students for industry and blah blah blah." I've studied numerous physics departments for graduate school, and I've picked up on some of their undergraduate school philosophy as well. I frequently see that departments want to prepare students for academia and industry.

Now this is confusing, because you just before this acknowledged that a physics degree is academic and doesn't prepare you for industry. Now you are claiming it does? I don't think you have your thoughts straight. Physics does not prepare you for industry, it prepares you for academia. Its not crap, that the philosophy that the departments have. Unless you are doing some type of applied physics or engineering physics... Otherwise, no, the dept does not care about industry. Nor do most of the physics students, that's why they are in physics rather than engineering...

I think the greatest trait of a physicist, is their broad knowledge base. Sell this quality! Engineers (especially at the B.S. level) are specialized and don't know much outside their specialty. Ask a chemical engineer about circuits and they'll likely draw a blank. An electrical engineer how a refrigerator works? Probably have no idea. This broad knowledge base means that even if a physicist doesn't know something technical, they can probably figure out the basics in a much shorter time than an engineer.

I don't believe this is true at all. This is the hubris of physics. Physicists do not have a broader knowledge base than engineers. They have a more esoteric knowledge base. A chemical engineer most certainly knows a bit about circuits and an electrical engineer most certainly knows about a refrigeration. Studying physics does not make you smarter or a faster learner than an engineer.

 

[G01]

No, I never thought that because physics undergrads don't do internships. Physics departments and professors rarely have much in terms of industry contacts. And physics programs never organize internships. They are organized by the engineering department for engineers.

Do you really have experience with enough physics departments to make these statements or do you think you might be overgeneralizing a bit?

BTW, if you read carefully you will see that I was too busy to get useful marketable skills rather than doing some 10 minute search... Too busy with my physics curriculum to try crashing the engineer's party and get one of their internships.

This statement is patently absurd. You were so busy that you couldn't attend even one job fair, colloquium, apply for internships, or take the initiative to ask your professors for help? It is your job to network, regardless of your major.

Good point. Physics is academic. One shouldn't expect it to be marketable for industry.

Yes, physics is academic, but it can form a marketable degree with the right focus and initiative on the part of both the student and the program, as I've been describing above. I don't doubt that your program was lacking in this regard. Yet, your over-generalizations accusing all physics programs of having the same faults is uncalled for.