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

[ModusPwnd]

Students really shouldn't be so naive to believe everything that they're told. They are aspiring to be physicists, so they really ought to have some kind of critical thinking skills.
The professors and advisors just give their opinion. And I'm sure that they are not intentionally deceiving their students, but they actually believe what they say. It is the student or his parents that should know better and actually research the situation before taking the job. In the end the student himself is in charge of his own education. If anybody is to blame, it is the student. It is not fair to start blaming the entire world for deceiving them.

You are right that some people academia can be quite arrogant. Such people tend to think that they are better than everybody else. But that's not an excuse for not researching and thinking critically about their future.

I disagree. Physics students should be able to expect to get the straight dope from their professors, dept. and societies. That's why the adviser relationship is so important. Here you are basically advocating for the notion that your mentor and professors in college can't be trusted and you should know that. That's a ridiculous claim to make. One of the key reasons students pay the big bucks to go to university rather than just self study in a library is to get a group of competent, trustworthy experts who's advice and dispensed knowledge and skills can get you where you want to go. Not exploring the caveats makes them either dishonest or incompetent as a teacher or mentor to students. You get some of course, I had a couple professors who were more realistic about careers and the fact that the students actually do want one someday. I choose an adviser who actually had a non-academic job once in grad school, it was refreshing.

It is the students responsibility to learn. But that in no way changes the fact that physics depts. go out of their way to avoid catering to the non-PhD achieving students. Other depts, like engineering and even sciences like chem. and bio. do cater to terminal BS and MS students. They organize internships and research, rather than just internal research and they actually connect their students with employment opportunities rather than shunning them. You say that students should research their opportunities themselves, I wonder where specifically you have in mind? I think without getting a reality check from their adviser most of what they read and hear will be the usual mantra of "Employers love to hire physics!". Now you are saying that we shouldn't trust our adviser... Well, I trust mine. Each (undergrad and grad) earned my respect and I take what they have to say about physics and careers seriously.

 

[micromass]

I disagree. Physics students should be able to expect to get the straight dope from their professors, dept. and societies. That's why the adviser relationship is so important. Here you are basically advocating for the notion that your mentor and professors in college can't be trusted and you should know that. That's a ridiculous claim to make. One of the key reasons students pay the big bucks to go to university rather than just self study in a library is to get a group of competent, trustworthy experts who's advice and dispensed knowledge and skills can get you where you want to go. Not exploring the caveats makes them either dishonest or incompetent as a teacher or mentor to students. You get some of course, I had a couple professors who were more realistic about careers and the fact that the students actually do want one someday. I choose an adviser who actually had a non-academic job once in grad school, it was refreshing.

The problem is that professors and such are not infallible. I have had many professors who had spent their entire life in academia. I don't expect them to know much about finding a job outside academia. They are not intentionally misleading or dishonest, they are just talking about their experience and this is not necessarily the experience that other people will have.

That said, I have never really taken anybody's word as truth. Even experts make mistakes occasionally, and I've seen it happen a lot. If they make a claim, then I will be sure to investigate it myself and to see why it is true. I really don't like to believe something only because an authority says so.
Of course, when actually doing research, it is impossible to verify every single thing that people did in the past. This has caused me quite some difficulties because I don't like to accept things as true.

I see professors as people who can guide you in studying mathematics or physics. You should listen to what they say, but in the end it is you yourself who should research things.

It is the students responsibility to learn. But that in no way changes the fact that physics depts. go out of their way to avoid catering to the non-PhD achieving students. Other depts, like engineering and even sciences like chem. and bio. do cater to terminal BS and MS students. They organize internships and research, rather than just internal research and they actually connect their students with employment opportunities rather than shunning them.

You say that students should research their opportunities themselves, I wonder where specifically you have in mind? I think without getting a reality check from their adviser most of what they read and hear will be the usual mantra of "Employers love to hire physics!". Now you are saying that we shouldn't trust our adviser... Well, I trust mine. Each (undergrad and grad) earned my respect and I take what they have to say about physics and careers seriously.

If you trust one single person, then you will end up fooled. People make mistakes, even advisers.
When an adviser says something, then of course I respect what they say and of course I take their advice seriously. That doesn't mean that I actually believe their advice. Nobody should believe advice because some authority figure said so. Even if the figure is very knowledgeable or honest.

Students should give themselves reality checks now and then. What they do in undergrad will be a very large factor of what their later life will look like. It's a very huge decision that they take. If you don't research your stuff or talk to multiple people from various backgrounds, then you should kind of blame yourself if things fail. It is your future, so you are responsible, not anybody else.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The problem is that professors and such are not infallible. I have had many professors who had spent their entire life in academia. I don't expect them to know much about finding a job outside academia. They are not intentionally misleading or dishonest, they are just talking about their experience and this is not necessarily the experience that other people will have.

That said, I have never really taken anybody's word as truth. Even experts make mistakes occasionally, and I've seen it happen a lot. If they make a claim, then I will be sure to investigate it myself and to see why it is true. I really don't like to believe something only because an authority says so.
Of course, when actually doing research, it is impossible to verify every single thing that people did in the past. This has caused me quite some difficulties because I don't like to accept things as true.

I see professors as people who can guide you in studying mathematics or physics. You should listen to what they say, but in the end it is you yourself who should research things.

I'm afraid that I am with ModusPwnd on this matter. Yes, I recognize that professors are only human and are fallible; however, there is an understanding by students (and their parents, who quite often are responsible for covering the tuition if the students aren't putting themselves in debt for doing so) that professors have at least some knowledge of the current marketability of a physics degree outside of academia and should have some type of honest assessment of what their degree is worth to potential employers. It is also worth it for physics departments to consider in their curriculum what skills are of utmost importance for students to acquire to ensure that they are potentially employable subsequent to graduation, whether they pursue further graduate study or not.

This is commonly done in programs like engineering and even in chemistry or biology. It is not done often in math programs, but then again many math majors who don't intend to pursue further graduate studies in math often double major in another field which is more immediately marketable (e.g. statistics, economics, accounting, finance, business, computer science)

If you trust one single person, then you will end up fooled. People make mistakes, even advisers.
When an adviser says something, then of course I respect what they say and of course I take their advice seriously. That doesn't mean that I actually believe their advice. Nobody should believe advice because some authority figure said so. Even if the figure is very knowledgeable or honest.

Students should give themselves reality checks now and then. What they do in undergrad will be a very large factor of what their later life will look like. It's a very huge decision that they take. If you don't research your stuff or talk to multiple people from various backgrounds, then you should kind of blame yourself if things fail. It is your future, so you are responsible, not anybody else.

And just how do you expect a student to do this? A student who is graduating from high school have no idea who or where to turn to for reliable information. It is part of the responsibility and obligation of the college or university to provide the sources of information on which students could then make the responsible decisions on their future, as well as be honest and upfront about the limitations of such information. And if the colleges and universities (more specifically, the physics departments) are not doing this well, then you really have to question the value of a university education (or a physics degree obtained from said university).

 

[micromass]

I'm afraid that I am with ModusPwnd on this matter. Yes, I recognize that professors are only human and are fallible; however, there is an understanding by students (and their parents, who quite often are responsible for covering the tuition if the students aren't putting themselves in debt for doing so) that professors have at least some knowledge of the current marketability of a physics degree outside of academia and should have some type of honest assessment of what their degree is worth to potential employers. It is also worth it for physics departments to consider in their curriculum what skills are of utmost importance for students to acquire to ensure that they are potentially employable subsequent to graduation, whether they pursue further graduate study or not.

I once asked my professors why we only studied pure math and not more applicable things. They said to me that a degree in mathematics is to train people to become research mathematicians. That is the main goal of the department and that is how they were judged by government commissions. Of course I have a limited experience in these things and even then, these things are only true for the country and the university that I went to. But it gave me the impression that the only things that the departments were responsible for was to prepare students to do research and not to get skills that can be important in later employment. If the students wishes to obtain these skills, then they should do that themselves.

The situation tends to be different for engineers. Engineering departments are really trade schools. They should generate good engineers who are ready for the job. They are more trained towards what they will do later in their job.

Again, I'm not claiming to be an expert in the policies of university departments, but it would surprise me if it were very far from the truth what I said.

And just how do you expect a student to do this? A student who is graduating from high school have no idea who or where to turn to for reliable information. It is part of the responsibility and obligation of the college or university to provide the sources of information on which students could then make the responsible decisions on their future, as well as be honest and upfront about the limitations of such information. And if the colleges and universities (more specifically, the physics departments) are not doing this well, then you really have to question the value of a university education (or a physics degree obtained from said university).

Oh come on. Students just have to go to google and they will find enough information. I see many people on this forum who are asking questions about whether the degree they are planning to do will be employable (and they usually get quite good answers in my opinion). At least those people are actually out there researching things about their future.
It might not be easy to find reliable information or to recognize which information is reliable. But I'm sure you can get a clear picture if you research things for yourself. At the very least, you will read stories of people who were not successful with their degree (and the "failures" is something that universities are rarely going to tell you about!). So at the very leasty, you are going to think twice about choosing a degree.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I once asked my professors why we only studied pure math and not more applicable things. They said to me that a degree in mathematics is to train people to become research mathematicians. That is the main goal of the department and that is how they were judged by government commissions. Of course I have a limited experience in these things and even then, these things are only true for the country and the university that I went to. But it gave me the impression that the only things that the departments were responsible for was to prepare students to do research and not to get skills that can be important in later employment. If the students wishes to obtain these skills, then they should do that themselves.

The situation tends to be different for engineers. Engineering departments are really trade schools. They should generate good engineers who are ready for the job. They are more trained towards what they will do later in their job.

Again, I'm not claiming to be an expert in the policies of university departments, but it would surprise me if it were very far from the truth what I said.

It is certainly true that one of the goals of the math department is to train research mathematicians, but that is not the only goal. In the math department at my alma mater, there are various programs offered -- some geared towards pure math and aimed for students intending to pursue graduate degrees, others geared towards applications or joint programs, aimed for students who intend to pursue employment upon graduation. Many other programs offer this because there is an understanding that students may consider options beyond graduate school, and tailor such programs to offer such options. (btw, I am not stating that these programs are effective in providing marketable skills to their students -- I'm just stating that something is available).

In my alma mater, as far as I understand, this is not done in the physics department. There is one major program, a few joint programs, but nothing tailored for students intended to pursue an industrial career (there is an engineering physics program, but this is offered through the engineering department). What I take out of this is that the physics department (at least in my alma mater) does not seem to be overly concerned with those students who do not intend to pursue graduate studies in physics -- which is wrongheaded, in my opinion.

Oh come on. Students just have to go to google and they will find enough information. I see many people on this forum who are asking questions about whether the degree they are planning to do will be employable (and they usually get quite good answers in my opinion). At least those people are actually out there researching things about their future.
It might not be easy to find reliable information or to recognize which information is reliable. But I'm sure you can get a clear picture if you research things for yourself. At the very least, you will read stories of people who were not successful with their degree (and the "failures" is something that universities are rarely going to tell you about!). So at the very leasty, you are going to think twice about choosing a degree.

I am not suggesting that students should not do research about their future on their own, and I recognize with the existence of Google that information is more readily accessible than for students in the past. I also understand that forums such as Physics Forums are important sources of information.

However, neither Google nor Physics Forums necessarily provide information that is reliable or usable for many students. I still stand by my assertion that colleges and universities have a responsibility, if not a duty as part of their mandate, to help provide information on the future prospects of whatever field they wish to study, and to be honest about the limitations of the information available.

 

[symbolipoint]

Long topic! Both points argued are equally valuable. Students should investigate career fields and opportunities and how to qualify for them. University and college faculty should be knowledgeable about their field and job possibilities and inform and advise their students. Those are the basic ideas; not much more can be done with this topic.

 

[micromass]

It is certainly true that one of the goals of the math department is to train research mathematicians, but that is not the only goal. In the math department at my alma mater, there are various programs offered -- some geared towards pure math and aimed for students intending to pursue graduate degrees, others geared towards applications or joint programs, aimed for students who intend to pursue employment upon graduation. Many other programs offer this because there is an understanding that students may consider options beyond graduate school, and tailor such programs to offer such options. (btw, I am not stating that these programs are effective in providing marketable skills to their students -- I'm just stating that something is available).

In my alma mater, as far as I understand, this is not done in the physics department. There is one major program, a few joint programs, but nothing tailored for students intended to pursue an industrial career (there is an engineering physics program, but this is offered through the engineering department). What I take out of this is that the physics department (at least in alma mater) does not seem to be overly concerned with those students who do not intend to pursue graduate studies in physics -- which is wrongheaded, in my opinion.




I am not suggesting that students should not do research about their future on their own, and I recognize with the existence of Google that information is more readily accessible than for students in the past. I also understand that forums such as Physics Forums are important sources of information.

However, neither Google nor Physics Forums necessarily provide information that is reliable or usable for many students. I still stand by my assertion that colleges and universities have a responsibility, if not a duty as part of their mandate, to help provide information on the future prospects of whatever field they wish to study, and to be honest about the limitations of the information available.

True, they have a responsibility and they have a duty and they should be honest. But how many universities are honest?

The problem is that deparments (here at least) get funding on the number of students they have. So if there are not enough students for a while, then they will get much less funding and they might have to fire people. Nobody wants that.
The point is that universities are expected to behave like economic companies. This means that they might have to compromise on their duty and responsiblities.

For example, I looked at my universities description of a history degree. Now, it is fair to say that a history degree isn't really very employable. But they never state this. Rather, they state that "History grads learn in their degree to think critically. This makes them employable in a wide array of professions." I think that this is rather misleading.

So I don't think that universities should be trusted too much on these issues. It is still the responsiblity of the student to research things for himself. If you blindly believe only one source (the university, for example), then chances are very big that you will be fooled.

Of course, it is also the responsibility of the parents and of the high schools to make young people think about their future.

 

[Choppy]

However, neither Google nor Physics Forums necessarily provide information that is reliable or usable for many students. I still stand by my assertion that colleges and universities have a responsibility, if not a duty as part of their mandate, to help provide information on the future prospects of whatever field they wish to study, and to be honest about the limitations of the information available.

Most physics departments will point students to the data collected on the subject by organizations such as the APS. See:
http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/index.cfm

These studies consistently show that physics graduates tend to do quite well in the workforce - low unemployment, high starting salaries, high mid-careers salaries, etc.

So how is it they are being negligent in this apparent duty by presenting students with data?

 

[Rika]

So long Many people have said what I wanted so I won't repeat this.


About schools - it's simple mechanism - more students = more $$$ and they won't return your money if you don't find a job upon graduation so what's the problem? They will tell you sweet lies because that's their job. Why did you trust so called advisors in a very first place?

That being said my intention was different. When you are a teenager you are stupid and clueless about everything. You think you love physics but it turns out you are just a pop sci books wiz, you wanted to be researcher but clueless about job market etc. etc. - it can happened. You can be clueless before college.

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

Instead of doing sth "outside the box" like teachning yourself marketable skills (you don't need to have another degree - you can learn from books for little to none cost), doing intership in any field, joining non-profit project and pick up some skills people just send CVs with their biggest "success" - Bachelor in Physics even if they (like OP) don't want to work in physics!

I don't know why do you believe that people should hire you only because you have degree. Tbh all my physics peers got a job. Most of them did double major in engineering field or went medical physics route. Those who went for PhD chose an applied, practical field. The point is we all knew about job prospects from the start and we weren't doomed because we have managed to pick up useful skills. So how come we knew all about it and you didn't?

Maybe because in US you pay insane amount of money for your education you believe that price corresponds it's value but it still doesn't explain everything.

The only logical explanation for that is your educational system. From the start (primary school) you are brainwashed (to use better word - babysit). Teachers, parents, "advisors" tell you what you should do. You are isolated from information about real world and live years in fantasyland. More or less school is sth like isolated small ecosystem. In my country we don't feel strongly connected with our schools - more or less there is no money for events, clubs and all that stuff so what do we do is - go to school, take lessons and go back home. No advisors either. Because our system can't afford to babysit us, we are forced to explore possibilities on our own. Because of that many of us end up not knowing what they want to do or discovering it later in life (and changing majors). But at least most of us are fully aware what kind of place this world is.

"US like system" can be found in Japan or Korea. School and closest environment are big part of your life and organize everything for you. Because of that when you graduate you stick to this peace of paper unable to think for yourselfs. You can only see what is organized for you by your school or parents. That's why you don't have an ability to search for your own.

Or that's how i see it.

 

[jkl71]

I studied physics because I wanted to learn about physics, from my perspective universities should be about learning and not seen as places where one gets vocational training. I do find it annoying when I hear physics faculty members talk about a physics degree as though it prepares you for the job market. I agree that the intent isn’t deception, they really seem to think there is some general shortage of people in the job market that are scientifically knowledgeable. I’d like to believe that physicists would not make statements like that without some kind of rational basis for them and as far as I can tell they don’t have any. I attended two universities and none of the faculty I knew had any actual experience outside of universities. My best guess is they are mixing up correlation with causality. More specifically the personal attributes that make one successful in physics can also contribute to one being successful in other endeavors, but that doesn’t mean studying physics contributed to the success.

I’m quite happy I studied physics, but it has done nothing to help me with my career (writing software).

 

[pi-r8]

Most physics departments will point students to the data collected on the subject by organizations such as the APS. See:
http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/index.cfm

These studies consistently show that physics graduates tend to do quite well in the workforce - low unemployment, high starting salaries, high mid-careers salaries, etc.

So how is it they are being negligent in this apparent duty by presenting students with data?

This data really needs to come with a big warning label on the top of it, because it is not a scientifically accurate survey. It uses voluntarily reported data, much of which comes from advisors rather than the students themselves. They only got responses from ~40% of all students, and it's from 6 years ago (pre-recession). It also doesn't survey how many students went to grad school because they didn't know anything else to do, and how many of those left without a Master's degree and became unemployed or marginally employed.

 

[bcrowell]

This data really needs to come with a big warning label on the top of it, because it is not a scientifically accurate survey. It uses voluntarily reported data, much of which comes from advisors rather than the students themselves. They only got responses from ~40% of all students, and it's from 6 years ago (pre-recession). It also doesn't survey how many students went to grad school because they didn't know anything else to do, and how many of those left without a Master's degree and became unemployed or marginally employed.

I would second this caution. As an even more extreme example, my department has a poster someone put up in the hall showing the majors with the lowest unemployment rates, and near the top, along with actuarial science, is astronomy, with 0% unemployment. Well, come on. We all know that astronomy is infamous as a field in which people can't get permanent jobs as astronomers. Sure, maybe among people with astronomy degrees the percentage who can't find any kind of job at all (flipping burgets, etc.) is very low. But I really don't believe it's lower than 0.5%, therefore rounding down to 0%. When you get down to figures that low, there's a certain percentage of the population that is alcoholic, mentally ill, or whatever, and therefore unemployable. In a 45-year career in the workforce, you would only have to be between jobs for a lifetime total of 3 months in order to be unemployed 0.5% of the time. You really can't trust these professional organizations to tell the truth about employment prospects.

Realistically, the solid employment prospects for someone with a bachelor's in physics involve high school teaching. Other than that, it's a matter of how creative you are in finding work that you'll be happy doing. I'm amazed that anyone thinks it's a good idea to go out into the job market with a bachelor's in physics if they aren't interested in teaching high school and don't have some other specific interest, skill, talent, or career path in mind.

 

[spamctor]

What did your peers/friends that majored in physics end up doing?

 

[bcrowell]

What did your peers/friends that majored in physics end up doing?

(Assuming this question is addressed to me.) We went to grad school.

 

[elkement]

That sums it up pretty well:

More specifically the personal attributes that make one successful in physics can also contribute to one being successful in other endeavors, but that doesn’t mean studying physics contributed to the success.

I had a conversation with somebody with a background in philosophy recently, and it is amazing how their issues (with employability and self-marketing) resemble those discussed here. There is even a large overlap in the alleged "transferrable skills", such as the infamous critical thinking, analytical skills etc.

I have graduated more than 20 years ago in Austria and from threads like this I would conclude the following:

The gap between physics and engineering (in terms of employability of graduates) has broadened or this has always been a US versus Europe thing.

I am astonished by many posting of young people here who asks for advice in becoming a theorist and/or whose motivation to study physics was mainly triggered by Stephen Hawking or the like. When I was a European student, building stuff was the cool thing to do and the theory department was for an awkward minority of nerds.
I am not sure if the popularization of physics and rock-star physicists (most of them theorists) did any good here.

I was rather inclined to fundamentals of physics and I was subject to aggressive marketing by theory departments as a student. A math professor once told me literally it would be pearls before swine that I study physics, not math.
So my anecdotal evidence would support all posters who state that professors do not prepare students properly or give them reasonable advice.

On the other hand I took some decisions based on my own research and reasoning (and without Google back then) - for several times I turned down something more theoretical and went for an option that scored higher on the employability scale. I am not sure of I did so deliberately, but I think I generally mistrusted "authorities" often. I had also been told that excellent people stay at the university and losers turn to industry - but that rather kindled my spirit of contradiction. Or it was my peer group of down-to-earth fellow students that saved me: Most of my colleagues never planned to do a PhD and considered physics rather sort of engineering, vocational training at an academic level.

I am not even sure if today's "connectedness" is so helpful after all: Probably it is easier to come to a conclusion on your own instead of being bombarded with advertisements of your favorite university which has just launched an image campaign (using Facebook e.g.) and tries to boost the number of STEM graduates using all those false arguments (well-intended though).

 

[elkement]

Is there any good way to find jobs that would accept me? Can anyone offer me any final advise? Thanks in advance.

Hi bjj8383,

have you tried to apply for trainee positions in management consulting? At McKinsey or the like?

That used to be a common career path when I graduated. I considered these jobs to be "PhD jobs" but somebody in this forums told me that in the US in particular BSc graduates are hired as trainee consultants (today).

Good luck - I can feel your pain!

 

[ModusPwnd]

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...

 

[George Jones]

When I was a European student, building stuff was the cool thing to do and the theory department was for an awkward minority of nerds.

While I do agree that "building stuff" is "cool", and that this can result in employable skills, I don't think that perpetuating the cliche stereotype of people interested in theoretical physics as social misfits is helpful.

It is plausible that an experiment track results in a wider range of employable skills than does a theoretical track, but this is something different than the myth stated above. Even so, many of my friends who studied theoretical physics (in Canada) ended up with good jobs. The largest portion is in IT, two ended up in finance (one quite high up in Toronto's financial district), and two are meteorologists (one with Environment Canada).

 

[elkement]

While I do agree that "building stuff" is "cool", and that this can result in employable skills, I don't think that perpetuating the cliche stereotype of people interested in theoretical physics as social misfits is helpful.

This is of course true - it was not my intention to perpetuate the cliche stereotype, rather to make fun of it. The inverse stereotype does exist as well - theorists being superior to experimentalists. More often than not I have experienced "more theoretical" guys calling "less theoretical / more engineering-like" colleagues "lab monkeys" or the like.

From my experience there was not much difference between (former) experimental and theoretical physicists after they had been exposed to industry for a few years.

I even think that (maybe only back then?) the difference did not matter that much to employers at all - unless the employer was a company searching for somebody with very specific skills (familiar with transmission electron microcopes or excimer lasers) which was rare.

 

[George Jones]

This is of course true - it was not my intention to perpetuate the cliche stereotype, rather to make fun of it.

Sorry; without clues from facial expressions and voice intonation, I sometimes don't know how seriously to take things.

The inverse stereotype does exist as well - theorists being superior to experimentalists. More often than not I have experienced "more theoretical" guys calling "less theoretical / more engineering-like" colleagues "lab monkeys" or the like.

Unfortunately, this unfair and untrue stereotype does get used. Sometimes this back-and-forth interaction between theory people and experimental people is just good-natured teasing (Don't let X into your lab; Pauli effect warning!); sometimes it is not.

 

[Locrian]

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.

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.

 

[StatGuy2000]

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.

This is where co-op programs (such as those offered at the University of Waterloo in Canada, or in Drexel University in the US) or other similar external internship programs (including the Professional Year Program offered at my former alma mater) are so meaningful and valuable, since these programs give the opportunity for undergraduate students to work with various employers in fields at least tangentially tied to their field of study. Furthermore, these early experiences also provide future references and sources for networking, allowing these students a leg up in terms of seeking employment.

 

[bcrowell]

I'm fully aware of all this, I have a high school teacher in my immediate family, and I have one of those "we'll certify you in 5 weeks because we're desperate" organizations in my bookmarks. Frankly it sounds like hell but this year's last deadline is in Feb, I'm considering it. It's at the bottom of the pile.

I THOUGHT I knew what I wanted to do with my life, I've always loved science. It's honestly not my fault if the progression of education in the US didn't give me an accurate view of what being a professional physicist actually entailed.

I'm having a hard time figuring this out. The first quote seems to indicate that you have a good job prospect for a job that a bachelor's degree in physics qualifies you for ... but you're complaining that you're stuck working at Target. The second quote refers to being a "professional physicist," but to be a professional physicist you need a PhD. I can't believe that your school failed so badly to give you an "accurate view" that you somehow got the impression that a bachelor's in physics qualified you to be a professional physicist. Similarly, a bachelor's degree in history doesn't qualify you to be a professional historian.

The thing is, I'd happily work at any real job that requires a 4 year degree. It doesn't need to be physics related.

This is hard to reconcile with your other statements above.

Today, Careerbuilder literally returns one result within a 50 mile radius of me.

Why are you restricting yourself to jobs within a 50-mile radius? It sounds like, in addition to having unrealistic expectations about what kind of jobs a B.S. qualifies you for, you have unrealistic expectations about being able to drastically restrict your job search geographically.

Another issue that we have no information about is what school you went to and what your GPA was. Since you're posting pseudonymously, why not tell us that information? There's a huge difference between graduating from UCLA with a 4.0 and graduating from Cal State Dominguez Hills with a 2.0. At this stage, the school and your GPA are the only concrete information prospective employers have about your level of ability.

You may want to consider taking work that doesn't require your physics training but that does offer an environment in which you can prove yourself to an employer and move up. For example, after I graduated with a B.S. in physics, I didn't get into any of the grad schools I applied to the first time around, so I had a year out of school. I got a couple of part-time jobs, one of which was working in a factory doing mind-numbing work. But there were opportunities for advancement there that I could have taken advantage of if I hadn't been planning to go back to grad school. For example, while I was there they hired an army veteran with not that much formal education to be in charge of keeping all the production-line machinery going. If I'd applied for that job, I probably would have gotten it. It still wouldn't have been a job that I would have wanted to spend my life doing, but it would have been a step up, and a chance to demonstrate that I could take responsibility, supervise other people, use some quantitative skills, etc. You have to realize that many people who graduate from college are utterly useless as employees. They're irresponsible, passive, don't have good reading and writing skills, need constant supervision, and don't take the initiative to learn new skills. Employers need to have it demonstrated to them that the person I'm describing isn't you. No, just obtaining a degree doesn't demonstrate that.

 

[spamctor]

What did your peers/friends that majored in physics end up doing?

I probably should have clarified, i meant to ask the OP this. Or more to the point, are they having the same problems as you?

 

[Locrian]

This is where co-op programs . . .

Yea, but that would require effort by the school. Most physics dept have no interest in such a thing, and in my opinion, many would frown on it. I prefer a solution in which students enter into the university with a more critical (and cynical) view of what they're told by the university and their professors.

I like to think (pretend?) that threads like this may play a small part in just such an outcome.

 

[George Jones]

Today, Careerbuilder literally returns one result within a 50 mile radius of me.

Why are you restricting yourself to jobs within a 50-mile radius? It sounds like, in addition to having unrealistic expectations about what kind of jobs a B.S. qualifies you for, you have unrealistic expectations about being able to drastically restrict your job search geographically.

I agree with Ben.

Fifteen months ago, for work, I moved from one side of Canada to the other, 4100 kilometres (2550 miles) as the crow flies, 5500 kilometres (3420 miles) by road (hopefully, my last move). I have worked in five Canadian provinces, two U.S. states, and one U.S territory.

I think that many people would be unwilling to make the number of moves that I have, but I also think that 50 miles is extremely restrictive.

 

[X89codered89X]

Is it possible, bbj, that you could just go back for those key classes that engineering majors have to take - the idea that you have to go back for 4 MORE YEARS doesn't make any sense to me. Most engineering majors have to take a handful of general education requirements, and math that you've probably all ready taken.

Why not just go back and try to just take the engineering classes? Out of the 130 credit engineering degree - around only 60-70 credits of those are in engineering classes. Universities are in part a business - they want you to stick around for 4 years and pay tuition the whole time. I would just go back and take the classes. If I had known this, I wouldn't have listend to some of my advisors. I would take 3 or 4 engineering classes / semester while working at target (if that's manageable - maybe work part time?) and then in a year or two apply for some internships/jobs - it might even make you more marketable - they'll view you as closer to a double major...

 

[jesse73]

I'm having a hard time figuring this out. The first quote seems to indicate that you have a good job prospect for a job that a bachelor's degree in physics qualifies you for ... but you're complaining that you're stuck working at Target. The second quote refers to being a "professional physicist," but to be a professional physicist you need a PhD. I can't believe that your school failed so badly to give you an "accurate view" that you somehow got the impression that a bachelor's in physics qualified you to be a professional physicist. Similarly, a bachelor's degree in history doesn't qualify you to be a professional historian.


This is hard to reconcile with your other statements above.


Why are you restricting yourself to jobs within a 50-mile radius? It sounds like, in addition to having unrealistic expectations about what kind of jobs a B.S. qualifies you for, you have unrealistic expectations about being able to drastically restrict your job search geographically.

Another issue that we have no information about is what school you went to and what your GPA was. Since you're posting pseudonymously, why not tell us that information? There's a huge difference between graduating from UCLA with a 4.0 and graduating from Cal State Dominguez Hills with a 2.0. At this stage, the school and your GPA are the only concrete information prospective employers have about your level of ability.

You may want to consider taking work that doesn't require your physics training but that does offer an environment in which you can prove yourself to an employer and move up. For example, after I graduated with a B.S. in physics, I didn't get into any of the grad schools I applied to the first time around, so I had a year out of school. I got a couple of part-time jobs, one of which was working in a factory doing mind-numbing work. But there were opportunities for advancement there that I could have taken advantage of if I hadn't been planning to go back to grad school. For example, while I was there they hired an army veteran with not that much formal education to be in charge of keeping all the production-line machinery going. If I'd applied for that job, I probably would have gotten it. It still wouldn't have been a job that I would have wanted to spend my life doing, but it would have been a step up, and a chance to demonstrate that I could take responsibility, supervise other people, use some quantitative skills, etc. You have to realize that many people who graduate from college are utterly useless as employees. They're irresponsible, passive, don't have good reading and writing skills, need constant supervision, and don't take the initiative to learn new skills. Employers need to have it demonstrated to them that the person I'm describing isn't you. No, just obtaining a degree doesn't demonstrate that.

This has a lot of good advice. I think searching for "physics" in career builder with BSc isn't the right way to go about searching for a job. When employers put physics in their ads they tend to be looking for "professional" physicist which really means at least a PhD. As a physics BSc you don't have a professional degree which means you are going to have to learn how to market your skill set instead of expecting a "check here for qualified" situation.

 

[X89codered89X]

One thing I've noticed from my EE degree is that realistically, the "engineering" only comprises about half of the credits an engineering requires. I took about 15 engineering classes - 50-60 credits. Yes I had other technical classes (math- which you've had enough of I'm sure), but the skills that are directly applicable to an engineering position mostly come from engineering classes.

I'd suggest taking a handful of engineering classes, particularly the less theoretical ones like circuit design and embedded systems. These are extremely marketable skills regardless of the education level. After just 5-10 classes of engineering, you should be able to get some type of an internship.

Another option is programming - a large portion (~1/3 I believe) of programmers in industry are self taught - there is no reason so many kids with high school diplomas can teach themselves something a B.S. Physics kid couldn't. I'd start making C++ projects (learn to use as many libraries and IDES as you can!).

 

[justsomeguy]

I'm going to go into this with one disclaimer that everyone needs to face. The economy sucks, especially for new graduates with no practical experience. Things being what they are, it's simply not the best time to be looking for work. For anyone. That said, if it's a field that interests you, I can provide my 20 years of experience in the "computer" field in the hopes that you find the information useful, or even inspiring if you're feeling as hopeless as you sound. If the field (programming, sysadmin, etc) does not appeal to you, well, maybe just the inspiration then.

I have no college education. In fact, I'm a HS dropout with a GED. Everything beyond that level is self taught. I make very good money though, and have for most of my life. The easy hiring during the dot-com boom made up for my lack of initial experience and formal education, and eventually experience made up for the lack of all of that.

In this field in particular, almost every degree is useless from a practical standpoint. This is a benefit to you, the new job seeker, because you aren't starting from a worse position in any IT job when compared to someone with a CS degree -- many people think this is mandatory or that it will help. The first one is bogus no matter what the job description says -- I've had jobs with *insane* paper requirements that were disregarded simply because my development skills and personality were a better fit than the guy with the degree(s) they interviewed before me. If your non-IT degree is not directly related to the business, then all it tells us (your potential employer) is that you have an amount of stamina and focus. It's worth something vs. a dropout like me, but not as an indicator of knowledge or skill.

If you are moderately computer savvy, then breaking into the field in a seemingly unrelated entry level position is easier than you probably think; IT departments do a lot of internal cross hiring and promotions, and experienced people can perform any role in the department at a basic level of competence. Long gone are the days when you had a group of programmers, a group of admins, a group of DBAs, and so on. That model has been dying for a while, and although there are some monolithic holdouts, for the most part it's a dead system.

This means that you (yes, YOU!) can probably get a job very easily in the IT department, or a department related to it, and then work your way "over and up" to what you really want to do -- once you figure it out. Which is another beauty of the field. You get exposed to so much as you work that you can dabble in a lot of different things, and pursue the ones that are the most interesting. The first place to look are support departments, be that telephone support for software or desktop support for the non-technical staff (read: sales and management people). These jobs are usually annoying, but require no expert skill level, and the pay is not horrible.

From there you'll be exposed to a lot of different technologies and have plenty of opportunities to learn and grow your skills -- if you seize on them! If you find yourself visiting the same guys computer every day to fix the same problem, you find a way to prevent the problem -- or to fix it remotely. Tada, new skills. If you overhear one of them complaining that they wish _______, you look into what you can do to make it happen. If everything is running smoothly you'll find yourself with plenty of time to do things like watch youtube videos and post on them thar internet forums -- don't do it! Use that time to find and solve other problems. Not because you're gunning for worker of the month and a worthless plaque, but because for most of us in this field, we only really learn new things when we're solving problems. Real problems.

After a year or two in that sort of environment, you should have developed the skills required to do at least one other job at a basic to intermediate level of competency, and then it's time to decide if you're happy where you are, or if you want to change departments (or even companies). The first year is the hardest. It's difficult to break into the field through the front door, and you'll spend a lot of time doing busy work that you think is stupid, and dealing with stupid requests. At all costs resist the urge to look either annoyed or complacent. Don't huff and puff that Bob has asked you to refill the paper in his printer 50 times if that's your job, or that Brenda can't keep the viruses off her computer. Do the jobs with a smile, and LEARN while you're at it.

Network, network, network! The face to face kind and the linkedin kind, not the facebook or ethernet kind. Develop contacts. Make friends. Find people who can teach you stuff, and whom you can impress with how quickly you pick up what they're throwing down.

I started out doing exactly this kind of stuff, and today, I consider myself very successful and am proud of that success. It was easier to break in when I started than it is today, but believe me, it's not impossible. We just fired a guy a few weeks ago because he just "couldn't cut it". Not because what we were asking him to do was hard, but it just wasn't sinking in, and he was unable to solve problems on his own or follow instructions unless they were laid out explicitly step by step -- it takes longer to write the instructions down than for me to do them, so if he's not figuring things out on his own after a while, it's not going to work out.

Hope this wasn't too long, and hope it was somewhat useful. If it was too short, believe me, I can expound. ;)