Why do some think that the job market for physics majors is terrible?

[camjohn]

Found another resource from BLS: http://www.bls.gov/k12/math04.htm

Average overall salary of 106,000, which is way above average. The growth in demand for physicists is also expected to be faster than average.

 

[daveyrocket]

You have to be careful with numbers like that. That's the average salary of people *employed* as physicists. That's only useful if you can find work as a physicist.

From that same site, it says that there are about 15,600 total physicist jobs (not job openings). About 1500 PhDs are awarded each year, which means that for those PhDs to find jobs as physicist, 10% of the people already working in the field would have to retire/quit the field entirely *every year*. A physicist moving from one physicist job to another doesn't count since he isn't creating an opening for a PhD graduate. I really don't think that the turnover for the field as a whole is anywhere near that. So most physics PhDs don't find work as physicists.

 

[chill_factor]

But you know - literature degree requires a lot (and I mean a lot) of reading. It's not any easier than a science degree because workload is huge.

Still - if you work hard and get nth you can get bitter.

From my point of view Americans are interesting and strange nation. Many people in this forum had no idea that there are no jobs in academia and or in industry for theoretical physicists even through it's obvious for every high schooler in my country. It's about networking and connections too. You seem to believe that what politicians say is true too.

Why are you so... naive I guess?

I am not rude I am just curious.

That's why I'm not doing theoretical physics. I have a pretty employable BS degree so I have a relatively safe backup in case things don't work out. It is working out so far in school though.

I have no idea why people want to do theoretical physics. I don't know why people are so idealistic about their job prospects in theoretical physics. They *should* know better, but they don't.

The competition in physics is far greater than in any other science. You work harder for lower chances and less reward for a longer period of time.

UCLA for instance admits only 20% of physics graduate applicants, who are already self selecting. They admit almost 60% of mechanical engineers and almost 50% of chemists for their graduate degrees. PHD chemists and mechanical engineers almost *CERTAINLY* will have a much higher chance of working in their respective fields and making good money than physicists.

 

[SophusLies]

I have no idea why people want to do theoretical physics. I don't know why people are so idealistic about their job prospects in theoretical physics. They *should* know better, but they don't.

Because not all theoretical physics is the same. I'm doing AMO theory for my PhD and even though I haven't started much (any?) of my research I have a pretty good idea of what my work is going to entail. Some paper and pencil work but then a ridiculous amount of coding. I really think of the theoretical stuff I will be doing is just experimental work with a computer, aka computational physics. We're not talking string theory here, lol.

 

[chill_factor]

Because not all theoretical physics is the same. I'm doing AMO theory for my PhD and even though I haven't started much (any?) of my research I have a pretty good idea of what my work is going to entail. Some paper and pencil work but then a ridiculous amount of coding. I really think of the theoretical stuff I will be doing is just experimental work with a computer, aka computational physics. We're not talking string theory here, lol.

I'd still say that's more theoretical than other fields. Computational is fine, but on what subject? Not all subjects to be computed are the same. Computing stuff that companies pay for (finance, protein-drug interactions, CFD, etc) is different in terms of interpreting the code and background knowledge than say, laser interactions with low temperature alkali metal gases or black holes.

You might be able to do both. Or you might not. There's different methods used in computing different things. Molecular mechanics vs. DFT for instance.

So if you take the risk of computing stuff that people don't pay for, and don't know how to switch out, what do you do? Big Pharma used to hire chemists to do computational biology work and drug discovery, not physicists, why? If the *computational* part was the most important (as opposed to results interpretation) why not hire all physicists, or even better, computer scientists?

You might be able to jump around different computational fields, that's true. But is everyone or even more than half smart enough to?

 

[Rika]

I doesn't like present culture of academia either, and I am not saying what you write is nonsense. I just think you are too much practical, too much "common sense". And I believe I have seen some well-meaning people to act in the name of practicality and common sense and cause quite tragic consequences.

What do you mean by that?

I have no idea why people want to do theoretical physics.

I wanted to do pen and paper theoretical physics because I have anti-talent for programming and I am too clumsy to do an experiment :P

I had an idea that this kind of job is about "creating new stuff on paper" but it's not like that :P

Now I have a job where I do "creating new stuff on a paper" but implementation is most important process.

UCLA for instance admits only 20% of physics graduate applicants, who are already self selecting. They admit almost 60% of mechanical engineers and almost 50% of chemists for their graduate degrees. PHD chemists and mechanical engineers almost *CERTAINLY* will have a much higher chance of working in their respective fields and making good money than physicists.

Engineering is cool in one way - even if you do pen and paper work - I mean a design, you have a chance to confront your ideas with reality while in theoretical physics it's not always possible.

Most of my physics peers ended up in various engineering fields, programming, teaching or medical physics.

Another strange thing about Americans - even through they make a war all round the world most american physicists think that working on weapons is immoral while I think that's one of most interesting and exciting job that physicists can have.

 

[chill_factor]

I wanted to do pen and paper theoretical physics because I have anti-talent for programming and I am too clumsy to do an experiment :P

I had an idea that this kind of job is about "creating new stuff on paper" but it's not like that :P

Now I have a job where I do "creating new stuff on a paper" but implementation is most important process.

I think there's extremes between "programming everything yourself" and "pen/paper only".

a lot of the science and engineering software is written already. You just need to know how to use it. That's why mechanical engineers use SolidWorks and chemists use TurboMole, they're tools (like screwdrivers or hammers) that you use in science.

Just as its not realistic to ask every user of a screwdriver to create a steel foundry and manufacture the screwdriver themselves, there's lots of jobs that involve USING scientific software, but not necessarily programming it.

 

[camjohn]

You have to be careful with numbers like that. That's the average salary of people *employed* as physicists. That's only useful if you can find work as a physicist.

From that same site, it says that there are about 15,600 total physicist jobs (not job openings). About 1500 PhDs are awarded each year, which means that for those PhDs to find jobs as physicist, 10% of the people already working in the field would have to retire/quit the field entirely *every year*. A physicist moving from one physicist job to another doesn't count since he isn't creating an opening for a PhD graduate. I really don't think that the turnover for the field as a whole is anywhere near that. So most physics PhDs don't find work as physicists.

I don't know about that last part. If the unemplyoment rate is roughly 4% amongst PhD physicists (last time I checked), and most (I'm assuming you mean at least 51%) of PhD level physicsits don't work directly in a physics related field, that means that at least 47% of PhD level physicists find work in the financial market or some other non physics related field. That sounds hard to believe.

 

[ParticleGrl]

don't know about that last part. If the unemplyoment rate is roughly 4% amongst PhD physicists (last time I checked), and most (I'm assuming you mean at least 51%) of PhD level physicsits don't work directly in a physics related field, that means that at least 47% of PhD level physicists find work in the financial market or some other non physics related field. That sounds hard to believe.

Well, what other conclusion can you come to from those numbers? What would you estimate is a sensible retirement rate for physicists? And its not just finance, I know physics phds who work in IT, who work as actuaries, who work as programmers, who work in management consulting, who work in insurance, etc. However, I don't know very many physics phds who work as physicists.

Its not at all hard to believe if you are actually familiar with the job markets in question. Its also the answer to your question- as I noted. The reason people say the job market is bad is that they are thinking about the 'out of the field rate' not the unemployment rate. The out of the field rate for physicists is very, very high.

I went to a top school for my phd, and most of my cohort are moving out of their first postdocs right now. About 10% have somewhat stable private-industry physics jobs, just under 70% have left the field (myself included, I do analytics for an insurance company), and the rest are in second postdocs now. This is a small sample (one cohort at one good school) but it makes it easy for me to believe the BLS numbers.

If I expand to physics phds I know, instead of just looking at my cohort, my sample gets even more skew toward out-of-the-field because I did my phd in high energy theory. No high energy physicist that I know has a private-industry physics job. Most left the field, the rest are looking for academic work.

 

[camjohn]

There weren't any defintie numbers that lead to my conclusion; the whole point of my last post was that I found it unlikely for it to be true that "most physicists," don't work in the field because it would entail at least 47% of physicists working in the financial market. I guess that that isn't such a bold statement from what you're telling me. But it is important to keep in mind that experience with job market varies not only from person to person, but even school to school. It's very hard to have an accurate predictive indicator of the job market from just one person, but the fact that 70% of your particle physicists colleagues left the field is certainly intimidating.

I would have thought that particle physicists would be among the most employed fields of physics due to its applicability, research, and appeal to investors. Is this the way it is for most particle physics? Isn't high energy physics among the more applied of the fields of physics?

 

[twofish-quant]

Chemists are less bitter because they used to have a professional career path. Chemist in industry for a few years, go back to grad school or go directly if you're good, get a MS/PHD, work for a few years, take up leadership or research position. Ever since 2007 this career path no longer worked, chemists got laid off in huge numbers, and they're bitter.

Same with physicists although the crash happened in the 1970's. Something that you can feel at MIT is the resentment among physicists and mathematicians that the biologists and management people are running the place.

One reason that I've been bitter was that I was raised in the 1980's when people were making a strong effort to recruit young people into science to fight the cold war. It *really* changes your world view when you get invited to the White House as a teenager with the President of the United States telling you who wonderful it is that you are becoming a future scientist, and then the home town papers putting your picture in the front page (local boy meets President). My youth was spent in that sort of environment: science fairs, talent searches. You put someone through that, and then at age 30, whoops, we didn't mean any of that...

On the other hand, one problem is that I still believe that science and technology remains the only real way of having long term economic growth. So I really can't tell young people to "reject science" since I really believe that we would be better off with a nation of scientists and engineers than a nation of lawyers or for that matter investment bankers.

All the math guys I know straight up said they were doing it to get into finance.

Which worries me since I see this "well here we go again." One thing that I try to make very, very, very clear to anyone that isn't getting their Ph.D. in the next year is *do not expect a job on Wall Street*. If everyone expects a job in finance, then we'll get flooded.

How do deal with this "flooding" issue is pretty hard. One thing that I think has helped is to be flexible. Another thing is to "think deeply about what's wrong."

 

[ParticleGrl]

. But it is important to keep in mind that experience with job market varies not only from person to person, but even school to school.

More importantly, it varies field to field. Physics is a broad discipline.

the fact that 70% of your particle physicists colleagues left the field is certainly intimidating.

Let me be clear- 70% of people who were in my "class" in graduate school have left physics ALREADY (class here is loosely defined to be the group of people I took classes with at the beginning of graduate school). Many more will once their second postdoc runs out. Thats across many fields, but is clustered in condensed matter and particle physics. In particle physics (where my personal sample is much larger and spans many schools) its much higher (almost 85%).

I would have thought that particle physicists would be among the most employed fields of physics due to its applicability, research, and appeal to investors. Is this the way it is for most particle physics? Isn't high energy physics among the more applied of the fields of physics?

Its hard for sarcasm to come across well in an internet posting, and regardless, this isn't the best place for it. In case you are being serious- no, obviously high energy is not particularly applied.

However, my graduate school class contained many condensed matter physicists who have moved on to different things. In a sample of 18 experimental condensed matter physicists 4 got jobs in the semi-conductor industry, 1 is working with a defense contractor, 5 are in postdocs, and the rest are out of the field. So, thus far slightly more than half are still in the field, but statistically, a chunk of those postdocs are going to leave the field in another year or two.

Its worth pointing out thought, in lieu of your low-unemployment number- none of us where ever unemployed. I hit a low point at the height of the economic crisis where bartending (and I'm not the only physics phd I know who spent some transition time in the service industry) was the most lucrative thing I could find, but I was still working.

 

[twofish-quant]

Computing stuff that companies pay for (finance, protein-drug interactions, CFD, etc) is different in terms of interpreting the code and background knowledge than say, laser interactions with low temperature alkali metal gases or black holes.

In finance it isn't, and in large part it has to do with the tail wagging the dog. There are so many astrophysicists on Wall Street, that the simulations and numerical techniques that people use come from astrophysics, because that's what people are familiar with. Once you have a lot of astrophysicists in finance, then people start talking about financial problems in astrophysical language.

The other thing is that "it's who you know not what you know." If you are in computational astrophysics, you can easily find someone that will tell you step-by-step about to do to get a Wall Street job, and the odds are that you are going to be interviewed by another astrophysics Ph.D. that will quiz you on black hole theory.

For someone trying to break into biomedical research, I have no idea where to even begin.

It's like Chinatown. Lots of Chinese people end up around Canal Street, because if you are Chinese, you have a buffer that gets you into the US. In most investment banks, there are "physics towns" that are sort of like ethnic communities.

Now it would be nice if there were these sorts of colonies in other fields.

So if you take the risk of computing stuff that people don't pay for, and don't know how to switch out, what do you do? Big Pharma used to hire chemists to do computational biology work and drug discovery, not physicists, why? If the *computational* part was the most important (as opposed to results interpretation) why not hire all physicists, or even better, computer scientists?

Because the human networks aren't there. It's not that hard for an astrophysicist to get a job on Wall Street or in a big oil company, because the people making a lot of the hiring decisions are also astrophysicists.

You might be able to jump around different computational fields, that's true. But is everyone or even more than half smart enough to?

It's less a matter of intelligence than personality. It's *really* scary and painful to switch fields. There's also the matter of having infrastructure in place so that you can switch fields.

 

[twofish-quant]

I found it unlikely for it to be true that "most physicists," don't work in the field because it would entail at least 47% of physicists working in the financial market.

Based on where people I know ended up, I don't consider that to be unbelievable at least for computational theorists.

But it is important to keep in mind that experience with job market varies not only from person to person, but even school to school. It's very hard to have an accurate predictive indicator of the job market from just one person, but the fact that 70% of your particle physicists colleagues left the field is certainly intimidating.

It's actually not. I didn't have that much trouble getting a job outside of physics. The big problem that I had was the nagging feeling that I was a "loser" and a "failure." If the point had been made more clear that there wasn't that much chance of me getting a tenured faculty position, then I would have felt a lot better.

I think the biggest piece of advice I can give people entering the field is to have a better sense of what "normal" is. The one big regret that I have was that I was so upset after I got my Ph.D. that I let my research network grow cold. If I had known that it was "normal" to not get a faculty position after getting a Ph.D., I would have been able to continue to do some research at a low level. The main reason I didn't was again psychological. Being around full-time scientists made me feel even more like a failure.

I would have thought that particle physicists would be among the most employed fields of physics due to its applicability, research, and appeal to investors.

Everything needs to be sold. There's also a status inversion. In academia, theory > computational > experimental. In industry it works the other way. experimental > computational > theory. One thing that's funny is that in some industries, it's an insult to call someone an "academic".

If you are an ivory-tower string theorist, it's amazingly difficult to find work, whereas if you are doing statistical processing of experimental results, it's pretty easy.

 

[twofish-quant]

Found another resource from BLS: http://www.bls.gov/k12/math04.htm

Average overall salary of 106,000, which is way above average. The growth in demand for physicists is also expected to be faster than average.

One thing that's a laugh is to read job projection statistics from the past. Bureau of Labor Statistics is just guessing, and the notion that there is going to be a "growth in demand" for physicists seems to be totally absurd and out of touch with reality. The demand for physicists correlates very strongly with government funding for physics, and I don't see any sign that that is going up.

The fact that it's in a website designed for kids makes this alarming.

 

[twofish-quant]

Let me be clear- 70% of people who were in my "class" in graduate school have left physics ALREADY (class here is loosely defined to be the group of people I took classes with at the beginning of graduate school). Many more will once their second postdoc runs out. Thats across many fields, but is clustered in condensed matter and particle physics. In particle physics (where my personal sample is much larger and spans many schools) its much higher (almost 85%).

That's pretty much what I have seen in astrophysics. One interesting thing is looking at historical rates. Something that surprised me was that in the late-1980's there was a burst of hiring for astronomers, and about half the Ph.D.'s in my university that graduated in the late-1980's ended up with faculty positions, so when people were talking about the new jobs in the field in 1990, they weren't making it up.

However, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, that hit astrophysics hard.

One other thing that has changed things is the internet. In 1990, if you left the field, no one every heard from you again. If the National Science Foundation issued a report talking about new physics hiring, there was no way for people to say "utter nonsense." Same with Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Today, the internet doesn't allow people to disappear. I think that has a lot to do with it since the idea that there was a demand for physicists died around the time people really got into social networking.

Its worth pointing out thought, in lieu of your low-unemployment number- none of us where ever unemployed. I hit a low point at the height of the economic crisis where bartending (and I'm not the only physics phd I know who spent some transition time in the service industry) was the most lucrative thing I could find, but I was still working.

That matches what I've seen. I've known physics Ph.D.'s that were underemployed, but none that were unemployed. Also whether or not astrophysics Ph.D.'s are employed in "physics" is a hard question. There are a lot of "backdoor researchers" in astrophysics. The way this works is that someone gets hired by a university as an IT technician to manage the computer network. But if he attends research seminars and writes papers, no one objects. For that matter if I called myself an "econophysicist" (and there are journals on this), no one I know would object.

The other thing that I've seen is that if you have a company in which lots of people have Ph.D.'s, the people with doctorates tend to be the last people to be laid off (which can cause a lot of resentment among people without Ph.D.'s).

 

[FroChro]

What do you mean by that?

When you try to solve a complex problem using a method that is too simple, you usually get a wrong answer. The problem is that if you are unaware of the fact that the method was inadequate you believe the answer is right until it is too late. Moreover, practical "common-sense" people often tend not to question their method as long as it works.

You also can't ignore the fact, that great deal of progress in human culture (including science and therefore progress in technology) was most probably due to impractical endeavor.

I agree that thinking practically is often good, but I think there is a threshold beyond which it is no longer true. In recent decades I think the emphasis on practicality was greater than before. I don't know how much of a factor it has played, but we see crisis of the system now. One may wonder if it is not time to question the attitude.

 

[Rika]

When you try to solve a complex problem using a method that is too simple, you usually get a wrong answer.

The key is to keep stuff simple. If complex stuff gets too complex it means it's wrong.

If you can't handle keeping things simple, you won't handle complex things.

The most beautiful thing in the world is simplicity or to use better word for that - synthesis.

Moreover, practical "common-sense" people often tend not to question their method as long as it works.

It's not like "common sense" means that you are an idiot who lacks creativity and imagination. I have no idea what kind of "common sense" people did you meet but because I am "common sense" in life I have a job in which I can do "not so common sense" stuff.

You also can't ignore the fact, that great deal of progress in human culture (including science and therefore progress in technology) was most probably due to impractical endeavor.

This progress was also made by "common sense" people useing "common sense" methods.

I agree that thinking practically is often good, but I think there is a threshold beyond which it is no longer true. In recent decades I think the emphasis on practicality was greater than before. I don't know how much of a factor it has played, but we see crisis of the system now. One may wonder if it is not time to question the attitude.

It seems that we define "common sense" and "practical" in very different way.

For me "practical skill" is a skill or knowledge that can be used on a job - even string theorists have those kind of skills. You can only get them by doing research not tests and it doesn't make you skilled monkey.

I agree that "skilled monkey" education style is not good but it's not what I am talking about.

 

[FroChro]

The key is to keep stuff simple. If complex stuff gets too complex it means it's wrong.

If you can't handle keeping things simple, you won't handle complex things.

The most beautiful thing in the world is simplicity or to use better word for that - synthesis.

But, for example, you can't reasonably describe black holes using only Newtonian physics.

"The key is to keep stuff as simple as possible, but no simpler" - paraphrasing a quote attributed to Einstein.

It's not like "common sense" means that you are an idiot who lacks creativity and imagination. I have no idea what kind of "common sense" people did you meet but because I am "common sense" in life I have a job in which I can do "not so common sense" stuff.

I never meant to sound like I disregard a common sense or that I think it is a somehow restrictive skill. Just that sometimes people use it inappropriately when they oversimplify the problem they are solving.

It seems that we define "common sense" and "practical" in very different way.

For me "practical skill" is a skill or knowledge that can be used on a job -

I was referring to something more like a mindset. Thinking about why apples do fall on the ground, what the morality is, or how does a consciousness arise just for curiosity or fun is surely not practical, yet results probably may be used on some kind of a job.

 

[Locrian]

Nah, there's more than just those two possibilities.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Totally out of line. You're saying I was either being sarcastic or stupid. I was being neither.

Then your problem is that you are confusing "applied" with "experimental".

Science that is experimental is concerned with taking measurements of something.

Science that is applied is concerned with making something that can be sold at a profit.

It should be pretty clear that high energy physics is definitely measuring things, but there is no clear path to make money from Higgs bosons or neutrinos.

 

[camjohn]

I deleted my last comment because I don't want this thread to get derailed onto some debate about the intentions of the comment to which I responded. If anyone wishes to comment on the topic of the thread, please do so.

 

[twofish-quant]

It should be pretty clear that high energy physics is definitely measuring things, but there is no clear path to make money from Higgs bosons or neutrinos.

Not true. There is a very clear path from "studying neutrinos" to "making tons of money"

 

[TMFKAN64]

Not true. There is a very clear path from "studying neutrinos" to "making tons of money"

You are putting words in my mouth... in particular, the word "studying".

No one doubts that there is money in studying neutrinos. Aside from direct grant money, the skills you can obtain are also quite valuable.

At this point in time, however, the neutrinos themselves cannot be monetized.

 

[Locrian]

Nah, there's more than just those two possibilities.

Btw, this wasn't a response to FroChro, it was a response to a post Camjohn ninja deleted.

Teach me not to use quote!

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Quant and ParticleGrl dominate every possible thread about the employment of physics that has ever been posted on this website. Just know that hearing about ParticleGrl's graduating class is in no way a representation of the entire field of physics, nor will it give you a good idea of what to look forward to in the future.

I also can't help but feel like people looking for legitimate information are no longer receiving the aforementioned information, but are only being fed the reiterated opinions and loose facts of two remorseful PhDs.

There are no medals for the Career Guidance section of this forum, and there is a reason for that; opinions do not matter. Some opinions (those of people who have been in a situation similar to the inquiree) are worth more than others, but statistical information will and always will be the only feasible source of information of which anyone should be trusting. Basing your future, your approach to academia, and your career off of the same two people who frequently voice their opinion is not healthy, nor do I see the reasoning behind their doing so.

I don't have a quarrel with either of them, but I do feel as if they unjustly dominate a section where opinion is naught, and statistics is not. I can't say that I saw any tangible sources of which either of them combatted the original poster, which is troubling, considering their influence in this section of the forum. If you disagree with him, that is by no means a bad thing, however, it is required that you have a firm basis and evidence for your opposing stance.

Please take this into consideration. Thank you.

 

[chill_factor]

the statistics may be biase d because the responders to the survey may be more likely to be already successful; those who are unsuccessful would be less likely to respond to surveys by the APS.

even in ACS, ok, all the chemists are laughing at their statistics because almost no one makes the "average salary".

 

[twofish-quant]

Quant and ParticleGrl dominate every possible thread about the employment of physics that has ever been posted on this website.

That should tell you something.

Personally, it would be *great* if you had very active posters from lots of different fields telling you about all of the different and wonderful jobs that you can get with a theoretical physics Ph.D.

I have a standing offer that if you are getting a physics Ph.D. in the next year or so, just shoot me a private message, and I can point you to people that are hiring. Now if there is someone else out there that can make this sort of offer, then ***great***. If there were a dozen people posting on this forum saying "yes we are hiring, here is who you should send your resume to!" then that would be really wonderful.

If you've got jobs, then let's hear about them... If you think that I'm being overly pessimistic and that physics majors are just dancing on air, then *great*. Where do I sign up.

Just know that hearing about ParticleGrl's graduating class is in no way a representation of the entire field of physics, nor will it give you a good idea of what to look forward to in the future.

The future never repeats the past, but learning about the past can tell you about the future.

Also the numbers are small enough so that no one is really "representative" but ParticleGrl and my experiences are pretty common. If they future is different, then that's wonderful. Personally part of the reason I post so much is to *change the future*. If you go into physics and then somehow society changes so that we are hiring physicists up and down, then *great*. If you have any ideas on how to make that happen, then I'm open to suggestions.

Some opinions (those of people who have been in a situation similar to the inquiree) are worth more than others, but statistical information will and always will be the only feasible source of information of which anyone should be trusting.

This is non-sense. Statistics can be bogus.

Statistics can be misleading, and then work badly with small diverse samples. One thing about talking to people is that you can see a lot of details about who is talking. If you look at me, and you think that "his experiences have nothing to do with me" then that's *great*.

One useful thing in physics is that you have situations in which statistics are useful, and situations in which they aren't. Statistical analysis of galaxies is useful. Statistical analysis of planetary moon systems isn't (yet).

Basing your future, your approach to academia, and your career off of the same two people who frequently voice their opinion is not healthy, nor do I see the reasoning behind their doing so.

Sure. And if there is someone with *different* views then they should speak up. If there is another field that's eating up physics majors that I don't know about, then *I'm* interested since I'd like to sent my own resume.

I can't say that I saw any tangible sources of which either of them combatted the original poster, which is troubling, considering their influence in this section of the forum. If you disagree with him, that is by no means a bad thing, however, it is required that you have a firm basis and evidence for your opposing stance.

My evidence is my life. I can tell you what I saw, what I think it means, and you can ask me questions about it. There is this weird phenomenon when people's first hand experiences are suddenly considered "unreliable" but somehow if someone quotes some random statistics of unknown providence, then suddenly it's hard evidence. Having live people is useful because you can cross-examine me, whereas you don't have this ability with the people that do the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

[twofish-quant]

the statistics may be biase d because the responders to the survey may be more likely to be already successful; those who are unsuccessful would be less likely to respond to surveys by the APS.

The annoying thing is that there are various techniques to quantify this bias. For example, you can ask questions that let you normalize the sample.

The other thing is that distribution matters a lot.

Getting good statistics and good survey information is really, really hard. When done well, statistics can be really useful, but when done badly, you end up with results that are worse than useless. One problem that you run into is that if you do experiments in CERN, you can be pretty sure that electrons in 2010 will behave the same way as those in 2012. This isn't true with jobs.

The other thing is that sometimes you are more interested in the outliers than the mean. I consider myself a bit unusual since I'm one of the few theorists my age that I know of that's pretty satisfied with getting an astrophysics Ph.D.

 

[chill_factor]

the mean is misleading because there could be say a bimodal distribution between millionaires and grinding poverty.