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

[StatGuy2000]

Was it like that in oil and gas?

The main jobs are in oil and gas, nuclear weapon design, and finance. Does that apply to astrophysicists or just physicists in general? Geo, bio or otherwise. ("hundreds of different jobs...different skills...unique")

On that note, if there's anyone who knows people with biophysics, oceanographic physics (Woods Hole looks like a cool place) or geophysics backgrounds, what kind of academia-exit opportunities do these people have?

How big are these industries? What happens when there's more physics PhDs than jobs? New fields or nothing at all? Nobody knows?
Cool.

Obviously twofish-quant is better placed to answer this, but I suspect that when he stated that the main employers of PhD physicists are oil and gas, defense, and finance, he was primarily referring to theoretical physics (primarily astrophysics, but also including computational physics, particle physics, etc.). He can correct me if I'm mistaken about this.

In addition, I would suspect that oil and gas firms will also tend to hire many geophysicists for work in, say, oil & gas exploration, and possibly other related areas.

 

[twofish-quant]

What's the bottom line, then?

The bottom line is that reality is complicated, and you have to decide how to run your life.

Suppose I am an ordinary student in the middle of the distribution curve. Should I pursue a phd, or not? Clearly the probability that I'll become a professor is small, but will I at least be able to find reasonable employment?

I can say that neither I nor anyone that I know of has ever had problems finding "reasonable" employment. One problem is that other people have different experiences, and who knows what the future holds?

 

[twofish-quant]

Was it like that in oil and gas?

Crunching numbers.

The main jobs are in oil and gas, nuclear weapon design, and finance. Does that apply to astrophysicists or just physicists in general? Geo, bio or otherwise. ("hundreds of different jobs...different skills...unique")

computational astrophysics.

One interesting aspect of nuclear weapons design is that there is apparently a lot of "on the job training." For example, if you design cars, there is an expectation by your employer that you'll know a lot about how to design cars before you get hired. Nuclear weapons work differently. There is a lot of interesting engineering (so I've been told) that goes into making a hydrogen bomb, but for some reason, the people that make the bombs would prefer that the engineering involved isn't well known.

How big are these industries? What happens when there's more physics PhDs than jobs?

Big. Enough to make physics Ph.D.'s a rounding error.



New fields or nothing at all? Nobody knows?
Cool.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ai52487963]

Master in astrophysics from a top-tier British uni (US citizenship) here. The only jobs applicable to my area of research (correlation statistics) are programming jobs. Since I never learned about linked lists or bit manipulation, I can't get a job anywhere close to home.

I'm either looking at entry-level jobs with currently enrolled students doing internships at insulting pay rates for my education level, or working for 5 years as a developer doing stuff I'm not totally qualified to do.

As someone who has been actively looking and had my dream job pass me by only a week ago, you're not getting a good job with long-term prospects for growth unless you have a PhD from a top-10 school. Even then, you're looking at needing at least a BS in computer science to even come close to the requirements for entry-level positions in the programming world. So if you're an experimentalist, great! You can work at Sandia or some thin-film company doing fun stuff like that. But if you're a theorist with 'only' an MSc, you're toast.

What's the bottom line, then?

Suppose I am an ordinary student in the middle of the distribution curve. Should I pursue a phd, or not? Clearly the probability that I'll become a professor is small, but will I at least be able to find reasonable employment?

You won't be able to pursue a phd from the middle of the curve. I mean that in the sense of a non-god-tier phd, your job prospects are going to be infinitely less fruitful then someone with a phd from tier-1 schools. Even non-top-tier phd programs will pass over middle-ground kids. You'll be fighting 600 people for 13 positions at places like Stanford. So unless you're in the 98th percentile for the standard GRE, the physics GRE, GPA, have letters of recommendation from the head of your department, and at least a publication your realistic chances at a phd that you can use, your prospects for a promising postdoc are basically zero.

I feel like the path of a middle-of-the-road student in CS is much more lucrative than a student in physics for entry-level jobs.

 

[twofish-quant]

As someone who has been actively looking and had my dream job pass me by only a week ago, you're not getting a good job with long-term prospects for growth unless you have a PhD from a top-10 school.

One thing is that what schools qualify as "top-10" is subjective. There are a ton of physics Ph.D.'s from University of Texas at Austin working in investment banking, and one thing that I found that was a pleasant surprise was that UT Austin has a very good reputation among recruiters in NYC.

Something else that I've found interesting is that there are a lot of MIT astrophysics people here, but no one from Harvard or Princeton physics. Lots of Princeton CS people. Most of the people that I know of with physics Ph.D.'s in finance come from the big public schools (i.e. Berkeley, UIUC, Virginia, etc.) and I know of people from small schools.

I do think that that there is a network effect. One reason I got interested in finance was because I know some classmates that got the job. Curiously, I didn't get any direct help from them, but "if they can do it so can I" helped me a lot.

You won't be able to pursue a phd from the middle of the curve. I mean that in the sense of a non-god-tier phd, your job prospects are going to be infinitely less fruitful then someone with a phd from tier-1 schools.

I think this is very place dependent. One thing that helps you a lot for some jobs is that it's a "second choice." In investment banking, the place is crawling with Harvard MBA's, but no Harvard physics Ph.D.'s. One theory I have is that this is because Harvard people get their first choice.

Also this is US. I do get the sense that UK is *much* more school centric than the US. One thing that makes a difference is that historically, a lot of people in US banking were people with no formal schooling that just got off the boat.

 

[chill_factor]

UT Austin is a top tier school, at the level of at least UCLA if not higher, and I'd love to go to UCLA, but I can't, and going to UT Austin is a pipe dream. And yes, UT Austin is top 10 in my field.

The big state schools you mentioned are all top tier schools. Its not like the difference between MIT and Caltech and some obsessed guys will cry if they got into MIT instead of Caltech. Its the difference between New Mexico Tech and UCLA.

 

[Astro_Dude]

I'm quite late to this discussion, but if you want another story of the abysmal market for physics/astrophysics PhDs, here's my story:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=505903

 

[spamctor]

I'm quite late to this discussion, but if you want another story of the abysmal market for physics/astrophysics PhDs, here's my story:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=505903

If you don't mind me asking, how is your situation now?

 

[Astronuc]

I changed the title to "Why do some think that the job market for physics majors is terrible?"

Everyone doesn't think the market is terrible. Some do quite well, in fact, while others face poor or dysmal prospects, and everything in between.

 

[Locrian]

I changed the title to "Why do some think that the job market for physics majors is terrible?"

Everyone doesn't think the market is terrible. Some do quite well, in fact, while others face poor or dysmal prospects, and everything in between.

A surprising choice. It's more common to disagree with someone, rather than altering what they wrote. I've seen a lot of incorrect things posted (a few from me, over the years), but can't remember an admin correcting them via direct edit.

Maybe I just haven't noticed? Policy changed? Or did this particular error cross some line?

I agree that the original title was impossible, but assumed it was intentional hyperbole.