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

[camjohn]

I constantly (as in, on every post where the subject of employment comes up) hear people speaking with intense pessimism on the topic of employment. They act like physics is one of the worst fields in which to purse a major for either job stability or average annual salary. From a purely statistical point of view, this perspective is false. Physics has the twentieth lowest employment rate (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57324669/25-college-majors-with-lowest-unemployment-rates/) and the sixth highest average median salary (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html). That's why I'm trying to figure out what the cause of this discrepancy is. What do you guys think it is? Obviously the economy's bad, but physics majors do so much better than others I would think that they would feel better about the respective job opportunities by comparison. I think it might be resulting from the fact that so many physics majors are getting hired in the financial field.

 

[twofish-quant]

That's why I'm trying to figure out what the cause of this discrepancy is. What do you guys think it is?

I think it's because it's a bad economy for new hires. The statistics that you cite include graduates from years past, which may be of little/no relevance for people entering the workforce, and even less relevance to people in school right now.

The problem with physics is that when times are bad, people are looking for exactly the right skill. If you have a five EE positions and two EE applicants, then people will look for non-EE people. If you have two EE positions and five EE applicants, then the physics major is going to get their resume cut at the first round. This helped me a lot, because I got out of school in the middle of the dot-com boom when companies were hiring people almost at random to be computer programmers.

Also there it's relative. It may be the physics people find it easier to get jobs than Russian literature majors, but if the whole economy is bad, then it's going to be a tough slog.

Obviously the economy's bad, but physics majors do so much better than others I would think that they would feel better about the respective job opportunities by comparison.

Either you get a job or you don't. Strangely enough, statistics that show that people similar to you are getting jobs can make people feel a lot worse. If people with degree X are getting jobs, and you have degree X but aren't, then you start wondering what's wrong with you.

I think it might be resulting from the fact that so many physics majors are getting hired in the financial field.

One thing about jobs in finance is that the ones that I know about require a physics Ph.D. A bachelor degree (in anything) or a masters in physics will not be considered at all. I know of several physics bachelors that got into management consulting (i.e. McKinsey), but in that field (unlike Ph.D.'s), the "brand name" of the school matters a lot, since the consulting firms use it to sell their services.

Also were hired is different than are being hired.

 

[ParticleGrl]

constantly (as in, on every post where the subject of employment comes up) hear people speaking with intense pessimism on the topic of employment. They act like physics is one of the worst fields in which to purse a major for either job stability or average annual salary.

I think you are confusing different things. Physics is an awful FIELD IN WHICH TO PURSUE EMPLOYMENT, and generally when people talk about the physics job market they are talking about the market for work doing physics. Its a fine field to major in (or even get your phd in) as long as you realize you probably won't be doing physics for a living afterwards.

The majority of my physics undergrad class got phds in order to try for a job doing physics (as did I). After a decade of preparation its a bit of a kick in the teeth to be forced out of the field due to lack of opportunity. Yes, I make good money now and the work isn't that bad but I had to leave physics to make it happen (and the same is true for nearly everyone with a physics phd that I know).

Physics has the twentieth lowest employment rate (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...loyment-rates/ )

How are those numbers calculated? Most of the physics majors from my college went to grad school (18 out of 22) which means the unemployment numbers for recent graduates might be a bit skewed- a 4% unemployment rate for my class would have implied 1 of the 4 people actually entering the job market can't find work.

the sixth highest average median salary (http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...Back-sort.html )

Right- physics is a fine subject to major in BUT you have to remember you probably won't be working in physics.

 

[SophusLies]

I did fine with my physics and math degrees. I did actually work in physics (computational) right after I graduated but I still didn't get to truly do any physics. I debugged code, analyzed some equations, tested software, etc. The PhD's were the ones actually deriving equations. That's why I'm back in grad school, I want to learn more and get a more advanced job.

Just as long as you grab some hard skills (engineering, programming, non-awkward communication skills that physics majors usually have) you'll succeed in the job market. That is true for any major

 

[twofish-quant]

I did fine with my physics and math degrees. I did actually work in physics (computational) right after I graduated but I still didn't get to truly do any physics.

The other thing is that my definition of "doing physics" is pretty flexible. I'm doing pretty much the same work that I did in graduate school, except instead of debugging nasty PDE code modelling neutrino transfer trying to see what makes the system go boom, I'm debugging nasty PDE code modelling financial markets trying to see what makes the system go boom.

One of the longer term shifts in the economy has been that we moved from a manufacturing economy to a service based one, so it makes sense that there are fewer jobs involving applying PDE's to manufacturing and more involving applying PDE's to services. The problem with *defining* physics in a way that applies only to manufacturing is that it ties physics to the economy of 1955 rather than the economy of 2015.

The more I think about it, the less sense a restrictive definition of "doing physics" makes sense.

Just as long as you grab some hard skills (engineering, programming, non-awkward communication skills that physics majors usually have) you'll succeed in the job market. That is true for any major

However, this is easier said than done. There are a ton of pressures that encourage people to not get the skills that would be useful in the job market. Some of these are psychological and cultural, and really make no sense once you are on the outside.

There was (and to some extent still is) part of my that feels "inferior" because I do computational stuff rather than abstract pencil and paper methods to solve problems. Physics has a very "macho" culture and doing things with a computer rather than pure thought is less "macho."

 

[Mépris]

There's more and more people going to college. Just about everyone who could graduate from high school goes to college over here. The local U (not in the US) is pretty cheap, which makes it possible for anyone who's got the grades to get a degree. Or at the very least, have a crack at earning one. There's also lots of "cash cow colleges" that have been popping up and in general, if you got the money, you got a seat.

There's more grads than grad jobs to go around, which means that some people don't find work and most don't necessarily find the kind of work they'd have liked.

Now, what's interesting to note is that it's not very hard to graduate with a BA. Good exam technique and "easy degrees" can take you far. At least as far as graduation. What I've noticed is that the majority of people go through the motions of getting the degree and complaining that they can't find work.

There is, however, a few persons who knew the right people right off the bat or who networked like crazy, to find some additional internships/experience and then a job.

What we concluded (was discussing this with a friend) is that had you been able to get job if you were to have graduate in 1990, you could probably still get one now. Sure there's more people with degree to go around, but only so much of those who'd be good job candidates. There's that and luck. Everything could fall apart if you're not lucky enough.

It's a little like the perceived selectivity of top colleges. If one would have gotten into say, Princeton, 20 years ago, it's likely that they'd still get in now. I'd hazard a guess that a few who would've don't and a few who wouldn't have before still do, but those exceptions aside, things haven't changed much. There's still about 1500 places. Just around 20 times more people applying. It's easy to apply. What with the online apps and everything. So, more people apply.

 

[Mr. College]

There's always work for a scientist, just don't expect to get paid for it!

also from my point of view, there is always a need for Introductory College physics, what they call Physics B in the world of advanced placement and it's equivalent to non-majors physics for medicine majors, so long as everyone wants to go to medical school and people want to become engineers, physics majors will be needed to teach these people. Hell, I know a guy at a community college teaching physics and he doesn't even have a master's degree. Some of the people in the class have the equivalent degree he has.

Finding a job you want is about knowledge and opportunity. Just like the gent said during the dot-com boom, great need allows employers to overlook skills and experience. If they need you, short of embezzling money from your previous employer, in some situations a job is only an application away. In the terms of the economic powerhouses that crumpled the America economy the average Joe becomes "too big too fail" so to speak.

 

[pi-r8]

Why? What job does it prepare you for? Learning how to manipulate arcane 200-year-old equations is not the sort of thing that anyone will pay you for. It's such a small, niche field that most hiring managers will have no idea what to make of it. Career wise it's not that different from majoring in philosophy or poetry.

I really think the only reason the unemployment rate is lower than average is that physics majors are, frankly, much smarter and harder working than average (and also tend to come from wealthier families). That's always a plus, but it's something you'll have regardless of what you major in, or even if you don't go to college at all.

I don't know ANYONE who majored in physics and got a job that actually used "physics knowledge". Same for people in math programs. Most people just drifted into graduate school because it was expected and it's not clear what else you're supposed to do.

Just as long as you grab some hard skills (engineering, programming, non-awkward communication skills that physics majors usually have) you'll succeed in the job market. That is true for any major

Heh, true, but those are all things NOT taught in a physics major. In mine we had ONE required English class, one optional programming class, and no engineering classes. Pretty much everything else was pencil-and-paper work. If you want to learn any of those things, you have to learn it on your own, outside of school.

 

[Mr. College]

Why? What job does it prepare you for? Learning how to manipulate arcane 200-year-old equations is not the sort of thing that anyone will pay you for. It's such a small, niche field that most hiring managers will have no idea what to make of it. Career wise it's not that different from majoring in philosophy or poetry.

I really think the only reason the unemployment rate is lower than average is that physics majors are, frankly, much smarter and harder working than average (and also tend to come from wealthier families). That's always a plus, but it's something you'll have regardless of what you major in, or even if you don't go to college at all.

I don't know ANYONE who majored in physics and got a job that actually used "physics knowledge". Same for people in math programs. Most people just drifted into graduate school because it was expected and it's not clear what else you're supposed to do.





Heh, true, but those are all things NOT taught in a physics major. In mine we had ONE required English class, one optional programming class, and no engineering classes. Pretty much everything else was pencil-and-paper work. If you want to learn any of those things, you have to learn it on your own, outside of school.

I like how you conveniently glossed over my post. Any degree holder of any subject always has a place in education, teach it again, after all we must properly indoctrinate the next generation :)

 

[twofish-quant]

What we concluded (was discussing this with a friend) is that had you been able to get job if you were to have graduate in 1990, you could probably still get one now.

That's definitely not true if you talk about 2000.

It's a little like the perceived selectivity of top colleges. If one would have gotten into say, Princeton, 20 years ago, it's likely that they'd still get in now.

I don't think this is true for MIT. It's not just that the number of applicants has gone up, but the *quality* of applicants has stayed constant or has actually improved. One conversation that I've been in when talking with alumni is the nervous question of whether we'd be admitted if we applied today.

This is something that you can test with SAT scores. ETS does a very good job of making it possible to do statistically valid comparisons from year to year, and one can look at the raw number of people getting a particular score, and my wager would be that the *raw number* of people getting say 750 on the SAT has increased from 1975 to now.

I'd hazard a guess that a few who would've don't and a few who wouldn't have before still do, but those exceptions aside, things haven't changed much. There's still about 1500 places. Just around 20 times more people applying. It's easy to apply. What with the online apps and everything. So, more people apply.

However, this makes things much more hellish if it turns out that the number of qualified applicants increases by a factor of 20.

 

[twofish-quant]

You have to be careful about generalizations on the internet. Statements that "no one will pay you to do..." or "I don't know anyone that ..." very quickly get trashed.

Learning how to manipulate arcane 200-year-old equations is not the sort of thing that anyone will pay you for.

Well, I get paid nicely for this sort of thing. There are some bad things about physics, but I do think that the standard physics undergraduate curriculum is pretty good.

Career wise it's not that different from majoring in philosophy or poetry.

Ummmm... No.

I don't know ANYONE who majored in physics and got a job that actually used "physics knowledge".

(raises hand)

Heh, true, but those are all things NOT taught in a physics major. In mine we had ONE required English class, one optional programming class, and no engineering classes. Pretty much everything else was pencil-and-paper work. If you want to learn any of those things, you have to learn it on your own, outside of school.

Sure. But that's good preparation for life. Personally, I think that anything that you *can* learn outside of the classroom shouldn't be taught within the classroom, and that required courses are generally a bad thing that ought to be minimized.

 

[chill_factor]

Why? What job does it prepare you for? Learning how to manipulate arcane 200-year-old equations is not the sort of thing that anyone will pay you for. It's such a small, niche field that most hiring managers will have no idea what to make of it. Career wise it's not that different from majoring in philosophy or poetry.

I really think the only reason the unemployment rate is lower than average is that physics majors are, frankly, much smarter and harder working than average (and also tend to come from wealthier families). That's always a plus, but it's something you'll have regardless of what you major in, or even if you don't go to college at all.

I don't know ANYONE who majored in physics and got a job that actually used "physics knowledge". Same for people in math programs. Most people just drifted into graduate school because it was expected and it's not clear what else you're supposed to do.
Heh, true, but those are all things NOT taught in a physics major. In mine we had ONE required English class, one optional programming class, and no engineering classes. Pretty much everything else was pencil-and-paper work. If you want to learn any of those things, you have to learn it on your own, outside of school.

I seriously feel that a lot of the stuff I'm learning is exactly as you said: manipulating 200 year old equations, instead of being at the forefront of technology and learning skills that can be put to immediate use. In addition, twofish was right about the "macho" culture of physics which I find a bit disturbing.

The research seems pretty fun. I'm currently reading up on very interesting phenomena in supramolecular assemblies and I'll be in the lab within a few weeks. However the classes are not interesting at all.

But now I'm thinking: is there a particular reason I should do this research in the physics department? Or am I better off in a department like chemistry or materials science?

 

[Rika]

There was (and to some extent still is) part of my that feels "inferior" because I do computational stuff rather than abstract pencil and paper methods to solve problems. Physics has a very "macho" culture and doing things with a computer rather than pure thought is less "macho."

That's so stupid. And another stupid stuff is that experimentalists are "inferior" to theorists. I really couldn't stand this "physics culture" stuff.The point is getting good job with BSc only is hard. So um yes - Physics degree at BSc level is as useful as Philosophy degree. It will learn you to think smart but it's not a degree that will give you skills.

Yes - you can learn skills on your own but sometimes it takes a lot of time and it's harder than learning with good guidance.

 

[chill_factor]

That's so stupid. And another stupid stuff is that experimentalists are "inferior" to theorists. I really couldn't stand this "physics culture" stuff.The point is getting good job with BSc only is hard. So um yes - Physics degree at BSc level is as useful as Philosophy degree. It will learn you to think smart but it's not a degree that will give you skills.

Yes - you can learn skills on your own but sometimes it takes a lot of time and it's harder than learning with good guidance.

I find the culture of physics highly disturbing and many peoples disregard for experimentalists even more disturbing. In my original field, experiment was the most important and theory was only important in that it guided experiment. If something cannot be verified by experiment even in principle, is it really science anymore?

Would you say a MS in physics just as useless as a MS in philosophy?

 

[Rika]

Would you say a MS in physics just as useless as a MS in philosophy?

It depends.

MS in my country it's valuable for two reasons:

1) With MS in Physics you can teach Physics at high school level (you can't do this with BSc only)

2) With MS in Medical Physics you can become Medical Physicist (it's different than US system)

For other reasons it's a waste of time and it's better to do MS in Engineering.

 

[twofish-quant]

That's so stupid. And another stupid stuff is that experimentalists are "inferior" to theorists. I really couldn't stand this "physics culture" stuff.

The trouble is that a lot of these sorts of attitudes are things which are opinions, and it's very hard to be in a closed society for your entire life without absorbing some of them. The other thing is that a lot of the attitudes are implicit rather than explicit.

For a lot of people, you've been trained since age five that you should be at the top of the class and that it's a terrible shame to be at the bottom. It's terribly difficult to overcome those sorts of attitudes especially when most of the people in your peer group share them.

There's also some basis for these sorts of attitudes. If you think of physics as a contest like professional weightlifting, then using a fork lift is "cheating."

 

[mayonaise]

There's also some basis for these sorts of attitudes. If you think of physics as a contest like professional weightlifting, then using a fork lift is "cheating."

If you're in engineering, then the fork lift would be an ingenious solution.
If you're in CS, and figured out you should instead run a warehouse business with the fork lift instead of going to contests, you're an entrepreneur.

In the Physics culture, if you graduate and end up doing things that are not Physics research, you're a failure. While in some other fields, you graduate and do something else, you'd be considered a success for being creative and adventurous. I love Physics; I hate the culture.

 

[Rika]

For a lot of people, you've been trained since age five that you should be at the top of the class and that it's a terrible shame to be at the bottom. It's terribly difficult to overcome those sorts of attitudes especially when most of the people in your peer group share them.

Maybe that's the reason why I have felt like an alien among many of my peers.

All of those guys were the type that you have described - obssesed with grades, meaningless tests and the most prestigious schools.

I have felt really sorry for them because if you believe that getting 90% on test makes you smarter than someone who got 60% then it means you have no idea how the reality works. But yes - you can brainwash even smart people.

But physics is like this - you need to do PhD with fameous advisor at fameous university.

That's why I don't like it's culture. I didn't care about grades but I did a lot of extra stuff. I am this kind of person - I don't like standard route.

In the Physics culture, if you graduate and end up doing things that are not Physics research, you're a failure. While in some other fields, you graduate and do something else, you'd be considered a success for being creative and adventurous. I love Physics; I hate the culture.

I prefer to be in a field in which your degree or school doesn't matter - only ideas and skills counts. If there is no formal route to achive sth you can do whatever you want and use your creativity.

 

[camjohn]

BS in physics isn't as useless as its philosophy counterpart. Philosophy BS unemployment rate, the last time I checked, was way above ten percent -- potentially at 20% or more. Physics unemployment rate is around 6%, which is actually really good. It's been interesting for me to see some of the replys on my post, because it's confirmed what I've been saying: people tend to have negative attitudes for the BS physics market. Since I have yet to graduate college, I can't provide any personal insight except for on the "macho," issue which is 10000% true haha. It's ridiculous and pretty damn annoying being looked down on for any type of applied work. Some of the theoretical guys I know can be D-bags sometimes and I love giving them a hard time for it (and how theoretical their work is). I for one can't do too much theoretical work without feeling the need to pull my head out the sky.

But the point is that everyone can rest on the subject of the job market for physics majors, because it comes along with one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of the highest starting and mid carreer salaries.

 

[SophusLies]

The more I think about it, the less sense a restrictive definition of "doing physics" makes sense.

There was (and to some extent still is) part of my that feels "inferior" because I do computational stuff rather than abstract pencil and paper methods to solve problems. Physics has a very "macho" culture and doing things with a computer rather than pure thought is less "macho."

Good point. I've noticed that machoness as well but when I was working for that company I quickly found out that *everything* I learned as an undergrad was an idealized situation in physics that made the math nicer to play with. My friends that went straight to grad school would tell me about what they were learning and I always thought to myself how easy and quick it was in comparison to the actual computational problems we did at the company.

One of the first computational problems I worked on there was a car collision. We got sent data and some analysis from car collision experts and they wanted us to crunch some numbers. All the data took a long time to produce valid results.. (momentum, materials strength, materials strength as they deform, etc.) then figuring out which computational methods would compute all these equations fastest. That project alone took a TEAM of us about 2 weeks to complete and that was an EASIER project. I won't even mention any of the plasma simulations we got contracted for.. they're probably still working on some of those. But my friends in grad school constantly complained about multipole expansions in electro.. boo hoo.

 

[Mépris]

This is something that you can test with SAT scores. ETS does a very good job of making it possible to do statistically valid comparisons from year to year, and one can look at the raw number of people getting a particular score, and my wager would be that the *raw number* of people getting say 750 on the SAT has increased from 1975 to now.

In 1975, 1500/1600 on the SAT probably had more to do with good high school preparation, one's test-taking ability and aptitude (whatever that means) in general. Today, 2250/2400 is more often than not, just lots of test prepping. If one were to look hard enough, they'd find free (and legal) material to help achieve that goal.

Now, while this does mean more people getting higher scores, it's not necessarily a bad thing. The free resources on the internet also mean that otherwise "good students" who wouldn't have been able to get good scores - hey, not everyone goes to Andover or has a tutor - now have the chance to get one. From what I gather, both grades and GPAs should be as high as they can. Ideally. Also: people tend to say that a high GPA but low scores are generally looked upon more favorably than low GPA and high scores. I suspect that this is not entirely true...

(sidenote: there's (probably) also a higher percentage of high school grads who have taken the test and are applying to college and also a higher percentage of high school grads, compared to ~40 years ago - educated guess, so I could well be wrong)

However, this makes things much more hellish if it turns out that the number of qualified applicants increases by a factor of 20.

This reminds me of something else that you said. No one knows what to do to get in. If in 10 years, things turn out in such a way that there are 10x applicants for x seats and 9x applicants are qualified, I reckon that the definition of a "qualified applicant" will change. Or maybe it'll be an actual lottery. In any case, it will still be x (give or take a few) in the entering class. If there's a lot more than x, then the top 10 isn't the top 10 any more. World domination and all that. Hahahaha.

One of the first computational problems I worked on there was a car collision. We got sent data and some analysis from car collision experts and they wanted us to crunch some numbers. All the data took a long time to produce valid results.. (momentum, materials strength, materials strength as they deform, etc.) then figuring out which computational methods would compute all these equations fastest. That project alone took a TEAM of us about 2 weeks to complete and that was an EASIER project. I won't even mention any of the plasma simulations we got contracted for.. they're probably still working on some of those. But my friends in grad school constantly complained about multipole expansions in electro.. boo hoo.

Damn, that sounds like an awesome job!

What were the people in marketing doing? Client relations and bringing in new clients to the company?

---

It shouldn't be much harder to get a job with a physics degree than any other degree. How do language/literature majors find employment? What about international studies majors? Or people who double major in those?

Say, I'm very interested in learning German. When I get to college, I learn German and take courses pertaining to its history, culture and politics/international relations. I also join the German Society and meet up with other like-minded people and/or people from German speaking countries. It's a cool way for me to practice speaking the language and learning more about the countries. I also get involved in the college's paper and I choose to write on German cuisine and beer and dabble on anything Germany-USA related. Eventually, I decided to go study abroad for a semester at a German uni. I love it there, talk to people and land myself a summer job at this NGO, where my role is about procuring funding. Bla bla bla.

Looks cool, huh? No? Well, there's other cool opportunities that one could find themselves in. All it takes is perseverance and creativity. Often, you'll trying something and find out that you don't like it but hey, you got 4 years to figure it out. Also, those few courses and activities I outline above shouldn't take more than 2-3 semesters (+ an additional semester abroad), assuming that the language courses progress quickly enough and one does not rely solely on the courses.

I'd say the above would be definitely doable for a physics major who does not want to go to grad school - i.e, one who's not debugging code for his research internship and taking grad courses 24/7 - wants a regular office job.

 

[chill_factor]

BS in physics isn't as useless as its philosophy counterpart. Philosophy BS unemployment rate, the last time I checked, was way above ten percent -- potentially at 20% or more. Physics unemployment rate is around 6%, which is actually really good. It's been interesting for me to see some of the replys on my post, because it's confirmed what I've been saying: people tend to have negative attitudes for the BS physics market. Since I have yet to graduate college, I can't provide any personal insight except for on the "macho," issue which is 10000% true haha. It's ridiculous and pretty damn annoying being looked down on for any type of applied work. Some of the theoretical guys I know can be D-bags sometimes and I love giving them a hard time for it (and how theoretical their work is). I for one can't do too much theoretical work without feeling the need to pull my head out the sky.

But the point is that everyone can rest on the subject of the job market for physics majors, because it comes along with one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of the highest starting and mid carreer salaries.

The macho issue is a big issue. They aren't mean, but they face significant challenges in communicating their thoughts to others in non offensive ways. It is also off putting to those that want to learn physics from other fields. The attitude is like "even we veterans struggle, you think you can just jump into physics?"

I wanted to form study groups, and I get told "its better to work alone, we don't want anyone dragging anyone else down and not doing their share". Why? We're graded on an absolute scale for grad classes, there should be no competition. It is in no one's interest to work alone, there's no cost and only benefit, why are these guys doing this?

 

[twofish-quant]

I have felt really sorry for them because if you believe that getting 90% on test makes you smarter than someone who got 60% then it means you have no idea how the reality works.

One thing that makes this complicated is that there are different types of intelligence. If you define "being smart" is getting a high grade on this test, then getting higher grade does mean that you are "smarter". Now you can be smart in physics tests and a total idiot with something else.

One thing that makes this psychologically difficult is that I *can't* say "screw all of this." There's part of me that believes that someone that can do path integrals and crunch QED faster than is "better" than I am, and if I rejected that completely, then I wouldn't push myself to be better at math and physics tests.

But physics is like this - you need to do PhD with famous advisor at famous university.

Actually "fame" isn't high on the list of desirable characteristics.

Among the things that I care about is being able to do difficult math. Having a famous adviser at a famous university isn't terribly important. One reason for this is that once you get into the "club" then everyone is famous in their little group. There are at most 50 people in the world that do the research I did in graduate school, and everyone knows everyone else.

That's why I don't like it's culture. I didn't care about grades but I did a lot of extra stuff. I am this kind of person - I don't like standard route.

I have strong feelings toward the culture of physics, but they are too complex to be simple like or dislike.

I prefer to be in a field in which your degree or school doesn't matter - only ideas and skills counts.

The trouble with that criterion is that you still end up losing. I have an astrophysics Ph.D., but I'm not particularly skilled or creative at astrophysics. If there is a rule that the only the top 10% get jobs, then I'm not it, since at best I'm in the middle of the Gaussian curve when it comes to "physics skills."

Also one thing I like about physics is that your degree and school matters less then most other fields because there are semi-objective ways of measuring competence. For example, if I ask you a few questions about quantum electrodynamics, and you answer them without breaking a sweat, I'll respect you even if you never had any formal training in physics. It's quite different in business.

The trouble with saying that "ideas and skills' count is "which ideas" and "what skills." In some ways it *is* cheating if you compete in a weightlifting competition with a forklift, but what there are lots of jobs as fork lift operators.

This is one thing that physics Ph.D.'s have to deal with when going into business. One thing that's true about physics is there is a belief that it's not who you know but what you know.

This is *NOT* true in most parts of business. In physics, if you got the job because you were friends with the admissions committee, you'd be ashamed to mention that. In business, it's all about relationships, so if you got a job because of your connections, you'd be *proud* of it.

 

[Rika]

One thing that makes this complicated is that there are different types of intelligence. If you define "being smart" is getting a high grade on this test, then getting higher grade does mean that you are "smarter". Now you can be smart in physics tests and a total idiot with something else.

But high grade on physics test is matter of practise and hard work. If you sit on your a.ss and read books, do the math etc. you will get high grade.

The point is that from some point grades are pointless. I mean - you need certain amount of knowledge about the topic in order to do sth new/to use your knowledge freely. But after this point grades don't matter. Ability to think and to see starts to count because without it you won't achive anything.

I have seen many people with excellent grades who were totally useless because they couldn't apply their knowledge and people with an average grades who were great researchers.

So more or less those people with excellent grades should never study physics or any other subject. They should just get a simple job because if you want to work with your brain but you can't use it properly then you are going to starve.

One thing that makes this psychologically difficult is that I *can't* say "screw all of this." There's part of me that believes that someone that can do path integrals and crunch QED faster than is "better" than I am, and if I rejected that completely, then I wouldn't push myself to be better at math and physics tests.

But what's the point in it? If you have enough knowledge so that it won't hinder you then it's ok. For simple crunching you have computers but what really counts is the ability to see patterns, connections, be able to come up with sth new etc. I am not talking about physics only - I am talking about all kind of intellectual work. So you should polish your ability to think, not to crunch numbers.

I have strong feelings toward the culture of physics, but they are too complex to be simple like or dislike.

For me physics is not personal so because I didn't like grunt work or physics culture I just simple changed field.

But the truth is that people with physics degree are bitter. And they are much bitter than people with chemistry, math or biology degree. There must be a reason behind all of that.

The trouble with that criterion is that you still end up losing.

It depends on a field and your abilities.

I have an astrophysics Ph.D., but I'm not particularly skilled or creative at astrophysics. If there is a rule that the only the top 10% get jobs, then I'm not it, since at best I'm in the middle of the Gaussian curve when it comes to "physics skills."

From my experience Physics isn't about creativity but that's not the point.

You need to be smart in order to be good programmer. But being smart doesn't mean that you can be good at it. You need to be smart in certain way like you said before - which can be called talent I guess?

So not being in 10% when it comes to Physics doesn't mean you can't be in 10% in different field.

I don't have this problem but maybe you have chosen a field that doesn't suit you and if you went for BA in economy/political science you would make excellent (top 10%) expert/advisor for government by now.

The trouble with saying that "ideas and skills' count is "which ideas" and "what skills." In some ways it *is* cheating if you compete in a weightlifting competition with a forklift, but what there are lots of jobs as fork lift operators.

Skills which count are those which allow you to achive your goal. You need to be flexible and use all methods and skills that you have.

This is one thing that physics Ph.D.'s have to deal with when going into business. One thing that's true about physics is there is a belief that it's not who you know but what you know.

This is *NOT* true in most parts of business. In physics, if you got the job because you were friends with the admissions committee, you'd be ashamed to mention that. In business, it's all about relationships, so if you got a job because of your connections, you'd be *proud* of it.

It's true I guess because business is about money and you won't give your hard-earned money to someone who you can't trust. And you can't trust a stranger.

The point is that in most fields who you know strongly connects with what you know and vice versa.

If you want to gain someone's trust you need to have skills, personality for it. It's not always true but most people build their network this way.

 

[SophusLies]

What were the people in marketing doing? Client relations and bringing in new clients to the company?

We didn't have a "marketing" staff. Most of the PhD's were well known in their respective fields from publishing so the marketing was more or less word of mouth. I know we had a couple people that were funding/grant writers to places like NSF.

That job was pretty cool but I wanted to make more money, get more education and then go back. If things work out well in grad school I'm hoping to get a more research type job there, although I'm pretty sure they'd give me my old job back. They always told me I gave that place some style, if you know what I mean, lol.

 

[FroChro]

But high grade on physics test is matter of practise and hard work. If you sit on your a.ss and read books, do the math etc. you will get high grade.

As it is, to some extent, true for almost anything. Learning a skill does generally require hard work and practice.

Pardon me for arrogance and unjustified jumping to conclusion, but this looks to me little like saying : " I could do that too, but since it is just a matter of hard work, why should I?"

The point is that from some point grades are pointless. I mean - you need certain amount of knowledge about the topic in order to do sth new/to use your knowledge freely. But after this point grades don't matter. Ability to think and to see starts to count because without it you won't achive anything.

I mostly agree with you in principle, but the problem is, what exactly is that point? One could argue, on a similar logic, that you only need to learn to read and do basic arithmetics, because then you could learn anything you need to solve a problem on your own.

From my experience, many math and physics exams I took did indeed test ability to think and to be creative quite a lot. You could probably increase your chances radically if you were working hard enough, but I am yet to see a test for which you can't prepare. (And which is still reasonably doable.)

I have seen many people with excellent grades who were totally useless because they couldn't apply their knowledge and people with an average grades who were great researchers.

So more or less those people with excellent grades should never study physics or any other subject. They should just get a simple job because if you want to work with your brain but you can't use it properly then you are going to starve.

I feel you are being too harsh here. On one hand you dismiss grades as imperfect indicator of future success (which I agree), yet on the other you quickly jump to conclusion that people who are not very successful researchers from the beginning of their careers are worthless (for science). There are too many too different types of problems in science to dismiss anyone as unable to contribute.

 

[chill_factor]

But high grade on physics test is matter of practise and hard work. If you sit on your a.ss and read books, do the math etc. you will get high grade.

The point is that from some point grades are pointless. I mean - you need certain amount of knowledge about the topic in order to do sth new/to use your knowledge freely. But after this point grades don't matter. Ability to think and to see starts to count because without it you won't achive anything.

I have seen many people with excellent grades who were totally useless because they couldn't apply their knowledge and people with an average grades who were great researchers.

So more or less those people with excellent grades should never study physics or any other subject. They should just get a simple job because if you want to work with your brain but you can't use it properly then you are going to starve.



But what's the point in it? If you have enough knowledge so that it won't hinder you then it's ok. For simple crunching you have computers but what really counts is the ability to see patterns, connections, be able to come up with sth new etc. I am not talking about physics only - I am talking about all kind of intellectual work. So you should polish your ability to think, not to crunch numbers.



For me physics is not personal so because I didn't like grunt work or physics culture I just simple changed field.

But the truth is that people with physics degree are bitter. And they are much bitter than people with chemistry, math or biology degree. There must be a reason behind all of that.

Chemistry, probably not, but those friends who got a biology degree are regretting it already.

They're really bitter because it seriously is as useful as English literature on the job market.

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.

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

 

[Rika]

Pardon me for arrogance and unjustified jumping to conclusion, but this looks to me little like saying : " I could do that too, but since it is just a matter of hard work, why should I?"

It's not like that. But I believe that working hard on your skills is not always the same as working hard to pass the test.

That's why I have worked hard but for skills not for grades - it doesn't mean that I had bad grades but I didn't focus on getting A+ instead of A- or sth like that. And if there were the subjects that were useless for me (in my country's system you can't choose subject like in US) I was ok with "passing grade".

I wanted to focus on extra stuff like learning stuff that wasn't for a test but was needed for me or doing independent projects with other students.

Studying at university shouldn't be about passing a test or getting good grades because it's not a kindergarden. It should be about independent study with guidance of more experience people - professors.

From my experience, many math and physics exams I took did indeed test ability to think and to be creative quite a lot. You could probably increase your chances radically if you were working hard enough, but I am yet to see a test for which you can't prepare. (And which is still reasonably doable.)

The best test is called "real life experience" - it doesn't mean if it's professional work or research but classroom knowledge is only a foundation - real challenge and knowledge is outside of that.

I feel you are being too harsh here. On one hand you dismiss grades as imperfect indicator of future success (which I agree), yet on the other you quickly jump to conclusion that people who are not very successful researchers from the beginning of their careers are worthless (for science). There are too many too different types of problems in science to dismiss anyone as unable to contribute.

You've got it wrong. First of all - you can apply physics knowledge not only in research. It's stupid to think like that. Second - there are people who are good at learning but at the same time they can't apply their knowledge - be it research or regular work. I am not talking about contribution to science but about being totally brain-dead.

 

[Rika]

Chemistry, probably not, but those friends who got a biology degree are regretting it already.

They're really bitter because it seriously is as useful as English literature on the job market.

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.

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

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.

 

[FroChro]

The best test is called "real life experience" - it doesn't mean if it's professional work or research but classroom knowledge is only a foundation - real challenge and knowledge is outside of that.

Well it isn't. Simply because there is no good criterion of success. Is it how much money you earn? Then we have buried concept of universities as centers of free thought they should be and transformed them into human resources factories. Is it how happy graduates are? Well, knowledge often comes with the cost of unhappiness. Is it about fulfilled and meaningful life? Maybe I agree, but what actually is the fulfilled and the meaningful?

Look, 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.

You've got it wrong. First of all - you can apply physics knowledge not only in research. It's stupid to think like that.

I have interpreted the following line of your post as being actually about research:
"I have seen many people with excellent grades who were totally useless because they couldn't apply their knowledge and people with an average grades who were great researchers."

Second - there are people who are good at learning but at the same time they can't apply their knowledge - be it research or regular work. I am not talking about contribution to science but about being totally brain-dead.

Then what I feel towards them is a pity, since they are the victims of the system.

 

[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".

Alot 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 becuase 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 becuase 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.