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

[twofish-quant]

Is it? I always thought particles and supernova were popular because they represent something fundamental and beautiful.

Beautiful is in the eye of the beholder. But that it's what I think the attraction is. Reality is messy and trying to explain particles and supernova in a way that you find the "beauty" turns out to be difficult. The attraction for me happens to be because these questions are ***hard*** and mathematically challenging.

The trouble with doing something other than astrophysics isn't the "lack of beauty" but more the "lack of challenge." The reason I find finance challenging is that you are dealing with extremely hard mathematical problems. I think the reason that Ph.D.'s shy away these fields is that people just don't know what the hard problems are.

There's also the fact that you need to know something about the field to know where the hard problems are. For example, calculating the optimal portfolio for stocks is "boring". It turns out that the mathematics is quite simple, and you don't need that much mathematical effort to figure it out. Dealing with counterparty default turns out to be extremely hard mathematically. Also sometimes something easy turns into something hard and vice versa.

Calculating the value of a simple swap was easy until 2008, when it suddenly got very, very hard. Before 2008, there was an extremely simple mathematical relationship between interest rate swaps of different tenors, and this made the math trivially easy. After 2008, that simple mathematical relationship stopped working, and people have been scrambling to come up with new equations.

Also, I keep getting conflicting information regarding the importance of learning math and programming.

That's because people have different jobs.

When I told him I wanted to take math methods for physicists, he laughed and said "sure go ahead but you'll never use it, its just good for passing classes you'll never use that stuff in the real world."

This depends on the job you want. For example, I was going crazy a few years ago, because I *wasn't* using my physics skills in the my job. I was basically a code monkey, and the fact that I had physics background, wasn't useful. My current job is very different.

A lot depends on "what you want to do with your life."

Yet on here, its almost as if "math and programming beats all".

You are talking to a different set of people. I knew that I wanted a job in finance, when in the interviews, people were throwing nasty questions about field theory and general relativity at me. Now if you hate general relativity, then you probably don't want that sort of job, but then you probably wouldn't be reading this forum.

 

[Geezer]

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.

This is completely in line with the experience of my friends and cohorts, too. I know a lot of underemployed and unemployed physicists with Master's degrees and PhDs. In fact, a good friend of ours with a PhD in physics is now a stay-at-home dad; he couldn't find a job that paid more the cost of childcare, so he gave up paid work.

The fact of the matter is that most physics grad students are NOT going to be physics professors; there just aren't enough academic jobs to absorb us. And few physics grad students acquire "transferrable skills" that allows them (us?) to work in industry or for the government. I have two friends in our program doing their PhDs in string theory; I seriously doubt either of them will be able to find a job as a physicist. One of them is already talking about going to law school after graduation...

Food for thought.

 

[chill_factor]

This is completely in line with the experience of my friends and cohorts, too. I know a lot of underemployed and unemployed physicists with Master's degrees and PhDs. In fact, a good friend of ours with a PhD in physics is now a stay-at-home dad; he couldn't find a job that paid more the cost of childcare, so he gave up paid work.

The fact of the matter is that most physics grad students are NOT going to be physics professors; there just aren't enough academic jobs to absorb us. And few physics grad students acquire "transferrable skills" that allows them (us?) to work in industry or for the government. I have two friends in our program doing their PhDs in string theory; I seriously doubt either of them will be able to find a job as a physicist. One of them is already talking about going to law school after graduation...

Food for thought.

What about experimental condensed matter physicists or chemical physicists/physical chemists in your direct or first hand indirect experience? String theory is uh, pretty obviously inapplicable, no offense, but for some of the applied fields like materials science, molecular sensing or optics it gets kind of blurry. On one hand, not every company has the equipment or needs to do RD... most companies don't need RD staff. But on the other, the stuff is actually directly used in industry.

 

[SophusLies]

Coming from a theoretical background during my undergrad, I can safely say that the jobs easiest to get were definitely in software. I doubt I could ever get a job doing any sort of engineering unless I did a lot more lab work.

 

[SophusLies]

We know, we know, you don't have to try to convince us.

Was that really necessary? Just because an argument against your point of view has occurred doesn't mean you get to throw quick jabs.

 

[daveyrocket]

Personally I find the suggestion that theorists should look for jobs in software to be asinine. One of the reasons I went to grad school was because I didn't want to do software! I had the skills to get that type of job before I went to grad school, so if that's what I wanted to do I would have done it already. Or gone for a master's in computer science. And honestly I've looked at the code produced by several of my peers and the quality of their code makes me think that if I were ever in a position to hire a software developer, I wouldn't even consider a physics PhD. A theoretical physicist going into software is just someone trying to make the best of a bad situation.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Personally I find the suggestion that theorists should look for jobs in software to be asinine. One of the reasons I went to grad school was because I didn't want to do software! I had the skills to get that type of job before I went to grad school, so if that's what I wanted to do I would have done it already. Or gone for a master's in computer science. And honestly I've looked at the code produced by several of my peers and the quality of their code makes me think that if I were ever in a position to hire a software developer, I wouldn't even consider a physics PhD. A theoretical physicist going into software is just someone trying to make the best of a bad situation.

daveyrocket, just as an aside, you had posted in another forum that you were considering transitioning into work in statistics. I was wondering if by any chance you had done so.

 

[daveyrocket]

Currently I have not. My postdoc is ending soon and I'm going to take a couple of months off as a 'breather' and then I'm going to start looking for work again. Statistics is still a possibility but I lack much training or experience with it outside of statistical and quantum mechanics, which is quite different from the way that stats is used in um... the "real world."

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

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?

 

[Mépris]

It depends on what you are trying to do. One good and bad thing about finance is that there are hundreds of different jobs with vastly different skills, and one odd thing is that every job is unique. It's not as if I have a fixed job title. It's very fluid, and one reason I like my work is that people do make an effort to fit my job to my skills, as well as to put some things that I'm bad at in the mix so that I learn new stuff.

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.

 

[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.