Physics Work opportunities for physicists

[Zeor137]

I have an indecision between physics and engineering since by being an engineer I think there would be more and better job opportunities (still I think i would study physics the same by myself). I wish to now about what opportunities i might get by graduating in physics, including eventual backup careers, like I heard about some physicists that are working in economics. I am not worried about "potential" because becoming rich is not my main objective (although it would be pretty awesome ), just having safety and maybe something left to travel around in the vacations is enough for me.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Note that to be a "professional physicist" will take more than just a bachelor degree. Graduates at the BS level do not usually become physicists. Of my graduating class teaching was an area that many went into. I don't personally know any physics grads at any level who went into economics. I suspect that you need PhD or appropriate masters degree for that. Otherwise, the often touted phrase is that you can do "anything" with a physics degree. I know grads who are in teaching, IT, programming, truck driving, nursing, restaurants, the army and unemployed. In fact, I would say that the fact you can do "anything" is a problem with a physics degree, not a benefit. It doesn't train you in anything specifically employable. If you want to do physics, please keep graduate school on your mind. Either a physics PhD or some other relevant masters. You are right that engineering will have more opportunities, particularly at the BS level.

 

[George Jones]

Have a llok at

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

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

I keep hearing people saying that. Here's what I hear from recruiters (cribbed from slides from a friend who is a dean at a large state school, so it's not just me that's hearing it):

• Recruiters are looking for smart, well-trained people who can:
  1. solve problems
  2. learn new things quickly.
  3. work well in teams.
  4. analyze large amounts of data.
  5. communicate well.
• Answers are the same regardless of field
  1. Engineering, software, consulting, finance, government, medical technology, ...

With the possible exception of #5, this looks like a very good match for a physics BS. At the PhD level, #5 is definitely covered.

I hate to say this, but based on reading the messages here a lot of people's problems with employment seem to be self-inflicted. When someone says that as a physicist they'd make a better engineer than an engineer, one can't help wondering if this person will work well in a team - especially a team with engineers. When someone says they only want to do one thing, how does this look with respect to point 2?

 

[Locrian]

The idea that physics majors can analyze large amounts of data is pretty strange. Most physics majors have never encountered large amounts of data, have no experience with any tool used to retrieve it (SAS, SQL, etc.), have never had to organize and display it, and have a poor statistics background.

In any case, having seen physics majors interview for positions, plus having a role with reports (in an area outside of physics), plus having gotten a job with a BS in physics myself years ago, I would say that the degree has precious little value on its own. Sure, a physics major makes you marginally qualified for some mediocre jobs. The problem is that being marginally qualified is insufficient to actually get an offer – you have to also be perceived as better than the other applicants. The best bet is to look places no one else would, which are often less than desirable jobs.

Or do the smart thing and get a better major in the first place.

Zeor137, I strongly recommend you go engineering.

 

[jkl71]

The idea that physics majors can analyze large amounts of data is pretty strange. Most physics majors have never encountered large amounts of data, have no experience with any tool used to retrieve it (SAS, SQL, etc.), have never had to organize and display it, and have a poor statistics background.

In any case, having seen physics majors interview for positions, plus having a role with reports (in an area outside of physics), plus having gotten a job with a BS in physics myself years ago, I would say that the degree has precious little value on its own. Sure, a physics major makes you marginally qualified for some mediocre jobs. The problem is that being marginally qualified is insufficient to actually get an offer – you have to also be perceived as better than the other applicants. The best bet is to look places no one else would, which are often less than desirable jobs.

Or do the smart thing and get a better major in the first place.

Zeor137, I strongly recommend you go engineering.

I agree with this.

Advice given to a friend of mine considering pursuing a PhD in high energy theory was, “if you can see yourself doing something else, do that”. IMO that applies more generally to physics as a whole, if it’s a competition between physics and something else, I’d do the something else. My education in physics (theory PhD) did nothing to prepare me for the career I’m currently in (software developer). When I say “nothing” I’m not exaggerating, if it had any positive impact it was minor at best.

The only reason I don’t regret doing physics is that I knew I really wanted to do it. If I had been on the fence between physics and engineering I’d really be kicking myself right now for doing physics.

For what it’s worth that’s my experience.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The idea that physics majors can analyze large amounts of data is pretty strange. Most physics majors have never encountered large amounts of data, have no experience with any tool used to retrieve it (SAS, SQL, etc.), have never had to organize and display it, and have a poor statistics background.

In any case, having seen physics majors interview for positions, plus having a role with reports (in an area outside of physics), plus having gotten a job with a BS in physics myself years ago, I would say that the degree has precious little value on its own. Sure, a physics major makes you marginally qualified for some mediocre jobs. The problem is that being marginally qualified is insufficient to actually get an offer – you have to also be perceived as better than the other applicants. The best bet is to look places no one else would, which are often less than desirable jobs.

Or do the smart thing and get a better major in the first place.

Zeor137, I strongly recommend you go engineering.

So your contention is that a physics degree is completely useless -- am I correct?

 

[jesse73]

So your contention is that a physics degree is completely useless -- am I correct?

That is a loaded question. A degree in native american studies isn't completely useless yet I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

That is a loaded question. A degree in native american studies isn't completely useless yet I wouldn't recommend it.

I am merely reiterating a point Locrian had made -- that from his experience, both as a physics major (turned actuary) and seeing physics majors interview for positions, he feels that physics majors are useless, and that a physics degree (at least at the BS level alone) has no value.

Therefore, he is saying that pursuing a physics degree on its own is a bad idea, and he is discouraging others from pursing it. (Please note the bold segment -- a BS degree in physics in combination with another degree e.g. computer science, engineering, business, etc., could be very useful, and I am not considering for the moment graduate degrees in physics)

Locrian, if I am misrepresenting your views, please let me know.

 

[meanrev]

The only reason I don’t regret doing physics is that I knew I really wanted to do it.

This is actually the main motivation I look for when hiring someone into my firm.

We don't need another guy who studied applied math because he knew he wanted to go into finance since his freshman year. We also don't need another CS dude who is extremely interested in applying 'machine learning' to predicting the market.

But we need people with a history of pursuing an intense passion; versatile and quick learners; people who can be creative and nonreliant on textbook content when it comes to quantitative models, and not another person who is looking to make x dollars.

So your contention is that a physics degree is completely useless -- am I correct?

The way I see it, a better interpretation of his post is that a physics degree is a poor choice if you have a specific field - besides physics - that you plan to go into.

 

[ModusPwnd]

So your contention is that a physics degree is completely useless -- am I correct?

Read his post. It says nothing of the sort. It says this,

Sure, a physics major makes you marginally qualified for some mediocre jobs.

It looks like his contention is that a physics major makes you marginally qualified for some mediocre jobs. That is not "completely useless". Also, its only with respect to jobs and careers, not personal fulfillment. A career or job is not the only reason somebody goes to university for a degree.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It looks like his contention is that a physics major makes you marginally qualified for some mediocre jobs. That is not "completely useless".

I am making the following equivalence:

marginally qualified for some mediocre jobs = useless

I am asserting this equivalence because a significant percentage of people who attend university are doing so specifically as a ticket to improve their economic/social situation e.g. as a ticket out of poverty into a middle-class or upper-middle-class standard of living. Given how expensive a 4-year degree can be (unless one has a full scholarship), then it is worth asking whether studying a subject that can only promise being "marginally qualified" for "mediocre jobs" is worth the investment.

Also, its only with respect to jobs and careers, not personal fulfillment. A career or job is not the only reason somebody goes to university for a degree.

You are correct, a career or job is not the only reason somebody goes to university, but it is an important consideration for a significant number of people who attend university.

If a student comes from a wealthy family and has his/her degree paid for them, or if a student attends school on a full scholarship, then whether or not the degree prepares him/her for a particular job becomes less relevant. However, for most everyone else, whether or not a degree program prepare them for a career is an important consideration.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I think your equivalence isn't quite accurate, but otherwise I agree.

In my experience virtually none of my fellow students were looking for a way out of poverty. They were nearly all middle-class or higher to begin with, which I think is the norm for physics majors. They were more interested in "fulfilling" careers and status with PhDs. Also, even the rich ones who didn't need to work and got parental support for much of their education wanted more than just "personal fulfillment", but regardless of how it worked out career wise they got that fulfillment too.

 

[TheAustrian]

I think your equivalence isn't quite accurate, but otherwise I agree.

In my experience virtually none of my fellow students were looking for a way out of poverty. They were nearly all middle-class or higher to begin with, which I think is the norm for physics majors. They were more interested in "fulfilling" careers and status with PhDs. Also, even the rich ones who didn't need to work and got parental support for much of their education wanted more than just "personal fulfillment", but regardless of how it worked out career wise they got that fulfillment too.

You seem to have opposite experiences compared to most people. Throwing away years of life and a large sum of money, only to find that you've made a bad investment can easily feel useless. Why would you pay all that money and all that time, to earn marginally more than let's say a bus driver?

Since the watering down of the quality of degrees through the Bologna process or whatever it's called, increasingly it is found that BSc degrees have very little practical value, and in some fields of study (such as Physics), something like 90% of students stay on to do an MSc in order to be employed at all.

This pretty much sums it up:

a significant percentage of people who attend university are doing so specifically as a ticket to improve their economic/social situation e.g. as a ticket out of poverty into a middle-class or upper-middle-class standard of living.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Nah, I do feel it was nearly useless. I really wanted to study physics and do research though, and I enjoyed it while I did and I treasure the knowledge. Doing exactly what I did before school sucks, but its better for mental health to focus on the good. I could be doing what I am doing now with no physics education and research experience. If I ever manage to get a high paying career, only then will I be required to pay back my loans on schedule.

 

[Choppy]

I am making the following equivalence:

marginally qualified for some mediocre jobs = useless

I am asserting this equivalence because a significant percentage of people who attend university are doing so specifically as a ticket to improve their economic/social situation e.g. as a ticket out of poverty into a middle-class or upper-middle-class standard of living. Given how expensive a 4-year degree can be (unless one has a full scholarship), then it is worth asking whether studying a subject that can only promise being "marginally qualified" for "mediocre jobs" is worth the investment.

Of the people using a physics degree as a means of climbing out of poverty, how many are actually unsuccessful? Of those how many are specifically unsuccessful because of choosing a physics degree?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/25-college-majors-with-lowest-unemployment-rates/
http://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/economics.cfm#2

Whenever I look up data on physics graduates, they tend to be doing okay.
http://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/employment/bachinitemp-p-10.pdf
http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsalaryfield.cfm

I think what happens often is that because of the similarities between the disciplines, physics graduates tend to get compared to engineers who graduate with a professional degree. Because physics is an academic degree and not a professional one, the job search is naturally more difficult.

Unfortunately I think a lot of people these days too quickly jump to the conclusion that something is "useless" when what they really mean is that it's not perfect.

 

[Locrian]

Man.

Useless, or merely pretty bad? If you decide to get the degree, are you destined for disaster, or merely have to work double time to overcome the poor decision? Is a physics degree like a childhood encounter with the law, that you can later leave off job applications, or does it leave scars interviewers can see?

Such a preponderance of questions. I won't be much help with them.

If you're facing a choice between engineering and physics, the choice is easy. Make the right one.

I realized when I posted that the "physics BS stinks" type posts have been done to death here. But Vanadium 50's post that was quoted was so misleading that it just demanded a reply.

If I ever interview someone with a physics BS and they say they can analyze large amounts of data, they had better have had a very unusual undergraduate curriculum, because the questions I'm going to respond with will be pretty merciless.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Those statistics seem great! 45k for starting physics BS is amazing. But its a starting salary for a "BS Physicist". I am not sure what job that is... I know none of my fellow grads have it. If you look at the APS data you see a third of new BS grads are unemployed, part time employed or doing the same thing they did before school. (They conveniently leave this large minority out of the statistics all together.) I wonder who they are counting in that statistic and what kind of job that actually is? My classmates that make that kind of money are not in science at all, let alone a "BS Physicist". They still make good money though. I also suspect that the salary offers by campus recruiters is not meaningful. Campus recruiters rarely look for physics grads and most physics grads do not get their first jobs that way. I believe that statistic represents a minority of physics grads. I've never once in years of attending on campus events at multiple universities seen any company or organization specifically recruiting physics grads, besides teach for america. The armed forces are also generally receptive.

The unemployment rate seems great too, but the other side of the coin is often brought up. Sure, somebody who can manage to get a physics BS can probably manage to get a job somewhere, somehow. That is not necessarily a function of their degree, but a function of the person. My class nearly all had jobs while pursuing our physics degree. We were employed before even getting our degree, not surprising the same group is employed after the degree...

My other thought on these ideas is that people and families in poverty do not generally go for physics as an undergrad. My classmates from state schools were mostly from middle class to rich families. They were cultured, traveled, well cared for and had the luxury of considering physics. Poor students don't generally consider things like physics. Its not as respected in their family culture and its not a tried and true path out of poverty. I worked at a school that catered to poor people and families. They studied trades, not university academics. The demographics of university students are richer to begin with and when you come from a richer family you are more likely to be rich yourself. None of those statistics show upward mobility from impoverished families "climbing out of poverty".

I don't think a physics BS is useless and I don't think any degree is perfect. But its not nearly as rosey as the APS charts implicitly claim.

 

[George Jones]

My other thought on these ideas is that people and families in poverty do not generally go for physics as an undergrad. My classmates from state schools were mostly from middle class to rich families. They were cultured, traveled, well cared for and had the luxury of considering physics. Poor students don't generally consider things like physics. Its not as respected in their family culture and its not a tried and true path out of poverty. I worked at a school that catered to poor people and families. They studied trades, not university academics. The demographics of university students are richer to begin with and when you come from a richer family you are more likely to be rich yourself. None of those statistics show upward mobility from impoverished families "climbing out of poverty".

I have degrees in physics. When I started university, my father was dead and my mother was on a disability pension. Neither had ever attended high school, let alone university.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Man.

Useless, or merely pretty bad? If you decide to get the degree, are you destined for disaster, or merely have to work double time to overcome the poor decision? Is a physics degree like a childhood encounter with the law, that you can later leave off job applications, or does it leave scars interviewers can see?

Such a preponderance of questions. I won't be much help with them.

If you're facing a choice between engineering and physics, the choice is easy. Make the right one.

I realized when I posted that the "physics BS stinks" type posts have been done to death here. But Vanadium 50's post that was quoted was so misleading that it just demanded a reply.

If I ever interview someone with a physics BS and they say they can analyze large amounts of data, they had better have had a very unusual undergraduate curriculum, because the questions I'm going to respond with will be pretty merciless.

So you are conceding that your BS in physics was a poor decision on your part, are you not? Essentially what you are saying is that anyone who chooses to study physics as opposed to some other technical field -- engineering, statistics, computer science, even applied math -- is a fool. Because that's the message I'm taking away from what you are saying.

Note:

For those of you who are reading my posts, I am not specifically arguing here that physics degrees are useless in its entirety -- I am specifically trying to argue based on the assumptions and logic that Locrian is making in his posts here on this thread. I'm not trying to pick on Locrian here, but the views he expresses here are similar to those from others who complain about physics degree and its lack of preparation for a career. This goes to a basic question about what role colleges/universities should play in preparing their students for a career post-graduation.

For "vocational" degrees like computer science, engineering, architecture, nursing, medicine, physiotherapy, law, accounting, statistics (to a lesser extent), etc., preparing their graduates for a career is built into the curriculum. That's not the case for pretty much all other degrees, so it appears to me that the onus will be on the students to prepare themselves for qualifying for work after they finish school, unless the school has specific programs in place to prepare them (e.g. co-op programs, like what is offered at the University of Waterloo in Canada).

Let's take my own experiences as an example. I started out as a math major (ultimately double majoring in math and statistics) and later finished a masters in statistics. A math BS degree, on its own, is much like a physics BS degree in that it does not prepare the students to quality for any jobs except being "marginally qualified in mediocre jobs", to use Locrian's quote. Can I therefore conclude that a math degree is "useless"? Maybe on its own, without pursuing further study, the answer is probably "yes"; however, a math degree can serve as a foundation for a wide range of careers so long as the student is willing to either:

(1) augment their math studies with other fields (e.g. applied math/engineering, computer science, statistics, economics, business/finance, actuarial studies, teaching, etc.) or

(2) continue further study in graduate school.

I think the same arguments can be made for physics degrees as well.

 

[Locrian]

Essentially what you are saying is that anyone who chooses to study physics as opposed to some other technical field -- engineering, statistics, computer science, even applied math -- are fools.

No! Disagree! Dislike!

 

[symbolipoint]

No! Disagree! Dislike!

StatGuy2000's discussion is well justified.

 

[Locrian]

His repeatedly putting words in my mouth that I didn't say and don't believe deserves correction.

Edit: To be clear, I understand where StatGuy is going. He’s taking my statements to a limit and bouncing them off me to have that conversation. I’m not upset or offended he did that.

But he’s wrong. I don’t think the degree is useless, and I don’t think people who choose it are fools. The statements I’ve made are specific to the context of the thread, and I think that’s appropriate. If someone else believe those things, maybe they can step in and have that debate.

 

[symbolipoint]

Locrian,
Honestly I only responded according to his previous statement. I missed seeing the exact details of the argument between you two.

Most or all of post #19 made sense.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Locrian:

You are indeed correct that I am taking your statements made in this thread as a starting point for a conversation about the themes/issues expressed here about opportunities for physics graduates. I know that you don't actually believe that a physics degree is useless or that those who pursue it are fools, but I have seen and heard opinions of that ilk expressed elsewhere and wanted to see how these people would react. Sorry if it came across as my picking on you!

My personal opinions regarding physics degrees and their usefulness in the job market can be seen fully in post #19 under the subsection "Note:".

 

[nri]

Even if we say that Physics degree isn't completely useless, it's a luxurious hobby. Luxurious indicates that not everyone can afford it. So you know, if someone spends money on stuff that he/she can't afford (even when he/she thinks he/she can) we call him/her irresponsible, imagination lacking or simply stupid.

It's the same with Physics degree. Only those who come from rich and powerful families can afford spending 3-10 years and a lot of money on their hobby because 1) their parents can afford it 2) no matter what they study, due to their parent's network they will get a nice job afterwards.

Those who come from ordinary middle-class families and go for physics degree without any backup (double major, special skills/talents) are just simply stupid and are wasting their parent's hard-earned money. I can't say it's good.

 

[symbolipoint]

Even if we say that Physics degree isn't completely useless, it's a luxurious hobby. Luxurious indicates that not everyone can afford it. So you know, if someone spends money on stuff that he/she can't afford (even when he/she thinks he/she can) we call him/her irresponsible, imagination lacking or simply stupid.

It's the same with Physics degree. Only those who come from rich and powerful families can afford spending 3-10 years and a lot of money on their hobby because 1) their parents can afford it 2) no matter what they study, due to their parent's network they will get a nice job afterwards.

Those who come from ordinary middle-class families and go for physics degree without any backup (double major, special skills/talents) are just simply stupid and are wasting their parent's hard-earned money. I can't say it's good.

You are misjudging some of the people who study Physics.

 

[Khashishi]

If you want to do physics, study physics. If you want a good job, study engineering. You can get a good job with physics but it's harder.

 

[Jamin2112]

These days, most college graduates have to settle for jobs they could've gotten straight out of high school. It's a simple matter of too many college grads chasing too few good jobs. Choosing (or settling with) one of the sciences like Math or Physics makes things harder. Any good job that you apply for will have hundreds (no exaggeration) of applicants, many of whom have education and internship experience directly related to the job. If you're planning on getting a good job right out of college, then consider your Physics degree a mere formality and devote your effort towards rebranding yourself as a programmer or data analyst. We don't live an advanced Star Trek-like society where everyone who studies Physics can find a "use" for their background.

 

[Choppy]

These days, most college graduates have to settle for jobs they could've gotten straight out of high school.

Do you have some data to back this up or is this just a personal observation?

And even if this is true, you're only considering a snapshot in a person's career right at the beginning. A university degree will often allow you to advance a lot further in terms of scope of work and salary, even if you have to start in the same place.

 

[George Jones]

These days, most college graduates have to settle for jobs they could've gotten straight out of high school.

This statement can be interpreted in at least two ways.

1) These days, most college graduates have to settle for jobs they could have got if they had applied for the jobs straight out of high school, without going to college.

2) These days, most college graduates have to settle for jobs that use knowledge and/or skills that they had acquired by the end of high school.

These are very different scenarios, as a college degree is often used as a filter.

 

[Jamin2112]

These are very different scenarios, as a college degree is often used as a filter.

A Bachelor degree is only a filter because so many people are getting Bachelor degrees. If the same number of people got PhDs, then a PhD would be the new filter. Conversely, if no one went to college, then a college degree would cease to be a requirement (and there would be no shortage of highly skilled workers including engineers; they would just be produced through a different system that would be more efficient).

 

[Jamin2112]

Do you have some data to back this up or is this just a personal observation?

There are few jobs where a college is actually required. The only sector I can think of where educational requirements are strictly adhered to is government. Yes, most white collar jobs in the private sector will "require" a college degree in the job listing, but in reality anyone who has proved they can do the job will have a shot at getting it, especially if they have a connection. If companies were really such educational snobs, then why do they usually not bother to verify whether a chosen hire actually has a degree?

 

[symbolipoint]

There are few jobs where a college is actually required. The only sector I can think of where educational requirements are strictly adhered to is government. Yes, most white collar jobs in the private sector will "require" a college degree in the job listing, but in reality anyone who has proved they can do the job will have a shot at getting it, especially if they have a connection. If companies were really such educational snobs, then why do they usually not bother to verify whether a chosen hire actually has a degree?

But they DO. Many companies still require college and university transcripts. They don't all require them just for applying. They want these just for those who they hire.

 

[jesse73]

Do you have some data to back this up or is this just a personal observation?

And even if this is true, you're only considering a snapshot in a person's career right at the beginning. A university degree will often allow you to advance a lot further in terms of scope of work and salary, even if you have to start in the same place.

The fact that the US has an underemployment problem has been news for a while.

One link but you can find many articles on it

http://www.usnews.com/education/blo...of-underemployment-in-the-student-debt-crisis
or the new york fed

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdfor just google "underemployment problem us college"

 

[avinashbaliyan]

The rockstar of Engineering world rightnow is Elon Musk and what he says in this interview as advise for young people/ enternpreneurs

http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spacex_solarcity

"STUDY PHYSICS"

Infact he inspired his second wife A beautifull Hollywood star to take a course in Quantum Mechanics

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...ley-the-worlds-sexiest-quantum-physicist.html



i heard from my friends friend ... , the number 1 chance to get a Job at Spacex is PHD in physics , Masters can do as well ( Also an american citizenship as per US Govt rules ) .

In all the job postings at Tesla , Space x and other major research companies i can see they mention clearly A degree in Engineering, Physics ,...

I am an engineer ,i had little bit of pure physics while preparing for Engineering Entrance exams , but studying physics more deeply recently ( studying more now n now pure Physics) has helped to think more clearly , fast n new ideas ( no doubt about that , i can see the difference with my own conscious mind.)

 

[ModusPwnd]

I think its best not to listen to rockstars (read: outliers) for employment and career advice. The companies you list employ a negligible fraction of graduating physics majors.

 

[jesse73]

The rockstar of Engineering world rightnow is Elon Musk and what he says in this interview as advise for young people/ enternpreneurs

http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spacex_solarcity

"STUDY PHYSICS"

Infact he inspired his second wife A beautifull Hollywood star to take a course in Quantum Mechanics

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...ley-the-worlds-sexiest-quantum-physicist.html
i heard from my friends friend ... , the number 1 chance to get a Job at Spacex is PHD in physics , Masters can do as well ( Also an american citizenship as per US Govt rules ) .

In all the job postings at Tesla , Space x and other major research companies i can see they mention clearly A degree in Engineering, Physics ,...

I am an engineer ,i had little bit of pure physics while preparing for Engineering Entrance exams , but studying physics more deeply recently ( studying more now n now pure Physics) has helped to think more clearly , fast n new ideas ( no doubt about that , i can see the difference with my own conscious mind.)

Or how about following this lead and not even going to college at all and see how that works out.
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-hiring-non-graduates-2013-6
http://www.thielfellowship.org/Another sign you might be misinformed is by talking about a PhD in physics as if it employability is the same for all physics phds from HEP theory to CM exp.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Outliers lie out in both directions. The unemployed and looking rate for physics grads in 2012 was 5%. Unemployment among recent college graduates was double or triple that.

 

[jesse73]

Outliers lie out in both directions. The unemployed and looking rate for physics grads in 2012 was 5%. Unemployment among recent college graduates was double or triple that.

Unemployed is not the same thing as being underemployed . The impression I get is that people are not looking to get underemployed but physicists tend to get underemployed particularly at the bachelors level.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where some people see underemployment, others see a fussy prima donna who feels the world owes them a job of their choosing, and who are not in the least grateful for beating out that art history major for that job that's seemingly beneath them.

The 2012 AIP numbers have 5% unemployment, and 26% non-STEM employment. Dissatisfaction ranges between one-third (overall) and two-thirds (individual aspects). Let's take the bigger number and say that 5% are unemployed and 17% are underemployed. That's still a factor of 2 to 3 less than college graduates as a whole.

Outliers.

Recommended reading: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocent...the-truth-about-college-grad-underemployment/

 

[ParticleGrl]

Where some people see underemployment, others see a fussy prima donna who feels the world owes them a job of their choosing, and who are not in the least grateful for beating out that art history major for that job that's seemingly beneath them.

The 2012 AIP numbers have 5% unemployment, and 26% non-STEM employment. Dissatisfaction ranges between one-third (overall) and two-thirds (individual aspects). Let's take the bigger number and say that 5% are unemployed and 17% are underemployed. That's still a factor of 2 to 3 less than college graduates as a whole.

You missed the part-time employed, which is 20% of the employed bachelors. We don't have satisfaction numbers because they were excluded from the rest of the survey, but I think it wold be fair to add them to the underemployed. That will move it up to 36% or so underemployed, which is pretty close to the all-degree underemployment rate.

Also, I don't think its makes sense to compare the physics degree holders to all-undergrads. It would make more sense to compare them to something like engineering degrees, since the average physics major isn't deciding between art history and physics they are deciding between some engineering degree and physics.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Also, I don't think its makes sense to compare the physics degree holders to all-undergrads. It would make more sense to compare them to something like engineering degrees, since the average physics major isn't deciding between art history and physics they are deciding between some engineering degree and physics.

ParticleGrl, I find the above statement frankly rather dubious, because you are essentially assuming that the average physics major had weighed majoring in physics vs majoring in engineering. While this may be true for some, for the majority of students I doubt this was the case.

At least in my anecdotal experience, the physics majors that I knew had no interest whatsoever in pursuing engineering -- many physics majors, like many math majors, often spoke rather disparagingly of engineering majors (some of this was good-natured teasing, as engineering majors did the same for math & physics majors as well, but some of it was downright contempt). If anything, most physics majors I knew were deciding between a physics degree and a math degree (many in fact did both).

 

[Vanadium 50]

The bar is moving.

It started with "You can't get a job with a physics major!". That's not true, as physics majors have relatively lower unemployment than most majors.

Then it turned into "But you'll be underemployed!" Ignoring the fact that most entry level positions don't require or use everything from college" so the very concept is dubious, the odds are still less than for most majors.

Then it turned into "Engineering has better job prospects". It might. But why stop there? So does nursing - there's a huge shortage of nurses. And pipefitters. And welders - try and hire a welder. If college is supposed to be a trade school, why not an actual trade school.

Also, for those who complained that I don't know what it's like, I was starting out in the early 80's, when unemployment was even higher than it was today. And my first job definitely did not use all of my skills. I took it anyway, learned a lot, did a lot, and went on to graduate school after a year and a half. I didn't complain that I wasn't able to find a job that I was entitled to.

 

[Locrian]

Where some people see underemployment, others see a fussy prima donna who feels the world owes them a job of their choosing, and who are not in the least grateful for beating out that art history major for that job that's seemingly beneath them.

Strongly disagree with this sentiment. I don’t see people here who believe the world owes them a job of their choosing. I see people who worked hard in a difficult major and are upset at the quality of work available to them.

 

[atyy]

Also, for those who complained that I don't know what it's like, I was starting out in the early 80's, when unemployment was even higher than it was today. And my first job definitely did not use all of my skills. I took it anyway, learned a lot, did a lot, and went on to graduate school after a year and a half. I didn't complain that I wasn't able to find a job that I was entitled to.

What was that job? Did you have to go grad school to improve your job prospects, or did you go to grad school because your job prospects were poor?

Also, what about considerations of paying off college loans? Was that different then and now?

 

[Locrian]

If college is supposed to be a trade school, why not an actual trade school.

Aha! I wondered how long it would take you to fall back into the same old "vocational" stuff you've been posting for (seemingly?) years. At least you didn't use the word.

So let's be clear: No one here argued that it should be a trade school, or that they thought it was a trade school, or suggested that it act like a trade school.

Other readers should see the link and all the links it links to for background.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The fact that I have been posting it for years doesn't make it less true. And the argument "But I worked so hard! I'm entitled!" is not very convincing. The person doing the hiring is not impressed by how entitled you feel your degree has made you. She's interested in how you can make her money.

To answer one of the questions, I did IT work (in the very early days of the mainframe to PC transition) and I had about $27K in FY14 dollars in debt upon graduation. I deferred graduate school because I wanted the chance to start whacking away at the debt, the opportunity to learn something from the world of commerce, and time for my final grades to come in. I started as a full-time temp - I sold that as a "try before you buy" deal, and by the end of the summer I was permanent. What I ended up doing was working with business units on how they could use the computers - particularly the mainframes, which were largely idle except during payroll and the end of the month - we had to measurably improve performance.

Was the technical knowledge of an a SB in physics necessary? Absolutely not. Was the experience in earning a SB helpful? Absolutely.

Since I am writing, I should also try and correct one other misperception. The title of this thread is "Work opportunities for physicists". If you have a BS in physics, you're someone who has studied physics. You are not yet a physicist.

 

[Locrian]

The fact that I have been posting it for years doesn't make it less true.

No, but the fact that it's misinterpreting people's posts and is disconnected from the reality of how different degrees vary in employability does make it less true. I've repeatedly argued against it and you've never put forward any response. You repeat yourself and I dissect it, over and over. That's why I'm in the habbit of linking, so I don't have to retype myself every time.

And the argument "But I worked so hard! I'm entitled!" is not very convincing. The person doing the hiring is not impressed by how entitled you feel your degree has made you.

But that's the point - no one is saying this. It's a dishonest charicature of people's complaints. No one uses these words (entitled, owes, vocational, trade) except you.

Since I am writing, I should also try and correct one other misperception. The title of this thread is "Work opportunities for physicists". If you have a BS in physics, you're someone who has studied physics. You are not yet a physicist.

No doubt that's true - ZapperZ has certainly made it more than a few times, if memory serves me. The distance in education, skills and employability between a BS and a PhD is big.

 

[Locrian]

On another note, as I mentioned in this thread, these "value of physics BS" type threads are a dime a dozen, and the converstaion has been going on for at least a decade.

I wonder what everyone would think about having a stickied thread that linked to other threads, and that could be a single place for the conversation to take place. The goal would be for that specific discussion to take up less bandwidth, not more.

 

[homeomorphic]

The fact that I have been posting it for years doesn't make it less true. And the argument "But I worked so hard! I'm entitled!" is not very convincing. The person doing the hiring is not impressed by how entitled you feel your degree has made you. She's interested in how you can make her money.

That's entirely missing the point. The REAL question starts a lot earlier. The STUDENT is the one asking, "How is your physics degree going to make me money?"

Merely saying that you should follow your interests and then if you ask that you want to be able to actually use what you spend so much time studying, then you're some little entitled brat. Now, THAT is what I call unconvincing.

For those of us struggling to find a good job, it's too late, now, but if we had to do it all over again, regardless of what we think about our own situation and the non-issue of what we supposedly think we "deserve", we'd probably choose something else, and we aren't going to be giving our major a very high recommendation to anyone else, either. But it's fine if someone understands the risks and still wants to be a physics major. The point is only to understand the risks.