|
No I'm not in pure math but I know have seen enough of it to see taht 95% of it doesnt even apply to the world. Sure, if you can solve a problem, you can somehow apply it. But the abstract stuff that professors and grad students do, never gets applied in the REAL world. Like the guy said above, pure math is not profitable for 95% of the businesses out there. Who would pay you for that? Learning how to think logically and how to attack a problem is a different case. If you can show employers that you have the skill to do so (possibly because pure math trained you to do so) that is more valuable. At Queen's we have a program called Applied Math. Essentially ,they do 60-70% what EE do but they do a lot of pure math. Towards 4th year, they do wayy more math than EE. 90% of them went to grad school. Why? Because it doesn't apply to the real world.
|
On May 22 2010 02:43 goldrush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2010 00:59 TunaFishyMe wrote: I just graduated from EE at Queen's U in Canada. I was thinking about doing a masters in EE to improve my credentials and help me get a better job. Let me clear something up. Doing a master's or a PHd is not going to help you get further ahead if you don't go back into the same field. I worked at AMD and spoke with 5-6 engineers who have a masters in EE from supervisor level to director level. ALL of them told me their master's didnt help get them to where they wanted to be. Why? Because they did their master's in something unrelated to their line of work now. In the real world, no one cares if you have a master's or not. Or a PHd for that matter. They aren't going to treat you any different. What's important is that you are compentent and know what you are doing. If your Master's and PHd relates to what you do in industry, they will help quite a bit. But most (at least 90%) change their line of work eventually, making their degrees useless. Point? Don't do a master's because you think it'll improve your future JUST because you have a master's. That is so naive and a waste of 2 years. Most of academia doesn't even apply to industry so unless you want to continue doing research for the rest of your life, I wouldn't go into it. Especially not PHd.
Personally I feel that the author of the article is 100% correct. He's a bit harsh but thats reality. The real world is horrible. One another thing that is important. A Bachelor degree is useless. Why? Because everyone and their mother's have one too. Does this mean you HAVE to do a masters? No, It means you need to differentiate yourself. You get your bachelor so on paper, you have the minimum but outside of school you get involved, work for ppl, start your own business. Do something impressive to differentiate yourself and that is how you can get a job. For me, I'm doing a non-research oriented master's at UT. I want to move more into business so I'm doing a masters of management. We'll see how that goes. I just gave you guys 4 years of solid info. Consider yourself lucky! lol
Education gets you a foot in the door and then you have to prove that you belong there. But having that foot in the door is important, it doesn't matter if you can do the job if the people aren't going to give you a shot.
From what i've experienced, education gives you the chance to knock on the door. What gets your foot IN the door is whether you can actually do/have the capability to do the job. This is easier to show through work experience rather than course work. Every graduate from the some program across the world has the same course work. They are all looking for the same job. If I'm an employer, would I hire you because you have a degree?
|
On May 22 2010 02:51 TunaFishyMe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2010 02:43 goldrush wrote:On May 22 2010 00:59 TunaFishyMe wrote: I just graduated from EE at Queen's U in Canada. I was thinking about doing a masters in EE to improve my credentials and help me get a better job. Let me clear something up. Doing a master's or a PHd is not going to help you get further ahead if you don't go back into the same field. I worked at AMD and spoke with 5-6 engineers who have a masters in EE from supervisor level to director level. ALL of them told me their master's didnt help get them to where they wanted to be. Why? Because they did their master's in something unrelated to their line of work now. In the real world, no one cares if you have a master's or not. Or a PHd for that matter. They aren't going to treat you any different. What's important is that you are compentent and know what you are doing. If your Master's and PHd relates to what you do in industry, they will help quite a bit. But most (at least 90%) change their line of work eventually, making their degrees useless. Point? Don't do a master's because you think it'll improve your future JUST because you have a master's. That is so naive and a waste of 2 years. Most of academia doesn't even apply to industry so unless you want to continue doing research for the rest of your life, I wouldn't go into it. Especially not PHd.
Personally I feel that the author of the article is 100% correct. He's a bit harsh but thats reality. The real world is horrible. One another thing that is important. A Bachelor degree is useless. Why? Because everyone and their mother's have one too. Does this mean you HAVE to do a masters? No, It means you need to differentiate yourself. You get your bachelor so on paper, you have the minimum but outside of school you get involved, work for ppl, start your own business. Do something impressive to differentiate yourself and that is how you can get a job. For me, I'm doing a non-research oriented master's at UT. I want to move more into business so I'm doing a masters of management. We'll see how that goes. I just gave you guys 4 years of solid info. Consider yourself lucky! lol
Education gets you a foot in the door and then you have to prove that you belong there. But having that foot in the door is important, it doesn't matter if you can do the job if the people aren't going to give you a shot. From what i've experienced, education gives you the chance to knock on the door. What gets your foot IN the door is whether you can actually do/have the capability to do the job. This is easier to show through work experience rather than course work. Every graduate from the some program across the world has the same course work. They are all looking for the same job. If I'm an employer, would I hire you because you have a degree?
But that's my point. A Bachelor's degree isn't useless. If you don't have it, you don't even pass the initial screening.
|
On May 22 2010 02:36 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2010 02:20 cz wrote:On May 22 2010 02:06 rackdude wrote:On May 22 2010 01:58 TunaFishyMe wrote:On May 22 2010 01:24 rackdude wrote: Anyone know if this applies to math? especially math. Pure math is so abstract that no one really gives a crap about. Sure! Sorry but I lost you right there. The first thing I was taught in pure math is each problem's potential applications if solved. It seems like you aren't really part of the field. That's ok, but I'm looking for someone who knows the field. You sound like you're EE and that's all fine and dandy. Sorry if I come off as mean . The point is no business is going to pay you $60k+/year right out of university, whether as a PhD or not, to try and solve abstract problems that have long term implications. That doesn't make the business money. The only thing that would hire for that would be academia, and then you are in the exact same boat as what the OP is all about: too many PhDs, not enough decent paying positions (unless you count $30-40k/year after your PhD as "decent"). If your education does not give you the skills to immediately impact and increase the profit for a company, why would the private sector hire you? And if they don't, you are stuck with the govt/academia, which is already packed full of PhD's competing over $30k/year jobs (immediately) and the rare tenure track position 5-10 years after. The bottom line is, don't go into science (or math) or anything else trying to A) make a good living and B) do pure research as they are mutually incompatible for most and the first extremely difficult anyways. This thread is about academia. He says there are too many PhDs. People say that's true about many sciences. However, you cannot blanket statement it to EVERY single field. So, I'm wondering about math.
This thread is about doing research in science and making a livable salary doing so, whether that comes from the public sector or private. If you can show data concerning how Math Ph.D's are A) getting more jobs and B) getting paid more at their jobs then please do so.
|
On May 22 2010 05:51 goldrush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2010 02:51 TunaFishyMe wrote:On May 22 2010 02:43 goldrush wrote:On May 22 2010 00:59 TunaFishyMe wrote: I just graduated from EE at Queen's U in Canada. I was thinking about doing a masters in EE to improve my credentials and help me get a better job. Let me clear something up. Doing a master's or a PHd is not going to help you get further ahead if you don't go back into the same field. I worked at AMD and spoke with 5-6 engineers who have a masters in EE from supervisor level to director level. ALL of them told me their master's didnt help get them to where they wanted to be. Why? Because they did their master's in something unrelated to their line of work now. In the real world, no one cares if you have a master's or not. Or a PHd for that matter. They aren't going to treat you any different. What's important is that you are compentent and know what you are doing. If your Master's and PHd relates to what you do in industry, they will help quite a bit. But most (at least 90%) change their line of work eventually, making their degrees useless. Point? Don't do a master's because you think it'll improve your future JUST because you have a master's. That is so naive and a waste of 2 years. Most of academia doesn't even apply to industry so unless you want to continue doing research for the rest of your life, I wouldn't go into it. Especially not PHd.
Personally I feel that the author of the article is 100% correct. He's a bit harsh but thats reality. The real world is horrible. One another thing that is important. A Bachelor degree is useless. Why? Because everyone and their mother's have one too. Does this mean you HAVE to do a masters? No, It means you need to differentiate yourself. You get your bachelor so on paper, you have the minimum but outside of school you get involved, work for ppl, start your own business. Do something impressive to differentiate yourself and that is how you can get a job. For me, I'm doing a non-research oriented master's at UT. I want to move more into business so I'm doing a masters of management. We'll see how that goes. I just gave you guys 4 years of solid info. Consider yourself lucky! lol
Education gets you a foot in the door and then you have to prove that you belong there. But having that foot in the door is important, it doesn't matter if you can do the job if the people aren't going to give you a shot. From what i've experienced, education gives you the chance to knock on the door. What gets your foot IN the door is whether you can actually do/have the capability to do the job. This is easier to show through work experience rather than course work. Every graduate from the some program across the world has the same course work. They are all looking for the same job. If I'm an employer, would I hire you because you have a degree? But that's my point. A Bachelor's degree isn't useless. If you don't have it, you don't even pass the initial screening.
I'm not sure if anyone has proposed the opposite. The OP is all about graduate work and why the work/reward is horrible, and why even if you do get to tenure track you won't be doing what you want anyway.
|
On May 22 2010 02:51 TunaFishyMe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2010 02:43 goldrush wrote:On May 22 2010 00:59 TunaFishyMe wrote: I just graduated from EE at Queen's U in Canada. I was thinking about doing a masters in EE to improve my credentials and help me get a better job. Let me clear something up. Doing a master's or a PHd is not going to help you get further ahead if you don't go back into the same field. I worked at AMD and spoke with 5-6 engineers who have a masters in EE from supervisor level to director level. ALL of them told me their master's didnt help get them to where they wanted to be. Why? Because they did their master's in something unrelated to their line of work now. In the real world, no one cares if you have a master's or not. Or a PHd for that matter. They aren't going to treat you any different. What's important is that you are compentent and know what you are doing. If your Master's and PHd relates to what you do in industry, they will help quite a bit. But most (at least 90%) change their line of work eventually, making their degrees useless. Point? Don't do a master's because you think it'll improve your future JUST because you have a master's. That is so naive and a waste of 2 years. Most of academia doesn't even apply to industry so unless you want to continue doing research for the rest of your life, I wouldn't go into it. Especially not PHd.
Personally I feel that the author of the article is 100% correct. He's a bit harsh but thats reality. The real world is horrible. One another thing that is important. A Bachelor degree is useless. Why? Because everyone and their mother's have one too. Does this mean you HAVE to do a masters? No, It means you need to differentiate yourself. You get your bachelor so on paper, you have the minimum but outside of school you get involved, work for ppl, start your own business. Do something impressive to differentiate yourself and that is how you can get a job. For me, I'm doing a non-research oriented master's at UT. I want to move more into business so I'm doing a masters of management. We'll see how that goes. I just gave you guys 4 years of solid info. Consider yourself lucky! lol
Education gets you a foot in the door and then you have to prove that you belong there. But having that foot in the door is important, it doesn't matter if you can do the job if the people aren't going to give you a shot. From what i've experienced, education gives you the chance to knock on the door. What gets your foot IN the door is whether you can actually do/have the capability to do the job. This is easier to show through work experience rather than course work. Every graduate from the some program across the world has the same course work. They are all looking for the same job. If I'm an employer, would I hire you because you have a degree?
Yes, and as per the OP, any door worth going to is being knocked on by about one hundred other people that day, each with the same Ph.D qualifications, and there isn't that great of a salary behind it anyway.
|
On May 22 2010 02:46 TunaFishyMe wrote: No I'm not in pure math but I know...
Because solving TSPs doesn't help NASA save tons of money on fuel and computer chip companies tons of money per chip through increased efficiency.
Because TSPs again do not help out any transportation company manage routes.
Because the nth dimensional geometries do not help solve physics problems which in turn get applied use.
Because group/graph theory is not instrumental to the understanding of the internet and efficient computing that is involved with it.
Because latin squares do not have a place in statistical programming which helps solve problems in biostatistics, psychology (especially with missing data analysis), etc.
Because probability and statistical research doesn't help with artificial intelligence and game theoretic solutions.
Because advancements in analysis and abstract algebras aren't used to solve problems in sciences.
Thank you for the help, but you're not in pure math and you clearly do not know what it's about. There is tons of money in many places because of all the applications that it has... however, how much is already taken? How hard is it to get tenure in math? That's what I'm still looking for.
But if anyone in the field knows how the field is doing, I'd like to know.
|
While there are a lot of applications of math to the real world, a lot of pure math people learn math without learning its applications. For instance, I have taken two semesters of abstract algebra and I feel like it's the most useless shit ever despite knowing that there are many applications to other fields. My problem is that I haven't seen algebra used to advance the understanding of anything except itself (and maybe a little bit of number theory). I would be happy if I saw more applications of it to something else (even if it's just another branch of mathematics). However, I am hopeful that my perspectives will turn around after I start learning the connections between algebra and other fields. I am particularly interested in how algebra is used to study physics and symmetries that arise in physics. I feel like an undergraduate education alone is inadequate for giving me the understanding I seek so I would also like to know more about the questions that rackdude raised.
|
On May 22 2010 11:36 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2010 02:46 TunaFishyMe wrote: No I'm not in pure math but I know...
Because solving TSPs doesn't help NASA save tons of money on fuel and computer chip companies tons of money per chip through increased efficiency. Because TSPs again do not help out any transportation company manage routes. Because the nth dimensional geometries do not help solve physics problems which in turn get applied use. Because group/graph theory is not instrumental to the understanding of the internet and efficient computing that is involved with it. Because latin squares do not have a place in statistical programming which helps solve problems in biostatistics, psychology (especially with missing data analysis), etc. Because probability and statistical research doesn't help with artificial intelligence and game theoretic solutions. Because advancements in analysis and abstract algebras aren't used to solve problems in sciences. Thank you for the help, but you're not in pure math and you clearly do not know what it's about. There is tons of money in many places because of all the applications that it has... however, how much is already taken? How hard is it to get tenure in math? That's what I'm still looking for. But if anyone in the field knows how the field is doing, I'd like to know.
From hackernews who had a discussion on this same article:
5 points by aswanson 817 days ago | link
Are the prospects this bad in math as well?
----- 5 points by yummyfajitas 817 days ago | link
Yes. In my year, we had 12 people entering at Rutgers.
2 graduated in 5 years, and got good postdocs after 1 year (one went to UIUC, I'm at Courant). We are the only ones who have a real shot at research oriented tenure track.
1 dropped out in the first year, 2 more have or are dropping out with a masters (1 after 4.5 years, 1 after 6).
3 more will graduate after 6 years, IF they can find a job (50% odds). One guy has a wife, and hopes he can find a job in the NYC area (he's looking at a 4+4 teaching load). I know other people who have such jobs: none like them.
1 more is potentially a long termer (he hopes to graduate in 7 years).
The only major difference is that you will probably not be a technician (as described by this guy), you will do your own research from the beginning. You can also survive without grants, though it will hurt your career.
|
On May 22 2010 14:00 pat777 wrote: While there are a lot of applications of math to the real world, a lot of pure math people learn math without learning its applications. For instance, I have taken two semesters of abstract algebra and I feel like it's the most useless shit ever despite knowing that there are many applications to other fields. My problem is that I haven't seen algebra used to advance the understanding of anything except itself (and maybe a little bit of number theory). I would be happy if I saw more applications of it to something else (even if it's just another branch of mathematics). However, I am hopeful that my perspectives will turn around after I start learning the connections between algebra and other fields. I am particularly interested in how algebra is used to study physics and symmetries that arise in physics. I feel like an undergraduate education alone is inadequate for giving me the understanding I seek so I would also like to know more about the questions that rackdude raised.
Abstract algebra is the foundation of algebraic coding theory, for one thing. That's not "coding" in the sense of computer programming but rather forward error detection and error correction codes. i.e. good ways to add redundancy to source information such that the receiver of the information can detect any errors and/or correct them.
Cyclic codes can be directly linked to ideals and polynomials over finite fields GF(q), and consequently their properties are described using tools of modern algebra. Each possible information word--or group of info of some sort--can be transformed into a unique code word according to the mapping that a code defines. For cyclic codes, each possible code word is a multiple of a single generator polynomial with coefficient operations defined over a finite field. Reed-Solomon codes are a subclass of cyclic codes that are used in data storage on CDs, satellite communications, etc. Cyclic redundancy codes (specifically, the well-known CRC-32) are applied to every packet sent over Ethernet or Wi-Fi, among other things.
|
On May 22 2010 11:36 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2010 02:46 TunaFishyMe wrote: No I'm not in pure math but I know...
Because solving TSPs doesn't help NASA save tons of money on fuel and computer chip companies tons of money per chip through increased efficiency. Because TSPs again do not help out any transportation company manage routes. Because the nth dimensional geometries do not help solve physics problems which in turn get applied use. Because group/graph theory is not instrumental to the understanding of the internet and efficient computing that is involved with it. Because latin squares do not have a place in statistical programming which helps solve problems in biostatistics, psychology (especially with missing data analysis), etc. Because probability and statistical research doesn't help with artificial intelligence and game theoretic solutions. Because advancements in analysis and abstract algebras aren't used to solve problems in sciences. Thank you for the help, but you're not in pure math and you clearly do not know what it's about. There is tons of money in many places because of all the applications that it has... however, how much is already taken? How hard is it to get tenure in math? That's what I'm still looking for. But if anyone in the field knows how the field is doing, I'd like to know. sure, all of that is true. But how many pure math ppl actually end up working for nasa? How long does it take "nth dimensional geometries issues" to be applied to the real world? Do scientist who use probabilty and stats for research ACTUALLY know what is going on? Or do they plug their numbers into a tool, get the result, and they intrepret the data? How many ppl actually end up working on those tools FOR the scientists? I am not saying its a dead field and you wont be able to find a job. I'm telling you that for the majority, pure math hardly applies to the real world. People in industry and academia are completely different. It's two different world. Ppl in academia think they that they are above everyone (generalizing of course) and they are so far ahead in terms of knowledge. That may be true. But in industry (reality), that knowledge is 30 years ahead and we can't turn it into $$$. So why does industry care? They don't. There are places to make a lot of money, but how easy is it to get into those positions. Can an average pure math major get it (someone who gets 60-70? Or is it the top 1% in the program? I have 2 friends who are top of their program in math, and they informed me that only 1 has a job in bombardier. The rest went into grad school. Why? mmmmm.....And it is like this in all universities. At least in canada.
You can't live life looking at the minority. Like you did to my post, you ignored the rest of my reasoning and only focused on the part where I said I wasn't in pure math so I CANT POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT GOES ON THERE!!!! Are the rest of my points valid? Please tell me from your experience, how many of your pure math seniors end up going to NASA? How many of your classmates found summer positions in areas that relate to your field (working for a professor in the summer doesnt count, that is still academia). Unless you are part of a very small elite pure math crowd, I highly doubt you'll find much that relates.
|
No, the math applies to the real world sure enough. They just don't hire many mathematicians to apply that math for them. I think the two of you are not disagreeing but are rather focusing on different issues.
|
On May 22 2010 01:24 rackdude wrote: Anyone know if this applies to math?
Depends on what kind of math you go into. If you go into algebra or logic you'll probably have problems, while if you were to go into something like finance or numerics you'll probably be just fine.
|
gentlemen, this is a matter of science
|
Haven't read the entire thread, but I stumbled across an interesting article written by Michio Kaku, one of my favourite theoretical physicists. It's called "So you want to become a scientist?" and is located here:
http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=256
The most relevant part (to this thread) is the last one:
"After a Ph.D: Three sources of jobs"
+ Show Spoiler +After a Ph.D: Three sources of jobs
a) government
b) industry
c) the university
Government work may involve setting standards at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (the old National Bureau of Standards), which is important for all physics research. Government jobs pay well, but you will never become wealthy being a government physicist. But government work may also involve working in the weapons industry, which I highly discourage. (Not only for ethical reasons, but because that area is being downsized rapidly.)
Industrial work has its ebbs and flows. But lasers and semi-conductor and computer research will be the engines of the 21st century, and there will be jobs in these fields. One rewarding feature of this work is the realization that you are building the scientific architecture that will enrich all our lives. There is no job security at this level, but the pay can be quite good (especially for those in management positions - it’s easier for a scientist to become a business manager than for a business major to learn science.) In fact, some of the wealthiest billionaires in the electronics industry and Silicon Valley came from physics/engineering backgrounds and then switched to management or set up their own corporation.
But I personally think a university position is the best, because then you can work on any problem you want. But jobs at the university are scarce; this may mean taking several two-year “post-doctorate” positions at various colleges before landing a teaching position as an assistant professor without tenure (tenure means you have a permanent position). Then you have 5-7 more years in which to establish a name for yourself as an assistant professor.
If you get tenure, then you have a permanent position and are promoted to associate professor and eventually full professor. The pay may average between $40,000 to $100,000, but there are also severe obstacles to this path.
In the 1960s, because of Sputnik, a tremendous number of university jobs opened up. The number of professors soared exponentially. But this could not last forever. By the mid 1970s, job expansion began inevitably to slow down, forcing many of my friends out of work. So the number of faculty positions leveled off in the 1980s.
Then, many people predicted that, with the retirement of the Sputnik-generation, new jobs at the universities would open up in the 90s. Exactly the opposite took place. First, Congress passed legislation against age-discrimination, so professors could stay on as long as they like. Many physicists in their seventies decided to stay on, making it difficult to find jobs for young people. Second, after the cancellation of the SSC and the end of the Cold War, universities and government began to slowly downsize the funding for physics. As a result, the average age of a physicist increases 8 months per year, meaning that there is very little new hiring.
As I said, physicists do not become scientists for the money, so I don’t want to downplay the financial problems that you may face. In fact, many superstring theorists who could not get faculty jobs went to Wall Street (where they were incorrectly called “rocket scientists”). This may mean leaving the field. However, for the diehards who wish to do physics in spite of a bad job market, you may plan to have a “fall-back” job to pay the bills (e.g. programming) while you conduct research on your own time.
But this dismal situation cannot last. Within ten years, the Sputnik-generation will finally retire, hopefully opening up new jobs for young, talented physicists. The funding for physics may never rival that of the Cold War, but physics will remain an indispensable part of creating the wealth of the 21st century. There are not many of us (about 30,000 or so are members of the American Physical Society) but we form the vanguard of the future. It also helps to join the APS and receive Physics Today magazine, which has an excellent back page which lists the various job openings around the country.
|
Swtich Physcist and Science with Musician and Music and it's absolutely true. Except make twice as many PHDs to like 30 times. Classical Orchestras need more support!
|
|
|
|