|
probably no one will read this, but yes this is basically true
this trend has been impacting american engineering for awhile, which is trending towards outsourcing of all but the most sensitive and choicest jobs (i'm in aerospace if anyone is curious)...i spend most of my time working with mexicans and indians - they are uniformly eager to please and hardworking, but even as a fresh out i was far more competent than every single one of them that i've worked with...the things i have to explain on a near daily basis not only boggle my mind, they make me want to change careers...to be fair, i have experienced american colleagues that similarly ask retarded questions and don't know what they should...
i have a friend that has recently started training to be a pharmacist...i know another skilled engineer that became a nurse...i can name a number of intelligent and talented design engineers that i went to school with that decided to go the medical route...this is a growing trend and unlikely to go away without some major government intervention...i myself am in the process of taking some more training on the electrical side to round out my expertise and hopping over to the biomedical side...
|
United States24803 Posts
On May 17 2010 09:25 ray1234 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2010 06:06 micronesia wrote:On May 17 2010 05:35 illu wrote:On May 17 2010 04:00 revy wrote:On May 17 2010 03:44 JohannesH wrote:On May 17 2010 02:31 illu wrote:On May 17 2010 02:00 Simplistik wrote:
Not every scientist works at a university. There's much joy, and money, to be had by working in industry. That's true. But a physicist like the author of that article has no choice but to work for the university. I dont know, maybe its different in the US... But here physicists get jobs pretty decently I've had thoughts on this actually, I hope nobody else has mentioned this (I haven't read the entire thread). In my experience in the small University setting, Physics is a service department. The Physics department is responsible for A) Training new Majors and B) Giving introductory courses to Engineering students. In the same regard, the Math department does two things A) Trains majors B) Trains Physicists and to a lesser extent Engineers. Since the Physics and Math departments have to support other departments they are granted more staff than their number of majors would usually grant them. More Staff = More Tenure track positions available = More employed PhDs. Yes I'm probably ignoring some possibly important factors, but hey, I was a physics major (concentration in astrophysics) we make lots of assumptions. =) What was that? My numbers were within an order of magnitude? Close enough! I don't think any of the arguments above were against my point. A PhD in physics cannot net you a job in industry. Consequently you can only find a job in a university. This is a lot more limiting than, say, someone with a PhD in computer science, statistics, or pharmacology. I stand by my earlier claim that it's a big exaggeration to say a phd in physics cannot get you a job in industry. Still I agree it's very tough which is why you can't rely on that. This is absolutely not true, many of my PhD colleagues have great jobs in tech companies, banks, software companies etc... Some physics PhD are very narrow minded and dont know how to find jobs or sell themselves, but to my knowledge, the theoretical physicists out bid finance majors and economists when it comes to landing quant, analyst and other lucrative back end job in banks. And experimental physicists often have more hands on skills than most engineers and they definitely can get lots of engineering jobs
Perhaps you are right that the reason why it seems like it's tough coming out of a phd program in physics or a similar field is because most people in that situation don't know how to proceed. I'm a bit surprised that you chose to quote my post and say that it's not true instead of the person I was quoting who was even more off if what you say is correct... I was basically saying it wasn't as bad as he made it sound...
I definitely wouldn't know how to proceed with my physics degree in finding a private sector job... fortunately I'm not looking for one currently :p
|
holyshit i live near this guy that goes to washington university @ st.louis O_O
|
On May 17 2010 03:57 theKOT wrote:
I recently grew a little sick of my physics undergrad and my plan was to go into computer science. However, I talked to my professor who is a Biophysicist and he said that the biophysics field is expanding and has very high demand for post docs and professors. What I've heard from the seniors in the physics program was that some fields of physics were very saturated and competitive (especially astrophysics) and others were underpopulated and easy to get in to.
That is a good point for this thread. One of the multiple massive oversimplifications occurring is to compare all science careers at once.
It is a bit astonished that most people here agree with the OP. Every field is guaranteed to have people who whine like this. Like,
On May 16 2010 08:40 orgolove wrote:If you get a PhD, do not aim for academia. Simple as that. The truth is, there may be someone out there that makes a once in a decade discovery. It's probably not going to be you 
Er, what...? There are too many significant, useful things being discovered rapidly too mention.
One thing I want to try to correct is the concern about pay... Although it seems pointless as I believe anyone interested in science is not going to be put off by this anyway. As a Ph.D. student pay ranges from 20-30k/year depending on the program, and with no tuition cost, which is valuable. As a post-doc, the information in the OP is dated. I believe the average starting post-doc salary is 35k, in biology, that is what recent graduates I know received, and they were not really competitive. It increases each year, and if you stand out, it increases dramatically. If you get a fellowship, or take a lead role in generating a grant for a lab, you can make more than you would make as a assistant (starting) professor. Becoming a professor depends on your work as a post-doc. If you published well, and have a future research direction, and are not too anti-social, you can be competitive for a tenure track position. It is true that it is highly competitive. That is the only part of the OP that is true, but what is the point of complaining about it? It's a pretty awesome position, of course it will be competitive, like anything else of value. My personal opinion is that, compared to other jobs, this work allows for a highly individual, independent impact on your fate, so your fate is largely in your own hands...
Of course, the main counter argument should be the good aspects of this career. Being preoccupied with money in this track will most assuredly drive anyone away.
|
On May 16 2010 08:07 shindigs wrote:
Jonathan I. Katz
I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.
Say no to Ph. D.s.
|
This has struck me very deeply, and I have every reason to believe that this mean is correct with everything he has said. I feel like I just got a wisdom bomb dropped on me. It puts so many things into perspective for me here.
|
|
|
It's pretty accurate. I recently finished a masters in computer science (have a few friends still finishing Ph D.) It is not really worth it unless you are supremely talented in research and absolutely love what you do. If you intend to work, better off getting into the workforce immediately. Mathematical finance or computational finance programs are worth it though :D
|
From my chemistry point of view lots of peolpe end up going into accounting, law and banking. Though I will never understand why they didn't just study that, they are mostly pretty successful.
|
What is wrong with this man?
|
On May 16 2010 08:18 BDF92 wrote:
Well that rules out everything except for law and med right?
*edit* 400 posts!
thank god for being in medschool then
|
Science is not a flowery-happy-place to be in. None of my sister's co-workers from university are happy with their life as a scientist. Half of my Bachelor's class lost it's believe in a carreer in science and swapped to a more economic/law course.
Fact is, if you work on getting into the pharmaceutical/chemical industry you have good chances at good payment, good future outlook and a happy life. The other 60-70% of scientists will remain at universities. Starting with barely any payment during their PhD, continuing with decent payment during their post-doc time (which is of course limited to a 2-3 years payment period. Then you have to re-apply). There has been some effort put into scientific possibilities here in Germany with "junior professor" positions which aim at youger scieitnest to get them insights and manageing possibilites. Though not really a success, it was a good apporach and I do not know exaclty about the outcome of that since I have swapped to a differenent non-science field as well.
Long story short: It can be depressing to get low payment, low chances on career-opportunies and still try to work on what you think is really fulfilling for you. Pharmaceutical industry is a great opportunity for sciecnties and if anyone is thinking about starting to study a science-related course, you should try to geet a foot into the industry doors asap. Like doing your Thesis in cooperation with the industry.
|
On May 17 2010 10:29 halpmeh wrote:
probably no one will read this, but yes this is basically true
this trend has been impacting american engineering for awhile, which is trending towards outsourcing of all but the most sensitive and choicest jobs (i'm in aerospace if anyone is curious)...i spend most of my time working with mexicans and indians - they are uniformly eager to please and hardworking, but even as a fresh out i was far more competent than every single one of them that i've worked with...the things i have to explain on a near daily basis not only boggle my mind, they make me want to change careers...to be fair, i have experienced american colleagues that similarly ask retarded questions and don't know what they should...
i have a friend that has recently started training to be a pharmacist...i know another skilled engineer that became a nurse...i can name a number of intelligent and talented design engineers that i went to school with that decided to go the medical route...this is a growing trend and unlikely to go away without some major government intervention...i myself am in the process of taking some more training on the electrical side to round out my expertise and hopping over to the biomedical side...
well there's a need for a lot of people in medicine, especially general practitioners and registered nurses, so it's a good field to go into because of the relatively high incomes and job security.
|
On May 16 2010 22:46 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2010 14:58 L wrote:
Uh, If you bothered reading, he says he's completely happy with his current state, but that undergrads nowadays are getting the shaft because they need to spend years and years as post-docs. I've worked in labs with absolutely BRILLIANT post docs who sacrifice everything for their research. When you learn that they're 37 and have been pounding out nature and lancet papers, but still can't find a tenure track position, it drives home just how much of a glut the market currently has.
Eh, it's bad but it's not THAT bad. Nobody is "pounding out" nature papers- a lot of professors go their entire careers without ever publishing 1. If a postdoc can publish a paper in nature he's almost guaranteed a tenure position somewhere.
Completely false regarding the guarantee of tenure. I have multiple friends who are 2-3 years into their masters/Ph.D who have a first author nature paper published and another on the way pending revision. One's at Yale and has no prospects because the field she works in is essentially dominated by the lab she already works in, so she'd be fighting against what amounts to the founder of the discipline for a position and funding. Another dropped out of their faculty and joined med because a huge subsidy glut just ended, so the field that he was working in is full of young profs and universities won't be opening up new positions as older profs die in order to downsize.
Having a nature paper doesn't guarantee anything when there aren't any tenure track positions available in your field. Its the equivalent of having a little gold star next to your name.
Science was sold to students as the opportunity to explore and discover and learn how about how the world functions. Instead students in many fields are finishing their B.Sc then realizing that they're being offered the opportunity of being someone's lab rat for 6 years for terrible wages and flat out rejecting it, then walking away with what amounts to a useless degree.
In my own personal case I completely ditched science because the job prospects prior to a Ph.D were nonexistent and success in acquiring tenure as a Ph.D would essentially be determined by what my PI wanted me to research.
Nah, that's okay bro. I'll work in a field were I can make an 80 to 120k starting salary instead.
|
In case any English majors (like me) thought that there would be a crowd of adoring fans waiting when you got off the boat, here's something to make you cringe.
If anything, it sounds like it's worse than the situation in the sciences. The nice thing about the sciences is that there is, at the very least, the dream of money in it. In the humanities, the best you can hope for, bottom line, is a good idea. Good ideas don't pay much money when you can't turn them into a thing you can sell.
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-decline-of-the-english-department/
No joke, I have been thinking about just saying fuck it and going for broke on becoming a novelist, because what I used to think of as "safe" is starting to feel like a lie.
|
Breadwinner, that's a fantastic article you linked. His core point is very powerful: less and less people understand the monumental value of reading classics and developing a personal philosophy at university. You could probably start a new thread just off that.
With regard to the main thread, is any of this really unique to science? It seems like if you study anything fascinating, rich and rewarding (Literature, Music, Philosophy, Science, Art), then you generally don't get that well paid.
|
On May 17 2010 19:56 Tal wrote:
Breadwinner, that's a fantastic article you linked. His core point is very powerful: less and less people understand the monumental value of reading classics and developing a personal philosophy at university. You could probably start a new thread just off that.
With regard to the main thread, is any of this really unique to science? It seems like if you study anything fascinating, rich and rewarding (Literature, Music, Philosophy, Science, Art), then you generally don't get that well paid.
I think you can get even more specific and say that the ONLY fields you can study which lead directly to high paying jobs are engineering and medicine. Maybe law, but only if you're at a top law school and get great grades. Any other degree is not going to make much money for you. You can still get a high paying job with other degrees of course, but there's no direct link the way engineering and medicine have.
|
This whole article seems kind of stupid... My brother went through a physics PhD program, and virtually all of his friends I've met have quality jobs making bank.
I think this guy is just talking about getting a position as a professor... Which is fairly difficult because there aren't very many openings for that sort of thing.
|
On May 17 2010 17:32 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2010 22:46 Luddite wrote:On May 16 2010 14:58 L wrote:
Uh, If you bothered reading, he says he's completely happy with his current state, but that undergrads nowadays are getting the shaft because they need to spend years and years as post-docs. I've worked in labs with absolutely BRILLIANT post docs who sacrifice everything for their research. When you learn that they're 37 and have been pounding out nature and lancet papers, but still can't find a tenure track position, it drives home just how much of a glut the market currently has.
Eh, it's bad but it's not THAT bad. Nobody is "pounding out" nature papers- a lot of professors go their entire careers without ever publishing 1. If a postdoc can publish a paper in nature he's almost guaranteed a tenure position somewhere. Completely false regarding the guarantee of tenure. I have multiple friends who are 2-3 years into their masters/Ph.D who have a first author nature paper published and another on the way pending revision. One's at Yale and has no prospects because the field she works in is essentially dominated by the lab she already works in, so she'd be fighting against what amounts to the founder of the discipline for a position and funding. Another dropped out of their faculty and joined med because a huge subsidy glut just ended, so the field that he was working in is full of young profs and universities won't be opening up new positions as older profs die in order to downsize. Having a nature paper doesn't guarantee anything when there aren't any tenure track positions available in your field. Its the equivalent of having a little gold star next to your name. Science was sold to students as the opportunity to explore and discover and learn how about how the world functions. Instead students in many fields are finishing their B.Sc then realizing that they're being offered the opportunity of being someone's lab rat for 6 years for terrible wages and flat out rejecting it, then walking away with what amounts to a useless degree. In my own personal case I completely ditched science because the job prospects prior to a Ph.D were nonexistent and success in acquiring tenure as a Ph.D would essentially be determined by what my PI wanted me to research. Nah, that's okay bro. I'll work in a field were I can make an 80 to 120k starting salary instead.
Eh... Even a Nature subjournal will get you a interview for tenure track positions. People get these interviews based on their publications and that is far better than what most people who get hired have. And there are definitely such positions available.
Of course the other part you mentioned is a requirement too, but usually not an issue for most people. I mean the having a future direction. No one will get hired as a professor if he does not have a plan laid out, no one can be hired if they are planning on starting something from scratch... just because if they did, they could not compete with their peers who are carrying over future directions from their post-doc.
The last part you said is mostly true, too, but that is why you just choose a PI you strongly want to work with. And in most cases you eventually have a chance to make an individual direction. And should your PI give you a bad project that does not turn out well, you are not at all ruined at that point (although you would be if this happened as a post-doc). Many people get good post-doc positions after Ph.D.s that were not very fruitful in terms of papers.
There is no arguing with your starting salary part though. But it is hardly like you are impoverished, and it is much better than what the OP describes it as. If money is the first consideration than just go for whatever pays the most...
There are definitely a lot of areas to be improved but the OP is just a ranting blog from an angry person. If there were some thoughtful ideas for restructuring the process, increasing funding, no one would disagree.
|
I've just got to say, as a new Ph.D. track student in EE starting today (I finished my B.S. earlier this month), I sometimes wish that my undergrad was in math or physics. In my focus area of communications theory and in other areas like controls systems and DSP, a strong math background is probably more useful than an undergrad in EE. Many EE professors in these fields actually have B.S. degrees in something else like math.
If you're a science major with good math skills, I recommend jumping ship for grad school in EE. There are many interesting problems that need to be solved, both in industry and academia. Riches and opportunities await.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
