Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the world works? Forget it!
Science is fun and exciting. The thrill of discovery is unique. If you are smart, ambitious and hard working you should major in science as an undergraduate. But that is as far as you should take it. After graduation, you will have to deal with the real world. That means that you should not even consider going to graduate school in science. Do something else instead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or something else which appeals to you.
Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you from following a career path which was successful for me? Because times have changed (I received my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American science no longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school in science it is in the expectation of spending your working life doing scientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve important and interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed, probably when it is too late to choose another career.
American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the price drops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes the form of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs. Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaining a real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) most young scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have no prospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoral position and move every two years. For many more details consult the Young Scientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of the Washington Monthly.
As examples, consider two of the leading candidates for a recent Assistant Professorship in my department. One was 37, ten years out of graduate school (he didn't get the job). The leading candidate, whom everyone thinks is brilliant, was 35, seven years out of graduate school. Only then was he offered his first permanent job (that's not tenure, just the possibility of it six years later, and a step off the treadmill of looking for a new job every two years). The latest example is a 39 year old candidate for another Assistant Professorship; he has published 35 papers. In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.). Anyone with the intelligence, ambition and willingness to work hard to succeed in science can also succeed in any of these other professions.
Typical postdoctoral salaries begin at $27,000 annually in the biological sciences and about $35,000 in the physical sciences (graduate student stipends are less than half these figures). Can you support a family on that income? It suffices for a young couple in a small apartment, though I know of one physicist whose wife left him because she was tired of repeatedly moving with little prospect of settling down. When you are in your thirties you will need more: a house in a good school district and all the other necessities of ordinary middle class life. Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not justify an oath of poverty or celibacy.
Of course, you don't go into science to get rich. So you choose not to go to medical or law school, even though a doctor or lawyer typically earns two to three times as much as a scientist (one lucky enough to have a good senior-level job). I made that choice too. I became a scientist in order to have the freedom to work on problems which interest me. But you probably won't get that freedom. As a postdoc you will work on someone else's ideas, and may be treated as a technician rather than as an independent collaborator. Eventually, you will probably be squeezed out of science entirely. You can get a fine job as a computer programmer, but why not do this at 22, rather than putting up with a decade of misery in the scientific job market first? The longer you spend in science the harder you will find it to leave, and the less attractive you will be to prospective employers in other fields.
Perhaps you are so talented that you can beat the postdoc trap; some university (there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences) will be so impressed with you that you will be hired into a tenure track position two years out of graduate school. Maybe. But the general cheapening of scientific labor means that even the most talented stay on the postdoctoral treadmill for a very long time; consider the job candidates described above. And many who appear to be very talented, with grades and recommendations to match, later find that the competition of research is more difficult, or at least different, and that they must struggle with the rest.
Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professorship. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. They're not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in a proposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, however original and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that original ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet been proved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they can be, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you find that it is not what you wanted after all.
What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyone who does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue another career. This will spare you the misery of disappointed expectations. Young Americans have generally woken up to the bad prospects and absence of a reasonable middle class career path in science and are deserting it. If you haven't yet, then join them. Leave graduate school to people from India and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse. I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.
If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try to persuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. The glut of scientists is entirely the consequence of funding policies (almost all graduate education is paid for by federal grants). The funding agencies are bemoaning the scarcity of young people interested in science when they themselves caused this scarcity by destroying science as a career. They could reverse this situation by matching the number trained to the demand, but they refuse to do so, or even to discuss the problem seriously (for many years the NSF propagated a dishonest prediction of a coming shortage of scientists, and most funding agencies still act as if this were true). The result is that the best young people, who should go into science, sensibly refuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled with weak American students and with foreigners lured by the American student visa.
Your thoughts TL?
Sort of made me waver on pursuing a career in academia. I knew that pursuing a research career wouldn't be the most ideal job but I hope it's not as soul crushing and impractical as this article makes it out to be.
So one professor raging causes you to think this way, you realize this specific professor may have just hated his research or never got what he wanted?
I'm surprised that he's even saying a PhD in engineering is any better. It's just as bad, fighting for grants every week, practically doing the same thing over and over again.
What he says is the truth. Being a postdoc is a terrible life to have >.<
If you want to get a PhD, at least get one in a field that will let you get out of academia afterwards.
I am currently reaching the end of my PhD in chemistry
The problem he is talking about seems to be focused on staying in acedamia, in which case he is completely accurate.
However, if you go into industry or work at a national lab, the job prospects are much better (at least in chemistry), and the payscale is at least double that of academic appointments. The trade-off is that you are much less likely to be able to do independent research, and can be stuck working on an uninteresting project.
Well what the job market is like is something everyone should consider when pursuing there education. Its like anything else. If you truly love the idea of being a scientist. Then you should do it. If you decide money and finances are importent to you, don't .
On May 16 2010 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: What about a PhD in English?
Another related article: http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the-Huma/44846/ The market for almost any discipline is ridiculously oversaturated with Ph.D's now, I'd imagine. Following your dreams is nice, but spending 10-15 more years than your peers in academia only to find yourself jumping at the most meager positions in academia somehow doesn't seem worth it.
On May 16 2010 08:19 InToTheWannaB wrote: If you truly love the idea of being a scientist. Then you should do it. If you decide money and finances are importent to you, don't .
But that is exactly what the article is about. To set straight what the idea of being a scientist is, the career. Because it gets plenty of romantic imagery on television (like the csi shadow offices and so forth). Plus, money simply is important. Important enough to keep it in mind, not enough in the sense that one should always pursue riches.
This is what I was hearing from all my professors just as I finished my MSc. There are too many people getting PhDs so they're becoming really hard to find work in. You can tell it's true when you see all the 30-40 year old Post Docs working on campus for probably $35,000/yr after doing 5-6 years more school than your average undergrad.
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
It'll be best to go out of school after you get your doctorate and try to get an actual job.
On a related note, should I stop after masters degree, get a job, then come back and finish doctorate later?
How would you get a doctorate before having worked a couple of years? If you are talking about a PhD, get the PhD before beginning to work. A doctorate requires years and years to get, and is the acknowledgment of well-performed research. Or well, nvm - I see you are from Italy, I believe the doctorate title is about equal to the PhD. isn't it? In that case, get the PhD/doctorate/whatever you call it first as the 3 years you spend counts as job-experience and it shows that you got ambition and dedication that you didn't just "fool around" for a couple of years before getting started.
I'm not even finished with my physics degree, and I've already started making a little money doing some mathematical consulting. I think he has the right idea warning people that going into a strictly academic "career" path is extremely dangerous.
But this shouldn't be interpreted as "don't get a science degree". A degree in science/engineering will always be useful, and you can always use it to find work for yourself. There is so much competition/wrangling/politics in the "academic" sector (writing journals, working with research groups, getting funded by universities etc.), but there are many opportunities in the "private" sector (working with a private company in their research/engineering department). In many cases, you can make a better living (more money/benefits) doing almost the same kind of thing - but this is very situational.
People expecting to go through grad school and going for professorships and stuff don't often know the numbers/odds in play against them. I think this guy is honestly just trying to help people by injecting some reality into their future plans.
For what its worth the majority of my friends are scientists, and as a whole they are considerably happier than my friends who went directly into public industry. I would go so far as to say the 'least happy' of them is still seems to lead a much more enjoyable life than the 'most happy' who pursued something more pragmatic like programming. Obviously the career choice doesn't cause that directly but its not an irrelevant observation.
Another big thing this guy seems to miss (and I find this to be true for nearly every grad student I've ever met) is that people in academia have no idea what their skills are worth in the real world, or how to market them. So, they pursue these huge breakthroughs and chase shitty jobs at colleges/for researchers because they think that is the only way to achieve fame, money, and success. The most successful biotec companies in my area (and for whatever reason there are a lot of them near campus here) are run by dudes who did the scientist turned CEO path.
If you go with any career, chances are you won't be doing what you want, you'll be working on someone else's ideas. This isn't exclusive for scientists. If you want to work on your own ideas you need to pursue your career until you've reached seniority. Of course by then you'll be a completely different person, with completely different, less ideological ideas. Basically, pick a career that you don't hate and look for fulfillment elsewhere.
The number of students who leave my program with Ph.Ds in chemical engineering, and end up in consulting is quite large
The life of an academic is not one that I envy. I just don't have the drive to do it. If you come from a top notch department (MIT, stanford, berkeley, cal tech, UIUC, whatever) then you won't have a problem getting a faculty position, consulting jobs, engineering jobs whatever, but I feel for people who end up getting Ph.D's at lower notch schools and struggle to find positions
On May 16 2010 09:26 orgolove wrote: KoF, are you from an ivy? CHEs becoming consultants... how does that work?
Having a proper engineerng degree makes you able to pretty much anything. From what Ive seen its much harder to get a leading position in an economy department with an economy degree opposed to a physics degree.
The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
As population growth, the job market is only going to become more competitive. We are seeing a lot of this right now, since most people born in the 40-50's are still alive, and are occupying jobs. The younger generation is facing record high unemployment and underemployment.
It's a trend that exists in literally every job category that exists.
Staying in academia is definitely not a well paying route unless you manage to get tenure and the competition is fucking tough as hell. I know this because a lot of the people I've worked with in labs (biology/genetics) are like 35-45 and still doing post doc work, and these are people who know a LOT. As someone who's about to enter graduate school I know that if I can't land a professorship I won't have much money unless I go to industry or tutor asian kids who can't pass high school bio (was making ~500 a week one summer as a tutor just out of high school, asian parents pay a lot for that kind of stuff).
the Phd students i met in uni so far kinda already know that its very limited.
i was taking a history course for some pre requisite and the teaching assistant who was a phd student was making a joke about applying for a part time job at starbucks but they turned him down because they already had enough phd students' resumes.. lol
anyway, i just saw on the news, some guy with a phd from MIT was the ceo of some company trying to get cars to run on water/electricity.. oOooOOoOOoo
I think it's pretty easy. If you go into research you do it, because you want to go into research. You don't do it because you want to make money, you don't do it because you want an 8 hour job. People expect you to be commited to your work. If you can get into the industry, for example pharma research or something like that, then it is a little bit different, but you still won't get rich.
On May 16 2010 09:49 weeeee wrote: scientists make me pissed anyway
What an irony that you type that on a computer invented by scientists.
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
Do you feel that your time would have been put to better use if you had decided to go into computer programming from the beginning instead of obtaining your Ph.D.?
I think that guy just likes to be controversial. He also wrote an articles called "In Defense of Homophobia" and "Anyone Who Bombs Baghdad [when Saddam was in power] Gets My Vote "
On May 16 2010 10:11 micronesia wrote: People who hear I'm teaching physics in hs often ask "why didn't you just teach in college instead?" and I laugh.
hmm, i think what this guy is saying seems to be true. With all the research going on, i think we have very little room, if any, for more postdoc researchers, but ever increasing fields, such as genetic engineering and medical, will eventually run out of room as more and more people study in those fields.
As a graduate student about to graduate with a PhD in biomedical engineering, this man speaks a lot of sense. He may argue his points in a harsh and almost biased way, but none of his facts are twisted. I am leaning towards industry jobs at the moment. The idea of writing grants and begging for money is not something I am too excited about.
I tell my friends that research and science are beautiful things. You have a problem and you need to solve it, and use your head, but the actual process that is prevalent in todays's system is butt ugly.Starcraft is not helping me graduate though, but the problems in it are just as interesting to solve. How do i reliably beat protoss as terran :O? haha
I agree with the article. As a rule of thumb, you should go to grad school in a science only if you've majored in the subject as an undergrad and you still love it by the time you're about to graduate. Your dedication should be such that you can't imagine doing anything else, not in the short run but in the long run. If you aren't dead set on becoming a professor, a physics PhD does not even come close to being worth the opportunity cost.
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
How'd you make the huge switch? And what was it like? I think I might want to end up going through a similar situation =S
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
I think the study and funding of already-known-topics in science today is a major problem with humanity. It almost precludes major developments because the academic community rejects them, through a combination of seniors who will not accept new ideas because it invalidates much of their life's work, and younger scientists who cannot pursue certain subjects because of funding reasons and the likelihood they will be ostracized which is fatal in such a small and competitive community.
Who can we rely on though, if not the academic community? Everyone else is a "crackpot" and every subject that is not mainstream is just flat out wrong, after all.
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
I think the study and funding of already-known-topics in science today is a major problem with humanity. It almost precludes major developments because the academic community rejects them, through a combination of seniors who will not accept new ideas because it invalidates much of their life's work, and younger scientists who cannot pursue certain subjects because of funding reasons and the likelihood they will be ostracized which is fatal in such a small and competitive community.
Who can we rely on though, if not the academic community? Everyone else is a "crackpot" and every subject that is not mainstream is just flat out wrong, after all.
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
Do you feel that your time would have been put to better use if you had decided to go into computer programming from the beginning instead of obtaining your Ph.D.?
That's the big question.
I must first say I had tried hard for many years to avoid ending up in computer programming as a job and keep it as just a hobby, because honestly the majority of programming jobs is boring stuff. So I probably wouldn't have gotten into it as a job had I not done a phd anyway, it was kind of an accident.
But to try to answer your question I'm not sure really, it's hard to evaluate. It's also hard to say for sure what "better" is. Would I have made more money if I started right away ? Certainly. Would I now be better at my exact job ? Probably. Would I be better overall ? Doubtful. I'm a big proponent of a generalist education, and broadening intellectual horizons by touching a lot of different domains. I think it's a stronger long term choice, even if it leads to a little short term loss in money and specialization. The opposite would be like learning to do one build order perfectly in starcraft with all its possible variations. Yeah, you'll be really good at it but you will peak lower than people going for the full package and you will be missing out on plenty of stuff. Of course in real life the "full package" is really broad so you can't do everything, but you get my point.
I will digress again, about generalist education, with a warning. That kind of profile might not make you popular with HR people in the science field, who, as far as I've seen, are mostly looking for "clones" specialized in exactly what they expect them to be doing. That problem is a bit similar to the research subjects getting funded being the safe ones. Which is ridiculous anyway since big companies will train you for months before you begin being productive, and small companies need people who are capable of handling multiple tasks or multiple aspects of a task. But I guess it makes them feel safer, it gives them a known quantity, not as good on average, but with less variance.
Also the situation is France is a bit peculiar, the education system is like nowhere else due to historical reasons. The PhD is almost a hindrance to get a job. Still, I would have been welcomed with open arms had I chosen to go in consulting or finance, where apparently scientific PhDs are one of the typical profiles they try to recruit. My diploma before the PhD has great value in France, so it was kind of a negative added value on the job market to get it, but I figured, if I want to work in France, I have my original diploma and if I want to go work abroad, I have the PhD, so I will have all bases covered.
Ultimately, my answer to your question would be that it's probably not answerable. I don't know what would have made me happier down the line. Of course it's a somewhat life changing choice because... well it changes so many things, but in the end I don't think it matters that much in the grand scheme of things. You'll have to weigh pros and cons specific to your own situation and desires. For me, experimental physics really helped sharpen my mind, it was stimulating and I had a good time. Well, except the part where I had to write it all down, that sucked lol, but at least the end result is good. Maybe my answer would be that it's as good of a waste of time as anything else in life.
Especially because the grants for research are mostly from government sources, the drive for new and innovative research has really been strangled. It used to be that you could get funding to simply experiment and see what comes out of it. Nowadays you better have a good idea of what your experiment will accomplish before you even get funding. The way securing funding is structured is such that you need to convince others that you have a good idea and state what kind of application or effect it will have. This completely snuffs out any truly innovative ideas that haven't really been explored too much. Ever wonder why there aren't breakthroughs that usher in new eras in our understanding of science and technology anymore? It's cause everyone can only get funding for improvements on old stuff. And while inventing rechargeable batteries was awesome, that isn't the same as inventing the actual freakin' battery. Thus scientists are stuck in a rut researching what other people want them to research instead of new and outrageous stuff.
On May 16 2010 10:11 micronesia wrote: People who hear I'm teaching physics in hs often ask "why didn't you just teach in college instead?" and I laugh.
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
How'd you make the huge switch? And what was it like? I think I might want to end up going through a similar situation =S
Programming had always been a passion of mine, since a very young age. I dabbled in many languages, in reverse engineering, security, etc. so I had the baggage to at least be able to quickly learn the job and the recruiter saw that. As I replied above, I wasn't looking for such a job, because I think most jobs as coders are boring, maintenance stuff of boring corporate software, so I intended to keep it as a hobby.
To the switch itself. I was actually looking for and applying to industry jobs in physics when I stumbled upon one single offer in programming that seemed really interesting. So, why not, I said. It went well and very quickly from there. A couple of days later I started.
There is only one big decision to make in this case : are you ready to leave your field of origin, potentially for good ? Myself, I see all of it as just one big field that's thinking, so whatever, as long as I have fun doing it. I know that will probably make it really hard to get a job in a big physics company later, but I don't think I will want to go there in the future anyway.
It's been great, and I don't have the slightest regret about making the switch. It's a matter of opportunity. If you get a good one, why not take it. You just have to show you have the desire to do it, what it takes to do it, and find someone capable of recognizing your potential and willing to bet on it.
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
It'll be best to go out of school after you get your doctorate and try to get an actual job.
On a related note, should I stop after masters degree, get a job, then come back and finish doctorate later?
How would you get a doctorate before having worked a couple of years? If you are talking about a PhD, get the PhD before beginning to work. A doctorate requires years and years to get, and is the acknowledgment of well-performed research. Or well, nvm - I see you are from Italy, I believe the doctorate title is about equal to the PhD. isn't it? In that case, get the PhD/doctorate/whatever you call it first as the 3 years you spend counts as job-experience and it shows that you got ambition and dedication that you didn't just "fool around" for a couple of years before getting started.
huh? PhD stands for doctor of philosophy. a PhD is a doctorate.
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
I think the study and funding of already-known-topics in science today is a major problem with humanity. It almost precludes major developments because the academic community rejects them, through a combination of seniors who will not accept new ideas because it invalidates much of their life's work, and younger scientists who cannot pursue certain subjects because of funding reasons and the likelihood they will be ostracized which is fatal in such a small and competitive community.
Who can we rely on though, if not the academic community? Everyone else is a "crackpot" and every subject that is not mainstream is just flat out wrong, after all.
I absolutely agree. I've seen some students show through their research their supervisor's work was worthless, never going to work, a big deadend. You can guess it didn't go really well for them. In one hilarious case though, the just ditched his supervisor and went to a "competitor" who was glad to welcome his results and he was able to finish his phd.
Honestly, I think given some time, new structures are bound to emerge and crush this one. If not in our countries, in other ones. Maybe they won't be very structured to begin with too. In the current system, it's mostly a minority of exceptional people, exceptional minds, who keep things going, the others just bring marginal improvements or are simply useless (or worse, parasites).
edit: another anecdote. At some famous particle physics experiments center I won't name, you have to wait for your share of machine time to do your experiments, as in most places. However, the time you get is linked to the results of your experiments. So the "best" practice is to just, out of 5 experiments for example, try 4 you already know the result of and 1 real, so you can get more time in the future. Brilliant use of multi-billion $ equipment imo.
Very interesting read. Most of what he says is true, but does seem a bit biased. However, I've been told by graduate students that aiming to become a professor can be tedious and requires luck. I've heard similar things from my professors as well. Heading into industry to do research is definitely a more lucrative market. Regardless, getting your PhD takes many years and the overall pay at the end of the road can be questionable if you stay in academia.
My current PI for the lab I work in has a really interesting position. He is a professor with the university, but is affiliated with a hospital. Therefore, he cannot get tenured at the university due to his position, but it does lead to more funding opportunities (he can apply for specific grants through the hospital). While I don't know the exact details, I believe he does make more than the average tenure track professor. So it seems like he got the middle of the road between professor and industry work. He probably has a greater salary (compared to tenure track professors) and gets to pursue his own interests (compared to researchers in the industry). Of course, he probably makes less than an industrial researcher and doesn't have the security that tenure provides.
A number of professors (namely in chemistry department, but others too) have their own small private companies. In addition to their work as a professor, they can make quite a bit more by offering their services in a specialized field. I recall one of my chemistry professors had his own company that synthesized custom crown ethers for pharmaceutical companies.
Another option (and jokingly referred to everyone's second choice if they don't get into their professional/graduate program) is teaching in secondary schools. Having a MSc/MA or PhD nets you a much larger salary than a person with a BA/BSc with their BEd. Whether or not this makes up for the years you spend acquiring that graduate degree is questionable though.
So while becoming a scientist/researcher/professor can be a risky path to walk, there are tons of options available. I've been told you can do plenty with a PhD, but staying in academia can definitely be a risk.
I am aware of this fact but I will persue a PhD nevertheless.
Hey, if I can't become a professor I can always go work at McDonald's.
Also, you have to understand he is a PHYSICS professor. While this was the hottest science about 100-60 years ago (Einstein, quantum mechanics, atomic bombs, etc.) it is no longer the case. Nowadays I think the best quantitative field is statistics and mathematical finance. Of course, physiology and medicine will always be the best field for academic research with best funding available.
Seems like a load of standard events being over dramatized. I don't think he has any significant passion for his work and is a typical whiner. He even made a tenured faculty position sound undesirable :p He basically sounds like he is not getting any grants funded.
Compared to most things, I find the academic track he described to be very meritocratic, in the long run. Ph.D. students and post-doc's are usually underpaid, but if successful have the opportunity to independently run their own research, and become a tenured professor-one of the best jobs possible. No successful post-doc really views it as a bad job, that I have seen
Speaking from a Bio perspective, I feel like the track is very competitive but full of opportunity to people who are dedicated.
On May 16 2010 09:24 KOFgokuon wrote: The life of an academic is not one that I envy. I just don't have the drive to do it. If you come from a top notch department (MIT, stanford, berkeley, cal tech, UIUC, whatever) then you won't have a problem getting a faculty position, consulting jobs, engineering jobs whatever, but I feel for people who end up getting Ph.D's at lower notch schools and struggle to find positions
Maybe it is different in Chemical Engineering than Biology, but for Bio they won't care what university it is, they will only care about publication quality. Although in Bio you won't get a faculty position as a Ph.D. graduate without a post-doc anyway.
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though.
I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for.
Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore.
I think the study and funding of already-known-topics in science today is a major problem with humanity. It almost precludes major developments because the academic community rejects them, through a combination of seniors who will not accept new ideas because it invalidates much of their life's work, and younger scientists who cannot pursue certain subjects because of funding reasons and the likelihood they will be ostracized which is fatal in such a small and competitive community.
Who can we rely on though, if not the academic community? Everyone else is a "crackpot" and every subject that is not mainstream is just flat out wrong, after all.
This is kind of hard to argue because it is so vague, but I think you are wrong. There are many issues with grant writing, but there is not much of an enforcement of ideology when it comes to funding.
Things that are "great to study are put aside because they are not the greatest fund catchers"? What are you talking about?
When you submit a grant, you usually do so with new data you have generated and a plan, with alternatives, which is likely to provide some result for something significant. Things which are already studied are not considered significant. An important part of your grant score is novelty.
My dad is a professor at a medical university and he told me once that he was really surprised that he got a second grant and that he was really lucky to get it.
Having a job is a horrid way to make money. You shouldn't work onless you enjoy doing it and are willing to trade your life for whatever it is you're doing.
Personally, my biggest issue with both the idea of academia and getting a graduate degree is it looks like doing that will hurt my career. I'm halfway through my BS EE and I've been told several times that instead of spending 5ish years getting a PHD I should use that time to get real world experience. The career center at my school actually tells us you will make more money and advance higher in most companies with a BS and experience than a Masters or PHD.
Plus, I've seen my dad (who has a BS EE) get job offers from serious research centers (like JPL) due not to his degree, but experience. It just seems like the root of Academia is counter productive when it comes to science, profit, and enjoyability.
My brother just got a science job straight out of college with an undergrad Biology degree. And he actually had a low 3 GPA and his college was not ivy league.
But, he had some good connections I think. The job has low pay but I don't think it's dead-end.
I find it kind of interesting that he touts law as a field that is not in a similar situation. From what I've heard and seen, newly minted lawyers are in a similar situation.
Thats a pretty big spike at about 35k/yr. There is a glut of lawyers as well.
I have 2 brothers, done has a phd in chemistry and is a college instructor. The other is a truck driver who didn't graduate high school. The trucker makes over twice as much.
I'm just now finishing undergrad and I've already decided to pursue a career in academia (economics, not a physical science). To be honest teaching classes maybe 16 hours a week+grading papers+research obligations and a ton of time off sounds like a really good and enjoyable life, especially if you're in a field you genuinely like. A lot of my professors really seem to have active lives and get plenty of time to do stuff they love outside of work, who cares if you don't make much money? One of my professors was running marathons well into his 40s while still teaching.
On May 16 2010 13:36 Drowsy wrote: I'm just now finishing undergrad and I've already decided to pursue a career in academia (economics, not a physical science). To be honest teaching classes maybe 16 hours a week+grading papers+research obligations and a ton of time off sounds like a really good and enjoyable life, especially if you're in a field you genuinely like. A lot of my professors really seem to have active lives and get plenty of time to do stuff they love outside of work, who cares if you don't make much money? One of my professors was running marathons well into his 40s while still teaching.
Well, the problem is that, in order to enjoy that "dream life of a professor", you have to be tenure and have good funding. And it's really hard to reach that point.
I'm bummed to hear this. Next year, I'll be receiving my BS in Physics, and had hoped to go through graduate school and enter into academia. I'm surprised by the article, because even at the undergraduate state, pursuing a scientific career has proven lucrative as opportunities for research and internships abound. The article appears to have been written over a decade ago, which most likely means that the situation has worsened. Perhaps turning towards the private sector or government employment is the way to go, although there is less "purity" in that.
On May 16 2010 13:35 starcraft911 wrote: I have 2 brothers, done has a phd in chemistry and is a college instructor. The other is a truck driver who didn't graduate high school. The trucker makes over twice as much.
... seriously? i thought college professors make like 80k plus whatever they get from consulting and research or whatever
On May 16 2010 13:35 starcraft911 wrote: I have 2 brothers, done has a phd in chemistry and is a college instructor. The other is a truck driver who didn't graduate high school. The trucker makes over twice as much.
He said college instructor so he probably did not mean tenure track professor. And who wouldn't prefer being a professor even if the salary were 1/10 of a truck driver's.
i am doing my phd in experimental physics as well. lol didnt know so many TLers are n similar situations.
I work with lasers and feel like a kid going to a candy shop everyday when i wake up. I feel many of my friends in industry hate their jobs and certainly cant find happiness in their work. So on the one hand if you are someone who loves intellectual freedom and dont want to be a hamster in the corporate wheel, then science is not a bad choice at all. The price to be paid is potentially deadend career with no money... This I have no experience with because i am still a grad
So like many, I am too afraid and uncertain future, especially the "postdoc trap". so is it a myth or fact that its easier to get a job right after PhD than after a few years in postdoc? Maybe Catyoul you have some comments about this?
I think my current of strategy is, if I have a ton of publications by the end of my PhD, I will try a postdoc and professor.. if not Im gonna stay the hell out of the loop and go for industry...
On May 16 2010 11:59 Servolisk wrote: Seems like a load of standard events being over dramatized. I don't think he has any significant passion for his work and is a typical whiner. He even made a tenured faculty position sound undesirable :p He basically sounds like he is not getting any grants funded.
Compared to most things, I find the academic track he described to be very meritocratic, in the long run. Ph.D. students and post-doc's are usually underpaid, but if successful have the opportunity to independently run their own research, and become a tenured professor-one of the best jobs possible. No successful post-doc really views it as a bad job, that I have seen
Speaking from a Bio perspective, I feel like the track is very competitive but full of opportunity to people who are dedicated.
On May 16 2010 09:24 KOFgokuon wrote: The life of an academic is not one that I envy. I just don't have the drive to do it. If you come from a top notch department (MIT, stanford, berkeley, cal tech, UIUC, whatever) then you won't have a problem getting a faculty position, consulting jobs, engineering jobs whatever, but I feel for people who end up getting Ph.D's at lower notch schools and struggle to find positions
Maybe it is different in Chemical Engineering than Biology, but for Bio they won't care what university it is, they will only care about publication quality. Although in Bio you won't get a faculty position as a Ph.D. graduate without a post-doc anyway.
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.
The same thing is going to happen for a few years in law because of the massive cutbacks that firms went through during the downturn. Graduates are going to be competing against partner-level candidates that are happy to work for student salaries.
Doctors and engineers are the only professions that are really paying out in north america. England still has a good legal market. None of the above, by contrast, have good scientific markets.
Everyone knows that academia doesn't pay all that well. The private sector tends to pay several times what any education (or government, military, etc) type jobs will.
Also, thread title is misleading. Going into science does pay well. (Depending on the field of course.) It's just the academic career that doesn't earn much money.
oh it's from 1999 - I was about to say that those salary figures didn't seem that right to me, seeing as I'm a graduate student making squarely within the supposed post-doc range.
It's all more or less true about there not being that many jobs at the top for scientists in academia. We can't all stay in it. I'm sort of undecided at this point - I've never really considered money for career decisions and would stay in academia if I do because I like doing it and for no other reason. Teaching is another alternative - even at the college level there are nonresearch-oriented (think liberal arts school) positions out there. Fuck industry though, I'm not working for a company unless I'm running it.
Bottom-line is that it's competitive. It will stay that way for pretty much ever unless the public decides for some reason that giving the government and/or private funding institutions lots of money for research and expanding faculty positions is a good idea. Don't really see that happening though.
I'm a 23 year old computer engineer with a bachelors in computer science making $50,000 only 11 months after graduating. I'm very glad I didn't listen to the people trying to tell me that i should pursue academia.
There is the same thing in France with Philosophy. Every year, France produces about 60 job of philosophy teacher in total. It used to be 300 or so, but whatever. Every year there are literally thousand of students starting a philosophy career.
So our dear government says that we shouldn't pay anymore for the thousand of people starting a career in philosophy (nor anything "useless") as most of them won't get a job directly from it. Which is a fucking garbage reasonement. It's a shit reasonment because, precisely, if the government hadn't cut the number of teaching position it creates every year by 5, philosophy would still be an attractive career. We need philosophers, we need a shitload of people to study philosophy, and we need philosophy to be a realistic career and not a niche reserved to 60 people a year, because theses people are the one who think, which is getting rare.
Why doesn't this teacher fight for more funding in fundamental research? For the creation of more scientific jobs in universities? For a country, every scientist is an investment. It's not useless stuff that need to be cut because the economy is doing bad.
Now saying don't become a scientist because you can be a lawyer which is easier and earn more is such a lame argument that I don't know what to say. Obviously if you want to earn money and that's it, better becoming a banker than a mathematician.
1. Your preconceptions of what it is going to be a scientist do not match reality (which is true of almost every job). 2. The increase in number of trained scientist have made the job market incredibly competitive which makes it harder to gain permanent work and lowers the salary (but again, this is true of almost every job, including law and medicine).
What to take away from this article: Unless you want to risk taking the Marxist road to becoming a physical scientist, you should just make life easy for yourself and become an engineer of some sort.
On May 16 2010 18:42 Biff The Understudy wrote: There is the same thing in France with Philosophy. Every year, France produces about 60 job of philosophy teacher in total. It used to be 300 or so, but whatever. Every year there are literally thousand of students starting a philosophy career.
So our dear government says that we shouldn't pay anymore for the thousand of people starting a career in philosophy (nor anything "useless") as most of them won't get a job directly from it. Which is a fucking garbage reasonement. It's a shit reasonment because, precisely, if the government hadn't cut the number of teaching position it creates every year by 5, philosophy would still be an attractive career. We need philosophers, we need a shitload of people to study philosophy, and we need philosophy to be a realistic career and not a niche reserved to 60 people a year, because theses people are the one who think, which is getting rare.
Why doesn't this teacher fight for more funding in fundamental research? For the creation of more scientific jobs in universities? For a country, every scientist is an investment. It's not useless stuff that need to be cut because the economy is doing bad.
Now saying don't become a scientist because you can be a lawyer which is easier and earn more is such a lame argument that I don't know what to say. Obviously if you want to earn money and that's it, better becoming a banker than a mathematician.
I completely agree. You don't need a job the relates directly with Philosophy to be a philosopher. That and many people with a training in philosophy go on to be great in other areas of life. It goes both ways, and if there are people there to support it with money, and they see sense in what they are doing, they should be allowed to pursue that. Otherwise it is like telling people what to do with their money.
On May 16 2010 14:26 T.O.P. wrote: The article is written in 1999. Is it still relevant?
lol just noticed, i guess that was before the dotcom bubble and the fiber optics fail.
and with the shitty economy, now getting a industry job straight from undergrad doesn't seem like a much better option.
More relevant than ever. Even the "professional schools" (law, b-school, med) are oversaturated with students who realize the work force competition is fierce. Same thing goes for academia. It's a vicious cycle.
completely agree. this is what I have also come to understand. however, if you are REALLY good, you have nothing to worry about, you will make it. REALLY good. or a cunning rotter.
On May 16 2010 14:26 T.O.P. wrote: The article is written in 1999. Is it still relevant?
lol just noticed, i guess that was before the dotcom bubble and the fiber optics fail.
and with the shitty economy, now getting a industry job straight from undergrad doesn't seem like a much better option.
More relevant than ever. Even the "professional schools" (law, b-school, med) are oversaturated with students who realize the work force competition is fierce. Same thing goes for academia. It's a vicious cycle.
I think it's a vicious circle as long as countries keep lowering the money they invest in fundamental science / academics in general. As soon as the economy will get better or/and as soon as governments decide to invest into research again, which imo would a damn good idea, the vicious circle should be broken.
On May 16 2010 18:42 Biff The Understudy wrote: There is the same thing in France with Philosophy. Every year, France produces about 60 job of philosophy teacher in total. It used to be 300 or so, but whatever. Every year there are literally thousand of students starting a philosophy career.
So our dear government says that we shouldn't pay anymore for the thousand of people starting a career in philosophy (nor anything "useless") as most of them won't get a job directly from it. Which is a fucking garbage reasonement. It's a shit reasonment because, precisely, if the government hadn't cut the number of teaching position it creates every year by 5, philosophy would still be an attractive career. We need philosophers, we need a shitload of people to study philosophy, and we need philosophy to be a realistic career and not a niche reserved to 60 people a year, because theses people are the one who think, which is getting rare.
Why doesn't this teacher fight for more funding in fundamental research? For the creation of more scientific jobs in universities? For a country, every scientist is an investment. It's not useless stuff that need to be cut because the economy is doing bad.
Now saying don't become a scientist because you can be a lawyer which is easier and earn more is such a lame argument that I don't know what to say. Obviously if you want to earn money and that's it, better becoming a banker than a mathematician.
I completely agree. You don't need a job the relates directly with Philosophy to be a philosopher. That and many people with a training in philosophy go on to be great in other areas of life. It goes both ways, and if there are people there to support it with money, and they see sense in what they are doing, they should be allowed to pursue that. Otherwise it is like telling people what to do with their money.
Problem is that people nowadays tend to consider career as a training to get a job in your speciality rather than as education which will make you a more complete person, more intelligent, and qualified for numerous things including things not directly related to your branch. Diplomas are more and more specific and knowledge is less and less recognized. I met someone in the train the other day who had a philosophy PhD in France, and was teaching french privately in England. She was very happy about her life, and didn't regret at all to have study that much to do something at first sight unrelated.
I am almost donw with my PhD in Psychology and aiming towards an academic career. I totally understand the problems mentioned in the article. Pay is bad compared to what you can get in the economy and the competition is really hard. In Germany you can be employed up to 12 years total as research assistant (both as PhD student or post-doc, doesn't matter), after that you must get a full professorship or get your own funding.
But, on the other hand, you get a l.ot of benefits when you are successful. In Germany, professors are servants of the sate, meaning you can NEVER be fired, i.e. maximum job security. You also have almost complete freedom to decide what topics to investigate. In other words, you lead a very autonomous work life. So if you make it to professor, its totally worth it.
Also, what a physics professor may not be aware of (due to lack of experience) is how sucky a lot of jobs outside university are. Stupid bosses, boring work environments (mentally not challengeing) etc. So i guess the grass is always greener on the other side.
On May 16 2010 14:14 ray1234 wrote: So like many, I am too afraid and uncertain future, especially the "postdoc trap". so is it a myth or fact that its easier to get a job right after PhD than after a few years in postdoc? Maybe Catyoul you have some comments about this?
I don't know. I don't really see why that would be the case, except that you would have to explain why you want to switch after those years in postdoc and avoid saying it's just because you can't find anything in academia.
I know people who used their first postdoc as a period where they were paid better than during the phd and during which they had the time to find a job, which went fine. However, if you're planning to branch out after your phd, my advice would be to find your job BEFORE you finish your phd. It's easy to put it off to after finishing, because you have enough things on your mind already, but I find it to be a superior choice. I took a 3rd option myself, I took some holidays and learned a few things I had been putting off for a long time, and then only started looking for a job.
On May 16 2010 20:29 Electric.Jesus wrote: But, on the other hand, you get a l.ot of benefits when you are successful. In Germany, professors are servants of the sate, meaning you can NEVER be fired, i.e. maximum job security. You also have almost complete freedom to decide what topics to investigate. In other words, you lead a very autonomous work life. So if you make it to professor, its totally worth it.
Also, what a physics professor may not be aware of (due to lack of experience) is how sucky a lot of jobs outside university are. Stupid bosses, boring work environments (mentally not challengeing) etc. So i guess the grass is always greener on the other side.
Enjoy it while it lasts, it changed a couple of years ago in France from a similar system to a grant system. My former supervisor, who is brilliant and had a passion like I've rarely seen (the kind of guy capable of coming back to the lab on a Friday night at 11pm because he just thought of something he wanted to test), has barely any time left to do real science. He has to fill projects reports, grant requests, etc. most of the time.
Also, good point about how much other jobs can suck. While you do your phd, you will hear all these stories coming from the majority of your friends who didn't and went straight to industry. Obviously, it depends a lot on the company where they ended up, some being really nice, others being nightmares, and most being somewhere in between. At any given time, there is always someone I know who isn't happy in their job for perfectly valid reasons. The ones who didn't like it changed company, or went independent for some of them, and it got better. So yeah, it isn't all rosy outside of academia either.
While I am a bit young to have a definite opinion about that, I think there is definitely some truth in that. Even here in France, I've already met a few scientist who told me that to get a good job in their fields, it is very important to choose your teacher well, rather than be a brilliant students. Some fields also seems to be worse than others...
On the other hand, in my school I've been told a few times already that more and more students are getting a PhD after graduating from it,and that they are right to do so, while it was quite a strange idea a few years ago. That might have something to do with the French system, I guess.
"In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.)."
FUCK YES!
going to grad school for Comp Sci next year, article scared me because my dad is also a physics professor and always told me this, but i guess it doesnt apply to comp sci! :D
"The result is that the best young people, who should go into science, sensibly refuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled with weak American students and with foreigners lured by the American student visa."
Honestly, this last comment is so true that it hurts. I imagine that someone who walks all the way down the path realizes that even further everyone who is left is only exceptionally good at dealing with the system/politics rather the research.
Although, we should ask ourselves for subjects like pure mathematics/theoretica physics/logic - do we want these subjects to become attractive financially speaking?
Do we really want people that get sucked into the money of finance and corporate law competing for these jobs, with their politics and manipulation? My guess is no.
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.
There is not a single professor anywhere who has gone his entire career without publishing a paper what gives you that idea that people like that exist?
Being a theoretical physics graduate student who is set to graduate in a few years, I pretty much agree with all of it. Getting tenure, becoming famous and becoming rich are horrible career goals.
On May 16 2010 23:53 heyoka wrote: There is not a single professor anywhere who has gone his entire career without publishing a paper what gives you that idea that people like that exist?
I said, in without publishing a paper in Nature. Nature is the most prestigious journal there is, except maybe Science.
On May 16 2010 23:53 heyoka wrote: There is not a single professor anywhere who has gone his entire career without publishing a paper what gives you that idea that people like that exist?
Edit: Too slow T.T ^
Excellent article. I am planning on getting a PhD in the health sciences, so I hope the prospects are slightly better for me, at least I have many other fall back plans if it doesn't work out.
On May 16 2010 14:26 T.O.P. wrote: The article is written in 1999. Is it still relevant?
As stated above, it's more relevant than ever now because what he describes only gets worse with time. The amount of doctoral graduates generated per year continues to increase while the number of jobs do not go up accordingly.
It's also important to understand that when the economy goes down the shitter, the first thing any government cuts is *drum roll* research funding. Unfortunately for our species, governments value short term goals over long term ones. The general public would rather have new roads than seeing Dr. X being able to work on finding fundamental particles.
It's a similar situation in Canada, professors need to fight for grants and it takes forever to get a tenured position for a new graduate. Personally, after my undergraduate experience, I'm still interested in research but I plan on pursuing it as a medical doctor with a lab on the side.
On May 16 2010 08:17 orgolove wrote: I'm surprised that he's even saying a PhD in engineering is any better. It's just as bad, fighting for grants every week, practically doing the same thing over and over again.
What he says is the truth. Being a postdoc is a terrible life to have >.<
If you want to get a PhD, at least get one in a field that will let you get out of academia afterwards.
I would take this article a bit more seriously if he put just as much effort into trying to describe why you should become a scientist. Obviously he will have more to say about why not to, but it will qualify his argument a lot. Still he seems to know what he's talking about.
I could write an article with a lot of evidence titled "why not to become a progamer" or "why not to become a public school teacher" but just because there is ton of evidence doesn't mean you shouldn't become one.
Well In my country it is almost the same. I think (maybe I'm an idiot) that it is still possible to do your little research in one corner of the lab without playing the silly game of fame to get $$ with your co workers.
I have a somewhat related experience that I will share.
3 years ago I graduated from college with a B.S. in Physics from a reputable university with decent but not stellar grades (my GPA went roughly as a positive exponential). Initially I decided I would carry through and get a PhD in Physics so I made a round of applications for grad schools while I worked as a waiter. Long story short I messed up a lot of the application process, received some outright rejections due to my poor grades during my early college career, and ended up with nothing to do around May 2 years ago.
I decided I would then hit the job market with my B.S. in Physics. Mind you this was during incredibly difficult economic times, but regardless I turned up a blank. I applied to every position I might be remotely qualified for, I exhausted every contact that my former professors and my girlfriends family had, hell I submitted my resume to places that weren't even hiring. November comes around and I still had made essentially no progress, I had picked up a 20 hour a week position as an educator at a museum to go along with my waiting tables on Friday/Saturday Nights. The museum position was fun, but I was a rather intelligent 24 year old with a B.S. in a hard science, I wanted to do something more technical.
So I approached the graduate school attached to my alma mater and started on a M.S. in Electrical Engineering in January 2009. With a B.S. in Physics I had some basic circuits (which put me in a huge hole) though, I had a heck of a lot more math than anyone else there. I worked my ass off to catch up, I had essentially no free time between my jobs and studying. It worked though, by the time summer 2009 rolled around I had a 3.8.
The thing about this M.S. in engineering program is that it is somewhat like a trade school version of a M.S. The challenge is there, don't get me wrong, they have very smart professors and students. The thing is that the professors are all PhD's who are professors on the side. Very few of the professors do so as their primary means of employ. They're all engineers in the field, many own their own companies or work for the big companies in the area (GE, Knoll's Atomic Power Lab, etc). So they farm talent directly out of their classes, this is what happened to me in early November 2009, I was offered a Jr. Engineering position at a small industrial electrical R&D firm.
Since then I've been juggling the difficult full time job + full time graduate student ordeal but It's something I'm familiar with considering how hard I had to work to catch up to people who had B.S. degrees in EE. My GPA is now up over a 3.9 and I've received several pay hikes which put me more than double the "standard postdoc salary" that Dr. Katz wrote about in the article above. I'm almost done with my M.S. I'll be done in under 1 month at which point I will get another nice pay increase.
Long story short (TLDR version) , my B.S. in Physics has helped me tremendously but when it came to getting a job it was essentially worthless. From the time I signed on as a M.S. Electrical Engineering student it took me exactly 9 months to get a GOOD job.
Be careful how you read this article. Lots of truth, but potentially misleading. First off, his criticisms don't necessarily apply to all fields. I'm in plant breeding, and I'm constantly told how there's a huge shortage of educated and trained plant breeders now. That said, that's in industry as the article discusses - which I have learned isn't so bad and in some ways offers more freedom to do real science.
Personally, my issue is with graduate students who don't care about the science and are only there because they're too afraid to go on the job market. Flooding schools and the field with unmotivated professionals can be frustrating at times.
On May 17 2010 00:58 revy wrote: I have a somewhat related experience that I will share.
3 years ago I graduated from college with a B.S. in Physics from a reputable university with decent but not stellar grades (my GPA went roughly as a positive exponential). Initially I decided I would carry through and get a PhD in Physics so I made a round of applications for grad schools while I worked as a waiter. Long story short I messed up a lot of the application process, received some outright rejections due to my poor grades during my early college career, and ended up with nothing to do around May 2 years ago.
I decided I would then hit the job market with my B.S. in Physics. Mind you this was during incredibly difficult economic times, but regardless I turned up a blank. I applied to every position I might be remotely qualified for, I exhausted every contact that my former professors and my girlfriends family had, hell I submitted my resume to places that weren't even hiring. November comes around and I still had made essentially no progress, I had picked up a 20 hour a week position as an educator at a museum to go along with my waiting tables on Friday/Saturday Nights. The museum position was fun, but I was a rather intelligent 24 year old with a B.S. in a hard science, I wanted to do something more technical.
So I approached the graduate school attached to my alma mater and started on a M.S. in Electrical Engineering in January 2009. With a B.S. in Physics I had some basic circuits (which put me in a huge hole) though, I had a heck of a lot more math than anyone else there. I worked my ass off to catch up, I had essentially no free time between my jobs and studying. It worked though, by the time summer 2009 rolled around I had a 3.8.
The thing about this M.S. in engineering program is that it is somewhat like a trade school version of a M.S. The challenge is there, don't get me wrong, they have very smart professors and students. The thing is that the professors are all PhD's who are professors on the side. Very few of the professors do so as their primary means of employ. They're all engineers in the field, many own their own companies or work for the big companies in the area (GE, Knoll's Atomic Power Lab, etc). So they farm talent directly out of their classes, this is what happened to me in early November 2009, I was offered a Jr. Engineering position at a small industrial electrical R&D firm.
Since then I've been juggling the difficult full time job + full time graduate student ordeal but It's something I'm familiar with considering how hard I had to work to catch up to people who had B.S. degrees in EE. My GPA is now up over a 3.9 and I've received several pay hikes which put me more than double the "standard postdoc salary" that Dr. Katz wrote about in the article above. I'm almost done with my M.S. I'll be done in under 1 month at which point I will get another nice pay increase.
Long story short (TLDR version) , my B.S. in Physics has helped me tremendously but when it came to getting a job it was essentially worthless. From the time I signed on as a M.S. Electrical Engineering student it took me exactly 9 months to get a GOOD job.
Interesting story that I'm glad you shared... when I got my BS in physics (graduated in May 07 from umd) I wasn't in your predicament since I was planning and certified to search for public school teaching jobs... of course that represented its own challenges.
So.. your bs didn't get you any kind of a reasonable job by itself from your searching, but your connections through your masters in engineering is what did it... I wonder what advice we should be gleaming from your experience.
On May 17 2010 00:09 micronesia wrote: I would take this article a bit more seriously if he put just as much effort into trying to describe why you should become a scientist. Obviously he will have more to say about why not to, but it will qualify his argument a lot. Still he seems to know what he's talking about.
I could write an article with a lot of evidence titled "why not to become a progamer" or "why not to become a public school teacher" but just because there is ton of evidence doesn't mean you shouldn't become one.
yeah i agree there are a ton of jobs you could just spew all the negative aspects about them and make them look really really bad. Especially if you're taking your examples from the lower end of things
My goal is to get a phd and maybe be a professor but im really into that kind of thing so i could care less if i get paid shit for it, better than doing some terrible oil rig job making 5 times as much
On May 17 2010 00:58 revy wrote: I have a somewhat related experience that I will share.
3 years ago I graduated from college with a B.S. in Physics from a reputable university with decent but not stellar grades (my GPA went roughly as a positive exponential). Initially I decided I would carry through and get a PhD in Physics so I made a round of applications for grad schools while I worked as a waiter. Long story short I messed up a lot of the application process, received some outright rejections due to my poor grades during my early college career, and ended up with nothing to do around May 2 years ago.
I decided I would then hit the job market with my B.S. in Physics. Mind you this was during incredibly difficult economic times, but regardless I turned up a blank. I applied to every position I might be remotely qualified for, I exhausted every contact that my former professors and my girlfriends family had, hell I submitted my resume to places that weren't even hiring. November comes around and I still had made essentially no progress, I had picked up a 20 hour a week position as an educator at a museum to go along with my waiting tables on Friday/Saturday Nights. The museum position was fun, but I was a rather intelligent 24 year old with a B.S. in a hard science, I wanted to do something more technical.
So I approached the graduate school attached to my alma mater and started on a M.S. in Electrical Engineering in January 2009. With a B.S. in Physics I had some basic circuits (which put me in a huge hole) though, I had a heck of a lot more math than anyone else there. I worked my ass off to catch up, I had essentially no free time between my jobs and studying. It worked though, by the time summer 2009 rolled around I had a 3.8.
The thing about this M.S. in engineering program is that it is somewhat like a trade school version of a M.S. The challenge is there, don't get me wrong, they have very smart professors and students. The thing is that the professors are all PhD's who are professors on the side. Very few of the professors do so as their primary means of employ. They're all engineers in the field, many own their own companies or work for the big companies in the area (GE, Knoll's Atomic Power Lab, etc). So they farm talent directly out of their classes, this is what happened to me in early November 2009, I was offered a Jr. Engineering position at a small industrial electrical R&D firm.
Since then I've been juggling the difficult full time job + full time graduate student ordeal but It's something I'm familiar with considering how hard I had to work to catch up to people who had B.S. degrees in EE. My GPA is now up over a 3.9 and I've received several pay hikes which put me more than double the "standard postdoc salary" that Dr. Katz wrote about in the article above. I'm almost done with my M.S. I'll be done in under 1 month at which point I will get another nice pay increase.
Long story short (TLDR version) , my B.S. in Physics has helped me tremendously but when it came to getting a job it was essentially worthless. From the time I signed on as a M.S. Electrical Engineering student it took me exactly 9 months to get a GOOD job.
Interesting story that I'm glad you shared... when I got my BS in physics (graduated in May 07 from umd) I wasn't in your predicament since I was planning and certified to search for public school teaching jobs... of course that represented its own challenges.
So.. your bs didn't get you any kind of a reasonable job by itself from your searching, but your connections through your masters in engineering is what did it... I wonder what advice we should be gleaming from your experience.
seems like his experience basically agrees with the article- way better job prospects with an engineering degree than with a science degree.
On May 16 2010 21:46 nath wrote: "In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.)."
FUCK YES!
going to grad school for Comp Sci next year, article scared me because my dad is also a physics professor and always told me this, but i guess it doesnt apply to comp sci! :D
That's because Computer Science isn't real science, 1s and 0s? please don't be ridiculous, everybody knows we only play video games and then just half-ass a few hours work and sell a program for way more then it's worth.
On May 16 2010 21:46 nath wrote: "In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.)."
FUCK YES!
going to grad school for Comp Sci next year, article scared me because my dad is also a physics professor and always told me this, but i guess it doesnt apply to comp sci! :D
That's because Computer Science isn't real science, 1s and 0s? please don't be ridiculous, everybody knows we only play video games and then just half-ass a few hours work and sell a program for way more then it's worth.
Everybody knows programming is not computer science and that those are two distinct subjects. Calling programming computer science is like calling lens making for telescopes astronomy. Related, useful, but not the same.
I wouldn't go into a field with twice as many applicants as jobs. Pick your second choice.
And I have an issue with something he said, about scientists becoming computer engineers. So wait? How do you compete with people who've done 4 years of computer software engineering as a major? Unless you go through four more years (12 years now) of computer engineering. Get out while you still can.
On May 16 2010 21:46 nath wrote: "In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.)."
FUCK YES!
going to grad school for Comp Sci next year, article scared me because my dad is also a physics professor and always told me this, but i guess it doesnt apply to comp sci! :D
That's because Computer Science isn't real science, 1s and 0s? please don't be ridiculous, everybody knows we only play video games and then just half-ass a few hours work and sell a program for way more then it's worth.
Everybody knows programming is not computer science and that those are two distinct subjects. Calling programming computer science is like calling lens making for telescopes astronomy. Related, useful, but not the same.
On May 16 2010 11:59 Servolisk wrote: Seems like a load of standard events being over dramatized. I don't think he has any significant passion for his work and is a typical whiner. He even made a tenured faculty position sound undesirable :p He basically sounds like he is not getting any grants funded.
Compared to most things, I find the academic track he described to be very meritocratic, in the long run. Ph.D. students and post-doc's are usually underpaid, but if successful have the opportunity to independently run their own research, and become a tenured professor-one of the best jobs possible. No successful post-doc really views it as a bad job, that I have seen
Speaking from a Bio perspective, I feel like the track is very competitive but full of opportunity to people who are dedicated.
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.
People have had to spend years in post-doc for a while, maybe not in Physics idk. I wouldn't call it getting the shaft either. Successful, senior post-docs make professor equivalent salaries. Not that that is the major concern. Many people find it enjoyable too.
It is probably hard to talk between fields. It sounds like yours is a slightly different sub-area than mine since you mentioned the Lancet, you must be in a clinical oriented lab. AFAIK it is easier to publish higher in the clinical side in general, so maybe that is the reason. Or maybe you are talking about them publishing as second authors or later. Because as someone else said if you are publishing Nature as a post-doc, especially repeatedly, you have nothing to worry about. No one is going to say that it isn't competitive but my experience tells me that the people who do not succeed in this track did not work as well as those who did.
That is why I think the author from the OP has really no passion and urges people to "leave graduate school to people from India and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse." Moronic -___- Maybe he is exaggerating to get attention to the problem (at the time), but his generality + negative bias is not going to get him to be taken seriously.
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.
They generally don't want to work elsewhere. For most people tenure is the ideal position. And they are very independent with their own research, which is most of their job. Much more freedom than industry.
On May 16 2010 23:53 heyoka wrote: There is not a single professor anywhere who has gone his entire career without publishing a paper what gives you that idea that people like that exist?
He said a Nature paper, and he is completely right.
My dream would be working as a scientist in a laboratory, messing with gene samples and whatnot. That would require a minimum 3 years (+2 to get even better chances) of studying. But I would like the job of having machines do half the work for me. I also like it being very monotone and routine. Would be the best job for me because I can slack around.
On May 17 2010 00:58 revy wrote: I have a somewhat related experience that I will share.
3 years ago I graduated from college with a B.S. in Physics from a reputable university with decent but not stellar grades (my GPA went roughly as a positive exponential). Initially I decided I would carry through and get a PhD in Physics so I made a round of applications for grad schools while I worked as a waiter. Long story short I messed up a lot of the application process, received some outright rejections due to my poor grades during my early college career, and ended up with nothing to do around May 2 years ago.
I decided I would then hit the job market with my B.S. in Physics. Mind you this was during incredibly difficult economic times, but regardless I turned up a blank. I applied to every position I might be remotely qualified for, I exhausted every contact that my former professors and my girlfriends family had, hell I submitted my resume to places that weren't even hiring. November comes around and I still had made essentially no progress, I had picked up a 20 hour a week position as an educator at a museum to go along with my waiting tables on Friday/Saturday Nights. The museum position was fun, but I was a rather intelligent 24 year old with a B.S. in a hard science, I wanted to do something more technical.
So I approached the graduate school attached to my alma mater and started on a M.S. in Electrical Engineering in January 2009. With a B.S. in Physics I had some basic circuits (which put me in a huge hole) though, I had a heck of a lot more math than anyone else there. I worked my ass off to catch up, I had essentially no free time between my jobs and studying. It worked though, by the time summer 2009 rolled around I had a 3.8.
The thing about this M.S. in engineering program is that it is somewhat like a trade school version of a M.S. The challenge is there, don't get me wrong, they have very smart professors and students. The thing is that the professors are all PhD's who are professors on the side. Very few of the professors do so as their primary means of employ. They're all engineers in the field, many own their own companies or work for the big companies in the area (GE, Knoll's Atomic Power Lab, etc). So they farm talent directly out of their classes, this is what happened to me in early November 2009, I was offered a Jr. Engineering position at a small industrial electrical R&D firm.
Since then I've been juggling the difficult full time job + full time graduate student ordeal but It's something I'm familiar with considering how hard I had to work to catch up to people who had B.S. degrees in EE. My GPA is now up over a 3.9 and I've received several pay hikes which put me more than double the "standard postdoc salary" that Dr. Katz wrote about in the article above. I'm almost done with my M.S. I'll be done in under 1 month at which point I will get another nice pay increase.
Long story short (TLDR version) , my B.S. in Physics has helped me tremendously but when it came to getting a job it was essentially worthless. From the time I signed on as a M.S. Electrical Engineering student it took me exactly 9 months to get a GOOD job.
Interesting story that I'm glad you shared... when I got my BS in physics (graduated in May 07 from umd) I wasn't in your predicament since I was planning and certified to search for public school teaching jobs... of course that represented its own challenges.
So.. your bs didn't get you any kind of a reasonable job by itself from your searching, but your connections through your masters in engineering is what did it... I wonder what advice we should be gleaming from your experience.
seems like his experience basically agrees with the article- way better job prospects with an engineering degree than with a science degree.
You know, I don't really know what you should take home from my experience, I would say that it somewhat lends credence to the article at the start. I couldn't buy a technical job with my Physics B.S and by the time I was halfway done with a masters in EE I had a good job. That said I would not trade my Physics B.S. for anything, I feel like the most important thing that Physics taught me was how to learn. By it's varied nature Physics throws you at all sorts of new problems in completely disparate fields and you are forced to adapt your thinking to solve them. This is the only reason I was able to make the transition rather seamlessly from Physics to EE, I knew how to learn quickly. This very talent is why I succeed at work as well, I see a new problem, I've never done anything like it before, and I just do it. It takes a long time and I make a ton of mistakes, but in the end I solve it. I'm not sure if that's how it works in other fields I'ld appreciate someone's experience in this regard.
If nothing else I guess it proves that if you work really hard you can get there, despite past mistakes.
On May 16 2010 21:46 nath wrote: "In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.)."
FUCK YES!
going to grad school for Comp Sci next year, article scared me because my dad is also a physics professor and always told me this, but i guess it doesnt apply to comp sci! :D
That's because Computer Science isn't real science, 1s and 0s? please don't be ridiculous, everybody knows we only play video games and then just half-ass a few hours work and sell a program for way more then it's worth.
Computer science is basically math, which is not a science but a subject in the field of liberal arts. From what I understand, computer scientists know how to program, but the course track offered in universities stress mathematical theory and proofs rather than programming know-how.
The article is pretty much dead on btw. Except for the point that computer programmers make a lot of money. Many computer programmers make shit because of outsourcing. In fact in many engineering fields, the job market is more attractive in developing nations because that's where companies(US companies mind you) hire.
On May 17 2010 02:48 Ecorin wrote: My dream would be working as a scientist in a laboratory, messing with gene samples and whatnot. That would require a minimum 3 years (+2 to get even better chances) of studying. But I would like the job of having machines do half the work for me. I also like it being very monotone and routine. Would be the best job for me because I can slack around.
this sounds just like a job working in the microbiology laboratory of a hospital or something. if you're being serious, that's what you should probably look into after getting a bachelor of science in biology or something like that.
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.
Anyone know anything about aeronautics? As in being a pilot of a plane? I've wanted to be a pilot since I was a kid, but never took it seriously because I thought they either weren't paid much, or there weren't enough jobs available. Thanks for the help.
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!
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.
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.
Are these statistics just wrong or something? Almost 40% of physics PhDs here get jobs outside academia. That does not at all mesh with "cannot get you a job in industry."
Are these statistics just wrong or something? Almost 40% of physics PhDs here get jobs outside academia. That does not at all mesh with "cannot get you a job in industry."
O wow, I am surprised. I guess I was just biased on physics.
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.
Oh absolutely, I wasn't trying to refute anything you were saying I was merely offering my thoughts on why I thought that you were correct.
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
So don't become a scientist because there's already too many of them ? Sounds reasonable. I would also recommend against becoming a computer scientist if you're looking for a well paying job. Law or medicine works alot better.
On May 17 2010 03:58 BDF92 wrote: Anyone know anything about aeronautics? As in being a pilot of a plane? I've wanted to be a pilot since I was a kid, but never took it seriously because I thought they either weren't paid much, or there weren't enough jobs available. Thanks for the help.
not really related to the op but..
unless your fit to join the air force, get ready to shell out a large chunk of money to get your license. Your going to need your private pilots license and then work your way to a commercials license with extra ratings like night flying, multi engine etc... Being a pilot for an airline can pay very well, the toughest part is getting enough hours and experience.
Getting your commercials can cost about 30000$ (in Canada) with most switching to being an instructor to build up the hours.
On May 16 2010 09:26 orgolove wrote: KoF, are you from an ivy? CHEs becoming consultants... how does that work?
Having a proper engineerng degree makes you able to pretty much anything. From what Ive seen its much harder to get a leading position in an economy department with an economy degree opposed to a physics degree.
This is super true. Engineering/physics degrees can set you up for work in a huge number of fields. The intense mathematical background you get from these degrees guarantees your usefulness in real-world problems.
There is actually a program at my school for physics students to take courses in economics - they are guaranteed a professorship at the end of the program. Not anything fancy, but even getting an associate professorship is a big deal and can start you on a career if you're interested in that path.
People with science degrees are setting themselves up for success. They just need to grab it.
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.
Completely and utterly wrong. There are plenty of jobs in industry for physics PhDs.
Just off the top of my head, there are always quants; Physics PhD holders who work on Wall Street.
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.
Completely and utterly wrong. There are plenty of jobs in industry for physics PhDs.
Just off the top of my head, there are always quants; Physics PhD holders who work on Wall Street.
But I think that kind of jobs are more suitable for people with (at least) a master's degree in mathematical finance.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i wanted to be a scientist because i enjoyed learning about it, then i found out that you dont need to know shit in science, you just gotta know math...
On May 17 2010 02:46 love1another wrote: Well... I'm at least in CS. Programming, though, is not a science. It's quite literally engineering.
Programming is a mathematical discipline. Don't mess up "writing up neat shitty code" with "relational database research". Well, maybe relational databases are not a good example because the current research in that field has come to a stall, but there are other fields where you can do purely scientific works without ever touching your keyboard. Such as language design, OO databases, formal grammars etc. If anything that's pure mathematics because like mathematics it studies the relations between abstract objects with arbitraty laws of interaction. If you think about it twice, there's no real difference between studying the behavior of symmetry groups (science) and studying the behavior of symbol groups (which is voila, parser theory and thus, according to you, not science).
Speaking on applicability with a physics degree, well, physics can be so different that your results may vary drastically. Getting a Ph.D. with something like string theory (pretty much any field of modern theoretical physics) will make you absolutely useless for any kind of a real application, but you're still pretty much guaranteed to get some kind of well-paid job just because it's obvious that if a man can understand theoretical physics, he is quite likely to understand whatever else.
On the other hand, having a practical specialization can really be a win-or-lose situation. Being familiar with the theoretical basis of an emerging technology will make you a wanted person in every HR's list. If tomorrow Apple or Intel will focus on growing crystals and you're, by chance, a pro in crystal growth, gratz, you're one step from being a rich and successful person. However, if you're good in developing something not as popular, such as, maybe (taken as example, I don't have the up-to-date full picture on that), epitaxy, well, it literally sucks to be you, because there will be exactly 0 non-academic career options.
Anyway, if you're picky about your academic development, nothing is lost. Just try to follow the market, try to predict, and work in a field that is likely to be needed in the industry. Unless you're dedicated in researching something that noone needs, you will get some options eventually.
Why am writing all this? Well, I have a masters degree in physics and a job in game development. Many of my friends whom I studied with are about to become Ph.D's in the coming year. The article is very true. You cannot just get a degree and hope for a better life. You need to carefully plan your career just like in any other field. And FFS you need to be in some place other than Russia. The stupidity of the situation with science here is unimaginable. Examples:
1) Official salary of an experienced scientist (not a postdoc, but with 5-10 years of experience) should be around 300-400$ a month depending on the place. 2) There are three sources of money: a) foreign grants. 1 such grant for 10-20 science groups. Chances are you won't see the shit, and even then there are very strange policies concerning taxing which usually leads to you seeing about 30% of the original sum after it comes through various instances. b) domestic grants. Famous for colossal amounts of bureaucracy and literally non-existent amounts of money. Usually having some of these leads to a total income of about 500-600$ which is better, but still a tad above the survivability margin (just for comparison, renting a shitty 1-person apartment in Moscow will cost you no less than 600$ a month, unless you, of course, don't mind living with a vietnamese family, so it's 300$ if you live with a friend). c) government programs.
c) requires a deeper explanation. Most government programs in Russia exist solely for one reason - to transfer money from the state to someone's pocket. The funniest thing is that the organizers of the programs have nothing to do with science, so the distribution of money is essentially random. When year 1 expires and half of the money is stolen, they fall in panic because the money is "spent", but they need some kind of results (in science huh?), so they immediately start giving money to completely random projects that are either led by known people or those incredibly lucky and cocky. The latest program (and a giant failure) was "Russian nanotechnology". Even with all the education I don't understand what this word means. Battle nanodroids? Cure for cancer? Nanosecond impulse lasers? So when the money started falling from the sky people were receiving it with projects like "thin polymer films", "semiconductor lasers" that emit nanometer-length waves and even nuclei research. It was just about finding whatever in your current work can be classified as "nano-" and then hope to pull the lottery ticket. Scientifical result of the program? Zero. When year 2 comes, rinse and repeat. Well, you might have thought that at least 50% of the money were spent into science, but don't get it wrong. Those money were mostly given to either people who "know the uncle of the brother's dad" of someone in the ministry or those who were able to present their useless work as something that is nano-driven. Literally speaking, the results of the program were nanoscopic.
Work experience was played down as unimportant in our society for the longest time. Everyone thinks you need a degree to be valuable to a company for hire. For certain positions yes, but I have a whole company of bosses above me that make a lot more money than I do, and don't have college degrees. They just worked their way up in our company. The restaurant industry doesn't work this way, and that's what I'm doing with my life. Everyone has options. This guy saying that being a PhD isn't all it's cracked up to be is a bit stupid though. I really do wish I went to college and learned as much as possible off of my parent's bill for as long as possible. Honestly, I have to work my butt off, and have been for 6 years to only make a little more. At least a PhD can get a job as a professor just about anywhere in the world, what can I do, be an assistant manager at a restaurant, or a store manager, at a restaurant that has almost the same style of food as the one I have experience in?
And my brother went from 28k working at Blue Cross to 65k in just 3 years. My mom makes 6 figures and has been working there a long time. Neither of them have college degrees.
College is overrated, but it's not useless or unimportant, just it's not the ONLY way to be successful in life.
Its funny he envys lawyers and doctors so much in his rant, but most lawyers complain about the same thing. Basically, too many law schools producing too many lawyers and not enough jobs. The best of the best get accepted to 'big law.' Then the best of that best, the ones that worked 6 days a week for a decade might make partner later in life, but not after they've sacrificed most of their life to get it. Making partner at 31, in this day and is a fluke, let alone the norm.
On May 16 2010 08:19 manbot wrote: I am currently reaching the end of my PhD in chemistry
The problem he is talking about seems to be focused on staying in acedamia, in which case he is completely accurate.
However, if you go into industry or work at a national lab, the job prospects are much better (at least in chemistry), and the payscale is at least double that of academic appointments. The trade-off is that you are much less likely to be able to do independent research, and can be stuck working on an uninteresting project.
i'll be starting my MS in bio next january and this post is spot on. It's difficult in ANY PhD program to get a tenured academia position, but if you are willing to 'sell out' to the private sectore PhD in hard sciences pay really well and you have a lot of job opportunites.
On May 16 2010 21:46 nath wrote: "In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.)."
FUCK YES!
going to grad school for Comp Sci next year, article scared me because my dad is also a physics professor and always told me this, but i guess it doesnt apply to comp sci! :D
That's because Computer Science isn't real science, 1s and 0s? please don't be ridiculous, everybody knows we only play video games and then just half-ass a few hours work and sell a program for way more then it's worth.
Perhaps that's what you do. That's not what I do. Stop giving CompSci a bad name because you are one of the 'slacker nerds' who brags about doing his projects in the 3 hours before they are due. I am involved with research at the undergraduate level where I apply computer science to solve problems in biochemistry, it involves a FUCK of a lot of work and effort. Between this and classes I am occupied all day with university-related things.
On May 18 2010 03:51 nath wrote: Perhaps that's what you do. That's not what I do. Stop giving CompSci a bad name because you are one of the 'slacker nerds' who brags about doing his projects in the 3 hours before they are due. I am involved with research at the undergraduate level where I apply computer science to solve problems in biochemistry, it involves a FUCK of a lot of work and effort. Between this and classes I am occupied all day with university-related things.
It seems like there's a misunderstanding.
What you're doing Nath sounds more like Bioinformatics and not Computer science.
I think the Author is wrong. The solution to his problem isn't to decrease the amount of inspired researchers.
Basic research is a very important part of society, but it takes a long time to pay off, The CD wasn't really used until 50 years after Bell labs invented it. If keeping an additional 50,000 researchers on government funding raises the possibilities of the next big discovery (think the laser) by just a little bit, it will be well worth it.
I think the government needs to make wages a bit more substantial and hold researchers to a high standard (somehow?).
Also, many academic in applied fields hold side jobs as consultants to supplement their income.
On May 18 2010 15:24 willeesmalls wrote: I think the Author is wrong. The solution to his problem isn't to decrease the amount of inspired researchers.
They aren't getting more funding, no matter what anyone says.
On May 17 2010 20:28 Luddite wrote: 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.
100% hit the nail on the head, absolutely NO other major is going to get you into a high paying job straight out of college but engineering or medicine.
I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.
I stopped taking this article seriously about right there. Other than that it was an ok rant from a bitter professor.
How many drug addicts do you think he personally knows? How many physics Ph.Ds do you think he knows? Complain about his sampling bias but it's probably true.
I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.
I stopped taking this article seriously about right there. Other than that it was an ok rant from a bitter professor.
How many drug addicts do you think he personally knows? How many physics Ph.Ds do you think he knows? Complain about his sampling bias but it's probably true.
I met a Polish homeless who had gone into heroin yesterday, in London. For 16 years, he had had a job, some saving, a house. Then he met this girl who took him into heroin and he lost everything. He went to jail, all his friend disappeared, he lost his job, his house, his money, his health, and he was so fucking desperate that my heart was bleeding just by seeing him.
Saying that making Phd ruins more lives than drug is not only ridiculous and gross, it is a bit obscene.
I totally agree with Baarn. I don't take seriously someone who says things that stupid.
EDIT: and if you want to know, I know a loooot of people who did a phd, most of them are happy with it and none of them fucked his life and became a homeless with no other future than robbing for having his heroin dose from time to time and dying soon or late in a street of London a morning of february.
On May 18 2010 19:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: Saying that making Phd ruins more lives than drug is not only ridiculous and gross, it is a bit obscene.
That's not what he said. He admitted it was only as per his personal experience...
On May 18 2010 19:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: Saying that making Phd ruins more lives than drug is not only ridiculous and gross, it is a bit obscene.
That's not what he said. He admitted it was only as per his personal experience...
Yes I know. Obviously a universty teacher knows countless people who have done phd and a couple of drug addicts maybe. The comparison is still obscene and makes even less sense. Horrible rethoric.
On May 18 2010 02:31 SOB_Maj_Brian wrote: Its funny he envys lawyers and doctors so much in his rant, but most lawyers complain about the same thing. Basically, too many law schools producing too many lawyers and not enough jobs. The best of the best get accepted to 'big law.' Then the best of that best, the ones that worked 6 days a week for a decade might make partner later in life, but not after they've sacrificed most of their life to get it. Making partner at 31, in this day and is a fluke, let alone the norm.
Maybe coz "Jonathan Katz Thu May 13 12:39:11 CDT 1999", 11 years ago demand for lawyers were higher I suppose.
On May 18 2010 19:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: Saying that making Phd ruins more lives than drug is not only ridiculous and gross, it is a bit obscene.
That's not what he said. He admitted it was only as per his personal experience...
Yes I know. Obviously a universty teacher knows countless people who have done phd and a couple of drug addicts maybe. The comparison is still obscene and makes even less sense. Horrible rethoric.
Who cares? Even if that is a bad comparison, what does it have to do with the rest of the article?
For an academic his write-up seems rather bad, usually academics write a bit better and not just like "ah wtf man I cant stand this, lets write down something quickly"
I mean I have read such things of German scientists, but that was ALOOOOT better.
On May 17 2010 20:28 Luddite wrote: 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.
100% hit the nail on the head, absolutely NO other major is going to get you into a high paying job straight out of college but engineering or medicine.
I get what you're saying, but medicine is going to get you a good paying job about 8 years after college, mostly spent working and studying for a hundred hours a week. And in some specialties the 100 hour weeks don't stop when your residency is over.
I read a comment of someone explaining how he get a job with the help of his contact more than with his B.S (althought i don't know what is a B.S). Well I think it has always been the same. Graduating has no value by itself, if you bring it out of the context; school is more about having a lot of contact than gaining productivity, knowledge or anything. Why do you think that most of the greatest university in the world are also the one that makes the biggest party?
This logic is even more important when you go for a Ph.D since you need contact with professors to be respected and eventually for people to place faith in you and your future as a scientist. Ph.D and academical carrier is (sadly) more about having friend and getting a good position in social network than being a good scientist. Just see the one called Norbert Elias, great sociologue respected for his work who was working in a cafe until the age of fifty or so...
One of my professor, one of the most respected in my university even if he is a bit old, told me that the greatest scientist in university are the one we call "maitre de conference" (master of conference) while the "professors" (highest grade of scientist in french university) are not that good, too interested about keeping their jobs and their fame.
On May 19 2010 00:42 ArKaDo wrote: I read a comment of someone explaining how he get a job with the help of his contact more than with his B.S (althought i don't know what is a B.S). Well I think it has always been the same. Graduating has no value by itself, if you bring it out of the context; school is more about having a lot of contact than gaining productivity, knowledge or anything. Why do you think that most of the greatest university in the world are also the one that makes the biggest party?
This logic is even more important when you go for a Ph.D since you need contact with professors to be respected and eventually for people to place faith in you and your future as a scientist. Ph.D and academical carrier is (sadly) more about having friend and getting a good position in social network than being a good scientist. Just see the one called Norbert Elias, great sociologue respected for his work who was working in a cafe until the age of fifty or so...
One of my professor, one of the most respected in my university even if he is a bit old, told me that the greatest scientist in university are the one we call "maitre de conference" (master of conference) while the "professors" (highest grade of scientist in french university) are not that good, too interested about keeping their jobs and their fame.
There are rare cases, but getting a Ph.D especially in science is not just about contacts and networking. Getting a B.S. in Chemistry, for instance, is a little like getting a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. It doesn't mean you're a master, it means you're ready to really start learning.
On May 19 2010 00:42 ArKaDo wrote: I read a comment of someone explaining how he get a job with the help of his contact more than with his B.S (althought i don't know what is a B.S). Well I think it has always been the same. Graduating has no value by itself, if you bring it out of the context; school is more about having a lot of contact than gaining productivity, knowledge or anything. Why do you think that most of the greatest university in the world are also the one that makes the biggest party?
This logic is even more important when you go for a Ph.D since you need contact with professors to be respected and eventually for people to place faith in you and your future as a scientist. Ph.D and academical carrier is (sadly) more about having friend and getting a good position in social network than being a good scientist. Just see the one called Norbert Elias, great sociologue respected for his work who was working in a cafe until the age of fifty or so...
One of my professor, one of the most respected in my university even if he is a bit old, told me that the greatest scientist in university are the one we call "maitre de conference" (master of conference) while the "professors" (highest grade of scientist in french university) are not that good, too interested about keeping their jobs and their fame.
There are rare cases, but getting a Ph.D especially in science is not just about contacts and networking. Getting a B.S. in Chemistry, for instance, is a little like getting a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. It doesn't mean you're a master, it means you're ready to really start learning.
I agree. Although you have to put in a lot of time, Ph.D. and post-doc are necessary to become effective.
On May 19 2010 02:10 Ruthless wrote: Right now as others have said you have a problem.
To put it in a brief statement: You have a high number of very talented people competing for a lesser number of low paying unstable jobs.
Sounds perfect for starcraft players!
Agreed with the last sentence. :p But, the competition is not for the low paying jobs, only tenure track professor, which should not be considered low paying.
I think this is the only solid fact coming from the OP. It is competetive, and not the highest paying career in existence -__-
I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.
I stopped taking this article seriously about right there. Other than that it was an ok rant from a bitter professor.
How many drug addicts do you think he personally knows? How many physics Ph.Ds do you think he knows? Complain about his sampling bias but it's probably true.
Who knows how many he does? He should be the one to consider his own sampling bias before saying it.
On May 18 2010 19:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: Saying that making Phd ruins more lives than drug is not only ridiculous and gross, it is a bit obscene.
That's not what he said. He admitted it was only as per his personal experience...
Yes I know. Obviously a universty teacher knows countless people who have done phd and a couple of drug addicts maybe. The comparison is still obscene and makes even less sense. Horrible rethoric.
Who cares? Even if that is a bad comparison, what does it have to do with the rest of the article?
I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.
I stopped taking this article seriously about right there. Other than that it was an ok rant from a bitter professor.
On May 19 2010 00:48 sqwert wrote: my prof said PhDs are for research and getting a Bachelors is enough to start getting employed.
Probably right, but depends in which area I guess. What's obvious is that as it's getting more and more difficult to find a job in any area some people go for very high level study although they don't want to be searchers or don't have the motivation/passion absolutely necessary for doing research...
The impression I have is that Phd should be something very specific and now it's just, well, the highest degree you can have.
On May 19 2010 02:10 Ruthless wrote: Right now as others have said you have a problem.
To put it in a brief statement: You have a high number of very talented people competing for a lesser number of low paying unstable jobs.
Sounds perfect for starcraft players!
Agreed with the last sentence. :p But, the competition is not for the low paying jobs, only tenure track professor, which should not be considered low paying.
I think this is the only solid fact coming from the OP. It is competetive, and not the highest paying career in existence -__-
Yea i guess it is not "low paying" but with the intellect. you probably have you could be making far more with a bachelors degree. Tenured professors dont always make a lot of money. But its all relative
Potential grad student here, but still quite on the fence. Honestly, if you are good at writing and did undergraduate work in science, go become a science reporter. We need people who actually have some idea of how science actually works so we stop getting all the sensationalist bullshit about how the robot overlord singularity is coming. We are so primitive it isnt even funny, yet no one seems to be able or willing to convey this truth to the general public.
^What is the enjoyment of science reporting? And I am not sure a competent science reporter would solve those problems because it depends on the listeners, but lol @ robot overlord signularity ^_^
On May 19 2010 02:51 Servolisk wrote: ^What is the enjoyment of science reporting? And I am not sure a competent science reporter would solve those problems because it depends on the listeners, but lol @ robot overlord signularity ^_^
Well, if you are interested more broadly in science then you can stay very very up to date with recent research in all fields and have contact with scientists at the top of their fields, plus you probably have a better idea of what good methodology or at least can raise intelligent questions about the studies and ask hard questions. Obviously you have to write, but if you are interested in educating others about science you have an opportunity (albiet contingent on your audience) to reach many more minds than you would as a professor, though you might have a significantly harder time convincing them of certain things. Of course you are right that this kind of job might not be particularly appealing to someone who actually enjoys labwork.
The author is a nut and a bigot of every flavor. Here are some excerpts from his other papers(http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/):
"We ignore history, which shows that most airplane hijackers are Arab. Refusing to ``ethnically profile'' airline passengers, airport security paid little attention to obvious risks, with the result that more than five thousand Americans were murdered by terrorists."
...
"We know how AIDS is transmitted: by promiscuous sexual activity, chiefly homosexual, and by abusers of intravenous drugs who share hypodermic needles. The human body was not designed for these activities, and lacks the immunological defenses to deal with their consequences. Except for a comparatively few cases transmitted by transfused blood and blood products or congenitally, the victims of AIDS knowingly and deliberately put themselves at risk. AIDS could be stopped by a program of contact tracing and quarantine, methods which successfully contained venereal and other communicable diseases in the pre-antibiotic era"
"I am a homophobe, and proud."
"In the diversity business what matters about people is their ``race'', which is taken to determine character, intellect and moral value. That is the philosophy of National Socialism, with a different Master Race and (so far) no subhumans."
"How can we explain the contrast between the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering, in which the proportion of women hasn't risen despite ample encouragement, and law and medicine, in which it has? It's social science, so we cannot be sure (no one ever really knows why people make the decisions that govern their lives, whether it is age of marriage, number of children, or choice of profession), but certainly the hypotheses that fewer women (than men) are interested in science, or have the talent to succeed at it, must be considered.
I, for one, think it the most plausible explanation, but I also don't think the whole question is very important or very interesting."
He should have titled it "Don't try to make it as university/college professor". His conclusion too is atrocious advice. The more scientist a nation trains, the better it does economically - for everyone, always. The guy, to put it bluntly, has written up a piece of idiocy. I believe he needs to review what a "scientist" really means. Having said that I know this guy is not idiot but that he has no qualms playing the fool. His writings in general have no intention to instruct but to create reaction and controversy.
On May 20 2010 02:17 Physician wrote: "Don't Become a Scientist!" by Jonathan I. Katz
He should have titled it "Don't try to make it as university/college professor". His conclusion too is atrocious advice. The more scientist a nation trains, the better it does economically - for everyone, always. The guy, to put it bluntly, has written up a piece of idiocy. I believe he needs to review what a "scientist" really means. Having said that I know this guy is not idiot but that he has no qualms playing the fool. His writings in general have no intention to instruct but to create reaction and controversy.
You say he's an idiot then back that up by discussing the implications of having less people choose science Ph.Ds, which has absolutely nothing to do with his article.
Do you disagree with anything he said, and if so, what exactly? Where is he wrong?
His basic thesis is that science Ph.Ds don't pay much compared to other disciplines and it is quite hard to make basically any upper-middle class money with one nowadays, and even if you do make it you spend your time dealing with science politics rather than science research. He talks about 5-10+ doing postdoc jobs rather than being on tenure track, etc. Where exactly is he wrong?
On May 19 2010 14:54 KingPants wrote: The author is a nut and a bigot of every flavor. Here are some excerpts from his other papers(http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/):
"We ignore history, which shows that most airplane hijackers are Arab. Refusing to ``ethnically profile'' airline passengers, airport security paid little attention to obvious risks, with the result that more than five thousand Americans were murdered by terrorists."
...
"We know how AIDS is transmitted: by promiscuous sexual activity, chiefly homosexual, and by abusers of intravenous drugs who share hypodermic needles. The human body was not designed for these activities, and lacks the immunological defenses to deal with their consequences. Except for a comparatively few cases transmitted by transfused blood and blood products or congenitally, the victims of AIDS knowingly and deliberately put themselves at risk. AIDS could be stopped by a program of contact tracing and quarantine, methods which successfully contained venereal and other communicable diseases in the pre-antibiotic era"
"I am a homophobe, and proud."
"In the diversity business what matters about people is their ``race'', which is taken to determine character, intellect and moral value. That is the philosophy of National Socialism, with a different Master Race and (so far) no subhumans."
"How can we explain the contrast between the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering, in which the proportion of women hasn't risen despite ample encouragement, and law and medicine, in which it has? It's social science, so we cannot be sure (no one ever really knows why people make the decisions that govern their lives, whether it is age of marriage, number of children, or choice of profession), but certainly the hypotheses that fewer women (than men) are interested in science, or have the talent to succeed at it, must be considered.
I, for one, think it the most plausible explanation, but I also don't think the whole question is very important or very interesting."
Oh God... Some people shouldn't be allowed to exist. What a prick.
With a PhD, or even a bachelors...you can enter the army as a commissioned officer. I know it works that way in both USA and Canada. In the US I think you need a masters to be promoted above Major. Why not? A military scientist job sounds pretty kickass to me, or even just a regular officer job. Decent pay too.
Very misleading title. I got my BSc in microbiology and there are plenty of opportunities for newly graduating scientists. The problem is that science, more than any other industry, is at the whim of the government in power and their investment in the scientific futures, especially in the government sector (obviously). Another huge problem is that to most people science is 'what other people do'. People are incredibly impressed that I have a degree in microbiology and can distinguish a few dozen microbes based on smell and color/shape alone when anyone getting out of an intensive microbiology degree can do the same. It's disjunct from other parts of people's lives is moreso than any other discipline, I mean it has it's own language pretty much.
Anyways, a lot of truths have been said in this thread. My advice: If you want to do your PhD, do it. It's not going to hurt you and will give you a lot of opportunities in private industry as a consultant or product professional. If you are still delusional... errr pure enough to think you want to be a research scientist then go for it, but don't expect to be appropriately compensated.
The most successful people in science positions are people with a personality who can take their industry and science knowledge, combine it with their personable demeanor and either manage biotech product lines or sell them. No one wants to be a bench chemist forever, it's stagnating, have a career path laid out and clear deadlines for your progression within a company or within your own start-up. Never, ever, hold it over people's heads that you have a degree in a scientific discipline and always talk plainly with people until you can gauge how much of the industry knowledge they have.
The people saying it's not what you know but who you know do not know science. It is largely what you know, far greater than traditional disciplines. What you know will dictate who hires you or what profs will oversee you and where you will succeed the best. Rebooting your career from a microbiologist to a biochemist isn't reasonably possible after a year or two of grad school. Who you know comes into play when you decide you've paid your dues and want to move on to private industry. This is why grad students get taken to seminars and conventions in their last year by professors who like them. That's when you get to know people and decide where to go, if you've gone that route.
On May 16 2010 11:59 Servolisk wrote: Seems like a load of standard events being over dramatized. I don't think he has any significant passion for his work and is a typical whiner. He even made a tenured faculty position sound undesirable :p He basically sounds like he is not getting any grants funded.
Compared to most things, I find the academic track he described to be very meritocratic, in the long run. Ph.D. students and post-doc's are usually underpaid, but if successful have the opportunity to independently run their own research, and become a tenured professor-one of the best jobs possible. No successful post-doc really views it as a bad job, that I have seen
Speaking from a Bio perspective, I feel like the track is very competitive but full of opportunity to people who are dedicated.
On May 16 2010 09:24 KOFgokuon wrote: The life of an academic is not one that I envy. I just don't have the drive to do it. If you come from a top notch department (MIT, stanford, berkeley, cal tech, UIUC, whatever) then you won't have a problem getting a faculty position, consulting jobs, engineering jobs whatever, but I feel for people who end up getting Ph.D's at lower notch schools and struggle to find positions
Maybe it is different in Chemical Engineering than Biology, but for Bio they won't care what university it is, they will only care about publication quality. Although in Bio you won't get a faculty position as a Ph.D. graduate without a post-doc anyway.
your chances of getting high quality publications is higher at bigger name universities. You'll have more well known faculty members, in general better facilities, equipment, smarter collaborators, it all builds up
On May 16 2010 21:46 nath wrote: "In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.)."
FUCK YES!
going to grad school for Comp Sci next year, article scared me because my dad is also a physics professor and always told me this, but i guess it doesnt apply to comp sci! :D
That's because Computer Science isn't real science, 1s and 0s? please don't be ridiculous, everybody knows we only play video games and then just half-ass a few hours work and sell a program for way more then it's worth.
Everybody knows programming is not computer science and that those are two distinct subjects. Calling programming computer science is like calling lens making for telescopes astronomy. Related, useful, but not the same.
FFS programming is a science.
Yes, and when did I say it wasn't?
*Hint! I didn't! I just said it wasn't computer science!*
So basically physics/chemistry grad students should go be engineers instead, and biology/biochem grad students should be doctors and pharmacists and stuff. Got it.
On May 20 2010 02:17 Physician wrote: "Don't Become a Scientist!" by Jonathan I. Katz
He should have titled it "Don't try to make it as university/college professor". His conclusion too is atrocious advice. The more scientist a nation trains, the better it does economically - for everyone, always. The guy, to put it bluntly, has written up a piece of idiocy. I believe he needs to review what a "scientist" really means. Having said that I know this guy is not idiot but that he has no qualms playing the fool. His writings in general have no intention to instruct but to create reaction and controversy.
uhm.... what do you base that statement of yours on?
On May 20 2010 02:17 Physician wrote: "Don't Become a Scientist!" by Jonathan I. Katz
He should have titled it "Don't try to make it as university/college professor". His conclusion too is atrocious advice. The more scientist a nation trains, the better it does economically - for everyone, always. The guy, to put it bluntly, has written up a piece of idiocy. I believe he needs to review what a "scientist" really means. Having said that I know this guy is not idiot but that he has no qualms playing the fool. His writings in general have no intention to instruct but to create reaction and controversy.
uhm.... what do you base that statement of yours on?
That's kind of trivial, actually... are you serious? (not that i agree with what that guy was saying...)
On May 20 2010 02:17 Physician wrote: "Don't Become a Scientist!" by Jonathan I. Katz
He should have titled it "Don't try to make it as university/college professor". His conclusion too is atrocious advice. The more scientist a nation trains, the better it does economically - for everyone, always. The guy, to put it bluntly, has written up a piece of idiocy. I believe he needs to review what a "scientist" really means. Having said that I know this guy is not idiot but that he has no qualms playing the fool. His writings in general have no intention to instruct but to create reaction and controversy.
uhm.... what do you base that statement of yours on?
I would be surprised if there isn't a strong correlation there, since the number of scientists a country produces is correlated with the breadth of higher education in general.
I wouldn't go as far as implying that it's the actual scientists that are helping the country out though, more like the bankers, businessmen, lawyers, politicians, etc.
I've gotta go with hnrpride on this one. Prof in the op seems a little crazy. I mean there's lawyers graduating from ivy league schools who aren't able to find jobs and that market's over saturated. I wouldn't call going to harvard and getting a degree in law a waste but I think more people are starting to regret it when they have insane loans to pay off and have a hard time finding work that pays enough.
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
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! There are 0.5% jobs out there that pay a shit load for people who understand the stuff developing intense logic stuff but for most graduates, its so hard to find a job where you can apply your skills. If industry hasn't been able to apply it, I would stay away from a master/PHd, unless you really want to do research and continue on with academia. A bachelor in math can help you find a job but like I said, no degree out there will garuntee you a job. People told me EE is and its not. I'm top 10 in my class and I did internship so its not like I didnt perform well either. In fact, #1 in our class doesnt have a job either. People who do are those you had family hook-ups or got really lucky.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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:
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!
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.bmacewen.com/blog/images/NALPDistro2006.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt335/quietus8/science.jpg)
