Academia: Exponential Growth & Post Docs Till 40?

[twofish-quant]

Our schools have sold a lot of people on the idea of being at the very edge of the wedge to use physics to benefit society.

Something to point out here is that there aren't very many physics majors. There is a selection effect because of the name of this group, but relatively few people go into physics.

Schools have failed us because we aren't educating our population on the things it will take to improve society.

The more I get into conversations like these, the more I realize that I ended up with an excellent education. One problem is that I have been taught to be extremely negative and critical, but sometimes it's possible to be to negative and critical. For example, if you argue that US universities are *totally* incompetent, that tends to push you to completely gutting the system, which may be worse than the problem you are trying to fix.

Also, most of the more important things I didn't learn in school.

We have an excess of scientists

I don't think we do. It *may* be that we have a social structure that doesn't make effective use of scientists, but perhaps even *that* isn't true. Also, if the US really does have an excess of scientists, then have them move to China or India, and let's see what happens in 20 years.

Our schools are failing us because from our first days in Pre-School we fill our children with this self-actualizing nonsense that is guaranteed to cause pain and hurt the first time they ever try a real challenge. We tell our kids they can be anything they want to be. And while that's true, they not only have to want it, they have to have some sort of talent for whatever it is they seek.

I don't think that you can blame schools for this. This sort of stuff you learn from parents, and even from the level of parents, it's a hard issue. For example, I'm a lot "softer" than my parents, and my kids are likely going to be even "softer" than me. The trouble is that my parents ended up being "hard" and "tough" because they grew up in an environment that looks pretty close to what Afghanistan looks like now.

So it does concern me that my kids will be "soft" but what do you want me to do? Send them to military school or have them go through a major war? Put them in a jail for political crimes? I can teach them history, but listening about something is different from living it, and even at the level of teaching history, there are decisions to be made. There's stuff that people just don't want to talk about. I have no idea what my father saw in the army, but whatever it was, it changed him.

The vast majority of them will be lucky to eke out a living. Meanwhile, there are other activities all around that people are ignoring because of the siren song...

Things change. Maybe this "science stinks" has gone too far.

As far as I can tell, physics majors aren't having it much worse than any other majors. It's a terrible economy, but I really don't see physics taking people away from things that are "more productive." Physics is *really* useful as a technical liberal art.

 

[twofish-quant]

If society let's you 'play' until you are 21, then you lose a lot of motivation for attacking the establishment.

And if you have to "work" after you are 21, then you end up being too busy to attack to establishment. If you don't have a job, then you are considered a "loser" and your opinions don't count.

So the physicist moves meekly into a low level bank job, the stockbroker stays rich as Croesus, and everybody is happy, especially the stockbroker...

It doesn't work that way. The jobs that physics Ph.D.'s end up getting on Wall Street or in Canary Wharf aren't "low level." I'm not on the "committee that runs the world" (and yes there is a committee look up Basel III) but I know people with physics Ph.D.'s who are.

As far as money. I have more money than I know what to do with. One good thing is that I don't have expensive tastes, so I've long past the point that at which I can buy anything that I want to buy.

One thing about finance is that it's much more likely that a physics Ph.D. will report to an MBA than the reverse but this has something to do with the fact that there are 100x more MBA's than physics Ph.D.'s.

 

[twofish-quant]

That scam would be enticing people who wouldn't otherwise go to university into taking worthless degree programs with the promise of getting that safe, secure high paying job. You know what I'm talking about, the myriad of worthless liberal arts majors.

I don't think those are worthless. One thing that you can be reasonably sure if you have a college graduate is that they can write an essay and follow a deadline.

There's also the matter of "young adult day care." College provides an environment in which people can do truly stupid things, and without getting into huge amounts of trouble.

Universities are not the only guilty parties, our higher educational system used to have a better balance between university (for those with the capability) and vocational training.

One thing that makes me suspicious is when people talk about the "good old days." The other thing that also makes me suspicious is when people talk about vocational training. One curious thing is that the people that talk loudly about the wonders of vocational training, don't seem to have got it themselves, and don't seem to seem to want it for their kids.

Employers are also to blame for the "have a 4 year degree in anything we don't care what it is but we probably won't hire you anyway" approach, leading to rampant degree inflation and the idea that you have to bury yourself in student loans to get anything.

There is a reason why employers like degrees. If you have a bachelors degree, then you have a demonstrated that you can survive an office environment and work with authority. If I hire someone with a college degree, I can be reasonably sure that if I give them an assignment they don't like, that they'll moan and complain to their friends, but they aren't going to punch me in the face.

The high school system is also to blame for mindlessly encouraging people who can't handle those "good fields" I mentioned to go into universities anyway.

Well where else are they going to go? Before the 1960's, you'd end up in the army, but Vietnam put an end to that. One of the social functions of college is "young adult day care" and if you don't want universities to do that, then you have to come up with some other institution that does that.

Perhaps the finest example of the insanity of our system is how few startups are started by business majors. You'd think it would be more, but I haven't met a single business major who is seriously considering starting his/her own business.

Because the business major isn't intended for starting up companies. Most business professors that I know are very straight and upfront that if you want to start your own business, you should not get a business degree since a business degree will teach you the wrong habits and wrong way of thinking.

The purpose of the business major is to train corporate bureaucrats. Anything that's larger than a small start up is going to need corporate bureaucrats.

But when those bureaucratic type jobs aren't available, like now, they either get a menial low wage service job (like restaurants) or go back to school to bury themselves in more debt. In both scenarios they are just crossing their fingers and hoping things turn around so they can get that job.

Sure, but what else are you going to do? In order to start your own business, you are going to need capital, and in an economic downturn, no one is going to give or lend you money to start your own business that like most small businesses is likely to fail. There's a chicken and egg problem, if you could start a business, then you wouldn't have to.

One you realized that you are doomed, then going to an art museum or reading poetry will at least make you feel less bad, so all of those art and literature courses aren't a total waste. During the really dark days of 2008, I was thinking a lot about what I'd do if it turned out that it *was* great depression II. I had this image of myself in the cold, selling apples while reading a book on neutrino diffusion. For that matter, one reason that people in my family have a strong appreciation of art and culture is that it gives you something to think about even if all hell is breaking loose around you.

 

[twofish-quant]

Emphasis mine. I think the point of this thread is that a physics phd isn't sold as "get this phd, then change fields to something other than physics/engineering, then get a job." Its sold as "get this phd so you can work as a physicist." Thats the "scam" as it were.

No one ever sold me a physics Ph.D. that way. It was always made clear to me that there were very few research professorships available, and once it was clear to me that I wasn't "special" then the logical conclusion was that I wasn't going to get one.

Also, how much of this is "scam" and how much is "past performance is no guarantee of future results" is not clear to me. One thing that sort of surprised me was that among people graduating my department in the late-1980's, one third to one half ended up with permanent academic positions. There was a burst of Cold War research spending, that ended when the Soviet Union fell. So the messages that I was given in hindsight were pretty reasonable given what people were seeing at the time. People were hoping that things would be permanent, while at the same time, people remembered the 1970's crash.

(The other thing is that I need to be very careful about what messages I give. If you are graduating in the next year or so, I can give you a pretty decent picture of what the demand for physicists on Wall Street is, but I can't tell you anything about what things will look like in five years because I don't know.)

 

[deRham]

I don't see how you can avoid a high degree of randomness. You just got too many smart people, and when you have that situation and you care about fairness, then what you end up with is basically random selection.

Exactly, which is why the whole crux of what I believe could help is to level the playing field for the smart people to a high degree, and make the elite truly elite.

The other thing is that randomness isn't bad. If the people in power think that they really deserve what they got, they can get really nasty. If it's commonly realized that social status is a matter of luck, then people tend to be nicer to people that are unlucky because it was only fate that kept them from going down that route.

It can go both ways though, right? The true prodigies don't really need someone telling them they're prodigies, because they're absurdly rare (beyond achievements like winning a gold medal at the IMO). The people who ascend to power because they were lucky can take their insecurities out on those who are less lucky.

There will always be some randomness; even in a system with mostly long-term researchers, there will be lots of randomness as to who gets to go where. That's true in undergraduate and graduate admissions too (sure, everyone who is talented generally gets into a good school, but which good school can vary a lot). But it will at least serve to maximize the number of people who actually continue doing the research they narrowly trained themselves to be specifically qualified to do.

 

[deRham]

I've noticed that things are different in pure mathematics where there are prodigies that seem to have some innate math ability

I think so too, and that's probably implicit in my outlook. It's true that perhaps my suggestions are less applicable to other fields.

I think in pure mathematics, the structure I outlined is roughly true: there are a few prodigies who invariably end up advancing the field, some other stars who make other extremely important contributions, and a fair bunch of other people who have good ideas and are capable enough of understanding and building on what the prodigies have started/revolutionized.

 

[twofish-quant]

Exactly, which is why the whole crux of what I believe could help is to level the playing field for the smart people to a high degree, and make the elite truly elite.

But why should your social position be based on how smart you are? Why *shouldn't* it be based on how well you can sell stuff, how kind you are, or who your parents are? One thing that I like about the world of business is that "raw intelligence" doesn't count for much.

Whether or not you can make someone feel good when you shake their hand, counts for 100x as much as what your IQ is and how well you can solve math problems.

The other thing is that things that appear to "level the playing field" in fact do the opposite. If you are rich and have lots of power, you can navigate college admissions a lot better than someone that has no power. If you have money, you can hire the best teachers and best consultants for your kids, whereas if you are poor, you can't.

If you talk to a group of physicists, it's easy to convince them that physicists should rule the world. If you aren't talking to physicists, it's harder.

The true prodigies don't really need someone telling them they're prodigies, because they're absurdly rare (beyond achievements like winning a gold medal at the IMO).

But if you have a prodigy that grows up as a farmer in Uganda, no one is going to care. If you don't have the resources to teach even basic math, then the fact that someone is hyper-good at math is rather pointless. If you grow up in West Texas, any sort of innate ability to do math, is going to be pointless. Now if you can play football...

The other thing is that if you start having good math systems, then the amount of people that reach a given level of accomplishment increases a lot.

But it will at least serve to maximize the number of people who actually continue doing the research they narrowly trained themselves to be specifically qualified to do.

But why is that a good thing? The fact that you have lots of physicists that get pushed out of the field and forced to do things that they *weren't* specifically trained for, seems like a good thing to me.

For example, there are a lot of physicists and mathematicians right now who are trying to work out how you calculate the value of collateral for the purpose of bank reserve requirements. No one thought that this would be in important problem in 1995. No one thought that this would be an important problem in early 2007. However, it's one of those things that the future of the world depends on. If you just limit yourself to problems that you are trained to do, then we are doomed, because no one was trained for this.

But I'm biased. I tend to lose in a system in which people are narrowly traded, because I'm too curious and I get easily distracted. Now if you have a situation in which adaptability and breath of knowledge are important, then I do much better.

 

[chill_factor]

But why should your social position be based on how smart you are? Why *shouldn't* it be based on how well you can sell stuff, how kind you are, or who your parents are? One thing that I like about the world of business is that "raw intelligence" doesn't count for much.

Whether or not you can make someone feel good when you shake their hand, counts for 100x as much as what your IQ is and how well you can solve math problems.

The other thing is that things that appear to "level the playing field" in fact do the opposite. If you are rich and have lots of power, you can navigate college admissions a lot better than someone that has no power. If you have money, you can hire the best teachers and best consultants for your kids, whereas if you are poor, you can't.

If you talk to a group of physicists, it's easy to convince them that physicists should rule the world. If you aren't talking to physicists, it's harder.



But if you have a prodigy that grows up as a farmer in Uganda, no one is going to care. If you don't have the resources to teach even basic math, then the fact that someone is hyper-good at math is rather pointless. If you grow up in West Texas, any sort of innate ability to do math, is going to be pointless. Now if you can play football...

The other thing is that if you start having good math systems, then the amount of people that reach a given level of accomplishment increases a lot.



But why is that a good thing? The fact that you have lots of physicists that get pushed out of the field and forced to do things that they *weren't* specifically trained for, seems like a good thing to me.

For example, there are a lot of physicists and mathematicians right now who are trying to work out how you calculate the value of collateral for the purpose of bank reserve requirements. No one thought that this would be in important problem in 1995. No one thought that this would be an important problem in early 2007. However, it's one of those things that the future of the world depends on. If you just limit yourself to problems that you are trained to do, then we are doomed, because no one was trained for this.

But I'm biased. I tend to lose in a system in which people are narrowly traded, because I'm too curious and I get easily distracted. Now if you have a situation in which adaptability and breath of knowledge are important, then I do much better.

A system where people are narrowly trained and narrowly hired just described much of industrial manufacturing though. Is that why you switched to finance?

 

[logarithmic]

I have a lot of thoughts on this issue, which I might add in later. But for now, I'll say that part of the problem with academia is that demand for a position is far greater than supply, because having being exposed to it at university gives people a romanticized view of it.

I can definitely say that's how I felt. My view on of academia in high school was essentially "those who can't do, teach" and then when I started university I had a Damascene moment and my view is now that there's no intellectual pursuit that is as pure or noble as being an academic.'

It seems that everyone who starts a PhD wants to be an academic. Clearly this is not possible nor sustainable.

 

[Skrambles]

If you grow up in West Texas, any sort of innate ability to do math, is going to be pointless. Now if you can play football...

You probably shouldn't watch so much Friday Night Lights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Tech_University#Colleges_and_schools

 

[deRham]

But why should your social position be based on how smart you are?

Not necessarily social position, so much as just restricted to this situation (tenure means they're confident you'll make a valuable addition to the research community and lead it). I don't think it should exclude factors other than your raw ability to produce good work - also how much you'll benefit the community (what kind of funding you'll draw, what kind of training you might give, how valuable you will be to your colleagues). So in fact, being a prodigy in your field might be called the first step.

The reason this is hardly outrageous to me is that it's already the case at some places. You simply don't become a Princeton professor of pure mathematics without being both prodigious at leading your field and being a valuable addition to the research community otherwise. Great. That's way, way above the reach of most people I know (which is fine).

For the rest of everyone, the problem is that getting a job as a researcher is still exceptionally hard, but at some point, not for really a great reason so much as the system is exclusive for being exclusive, which might be changed (I don't doubt this is tough) with some restructuring.

The fact that you have lots of physicists that get pushed out of the field and forced to do things that they *weren't* specifically trained for, seems like a good thing to me.

I tend to lose in a system in which people are narrowly traded, because I'm too curious and I get easily distracted. Now if you have a situation in which adaptability and breath of knowledge are important, then I do much better.

I certainly don't believe the only system in the world in which someone with an advanced physics/mathematics credential is academia. I think being adaptable and using one's breadth of knowledge to solve difficult mathematical problems is definitely just as hard as being a successful researcher in, say, pure mathematics.

What I hope for is that people end up where they should. I agree that those individuals who are kidding themselves about being suited for a relatively narrow research career (i.e. they just won't have the energy/interest to push themselves to publish lots of technical stuff in the narrow area) should be sent elsewhere. Hopefully, a majority of those who really enjoy and excel at the kind of work academia demands are not pushed out simply because the system doesn't allow for much of a middle ground.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I think, given the choice of starving or a job in Business, Economics, Finance.. Most will just change fields. Do you really want to be unemployed just because You only do a specific little known field of physics?

 

[HowardVAgnew]

I find it a scam from the getgo, but the scam comes not necessarily from the professors (I had an economics professor who said, outright, post-secondary education is getting a lower and lower return on investment as the cost of education is rising, year after year, much faster than the resulting average increase in income for a college graduate over a non-college graduate), but the same primary source of scamming in any business: the marketers writing the advertising.

Every advertisement for every school put before my eyes gives the same schpiel: Your life will be better pursuing a degree.

I pursued a degree, and that pursuit has cost me a great deal. Due to snafus in my student loan paperwork, which the university supposedly handled on its own, I lost eligibility for my student loan in my 3rd year with the University of Phoenix. My financial advisers with Phoenix insisted that my student loan was good to be renewed for my fourth and final year when, it was later revealed, he already knew it was not because the university had failed to properly fill out an application on my behalf as they were supposed to with the student loan provider. As a result, I agreed to enroll in a class I would not have had I known it would not be covered by the student loan, as there was no way I could afford tuition on my own not covered by the loan.

This triggered a series of events leading to the university locking my academic record so that I cannot transfer the credits I earned academically, have a student loan debt they profited from and the extra money I paid out of pocket for the 'books' (non-permanent digital documents that were only a tiny fraction of the actual textbooks that I had no access to when they locked my account, yet I was still charged hundreds of dollars apiece for much as I remember it costing for books when I attended a brick-and-mortar community college).

I now have debt I cannot repay, no credits I can transfer to another institution to try to continue pursuing a degree and no degree to improve my employability. The resulting clash between my limited employability, which in turns limits my income, against an enormous debt has, of course, been quite harmful to my credit score. Even the most medial jobs I have applied for run "background checks" that all involve credit checks, and this means that not only do I have a huge debt I've incurred while getting nothing meaningful to return (no degree), but my employability is actually reduced by the attempt than it would have been if I had never attempted to pursue a degree.

Academic institutions are privileged corporations. They are largely exempted from repaying customers when their actions or inactions result in their failure to provide what they promise in their advertising. The only two things I can think of that are on par with the massive financial cost of a degree are purchasing a car or purchasing a house, and its been my observation (though, granted, being in my situation, it seems improbable I will ever be in a position to buy a house or a brand new car and, thus, this condemns my premise to pure personal conjecture) the producers of homes and cars are far more accountable in terms of being answerable if they fail to provide what their advertisemens promise than universities.

A lot of people pursue degrees from a lot of universities, including Phoenix, with no problem, so I think the problem of what happens to those like me who fall through the cracks and incur problems like mine are lost to the crowd of those who managed to avoid hitting such mines. I feel quite strongly, though, the system is broken, and even for those who don't hit such a devastating landmine chasing after a degree, it is increasingly becoming a bad tradeoff; tuition frequently jumps by double-digit percentage points from one year to the next, but I am not aware of any time in recent history when average income among college graduates increases by the same amount.

Einstein himself, studying time and relativity, remarked that no force in the universe is as powerful as compound interest, and I think that justifies ringing the alarm when the cost of tuition increases more quickly than the extra income provided by a degree. If nothing is done, it seems to me that the result is harmful to society; the portion of the public with no postsecondary education will increase, and the burden of personal financial debt even to those who successfully acquire a degree will be more and more difficult for more and more graduates. I can only see a tiny minority of people -- corporate executives administering universities and already wealthy investors reciving dividends -- benefit from this cancer.

 

[alan2]

At the risk of starting something else entirely, it's no surprise that you feel scammed Howard. U of Phoenix is a scam. They are in the business of making money by getting you to apply for loans so that you can give them the money. The degree is worthless. Don't worry about not being able to transfer the credits because I am unaware of any reputable institution of higher learning that will accept your classes for transfer credit anyway. If your advisers (who work on commission) told you otherwise then you were lied to.

That said, I agree that there are a lot of people in 4 year degree programs that don't belong there. That's not necessarily because of the schools. Every kid is bombarded from birth with the story that they have to go to college. College enrollment in the US has increased by 50% in just a couple of decades (the primary reason for increased cost) while manufacturing, as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 40% to only 10% since 1960. Not good. I recall an older student who was taking calc 2 for the 3rd or 4th time and failing again. I got chatting with him and it turned out that he was a BMW mechanic making well into 6 figures and thinking that somehow something would be better if he was an engineer. But he loved his job and he was good at it. I suggested he just be the best BMW mechanic he could be and I think that's what he's probably still doing. Policy pushes people to unrealistic educational goals, not schools.

 

[HowardVAgnew]

I agree, the general gist perpetuated that getting a degree can only make you better and never harm you is part of the problem, too. I am also reminded of a university in New Orleans getting away with charging students tuition for classes they could not possibly provide due to the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, so I know it isn't just the University of Phoenix. I have no reason to not believe all institutes of higher learning scam their students, public or private ... I think a majority of present and former students in schools of higher learning have a common suspicion the outrageous amounts charged for books is a scam between schools and publishers, and required 'current edition' mandates are primarily to bilk students in preventing secondhand sales.

 

[Pyrrhus]

For graduate students in STEM, the "scam" is they are hire to do all these beautiful research they love, and then they graduate and can't find jobs doing what they love. They graduate without any debt as they are usually funded by the PhD Advisor research funds and/or teaching funds from the University. Also, if they are really good, fellowship money from private organizations, public organizations or the university itself. Thus, the scam is not that they have debts they cannot repay. The scam is they can't find jobs doing what they want to do.However, they can find jobs doing something else.

 

[deRham]

For graduate students in STEM, the "scam" is they are hire to do all these beautiful research they love, and then they graduate and can't find jobs doing what they love. They graduate without any debt as they are usually funded by the PhD Advisor research funds and/or teaching funds from the University. Also, if they are really good, fellowship money from private organizations, public organizations or the university itself. Thus, the scam is not that they have debts they cannot repay. The scam is they can't find jobs doing what they want to do.However, they can find jobs doing something else.

Exactly this! And I'll add, even if they're great at what they do.

To be fair though, nobody seems to say it's a guarantee that you'll get to do what you want, but the lack of word otherwise tends to give the wrong impression.

 

[HowardVAgnew]

Exactly this! And I'll add, even if they're great at what they do.

To be fair though, nobody seems to say it's a guarantee that you'll get to do what you want, but the lack of word otherwise tends to give the wrong impression.

In terms of actual meaning, I don't put too much value in possessing or lacking a Ph.D. Yes, I likely have a bias since I lack one, but I feel, in all fairness, someone who possesses one would also be biased. I don't pretend to have the expertise in any scientific field that those of you who do have one possess, but I also think of all the Ph.D.-wielding Creationists when I ask whether I should even bother arguing with someone who does possesses a Ph.D.

 

[ParticleGrl]

They graduate without any debt as they are usually funded by the PhD Advisor research funds and/or teaching funds from the University.

Of course, while they didn't have any debt, they have given up a few hundred thousand in forgone wages. And if they have debt from undergrad, it probably hasn't been paid down.

Lets say we got rid of "phd" as a degree, and a graduate student was simply a low paid (relative to other bachelors degree holders) scientific researcher- would people still do it? Does the distinction of "phd" have any value for researchers outside their field?

 

[deRham]

In terms of actual meaning, I don't put too much value in possessing or lacking a Ph.D. Yes, I likely have a bias since I lack one, but I feel, in all fairness, someone who possesses one would also be biased. I don't pretend to have the expertise in any scientific field that those of you who do have one possess, but I also think of all the Ph.D.-wielding Creationists when I ask whether I should even bother arguing with someone who does possesses a Ph.D.

Well, like you said yourself - you shouldn't assign too much meaning to whether the person has a PhD or not. I think open-mindedness on this and other topics is a trait quite independent of possessing a PhD or not.

The value of possessing a PhD is something I'd decide on an individual basis.

 

[mal4mac]

In the UK, at least, you can get reasonably well paid "research assistant" jobs with a BSc, and usually do a PhD while doing the job. I just checked on jobs.ac.uk and there are 315 such posts! Why not get a PhD while actually earning a reasonable wage?

 

[Choppy]

In the UK, at least, you can get reasonably well paid "research assistant" jobs with a BSc, and usually do a PhD while doing the job. I just checked on jobs.ac.uk and there are 315 such posts! Why not get a PhD while actually earning a reasonable wage?

Of course this is possible, but if you're working a full-time job during your PhD, it's difficult to make progress on it at the same rate as a full-time student, so as a student you have to find the right balance of progress and pay.

That being said, I think the point of this thread has more to do with what happens to graduates after the PhD is awarded.

 

[Choppy]

Lets say we got rid of "phd" as a degree, and a graduate student was simply a low paid (relative to other bachelors degree holders) scientific researcher- would people still do it? Does the distinction of "phd" have any value for researchers outside their field?

This is an interesting idea. To be honest I think a lot of people are interested in it for the perceived prestige (I mean, just look at all the posts on these forums that had to do with admissions at a "top N" school.) But the perceived prestige alone isn't enough to really sustain one through graduate school in my opinion and the people who just want to have impressive conversations at cocktail parties tend not to make it. I think the majority of people who would otherwise have completed a PhD would still go for it, even without the title. I would have, because that was the means of getting to where I wanted to be.

 

[Pyrrhus]

This is an interesting idea. To be honest I think a lot of people are interested in it for the perceived prestige (I mean, just look at all the posts on these forums that had to do with admissions at a "top N" school.) But the perceived prestige alone isn't enough to really sustain one through graduate school in my opinion and the people who just want to have impressive conversations at cocktail parties tend not to make it. I think the majority of people who would otherwise have completed a PhD would still go for it, even without the title. I would have, because that was the means of getting to where I wanted to be.

Definitely!, I would have left a LONG TIME ago if I didn't love the math, and the challenges of my research.

 

[atyy]

This is an interesting idea. To be honest I think a lot of people are interested in it for the perceived prestige (I mean, just look at all the posts on these forums that had to do with admissions at a "top N" school.) But the perceived prestige alone isn't enough to really sustain one through graduate school in my opinion and the people who just want to have impressive conversations at cocktail parties tend not to make it. I think the majority of people who would otherwise have completed a PhD would still go for it, even without the title. I would have, because that was the means of getting to where I wanted to be.

Definitely!, I would have left a LONG TIME ago if I didn't love the math, and the challenges of my research.

Really? You were so confident of staying in academia that you don't need a PhD?

A PhD is really only for those who leave academia - otherwise, how are they going to find jobs after being low paid workers for 5 years?

 

[deRham]

Why not? My impression is a fair number of PhDs might end up taking up jobs that don't in the slightest require the degree or even encourage it. The reason people aren't just low paid researchers is at least partially that there is supposed to be a significant transition period during the PhD phase.

After all, again as I keep saying, some areas of theoretical physics as well as theoretical mathematics certainly don't have a position for "graduate student cheap labor" outside, perhaps, of teaching. It is certainly possible that some researchers at Harvard math grad school are truly doing work that is already of higher quality than what most postdocs do, but I don't think that's the norm! Most of the time, a PhD student in aforementioned fields is a lot more clueless before 5 years than after, and truly is in a different phase from low paid research.

 

[bcrowell]

If professor x graduates 5 students and those 5 students graduate 5 more, and so on and so forth won't we reach a point where there will be complete oversaturation? Professors don't retire fast enough to compete with exponential growth.

Suppose we label schools by integers n, with n=1 being a community college, n=2 a decent state school, n=3 a good state school or private university with research, and n=4 a top-flight research university such as Berkeley or Harvard. The argument that exponential growth proves academia is a scam is only valid if professor x's 5 students all expect to have jobs at the same n as professor x. There are a lot more n=1's than n=2's, a lot more 2's than 3's, and a lot more 3's than 4's. I got my PhD at an n=4 and am very much enjoying my life teaching at a 1.

It would be unhealthy if professor x only produced 1 student. Many people get PhD's and don't want to be academics. Many people get PhD's but aren't really such super-talented scientific researchers that society ought to pay them with tax money to do scientific research. (I include myself in this category.) Most scientific research is not very good and not very important. It's good to wash out some percentage of wannabe scientists, so we don't waste massive amounts of money paying them to do second-rate research.

 

[atyy]

Suppose we label schools by integers n, with n=1 being a community college, n=2 a decent state school, n=3 a good state school or private university with research, and n=4 a top-flight research university such as Berkeley or Harvard. The argument that exponential growth proves academia is a scam is only valid if professor x's 5 students all expect to have jobs at the same n as professor x. There are a lot more n=1's than n=2's, a lot more 2's than 3's, and a lot more 3's than 4's. I got my PhD at an n=4 and am very much enjoying my life teaching at a 1.

It would be unhealthy if professor x only produced 1 student. Many people get PhD's and don't want to be academics. Many people get PhD's but aren't really such super-talented scientific researchers that society ought to pay them with tax money to do scientific research. (I include myself in this category.) Most scientific research is not very good and not very important. It's good to wash out some percentage of wannabe scientists, so we don't waste massive amounts of money paying them to do second-rate research.

But does it take talent to do first rate research in most fields?

Regardless, I do think it's good that most PhDs don't remain in academic research, because if they do, then the cutting edge doesn't get diffused into society, and PhDs become "elite".

 

[ParticleGrl]

Regardless, I do think it's good that most PhDs don't remain in academic research, because if they do, then the cutting edge doesn't get diffused into society

What does it mean for "the cutting edge" to get diffused? i.e. I used to do work in quantum field theory, now I work for an insurance company. I don't really use anything I learned in graduate school (my work now appears to be 90% sql/c#, 10% undergrad statistics). Similarly, a friend of mine did a phd in math (algebraic geometry) and he is now (after a two year associates) a nurse, etc.

If someone who does a phd in cutting edge semi-conductors and then gets hired by Intel to bring the academic research into industry, that's great. For most physicists, though, not getting an academic job means leaving the field entirely- how does this diffuse anything?

 

[ParticleGrl]

Suppose we label schools by integers n, with n=1 being a community college, n=2 a decent state school, n=3 a good state school or private university with research, and n=4 a top-flight research university such as Berkeley or Harvard. The argument that exponential growth proves academia is a scam is only valid if professor x's 5 students all expect to have jobs at the same n as professor x. There are a lot more n=1's than n=2's, a lot more 2's than 3's, and a lot more 3's than 4's. I got my PhD at an n=4 and am very much enjoying my life teaching at a 1.

I think this model doesn't work so well. There aren't many more physicists working in the n=1 and 2 than there are in the n=3,4. Yea, there are lots of liberal arts colleges, but most have only one or two physics profs (some will have none). A large research university can have 20+ physicists.

Also, n=1s are hiring less permanent staff and employing more adjuncts. Three small community colleges and two architecture schools in my area get the bulk of their physics courses taught by two shared adjuncts (who probably make 20k or less, no benefits when you add it all up). Basically, you can't count on a job at an n=1 or 2. Its still a fairly bad labor market.

 

[atyy]

What does it mean for "the cutting edge" to get diffused? i.e. I used to do work in quantum field theory, now I work for an insurance company. I don't really use anything I learned in graduate school (my work now appears to be 90% sql/c#, 10% undergrad statistics). Similarly, a friend of mine did a phd in math (algebraic geometry) and he is now (after a two year associates) a nurse, etc.

If someone who does a phd in cutting edge semi-conductors and then gets hired by Intel to bring the academic research into industry, that's great. For most physicists, though, not getting an academic job means leaving the field entirely- how does this diffuse anything?

Well, now insurance agents know QFT. That's surely diffusion of knowledge. BTW, I'm sure you've heard the story from me before, but Karhunen (Karhunen-Loeve theorem!) used to work in insurance. Maybe you'll consider that staying in the same field in his case, but I don't think he did (IIRC, a friend asked how he could stand it, and he replied that he still solved problems, just different ones). Also, QFT has benefitted a lot from probability, since the Euclidean path integrals in in constructive field theory all depend on stochastic processes theory. I guess my belief is that one shouldn't define "field" too narrowly. But perhaps my point of view is more that of an experimentalist, where success really depends on getting money for equipment (and luck!) and not on being talented. Since getting money is probably just as unsciency as working in insurance, I think most experimentalists don't do science by that measure.

 

[pi-r8]

What does it mean for "the cutting edge" to get diffused? i.e. I used to do work in quantum field theory, now I work for an insurance company. I don't really use anything I learned in graduate school (my work now appears to be 90% sql/c#, 10% undergrad statistics). Similarly, a friend of mine did a phd in math (algebraic geometry) and he is now (after a two year associates) a nurse, etc.

If someone who does a phd in cutting edge semi-conductors and then gets hired by Intel to bring the academic research into industry, that's great. For most physicists, though, not getting an academic job means leaving the field entirely- how does this diffuse anything?

I always figured that the diffusion was mostly along the lines of random conversation. Someone will read some random article about physics research, and they can ask you about it as "the physics person" and then that hopefully increases their interest in science and helps persuade more people to vote for increased scientific research funding.

 

[atyy]

I always figured that the diffusion was mostly along the lines of random conversation. Someone will read some random article about physics research, and they can ask you about it as "the physics person" and then that hopefully increases their interest in science and helps persuade more people to vote for increased scientific research funding.

Yes, except a bit less cynically.

Basically, if ParticleGrl becomes president, that will be a worthy diffusion. (Except that going by her current mood, she'll probably stop all physics funding;)

 

[ParticleGrl]

I always figured that the diffusion was mostly along the lines of random conversation. Someone will read some random article about physics research

In many years of bartending (first in a college town as a phd student, then in a tourist resort as a phd), exactly 0 coworkers asked me anything about physics (although they did take it upon themselves for some friendly pranks, like etching ",phd" into my nametags).

I don't think very many people read random articles about physics research. If we want to increase scientific knowledge, sticking random phds into people's everyday life in the hopes they ask them some questions is terribly inefficient. Your better bet is probably an incentive/training program to get phds teaching in middle and high schools. If the interest isn't instilled in them young, its probably too late by the time they are adults.

Except that going by her current mood, she'll probably stop all physics funding

If I could social engineer on that sort of level, I'd more likely push for a strong industrial policy/mercantilism. Give manufacturing a shot in the arm, and physicists will be in higher demand. But until there is higher demand, I stand by the assertion that training lots of scientists in the hopes that some go into politics is silly. A better question is how can we get science into curriculums at law schools? If you want your president to know physics, teach the people likely to go into politics some physics.

 

[atyy]

If I could social engineer on that sort of level, I'd more likely push for a strong industrial policy/mercantilism. Give manufacturing a shot in the arm, and physicists will be in higher demand. But until there is higher demand, I stand by the assertion that training lots of scientists in the hopes that some go into politics is silly. A better question is how can we get science into curriculums at law schools? If you want your president to know physics, teach the people likely to go into politics some physics.

OK, I'm voting you for president (too bad I'm not a citizen)!