Are physicists underpaid or is it a misconception?

[Locrian]

Many posts have been, demoralizing. So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

I don’t regret studying physics, exactly. I was a real idiot in my early & mid 20’s. I wouldn’t have had the drive or discipline to succeed in actuarial work (my current career path). I think it’s unlikely I’d have really succeeded at much of anything, so as long as I was going to be a doofus, I might as well have done it in physics.

I wouldn’t discourage someone from getting a physics degree. Instead, I would impress upon them the importance of learning employable skills, and stress the downside risks of being complacent about future employability. It’s entirely possible to burn 11 years learning physics and be less employable than you were walking into the university.

 

[Locrian]

However, there is a selection effect.

I know. I've been telling people here for years.

 

[daveyrocket]

From what I've searched postdoctoral research fellowships, though temporary, do pay well, for example, Griffith University offers a postdoctoral research fellowship in quantum information science which pays $79,377 - $94,263 per annum plus 17% superannuation (retirement fund), which equates to roughly $92,872 - $110,288 in total. (AUD)

Very few postdocs (in the US at least) pay that much money. I get paid about half that and I'm on the upper end of postdocs at my university.

http://www.seek.com.au/Job/postdoctoral-research-fellow-quantum-information-science/in/brisbane-southern-suburbs-logan/22677939

Many posts have been, demoralizing. So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

Yes, I do regret it. I would recommend an undergrad go into engineering instead.

 

[ParticleGrl]

That's interesting you say this, as I used to be employed at a pharmaceutical company and have known a number of biochemistry PhDs working in full-time research

Right, pharmaceuticals employ a fair number of biochem phds, but its only a small fraction of total biochem phds. You have to remember that your sample is phds employed doing research, and my sample tends to be people who went through graduate school around the same time I did.

Personally, if I could do it over I'd get an engineering degree. I don't hate my current work, and it pays well, but its not really what I want to be doing and it required a lot of retraining myself to get here. A statistics or economics masters (or phd) after undergrad would be worth a hell of a lot more than a physics phd if I were in my current line of work, or an engineering degree would let me pursue a career closer to what I wanted to be doing.

 

[chill_factor]

Right, pharmaceuticals employ a fair number of biochem phds, but its only a small fraction of total biochem phds. You have to remember that your sample is phds employed doing research, and my sample tends to be people who went through graduate school around the same time I did.

Personally, if I could do it over I'd get an engineering degree. I don't hate my current work, and it pays well, but its not really what I want to be doing and it required a lot of retraining myself to get here. A statistics or economics masters (or phd) after undergrad would be worth a hell of a lot more than a physics phd if I were in my current line of work, or an engineering degree would let me pursue a career closer to what I wanted to be doing.

Does the name of your degree actually matter?

Say you did the exact same research in a chemistry or materials science department as you did in a physics department at the PHD level. Usually that'd be something interdisciplinary such as OLEDs, for example. Would having the "physics" name on your diploma reduce or increase your employment chances vs. chemistry or materials science?

 

[twofish-quant]

I know. I've been telling people here for years.

There is obviously selection bias. But it's not obvious what that selection bias is, and what are the implications of that bias are.

One thing is that I find interesting is that I don't fully understand how I ended up where I am. I do think that a lot of explaining where I ended up has to do more with my life rather than what degree I got. The fact that my father made some very radical career and life changes in his life was more important than what degree I got.

 

[twofish-quant]

Say you did the exact same research in a chemistry or materials science department as you did in a physics department at the PHD level. Usually that'd be something interdisciplinary such as OLEDs, for example. Would having the "physics" name on your diploma reduce or increase your employment chances vs. chemistry or materials science?

I think it's very industry dependent. In computer programming, oil/gas, and finance, no.

A lot depends on who does the hiring. I mean, if someone gave me a resume, I'm not going to toss it because they have an astrophysics degree.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Does the name of your degree actually matter?

It depends on who is doing the hiring. I get the impression HR departments will filter resumes based on things like name-of-degree for resumes with little work experience. Also, I've seen comments from engineers on this board that they would never hire a physicist for engineering work regardless of skill-overlap. The prevalence of this attitude worries me.

The HR rep I dealt with at my current company when I was hired told me there is no way I would have gotten the job if I had sent them a resume in response to the job posting (I was hired in a very non-traditional way- a customer at a bar I worked in called me in for an interview after a conversation we had). My resume had the wrong sort of degree, and lacked a few of the 'critical' skills.

 

[Aero51]

Also, I've seen comments from engineers on this board that they would never hire a physicist for engineering work regardless of skill-overlap. The prevalence of this attitude worries me.

As an engineering student who studies physics on the side, I can that engineering and physics require very different skill sets and mindsets, the most significant being experience. Most engineering knowledge and skills (and perhaps more subtly, intuition) are acquired through experience; this even emphasized at the undergraduate level. With that fact in mind it wouldn't surprise me that most employer's would be reluctant to hire a physicist to do engineering work. Still, experience is something that can be acquired with time.

 

[chill_factor]

I think it's very industry dependent. In computer programming, oil/gas, and finance, no.

A lot depends on who does the hiring. I mean, if someone gave me a resume, I'm not going to toss it because they have an astrophysics degree.

I think that's because of the special nature of software. I think the computational theorists have it lucky in this aspect, they can always fall back on programming.

It depends on who is doing the hiring. I get the impression HR departments will filter resumes based on things like name-of-degree for resumes with little work experience. Also, I've seen comments from engineers on this board that they would never hire a physicist for engineering work regardless of skill-overlap. The prevalence of this attitude worries me.

The HR rep I dealt with at my current company when I was hired told me there is no way I would have gotten the job if I had sent them a resume in response to the job posting (I was hired in a very non-traditional way- a customer at a bar I worked in called me in for an interview after a conversation we had). My resume had the wrong sort of degree, and lacked a few of the 'critical' skills.

Thanks for telling me that. Would you have recommendations for networking such that the probability of meeting important people is higher?

 

[twofish-quant]

Thanks for telling me that. Would you have recommendations for networking such that the probability of meeting important people is higher?

One advance for networking is make sure the people that you are talking do aren't too important, because people that are too high up the food chain are useless to you. If I got into a conversation with the CEO of a major corporation in my industry, this would be totally useless to me because he wouldn't be able to do anything to actually get me a job.

The useful people are the people that are at most one or two levels above or below your level. Peer to peer networking is also useful, to keep close touch with your friends. Even if you can find a job lead, you can get information. For example, one reason I got interested in finance was because someone I knew ended up working for a hedge fund. I never was able to get in touch with him, but it was one of those "well if he can do it so can I" situations.

 

[twofish-quant]

The HR rep I dealt with at my current company when I was hired told me there is no way I would have gotten the job if I had sent them a resume in response to the job posting (I was hired in a very non-traditional way- a customer at a bar I worked in called me in for an interview after a conversation we had). My resume had the wrong sort of degree, and lacked a few of the 'critical' skills.

HR people are human spam filters. If you offer a job, you will get spammed with tons of resumes, most of whom are people that are clearly unqualified for the job. The job of HR is to rapidly sort through the resumes and get a short list of interviewees, and then usually do so using keyword search. Anyone that has enough technical skill to actually do more than a keyword search wouldn't be working in HR.

The process is designed toward getting rid of as many resumes as possible, and if the HR person tosses a resume of someone that is qualified, it doesn't matter. As long as they end up hiring someone, the fact that they could have hired someone else is irrelevant. Also, I tend to distrust HR people when they give job advice. Basically, if the HR person tells you something useful (like what are the magic words for the spam filter) they make their jobs more difficult, so I've never seen an HR person give useful job information.

One thing that universities and professional societies could do a better job of is "pre-sales." Once you send in your resume, if the employer has a negative or neutral view of physics Ph.D.'s, you are doomed. Your resume will be tossed. If you schools did a better job at "pre-selling" Ph.D.'s then it would make it easier once the resume goes across the desk of the person looking at it.

One other thing is that the employer doesn't want the *best* employee. They want to avoid the *worst* employees. Most of the job interview is not convincing people that you are good, but rather assuring the employer that you aren't bad. This is why employers tend to filter out people with "unusual" backgrounds. You might be spectacular, but there is no reason for an employer to take any sort of risk.

 

[ThinkToday]

HR people are human spam filters. If you offer a job, you will get spammed with tons of resumes, most of whom are people that are clearly unqualified for the job. The job of HR is to rapidly sort through the resumes and get a short list of interviewees, and then usually do so using keyword search.

Totally agree. Back in the early 90s I used a recruiter and lined up an interview for a job that I eventually accepted. The COO told me they hand about 200 resumes, of which 5 were adequately qualified, but only 3 of us worth interviewing. HR started culling resumes for the correct graduate degree, verifying credentials and certifications, background check, etc., and sent the resumes of those that fit the requirements to the COO, department head, and medical director for another pass at the resumes to select interview prospects. Beyond that, HR only got involved in setting up telephone interviews with senior staff as a final pass before buying each of us a plane ticket.

As far as taking advice from HR, I think it’s reasonable they should be able to tell you things that are the usual candidate problems to avoid in the early stages. In my experience, if you meet the qualifications, present yourself well, can carry yourself in a conversation, stay focused, know the company in depth, dress appropriately, etc., you are well on your way. The “best” person on paper (best grades, experience, etc.) may not have the best people skills, team skills, work habits, etc. that represent the company in the fashion they desire.

 

[StatGuy2000]

HR people are human spam filters. If you offer a job, you will get spammed with tons of resumes, most of whom are people that are clearly unqualified for the job. The job of HR is to rapidly sort through the resumes and get a short list of interviewees, and then usually do so using keyword search. Anyone that has enough technical skill to actually do more than a keyword search wouldn't be working in HR.

The process is designed toward getting rid of as many resumes as possible, and if the HR person tosses a resume of someone that is qualified, it doesn't matter. As long as they end up hiring someone, the fact that they could have hired someone else is irrelevant. Also, I tend to distrust HR people when they give job advice. Basically, if the HR person tells you something useful (like what are the magic words for the spam filter) they make their jobs more difficult, so I've never seen an HR person give useful job information.

One thing that universities and professional societies could do a better job of is "pre-sales." Once you send in your resume, if the employer has a negative or neutral view of physics Ph.D.'s, you are doomed. Your resume will be tossed. If you schools did a better job at "pre-selling" Ph.D.'s then it would make it easier once the resume goes across the desk of the person looking at it.

One other thing is that the employer doesn't want the *best* employee. They want to avoid the *worst* employees. Most of the job interview is not convincing people that you are good, but rather assuring the employer that you aren't bad. This is why employers tend to filter out people with "unusual" backgrounds. You might be spectacular, but there is no reason for an employer to take any sort of risk.

I agree with what you say regarding HR's (or at least those in HR responsible for recruiting) role in filtering out resumes to exclude as many "bad" candidates as possible, as well as the employer concered about avoiding the "worst" employee.

I also agree that universities and professional societies could do more to sell their physics PhDs to the private sector; the ASA does a decent attempt at this to potential employers for statistics PhDs.

But this leads me to ask the following questions:

(1) What is the perception (or awareness) of physics PhDs among employers outside of finance, defence, or oil firms (the three areas that have been known to hire physics graduates)? I would guess that software and technology firms will tend to have a favourable view of those with physics backgrounds (particularly those with either computational or experimental backgrounds).

(2) What has the various physics departments, along with the professional societies for physicists, in the US have actually done to promote physics PhDs in non-academic employment?

(3) As a follow-up to question (2), does there exist a contemptuous attitude among the professional physics societies in the US regarding non-academic employment?

 

[Rika]

So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

It's hard to say.

I don't regret studying physics but I don't think that the time I've spend on it was worth it.

Pros:

- it boost your analitical skills (but you can achive it with any other science/engineering major)

- useful knowledge (I create games and physics knowledge can be useful when you create let's say SF game but then you don't need history major in order to make fantasy game)

Cons:

- if you find out that you don't enjoy research or programming you are screwed

My advice:

1. If you want to be scientist/engineer and do computional/experimental work double major in engineering and physics, both are important.

2. If you are interested in string theory or quantum gravity and don't enjoy experimental/computional work don't bother studying physics at all. Stay with Kaku books as a hobby and major in sth useful.

3. If you are interested in physics but don't want to work in physics treat it as a hobby. Double major or do minior in physics and spend rest of your time doing sth useful to your career (I regret that I didn't do this).

4. Don't bother with studying engineering physics. It's a **** - it's neither engineering nor physics.

 

[Choppy]

Many posts have been, demoralizing. So those of you who have qualifications in physics, do you regret going into physics? and would you advise someone with an interest in physics to study a physics in undergrad? or is it too limiting in terms of job prospects?

Physics for me was (and still is) a tough and challenging road, but it has definitely been worth it. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I had a choice of good jobs when I finished my PhD. I now have a job that is stable, pays reasonably well, allows me a fair amount of intellectual freedom, and that I can take pride in. (It does tend to be quite stessful though.)

My advice is that if you're interested in it, study physics, but go in with your eyes open and think about your future. Physics is an academic subject, not a profession. When you graduate you'll have a toolbox and you'll have to put more effort into figuring out what to do with it than a graduate from a professional school such as engineering.

 

[StatGuy2000]

1. If you want to be scientist/engineer and do computional/experimental work double major in engineering and physics, both are important.

Your advice above may not work for those students outside of the US; for example, at the University of Toronto (my former alma mater), engineering majors are unable to double major in any subject, and are restricted in what minors are made available. This is quite common of engineering programs in many Canadian universities (in the University of Waterloo, engineering majors can pursue a list of various "options", i.e. course electives in various subject matters, including both math and physics, effectively the equivalent of a minor in that subject).

4. Don't bother with studying engineering physics. It's a **** - it's neither engineering nor physics.

I disagree with your assessment above; I've known many of those who graduated with an engineering physics degree who have subsequently pursued graduate degrees in engineering and are now working as engineers.

 

[twofish-quant]

(1) What is the perception (or awareness) of physics PhDs among employers outside of finance, defence, or oil firms (the three areas that have been known to hire physics graduates)?

As far as astrophysics graduates go, if they haven't already hired a Ph.D., then you are a "space alien" and if you are a "space alien" then you aren't getting the job.

I would guess that software and technology firms will tend to have a favourable view of those with physics backgrounds (particularly those with either computational or experimental backgrounds).

No. The issue here is some theoretical physics Ph.D.'s can't program. When I'm applying for a job outside of the "big three", I minimize the fact that I have a physics Ph.D., and focus on my programming skills. In these sorts of jobs, the critical thing is not that they have a positive impression of Ph.D.'s, is that they don't have a *negative* one and that they consider my Ph.D. to be irrelevant.

Also, it may hurt you if their view is too positive. You can be overqualified, and sometimes you *are* overqualified. For example, if you are selling X, you often don't want people that are too smart or think too much. If they are too smart, then might have think deeply about whether X is a good product and they may have moral issues if they conclude that it isn't.

One thing that employers wonder about Ph.D.'s is if they will get bored with the work. That's not an illegitimate worry. This goes to the point that many of the reasons that employers have for not hiring Ph.D.'s are valid ones, and maybe they *shouldn't* hire a physics Ph.D.

(2) What has the various physics departments, along with the professional societies for physicists, in the US have actually done to promote physics PhDs in non-academic employment?

Pretty much nothing that I can see. One thing that the professional societies could do is to have non-academic Ph.D.s in policy making positions. Talk is cheap. The problem is that if you want to actually change things, you have to change power structures and that can be messy.

(3) As a follow-up to question (2), does there exist a contemptuous attitude among the professional physics societies in the US regarding non-academic employment?

A professional society isn't a human being, so it's hard for me to say what it means for an organization to have an attitude. I do know that there are individual physicists that have a strongly negative attitude toward non-academic employment. But sometimes that doesn't matter. If you have Professor X that thinks that anyone that doesn't get tenure is a failure, but if Professor Y thinks otherwise and Y is your dissertation adviser, it doesn't matter what X thinks.

Also people have complicated motivations. There is a part of my brain that keeps telling me that I'm a failure because I'm not a professor, and part of the reason I behave in the way that I do is to tell that part of my brain to shut up.

If part of me views myself with contempt and loathing, then I'm pretty sure that lots of other people do it. Part of the reason that I've found philosophy to be useful is that it's useful to figure out where that voice comes from and what to do about it.

 

[Rika]

Your advice above may not work for those students outside of the US; for example, at the University of Toronto (my former alma mater), engineering majors are unable to double major in any subject, and are restricted in what minors are made available. This is quite common of engineering programs in many Canadian universities (in the University of Waterloo, engineering majors can pursue a list of various "options", i.e. course electives in various subject matters, including both math and physics, effectively the equivalent of a minor in that subject).

I think that major + minior (in either physics or engineering) is ok too. It depends on what you really want to do.

I disagree with your assessment above; I've known many of those who graduated with an engineering physics degree who have subsequently pursued graduate degrees in engineering and are now working as engineers.

I've heard about med school graduate who makes his living as illusionist but that's not the point.

I've studied engineering physics myself so that I could get engineering degree which is much more valuable and respected in my country than science degree. And yes - I can do master and then PhD in both physics and engineering but it doesn't change the fact that I'm not prepared as well as "pure" majors. I've taken all physics courses which weren't included in my major so you could say I have double major in both physics and engineering physics (in my country you don't have majors at all but you can study two subjects)

So I think that if you don't want waste your time you shouldn't bother with some strange hybrids.

 

[StatGuy2000]

No. The issue here is some theoretical physics Ph.D.'s can't program. When I'm applying for a job outside of the "big three", I minimize the fact that I have a physics Ph.D., and focus on my programming skills. In these sorts of jobs, the critical thing is not that they have a positive impression of Ph.D.'s, is that they don't have a *negative* one and that they consider my Ph.D. to be irrelevant.

Also, it may hurt you if their view is too positive. You can be overqualified, and sometimes you *are* overqualified. For example, if you are selling X, you often don't want people that are too smart or think too much. If they are too smart, then might have think deeply about whether X is a good product and they may have moral issues if they conclude that it isn't.

One thing that employers wonder about Ph.D.'s is if they will get bored with the work. That's not an illegitimate worry. This goes to the point that many of the reasons that employers have for not hiring Ph.D.'s are valid ones, and maybe they *shouldn't* hire a physics Ph.D.

In my earlier post, I had specifically stated that software and technology companies may have a positive view of those who come from a computational or experimental physics background. You are absolutely correct that some theoretical physics PhDs can't program, and for those people, their employment prospects outside of academia is extremely limited unless they're able or willing to pick up these skills quickly.

Now as far as your other points, I would like to note the following:

(1) PhD's being bored with their unique -- this is not unique to physics. Someone with a PhD in say, psychology, will face similar hurdles.

(2) Employers in the "big three" industries you have identified (finance, defence, oil & gas) do not seem to be concerned that the PhDs they hire will be bored with the work. Is there something unique about these industries in terms of their willingness to hire "smart" people?

(3) As far as a concern that "smart" employees may start to think too deeply about product X, and the ethical concerns resulting from this -- I would somehow think that this would be of much greater concern in finance, defence, or oil & gas than in many other industries, given the nature of the work involved.

 

[twofish-quant]

(1) PhD's being bored with their unique -- this is not unique to physics. Someone with a PhD in say, psychology, will face similar hurdles.

Sure.

(2) Employers in the "big three" industries you have identified (finance, defence, oil & gas) do not seem to be concerned that the PhDs they hire will be bored with the work. Is there something unique about these industries in terms of their willingness to hire "smart" people?

1) Building things that could destroy the planet tends not to be boring.

2) Also, a lot depends on the type of work. Most jobs in finance involve typing numbers into spreadsheets, and for those types of jobs, Ph.D.'s are usually considered vastly overqualified.

(3) As far as a concern that "smart" employees may start to think too deeply about product X, and the ethical concerns resulting from this -- I would somehow think that this would be of much greater concern in finance, defence, or oil & gas than in many other industries, given the nature of the work involved.

We live in an imperfect world. There are very large and real pressures for employers to hire people that aren't "too smart" and "don't ask too many questions." The fact that these pressures may result in very bad things happening, but that's the world for you.

In practice if you interviewing for a company that wants you to shut your brain off, there isn't that much you can do. That's why it's important not to get hired by that company in the first place. One of the best decisions that I made was to tell my recruiter that I didn't want to work for group Y in company X because I had a bad feeling about them from the interview.

The good news was that when company X fell apart and destroyed the world, I wasn't part of the mess, but rather I found myself part of the crew cleaning up the mess. The bad news was that my not working for company X was "selfish" in the sense that it made me feel better, but they hired someone else, and blew up the world anyway.

There's actually a reverse Darwin effect I've seen. Company X does stupid things. The things are so stupid that no one with brains or conscience will work for them. Which means that they hire stupid people, and they do even more stupid things.

I'm more afraid of stupidity than I am of evil. If I give a machine gun or an atomic bomb to say a Mafia hitman or Josef Stalin, I can reason with him. As long as I'm in the same room as Josef Stalin, he won't blow up the bomb because it will kill him, and someone who is evil but rational can be reasoned with. Now if the person doesn't understand that the button is connected to the atomic bomb, then I'm sunk.