Astrophysicist Salary: Opportunities & Income

[thinkies]

@chroot

Thanks for those information/tips and of course your time that you provided to answer my questions.

To hell medicine.

I will be far better in astronomy...i'll just aim 1 degree (a ph.d of course) :)

Now then, since i am keen to work as an astronomer...i was wondering how good am i going to do in this job by 2022. As of now, positions for astronomer are verry tight! Will it be the case by then (2022)?

And some websites refer that to become an astronomer, you should do a Ph.D in astronomy *OR* physics.

Does that mean doing a Ph.D. in physics will be equivalent to a Ph.D. in astronomy?

 

[chroot]

Astronomy and astrophysics are distinct professions. One is focused on the building of instruments and the acquisition of data, while the other is more theoretical. The degrees are distinct, too.

Think for a minute -- if the degrees were equivalent, why would they offer both?

- Warren

 

[cristo]

Now then, since i am keen to work as an astronomer...i was wondering how good am i going to do in this job by 2022. As of now, positions for astronomer are verry tight! Will it be the case by then (2022)?

If only I knew the answer to that! But yes, there aren't all the many jobs around at the moment. However, note that an astronomer and an astrophysicist are different people: one does more observing, whereas one does more maths! I hope that the number of jobs in science will increase in the next few years, but I can't say that it will!

And some websites refer that to become an astronomer, you should do a Ph.D in astronomy *OR* physics.

Does that mean doing a Ph.D. in physics will be equivalent to a Ph.D. in astronomy?

Well, chroot's already answered this one: the degrees aren't equivalent in that you study different things, however the different websites probably say different things since sometimes a PhD in Astrophysics may have an official title PhD in physics, whereas other times it may have the official title PhD in Astronomy.

I'd also echo chroot's advice of not trying to decide what you want to do ten years down the line, now. It's brilliant that you're interested in Astronomy now but instead of trying to plan the future, why not join an Astronomy club, or set one up in your school, and enjoy the subject. Ok, I don't know whether you've done this already or not, but what I'm trying to say is that you should take advantage of the fact that you enjoy something now, and not try to project this into the future: it will be completely normal for your ambitions to change and it would be a shame if you spent your younger days worrying about what you would do about your current love for astronomy, in the future!

 

[thinkies]

Astronomy and astrophysics are distinct professions. One is focused on the building of instruments and the acquisition of data, while the other is more theoretical. The degrees are distinct, too.

Think for a minute -- if the degrees were equivalent, why would they offer both?

- Warren

Thanks. Which one is theoretical? Astronomy?

 

[thinkies]

@ Cristo

Thanks for the reply/advice. Much appreciated...And I am already in an astronomy club...but most of the members have pretty much basic knowledge whereas I am aiming things beyond (at least things that are comprehensible to me),,,

Once again,thanks.

 

[chroot]

Astronomy is largely experimental. Astrophysics is largely theoretical.

- Warren

 

[thinkies]

Astronomy is largely experimental. Astrophysics is largely theoretical.

- Warren

Few days ago, I asked someone the difference between astrophysicist and an astronomer, the person responded that nowadays they practically study the same field and do much of a same work...Is that true..

What field would be studying star formation, galaxies stuff, cosmology, dark matter/dark energy and other stuff related with space (dark holes,etc)...? So..can we say that astrophysics and astronomy will view some stuff, but as you said above, astrophysic will tend to be theory while astronomy will tend to be experiments...?

Also,what kind of theories are viewed by astrophysicist? They evaluate existing theories?? Do they carry research...for example researching on the existence of dark matter? Or does this task belong to astronomer?..

Thanks!

P.S.: Sorry again for bumping this thread~ :(...

 

[chroot]

Astronomers are principally concerned with the design of telescopes and instruments, and the observation of astronomical objects to obtain better-quality data sets. Astrophysicists are principally concerned with the models which we use to explain phenomena like stellar evolution, galaxy formation, etc. There is indeed a lot of overlap, since the fields are interdependent.

- Warren

 

[thinkies]

Astronomers are principally concerned with the design of telescopes and instruments, and the observation of astronomical objects to obtain better-quality data sets. Astrophysicists are principally concerned with the models which we use to explain phenomena like stellar evolution, galaxy formation, etc. There is indeed a lot of overlap, since the fields are interdependent.

- Warren

So let's say if i was to have a ph.d in astrophysics, can i be somewhat illegible to work as an astronomer and vice-versa...they both aim ph.d in physics...

 

[thinkies]

http://www.schoolsintheusa.com/careerprofiles_details.cfm?carId=349

the above website states that even astronomer study star formation,etc (the stuff you mentioned for an astrophysicist)...

 

[thinkies]

And you have wikipedia's satement...

"Historically, astronomy was more concerned with the classification and description of phenomena in the sky, while astrophysics attempted to explain these phenomena and the differences between them using physical laws. Today, that distinction has mostly disappeared."

 

[chroot]

Again, they're studying the same objects and phenomena. One is more oriented towards using instruments and gathering data, while the other is more concerned with the modeling and underlying physical mechanisms.

It's like saying that both neurologists and neurosurgeons are concerned with disorders of the brain. Yes, that's true, but they have very different approaches.

- Warren

 

[Riogho]

enjoy what you do for a living because most likely you will be doing it for a long time. I would rather make decent money($70,000) and like what I do than make $300,000 and absolutely hate what I do.

Actually, I'd do what I hated to do for about 5 years then quit and live the rest of my life on my 1.5 million bucks :D

 

[chroot]

"Historically, astronomy was more concerned with the classification and description of phenomena in the sky, while astrophysics attempted to explain these phenomena and the differences between them using physical laws. Today, that distinction has mostly disappeared."

That seems to be exactly what I've said three times now.

- Warren

 

[thinkies]

Thanks chroot. On the brighter side,...it seems like astronomer make kinda bit more then astrophysicist... and their 'approach' is quit not though,where as the other one deals with models,extreme math equations(though both deal with math for sure...)...

Thanks again.

 

[thinkies]

Actually, I'd do what I hated to do for about 5 years then quit and live the rest of my life on my 1.5 million bucks :D

You definitely won't have much to spend your rest of your life with a 1.5 million ... =.=...
Plus, why don't you substract the cost of insurance you'll pay for the 1.5 million...o.0?!?...

 

[thinkies]

That seems to be exactly what I've said three times now.

- Warren

Um hey...^.^ here i am once more to disturb you...sorry

But for a question i posted earlier, is it possible that i can work as an astronomer with a astrophysics ph.d and vice-versa...??

 

[chroot]

But for a question i posted earlier, is it possible that i can work as an astronomer with a astrophysics ph.d and vice-versa...??

I'd imagine so, but I am neither an astronomer nor an astrophysicist. We have other members here who are, so perhaps they can chime in.

- Warren

 

[thinkies]

Thanks for "numerous' answers you provided...

Weird that no astronomer/astrophysicist came to answer my thread :(...

 

[rudinreader]

Weird that no astronomer/astrophysicist came to answer my thread :(...

But no astronauts answered your thread either when you said you were interested in "Aerospace Medicine".

Astrophysics should not even be a vocabulary word for you. You should be more worried about manipulating vectors, and Newton's laws, and calculus. If you were worried about that, you would definitely find people on PF to discuss (not necessarily astronauts or medical doctors).

If you master the basics of physics and calculus, only then will a physicist be appropriate for telling you what comes next.

Anyways the economics of physics is not just about money: it's hard. A lot of people decide not to study physics because it's "too hard". That's why you have to be grounded in the basics of physics before a physicist can give you better career advice than a janitor..

 

[Sariel]

You should also realize that in the physical sciences, a master's degree is often given as a "consolation prize." In other words, everyone attempts to obtain a Ph.D., and if you fail for some reason, you're kicked out and given a master's. If you decide to pursue astrophysics, you will need to pursue it whole-heartedly, starting in the later years of your undergraduate degree.

I feel I should note that in Canada, most PhD programs require a Masters for admission. The Masters is usually only a couple years, and can be course or research based, while the PhD is longer and a thesis is required.

 

[Stingray]

So let's say if i was to have a ph.d in astrophysics, can i be somewhat illegible to work as an astronomer and vice-versa...they both aim ph.d in physics...

Depending on the university, exactly the same work could lead to degrees in astronomy, astrophysics, or physics. Some European universities even put certain types of theoretical astrophysicists in their math departments. There are many specialties where the specific writing on your diploma depends more on administrative details than anything else.

But probably more importantly, no two Ph.D.'s are the same. The things learned by two people with the same degree from the same university could be very different. There is some minimal overlap in that everyone takes the same basic courses. But then there are electives and research. A Ph.D. is primarily a research degree, and the precise nature of this varies enormously. The point is that you pick a specialty and work in that. After graduating, you usually apply for a postdoc (temporary research or intern-type) position in a similar field. You're hired on the basis of original work produced in graduate school. It is extremely rare that you'll find a position which has no particular qualification other than having a Ph.D. in astronomy.

Regardless, I agree with Chroot and others that this discussion isn't very productive. You don't know enough about any of the subjects you've brought up to really know if you'd enjoy them professionally. You also don't know if you have the skill or patience for them. Things should become clearer once you've learned more. An English course might also be helpful at this point.

 

[thinkies]

But no astronauts answered your thread either when you said you were interested in "Aerospace Medicine".

Why *would* an astronaut come to answer my thread for something related with Aerospace Medicine? They are different fields...^.^

 

[BioCore]

I feel I should note that in Canada, most PhD programs require a Masters for admission. The Masters is usually only a couple years, and can be course or research based, while the PhD is longer and a thesis is required.

Not really, from what I have read and heard from other graduates there are two options. Some schools for example McMaster has this as almost as a program choice option to anyone who would like to do it and has an all around 3.50 CGPA I believe that was the grade. On the other hand universities like UofT don't do this always but they will allow it only if you can prove that you are able to and have a CGPA of 3.70!

Not too sure about how other schools do it.

 

[SuperStringboy]

My mental condition is same to you friend. I am undergraduate student student of physics mejor. Yesterday i have found a great solution. Thats get married with a doctor or engr or lawyer . I think that's a great option for us. You will not earn too much but your partner will. Life will b easier.

 

[Gib Z]

My Careers adviser once asked me If I would prefer to get paid $10,000 a day, I just had to sit in a silent room all day - or Get paid $100 a day to do what you love. He said any person who was not morbidly money-driven would choose the latter. Money isn't always the most important factor.

 

[Defennder]

What job is it that allows you to sit in a silent room all day for $10,000?

 

[PowerIso]

I'm sure you can find a typical job that will pay you 3 million dollars...

 

[Asphodel]

My Careers adviser once asked me If I would prefer to get paid $10,000 a day, I just had to sit in a silent room all day - or Get paid $100 a day to do what you love. He said any person who was not morbidly money-driven would choose the latter. Money isn't always the most important factor.

Anyone that doesn't suck at math would choose the $10,000 a day, bring some books, and leave after a year (+/- depending on when you get done with the books...there are a *lot* of books...) with about as much money as a physicist makes in a lifetime.

There's something to be said for doing what you love, *and* not having to worry about where the money to fund your lab is coming from.

 

[_Mayday_]

Firstly let me say I haven't been to university or had a proper job, but I can tell you from what I have heard, the worst mistake you can make is pursue a career only for the money. Money does not act as a motivator, it is the job prospects and self achievment that usually motivates. You would have to be earning a huge amount to do a full time job that you hated and still feel motivated. Salary is not a motivator.

 

[vladittude0583]

Doctor Degrees

One thing I realized that most people seem to forget though is that those with a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) is the "REAL DOCTOR" which means "teacher of teachers" and that an M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) was created to give a special name for those that only specialized in medicine back in the old days. Medical Doctors get more recognition because society puts more emphasis on their "status" than Ph.D.'s, but in the end of things, Ph.D. is the only true doctor! I personally respect someone with a Ph.D. in Physics more than one with a M.D. mainly because such a person is a philosopher in their field and is way smarter than a general medical doctor. Given that a medical doctor is smart too in their own way, but I personally view physicists as the true scientist and leaders of the scientific community.

 

[thinkies]

One thing I realized that most people seem to forget though is that those with a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) is the "REAL DOCTOR" which means "teacher of teachers" and that an M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) was created to give a special name for those that only specialized in medicine back in the old days. Medical Doctors get more recognition because society puts more emphasis on their "status" than Ph.D.'s, but in the end of things, Ph.D. is the only true doctor! I personally respect someone with a Ph.D. in Physics more than one with a M.D. mainly because such a person is a philosopher in their field and is way smarter than a general medical doctor. Given that a medical doctor is smart too in their own way, but I personally view physicists as the true scientist and leaders of the scientific community.

I pretty much agree with you...:D

 

[Asphodel]

A starting-out M.D. is largely a technician...not that we don't need them, and not that they can't go on to make a career studying the science of medicine...but an M.D. is in general a practitioner of existing knowledge not someone that's working to extend our body of knowledge. Similar to engineering. In both cases the people that make a career of extending the field are a small fraction of the total people in the field.

Although with the physics job market being foobared the way it is lately, many people getting a PhD in physics will end up in the same boat. Or spending 10 years as a postdoc or adjunct teacher making wages they could have gotten with zero college. What's the rate now, something like 1/20 of Ph.D.s in physics that actually end up making it to a real position as a physicist and not settling for something outside physics?

 

[thinkies]

A starting-out M.D. is largely a technician...not that we don't need them, and not that they can't go on to make a career studying the science of medicine...but an M.D. is in general a practitioner of existing knowledge not someone that's working to extend our body of knowledge. Similar to engineering. In both cases the people that make a career of extending the field are a small fraction of the total people in the field.

Although with the physics job market being foobared the way it is lately, many people getting a PhD in physics will end up in the same boat. Or spending 10 years as a postdoc or adjunct teacher making wages they could have gotten with zero college. What's the rate now, something like 1/20 of Ph.D.s in physics that actually end up making it to a real position as a physicist and not settling for something outside physics?

By the time i will graduate with a Ph.D, I'm sure many careers in physics will increase and it will be a very competent field...(by 2022) right?

 

[thinkies]

beside, since physicists are good problem-solvers, they can also get jobs in many kinds of fields...right?