Is it worth going for a BS and a PhD in physics?

[ParticleGrl]

You get your PhD in physics:
1. You land your dream job doing exactly what you want to do.
2. You land a job in physics doing some remotely like your interests.
3 you land a job in physics doing something completely different to your interest.
4. You land a technical or science job related to applied physics.
5. You land a technical job not all that scientific oriented.
6. You land a job outside technical or scientific work.
7 you become homelessNow if we steer the OP away from physics to engineering, 1 through 3 will no longer be possibilities. They will never do physics proper, and basically all we've accomplished is removing one more potentially qualified physics major from the pool. 4 becomes more likely, but why trade your desire and your shot at the roulette wheel to basically do something you see as a fall back.

Because you hate the idea of 5 and 6. 5 and 6 are the MOST LIKELY outcomes for a physics phd, and 4 is the most likely outcome for an engineer. After my physics phd, the only thing I could find was data science in insurance/finance type companies. If your preference for physics over engineering is mild, but your preference for technical/scientific work over non-scientific work is large, then you should seriously consider engineering.

A physics PhD will keep the door cracked to do something related to engineering while a engineering degree will open it.

Not really- its very hard for a physics phd to break into engineering- they are unlikely to have the specific skills the companies want, AND the phd has left them overqualified for intro positions.

Not trying to do what you want to do is giving up. Not studying what you want to study is giving up.

The question is, do you trade a decade of your life for a lottery ticket (winner gets "the dream job"), or do you maximize your chances of getting a job you mostly like. A physics phd is highly specialized training for a jobs that are increasingly scarce.

 

[jesse73]

Aside from the dismissals.

I get the impression that people are saying that if you get a physics degree there is a high likelihood you won't even end up working in physics and the statistics show this. I understand older posters feel differently but the initial job market has changed since a decade or more ago. We live in a more specialized job market with application tracking systems which will bounce your applications based on your major without a human eye ever even lay an eye on your resume.

This is why you hear engineering recommendations because you get to work in similar problems and have a much higher likelihood of doing engineering. Engineers tend to engineer.

 

[jesse73]

Because you hate the idea of 5 and 6. 5 and 6 are the MOST LIKELY outcomes for a physics phd, and 4 is the most likely outcome for an engineer.

Exactly.

What type of rational argument assumes you will find a job as a research professor. As an estimate only about 30% of physics bachelors go to grad school, only 10% of phd grads get a tenure track position => generously about 3% of physics majors will end up as professors. Now let's take that 3% success rate and assume it as a given for comparing salaries.

?

I am referring to Lavabugs post which assumes a research professors salary.

 

[Student100]

Most people who're interested in physics will also find 4 mundane.

When I worked as an engineer I spent a lot of time doing multisim/LabView/Matlab/Simulation. I found 90% of the work the company was worried about boring. When we actually were able to work on interesting projects with the physics side of the company developing new sensors or what not is where I actually enjoyed working. Unfortunately, many of the interesting projects were canceled after a few weeks because of a perceived lack of ROI.

I could have remained there making more than I probably ever will make after completing my physics education, but I would hate myself in the long run for not trying.

 

[ParticleGrl]

When I worked as an engineer I spent a lot of time doing multisim/LabView/Matlab/Simulation.

You are aware that this describes the majority of the work of a great many physics graduate students, right? Most of the job (90+% of your time) is routine data collection, simulations, programming, etc.

As you progress in the career you'll spend more time begging for money and in administrative tasks.

I could have remained there making more than I probably ever will make after completing my physics education, but I would hate myself in the long run for not trying.

Sure, but you have the engineering career to fall back on. I went all the way through the phd in physics, did extremely well (outside funding in grad school, decent publication record), and ended up doing statistical work for various insurance companies, after a long sting bartending- I'd be happy for a chance to do grunt engineering work, but getting the phd in physics closed that door.

 

[Student100]

You are aware that this describes the majority of the work of a great many physics graduate students, right? Most of the job (90+% of your time) is routine data collection, simulations, programming, ect.

I'm aware of that, but it isn't the same as getting a circuit design out the door so some company in china can do the production run.

 

[Kenny Bala]

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/physicists-and-astronomers.htm#tab-1

I'm curious, why does this paint such a better picture than what everyone on this site is saying? I see people telling me different stuff than the stats. Obviously I don't think you guys are lying, but why the discrepancy?

 

[heatengine516]

I'm going to make it my life's goal to start an R&D company that only hires physics majors/physicists. That way everyone with any kind of physics degree will have a sure place to work making use of their education. With our superior degrees we will make discoveries and solve real-world problems at a rate that no one else can match. The money we bring in from manufacturing and selling our superior products will be used to hire more physicists. It will be a glorious, self-sustaining machine.

 

[jesse73]

I'm aware of that, but it isn't the same as getting a circuit design out the door so some company in china can do the production run.

Or getting a circuit out of the door so you can do an expt to write a publish in phys rev.

The grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[jesse73]

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/physicists-and-astronomers.htm#tab-1

I'm curious, why does this paint such a better picture than what everyone on this site is saying? I see people telling me different stuff than the stats. Obviously I don't think you guys are lying, but why the discrepancy?

Nobody is saying you can't a find job somewehere. If you major in early european literature you will likely find a job anywhere. People are arguing that you won't find a job in the field you graduated in which corresponds to AIP data where most people will leave the field.

 

[MathWarrior]

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/physicists-and-astronomers.htm#tab-1

I'm curious, why does this paint such a better picture than what everyone on this site is saying? I see people telling me different stuff than the stats. Obviously I don't think you guys are lying, but why the discrepancy?

I don't think 2,800 new jobs in a 10 year period is a very nice picture personally, that is quite a small number of positions when you consider there are 7 billion people on the planet, considering this is a US statistic the estimated US population is around 300,000,000 people.

 

[ParticleGrl]

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/physicists-and-astronomers.htm#tab-1

I'm curious, why does this paint such a better picture than what everyone on this site is saying? I see people telling me different stuff than the stats. Obviously I don't think you guys are lying, but why the discrepancy?

Look at the BLS numbers- there are less than 21,000 total jobs in physics (compare- we graduate 7000 physics bachelors each year). There is an additional 1500 or so phd students, and another 1500+ masters students etc.

Now, let's say the average career lasts 30 years. That means in 10 years, we can expect about 1/3 of the employed physicists to retire, so over 10 years we have
2800 (growth) + 7000 (retirement) job openings
for
~100,000 job seekers

 

[heatengine516]

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/physicists-and-astronomers.htm#tab-1

I'm curious, why does this paint such a better picture than what everyone on this site is saying? I see people telling me different stuff than the stats. Obviously I don't think you guys are lying, but why the discrepancy?

Also note that they are considering a doctorate or professional degree as "entry level" for physicists. Despite the expected job growth and salary, if you look at say, computer engineering, aerospace engineering, or chemical engineering, the entry level degree is a bachelors, with a median pay pretty close to what it says a PhD in physics would earn after 10 years in college and another 2-4 years postdoc. Not that you would actually make that much with a BS, but the site suggests you could make somewhere close to that. Not to mention the number of jobs available far exceed physics. 20,600 isn't a lot.

 

[ZombieFeynman]

I personally believe selection bias plays a large part in the nature of responses here. Who do you think is more likely to post in these threads, someone who had incredible difficulty finding a position related to their field (and who later had to switch fields) or someone who got their PhD and immediately found a job as a staff scientist at Intel?

If I'm not mistaken, Particlegrl did her PhD in high-energy theory. How much more employable do you think she would have been if she had done a PhD in experimental condensed matter, specializing in nanoscale lithography?

From observing where recent graduates from my PhD program have gone, less than half go for a postdoc (more than half don't even look for one). If this is a wide trend across graduate schools, we should factor this into how we think about the chances of obtaining a professorship. On the other side of the coin, many from my program have gone on to do science related work in other fields.

I think it matters where one attends graduate school as well, a "brand recognition" so to speak.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Who do you think is more likely to post in these threads, someone who had incredible difficulty finding a position related to their field (and who later had to switch fields) or someone who got their PhD and immediately found a job as a staff scientist at Intel?

I think the latter is more likely. If you stay in physics then you are more likely to be a poster on the physics forums. If somebody switches fields they are more likely to be at the forums for that field. Thats why this forum's regulars seem to be professional physicists and physics students.

I think this forum generally has the more optimism about physics grad prospects than anywhere else I frequent online or in real life. Even the pessimism about being a "physicist" in this thread is tempered by the claim that physics grads still do better than average. Considering my graduating class, they are not in science for the most part but they are doing better than average, career wise. They were smart hard working people before the physics degree, they still are smart hard working people and its not surprising they excel in their non-science careers.

 

[jesse73]

I think the latter is more likely. If you stay in physics then you are more likely to be a poster on the physics forums. If somebody switches fields they are more likely to be at the forums for that field. Thats why this forum's regulars seem to be professional physicists and physics students.

I think this forum generally has the more optimism about physics grad prospects than anywhere else I frequent online or in real life. Even the pessimism about being a "physicist" in this thread is tempered by the claim that physics grads still do better than average. Considering my graduating class, they are not in science for the most part but they are doing better than average, career wise. They were smart hard working people before the physics degree, they still are smart hard working people and its not surprising they excel in their non-science careers.

People who left the field are probably not here but at Wilmott or some other fields forum or a some hobby forum like woodcrafting forum.

People here are supposed to have enough training in probability and expectation values to understand that given the AIP , BLS data and the poll by ZZ the highest likelihood outcome is to not end up working in physics (How many more data sets do people need to see before everyone agrees that the highest likelihood outcome is to not stay in physics).

I would also hope people have enough training in the sciences to understand their personal anecdotal experience doesn't over ride the much bigger data set of the AIP or BLS.

And no this does not mean if you do physics you will most likely end up homeless because that isn't the case for any major. Even if you didnt graduate high school you still don't have a greater than 50% of ending up homeless so everyone can hold back on the hyperbole.

 

[Kenny Bala]

It seems like the general consensus would be to become an engineer and just get a secondary degree in physics, so Engineering physics seems to be a pretty good bet. Which engineering field uses the most math? I kind of have a crush on math, and find it relatively hard to imagine using nothing but wolfram alpha to solve my problems as I have heard most engineers do nowadays instead of using the pen and paper.

 

[jesse73]

It seems like the general consensus would be to become an engineer and just get a secondary degree in physics, so Engineering physics seems to be a pretty good bet. Which engineering field uses the most math? I kind of have a crush on math, and find it relatively hard to imagine using nothing but wolfram alpha to solve my problems as I have heard most engineers do nowadays instead of using the pen and paper.

I have never heard of a particle theorist using mathematica
wink*

 

[ParticleGrl]

It seems like the general consensus would be to become an engineer and just get a secondary degree in physics, so Engineering physics seems to be a pretty good bet. Which engineering field uses the most math? I kind of have a crush on math, and find it relatively hard to imagine using nothing but wolfram alpha to solve my problems as I have heard most engineers do nowadays instead of using the pen and paper.

These days, for a theorist "pen and paper" theory really means mathematica or some other computer algebra system.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I personally believe selection bias plays a large part in the nature of responses here. Who do you think is more likely to post in these threads, someone who had incredible difficulty finding a position related to their field (and who later had to switch fields) or someone who got their PhD and immediately found a job as a staff scientist at Intel?

I don't think this is the point you are trying to make, but it seems obvious to me that the latter is significantly more likely to be posting here. I'm willing to bet the majority of regulars here are physicists and physics students.

The only reason I still post here is to fight that selection bias a bit, because I wish people had been there to give me realistic information when I asked years ago. The APS numbers suggest that many (perhaps most) physics phds transition out of physics- but how many voices are there on the forums that have made such a transition?

 

[Lavabug]

but how many voices are there on the forums that have made such a transition?

Off the top of my head, there's twofish (who allegedly went into finance willingly), yourself (which if I remember correctly, you passed up a post-doc position in your field willingly, for personal reasons which are obviously respectable but willingly nonetheless), and Locrian who didn't pursue physics grad school in favor of a good industry job, willingly.

I can't think of about as many "regulars" on this forum that studied physics but who were "forced" out of the field.

Also modus, you yourself contradict your claim about selection bias. You aren't in physics and are doing your best to transition into another field, yet are still posting here, right?

I think you're very unlikely to find an ambitious post-doc or unestablished/early career scientist in this forum. They're probably too busy applying for fellowships, jobs, or follow-up post-docs on top of their research in order to stay in the field to be spending time on this forum, where a bulk of the posts are centered around teenagers making up their mind about studying string theory or engineering, undergraduate-level homework assistance requests, and grad school application advice every fall-winter.

Also, it doesn't help that there isn't any quality control when it comes to more serious/mature career advice threads, where high school students feel entitled to advise late phd students on what they should do to get a job. Speaking for myself, if I made it into grad school, my participation in this forum would probably come to a grinding halt especially in the later part of a phd (unless, like many here, I really want to get out of academia and am looking for examples of how to do so). There's a lot to be learned in this forum from the more mature posters but that involves swimming through a lot of silly, uninformed posts that try to pass for advice, and I doubt a busy late phd student or early career scientist has the time or patience to put up with that.

 

[jesse73]

Are you planning on arguing into a substitute for a simply making a poll which figures out the selection bias? I don't think that it is possible to logic your way into this data is possible.

Why focus on that argument as if there isn't an organization that gathers statistics on the outcomes of physics graduates at least for a short time span away from graduation?

Wait. The AIP and BLS gathers such data and the data shows that most people leave the field in that data.

 

[Student100]

This argument has become nonsensical. It is no longer about the OP’s question but descending into another “Engineering i$ the sh!t, no physics jobs!” thread.

I mean really, the OP’s questions has become 2nd to banter about statistics and job markets. I do hope you realize that stats are pointless; seeing as how they can't account for every variable of why someone might leave academia—or succeed in it— and it’s stupid to believe otherwise.

 

[Jozape]

Sure, but you have the engineering career to fall back on. I went all the way through the phd in physics, did extremely well (outside funding in grad school, decent publication record), and ended up doing statistical work for various insurance companies, after a long sting bartending- I'd be happy for a chance to do grunt engineering work, but getting the phd in physics closed that door.

In retrospect, would you have done a PhD in accelerator physics instead of particle physics? Or would you have just majored in engineering from the start? At least, I have the impression you would have done the latter instead of what you did.

 

[jesse73]

I mean really, the OP’s questions has become 2nd to banter about statistics and job markets. I do hope you realize that stats are pointless; seeing as how they can't account for every variable of why someone might leave academia—or succeed in it— and it’s stupid to believe otherwise.

I can't be the only scientist that facepalms when slight corrections are taken to trump the general picture statistics give you.

Nothing in science accounts for every effect or variable but that doesn't mean Newtonian mechanics or Maxwells equations arent a decent model for day to day objects.

 

[Student100]

I can't be the only scientist that facepalms when slight corrections are taken to trump the general picture statistics give you.

Nothing in science accounts for every effect or variable but that doesn't mean Newtonian mechanics or Maxwells equations arent a decent model for day to day objects.

Apples, meet oranges.

 

[nri]

I'd be happy for a chance to do grunt engineering work, but getting the phd in physics closed that door.

Why don't you get BSc in chosen engineering field via online/evening/part time classes then? You are still young, not poor so you can afford it and you don't need to study whole 4 years (2 maybe?).

 

[heatengine516]

Because I assume one with a PhD would be overqualified for entry level engineering positions whether they have a BS in engineering or not ?

 

[jesse73]

Apples, meet oranges.

Analogies for illustrating relationships are a common way of explaining things.

 

[Student100]

Analogies for illustrating relationships are a common way of explaining things.

Even when they're so obviously flawed? That sounds like a poor rhetorical device to me.

Edit: http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

I just read this paper, your analogy makes perfect sense now. End sarcasm.

Really though, you should probably analyze the difference in what is said, and the differences in job statistics and classical mechanics.

 

[jesse73]

Even when they're so obviously flawed? That sounds like a poor rhetorical device to me.

Edit: http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

I just read this paper, your analogy makes perfect sense now. End sarcasm.

Really though, you should probably analyze the difference in what is said, and the differences in job statistics and classical mechanics.

The analogy is not flawed if you parse it properly.

Newtonian mechanics is a model for the physical world which does not account for every single detail especially at very small length scale but still captures trends like friction will cause an object to decelerate .

The statistical picture given by the AIP and BLS data gives you general model that doesn't account for every single detail especially in the individual person level but still gives you the general trends like most grads won't stay in the field.

To OP:
I would consider that the insight from ZapperZ and ParticleGrl comes from people who have gone through the PhD process.

I would also consider that people applying to grad school or starting grad school obviously are biased by their expectations whereas people who have gone through the process will be biased by their experience.