I've heard so many horror stories....

[Mark Harder]

All I can find about physics online is stories of how bad it is.
The field is high supply low demand
The pay is low for everything except the best positions
The pay is low
You do more administration than actual physics
You have no free time for anything
There's no job security
You have to take years of student debt to be able to do

High supply, low demand. = True, also true for all scientific/technical R&D type jobs I can think of. Medicine is a little better in this regard because medicine (excepting pathology) is practiced locally; i.e. it can't easily be outsourced to other countries like China or India. Law is another good career if you want a better competitive advantage; but I assume you would prefer to work in scientific R&D.

The pay is low... = Ill-defined. If you want to make beaucoup $$$ doing science, the best way is to start your own business and take it from there. Assuming you have developed a product (or service, like consulting) that commands a large market with $ to spend on you or your product. But if you will be satisfied with a comfortable lifestyle, then it all depends on where you land a job working for someone else. How important is earning lots of money to you?

Hours are excruciating = Ill-defined & exaggerated. If you're talking about Grad school, Ph.D. and all that, then yes, you will put in long hours learning the subject, picking up tools and picking up the habit of working hard. Later, things will probably seem easier. But "excruciating"? You have to stop listening to depressives. This is the sort of self-talk my therapist would be horrified to hear. Examine exactly what that word means to you, if it means anything. What do you think it means, hanging from a cross? Come on.

Oh, and horror stories. Yeah. Have you noticed that horror stories/movies are not exactly your typical everyday real-world experiences? Theatre-goers don't watch thrillers because they want to understand how the real world works (well, there are exceptions. Some folks mistake TV and movies for the real thing. Don't be one of those people.) The masters of the horror genre, like Stephen King, have a talent for creating a mundane reality, then having it slip into another dimension or some such - opening the back door of a diner and stepping into the days immediately preceding Kennedy's assassination. Perhaps he should write a story where an unsuspecting grad student opens his apartment door before midnight for the first night in months and finds, instead of his BBTheory nerds, a sleeper cell of terrorists fawning over the thermonuclear weapon they just completed in the attic on the mornings while he was sleeping. Now, THAT"S a horror story. Reminds me of a dream I had once.

You have no free time for anything. = Depends on you. If you can't find time for a life, it'll happen in grad school, if not before. In that case, change course. There are alternatives. Working hard does not exclude playing hard. Hang with the right crowd and you can have an enjoyable life on and off the job.

no job security, lots of student debt = Welcome to the real world. Used to be scientists were told their future was assured because of Sputnik, plastics new drugs, whatever. We were spoiled back then. It's not the '60s anymore. And as a result, the gov. has been awfully slow picking up the tab as a result. These 2 things are true for anybody, except as I said above, lawyers. This is like saying no one will hire you once you reach 50 y.o. Age discrimination is universal, or almost. Besides, if you didn't have to put in long hours and really learn and apply yourself to a profession, anybody could and would do so. Job security used to be the rule working for the government. Hard to say where that's going. The homeland security biz is booming. I have an acquaintance who works for a big gov. contractor with a long history in weapons development issues. He has a technical background, I don't know if it's physics exactly, and works in cybersecurity. My guess is it also has to do with the nukes. He's getting a new security clearance as we speak. Read "Command & Control" by Eric Schlosser about the subject of nuclear weapons security. It's pretty overwhelming; and as long as there are nuclear weapons, people will be working on this problem. It's really impossible to have weapons that will work 100% of the time and be 100% safe from accidents, but we absolutely have to get better at it. I'm sure there are still physicists at work on it.

Again, I think the very best situation is self-employment, if you can swing it. Job security is strictly up to you. Not likely you'll fire yourself because your hair turned gray. I wouldn't know, but I guess this path will entail lots of debt, failures too. (I heard somewhere that Trump went into bankruptcy at least once.) If the administration/business stuff is unbearable, hire the appropriate suits to do this stuff. Or sell it to someone who doesn't mind that stuff. There are types of security you'll have to take care of yourself though, like health insurance and retirement.

On the other hand, are you're looking for a career for lazy people? In which case, you're in the wrong place. Go to your guidance counsellor and tell her you're really lazy and wonder what career is perfect for you. No. Don't. I'm only kidding. I hope you realize I'm trying to be entertaining here. Don't take it personally. Lighten the mood, you see?

I think that about covers it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

High supply, low demand. = True, also true for all scientific/technical R&D type jobs I can think of. Medicine is a little better in this regard because medicine (excepting pathology) is practiced locally; i.e. it can't easily be outsourced to other countries like China or India. Law is another good career if you want a better competitive advantage; but I assume you would prefer to work in scientific R&D.

The pay is low... = Ill-defined. If you want to make beaucoup $$$ doing science, the best way is to start your own business and take it from there. Assuming you have developed a product (or service, like consulting) that commands a large market with $ to spend on you or your product. But if you will be satisfied with a comfortable lifestyle, then it all depends on where you land a job working for someone else. How important is earning lots of money to you?

Hours are excruciating = Ill-defined & exaggerated. If you're talking about Grad school, Ph.D. and all that, then yes, you will put in long hours learning the subject, picking up tools and picking up the habit of working hard. Later, things will probably seem easier. But "excruciating"? You have to stop listening to depressives. This is the sort of self-talk my therapist would be horrified to hear. Examine exactly what that word means to you, if it means anything. What do you think it means, hanging from a cross? Come on.

Oh, and horror stories. Yeah. Have you noticed that horror stories/movies are not exactly your typical everyday real-world experiences? Theatre-goers don't watch thrillers because they want to understand how the real world works (well, there are exceptions. Some folks mistake TV and movies for the real thing. Don't be one of those people.) The masters of the horror genre, like Stephen King, have a talent for creating a mundane reality, then having it slip into another dimension or some such - opening the back door of a diner and stepping into the days immediately preceding Kennedy's assassination. Perhaps he should write a story where an unsuspecting grad student opens his apartment door before midnight for the first night in months and finds, instead of his BBTheory nerds, a sleeper cell of terrorists fawning over the thermonuclear weapon they just completed in the attic on the mornings while he was sleeping. Now, THAT"S a horror story. Reminds me of a dream I had once.

You have no free time for anything. = Depends on you. If you can't find time for a life, it'll happen in grad school, if not before. In that case, change course. There are alternatives. Working hard does not exclude playing hard. Hang with the right crowd and you can have an enjoyable life on and off the job.

no job security, lots of student debt = Welcome to the real world. Used to be scientists were told their future was assured because of Sputnik, plastics new drugs, whatever. We were spoiled back then. It's not the '60s anymore. And as a result, the gov. has been awfully slow picking up the tab as a result. These 2 things are true for anybody, except as I said above, lawyers. This is like saying no one will hire you once you reach 50 y.o. Age discrimination is universal, or almost. Besides, if you didn't have to put in long hours and really learn and apply yourself to a profession, anybody could and would do so. Job security used to be the rule working for the government. Hard to say where that's going. The homeland security biz is booming. I have an acquaintance who works for a big gov. contractor with a long history in weapons development issues. He has a technical background, I don't know if it's physics exactly, and works in cybersecurity. My guess is it also has to do with the nukes. He's getting a new security clearance as we speak. Read "Command & Control" by Eric Schlosser about the subject of nuclear weapons security. It's pretty overwhelming; and as long as there are nuclear weapons, people will be working on this problem. It's really impossible to have weapons that will work 100% of the time and be 100% safe from accidents, but we absolutely have to get better at it. I'm sure there are still physicists at work on it.

Again, I think the very best situation is self-employment, if you can swing it. Job security is strictly up to you. Not likely you'll fire yourself because your hair turned gray. I wouldn't know, but I guess this path will entail lots of debt, failures too. (I heard somewhere that Trump went into bankruptcy at least once.) If the administration/business stuff is unbearable, hire the appropriate suits to do this stuff. Or sell it to someone who doesn't mind that stuff. There are types of security you'll have to take care of yourself though, like health insurance and retirement.

On the other hand, are you're looking for a career for lazy people? In which case, you're in the wrong place. Go to your guidance counsellor and tell her you're really lazy and wonder what career is perfect for you. No. Don't. I'm only kidding. I hope you realize I'm trying to be entertaining here. Don't take it personally. Lighten the mood, you see?

I think that about covers it.

What you state above for "High supply, low demand" may be true for physics PhDs wanting to work in R&D jobs in academia, but the situation is not universally true for all scientific/technical areas. In the US and Canada, there is still high demand for numerous specific engineering fields (chemical engineering, mechanical engineering), and there is high demand for those working in the areas of "data science" (i.e. statisticians, computer scientists specializing in machine learning, physicists who've retrained to work in that field).

And you are wrong about law being a good career path, at least in the US -- I have read countless reports in news programs describing the oversupply of law school graduates versus positions available in law firms, and the high unemployment of recent law school graduates. See the following link below from the Wall Street Journal as reference (the article is a few years old, but I have not read anything indicating that the situation has changed dramatically recently).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304858104579264730376317914

And regarding Trump, he is not an entrepreneur who founded his own business -- he inherited both his wealth and much of the original real-estate business from his father, Fred Trump. And Trump declared bankruptcy 4 times in total.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

What you state above for "High supply, low demand" may be true for physics PhDs wanting to work in R&D jobs in academia, but the situation is not universally true for all scientific/technical areas. In the US and Canada, there is still high demand for numerous specific engineering fields (chemical engineering, mechanical engineering), and there is high demand for those working in the areas of "data science" (i.e. statisticians, computer scientists specializing in machine learning, physicists who've retrained to work in that field).

Doesn't this support the idea that physics is not a great career field?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Doesn't this support the idea that physics is not a great career field?

Not necessarily. The point I was trying to make was that people with physics degrees (in particular, those who have pursued graduate studies in physics) often possesses a broad range of skills (problem-solving and technical skills) which can readily be applied to a wide range of careers, including the latest field of data science, similar to those with math degrees (of which a physics degree has much in common). Of course, a lot depends on what skills the physics or math student acquires during his/her education, and how broadly or narrowly the student is looking into for possible careers.

If someone is dead set on pursuing a career in academia, then yes, the probability is fairly good that the career prospects may not be so positive, given how competitive tenure-track positions are (not impossible, but difficult). But academia is not the only career path that is open to physics or math graduates, so long as you acquire important technical skills which are applicable in a wide range of fields (e.g. programming skills, quantitative skills, simulation, data analysis, etc.).

It is also worth pointing out that different areas of physics or math may be more or less employable. I have often read that those specializing in condensed matter physics or AMO (atomic, molecular, and optical) physics are often highly employable -- perhaps those specializing in those fields can speak more about this. And those specializing in applied math (in particular, those with background in numerical analysis, statistics, or operations research) may be more employable than those in say, pure math.

 

[-Dragoon-]

I'm a recent physics BS graduate now several months into a full-time engineering position. Here's my take on this issue: disregard practically everything anyone here says that isn't backed up by official statistics and studies. At one point in time, I used to eat up all of the bad things people were saying about the degree on here and how it would lead to perpetual unemployment. Just one month after graduating I received 5 interviews and 2 job offers in the end. Some people will undoubtedly claim I must be the exception looking at my post history. But I've even helped a few friends with no prior research and internship experience secure work in the engineering field. From most of my graduating class, the majority went into graduate school, and then in the engineering industry, and lastly finance/data/programming. In hindsight, some of the stuff written here that I used to hold as the absolute truth is so ridiculous that I actually wish I had more time to refute. Things like you absolutely do need an engineering degree for an engineering job. For a job that probably requires someone who can qualify at some point qualify for the p.eng this is correct, but these jobs are very few and far between. In my experience, many employers now realize just how incompetent many engineering graduates are. My experience and the experience of many my colleagues would suggest they now prefer people with technical backgrounds that have a good grasp on the fundamental knowledge that they can later train rather than waiting for someone they believe can hit the ground running. I don't mean to come off as snide, but as a physics graduate I'd say you are at least guaranteed to be as competent as the average engineer but will be lacking mainly in the design aspects of the job that you should have no issue picking up.

Despite the above, I will say there are certain ways you need to tailor your resume and cover letter to go about looking for work. It helps tremendously taking a few engineering electives and doing research in areas of applied physics along with internship experience, but this is not completely necessary even if it puts you at a disadvantage. If any of you on here are having issues and need further tips with resume writing and other things I won't elaborate on here, feel free to PM me.

 

[radium]

I have talked with quite a few physic/math PhDs who have gone on to careers in engineering/tech positions. Many say that their extensive math background gives them a leg up on engineers. People often talk about engineers having math skills, but on average these skills don't compare to those of someone from physics. When employers see you have studied physics, they know you have great quantitative/analytical skills and flexible ways of thinking. Even if you don't currently have the exact skills they are looking for, they know that your background will allow you to learn them quickly and keep up to date on the latest things you need to know. Google actually visits physics departments for info sessions (not sure how many departments though).

You can still get many of these jobs as a theorist. From what I have heard, as long as you have a good working knowledge of Python or Matlab, you are very hireable in areas such as data science, various positions at IBM, Intel, Google, Facebook, etc.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

I have talked with quite a few physic/math PhDs who have gone on to careers in engineering/tech positions. Many say that their extensive math background gives them a leg up on engineers. People often talk about engineers having math skills, but on average these skills don't compare to those of someone from physics.

In what ways are those that major in physics superior to engineering students, mathematically speaking?

 

[George Jones]

A typical physics major is exposed to a wider variety of mathematics than is a typical engineering major. (Of course, here are exceptions to this general statement.) This difference in exposures (not necessarily differences in mathematical abilities) allows physics majors to develop different mathematical skills. Of course, engineering majors are exposed to things to which physics majors are not exposed, so ...

 

[Boolean Boogey]

A typical physics major is exposed to a wider variety of mathematics than is a typical engineering major. (Of course, here are exceptions to this general statement.) This difference in exposures (not necessarily differences in mathematical abilities) allows physics majors to develop different mathematical skills. Of course, engineering majors are exposed to things to which physics majors are not exposed, so ...

Which mathematics are physics majors exposed to that engineering majors are not exposed to?

 

[George Jones]

For example, more stuff on solving partial differential equations, on special functions, on calculus of variations.

 

[Jano L.]

Which mathematics are physics majors exposed to that engineering majors are not exposed to?

I think the mathematics where you wade through the infinite sequence of definition, statement, proof, remark, definition, ...

 

[George Jones]

I think the mathematics where you wade through the infinite sequence of definition, statement, proof, remark, definition, ...

I think that a physics student's exposure to this is dependent on the student's geographical location.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

Alright fair enough.

I think that a physics student's exposure to this is dependent on the student's geographical location.

Why is location a determining factor?

 

[clope023]

Which mathematics are physics majors exposed to that engineering majors are not exposed to?

Depends, some of my fellow physics major cohort did partial differential equations, real analysis, functional analysis, did research on lie algebras, among other more theoretical topics due to their own interest. Engineers in general aren't very rigorous when it comes to math versus physicists and their proficiency tends to weaken the more abstraction packs on to the subject at hand.

 

[radium]

Well I think the biggest thing is that physics requires you to understand math at a higher level conceptually.

 

[clope023]

Well I think the biggest thing is that physics requires you to understand math at a higher level conceptually.

Still the purview of the mathematicians, plenty of physicists are the shut up and calculate type so not as much higher level conceptual understanding as you might think.

 

[radium]

Of course mathematicians will think most physicists don't do math rigorously. In the most abstract areas of math they never calculate anything. For things like the quantum Hall effect, mathematicians could tell you that the system in topologically nontrivial. However, if you asked them about calculating the hall conductance using this, many would not be interested at all. In fact, I highly suspect that my friend doing his math PhD may not even know how to use Mathematica.

Physicists use math by balancing of rigor and physical intuition in a way that allows us to both use math to understand physics and physics to understand math, which I think is a very useful advantage.

 

[George Jones]

I think the mathematics where you wade through the infinite sequence of definition, statement, proof, remark, definition, ...

I think that a physics student's exposure to this is dependent on the student's geographical location.

Why is location a determining factor?

Program details vary from country to country. For example, physics programs in continental Europe tend to place more emphasis on abstract/pure mathematics than do programs in Britain, which in turn tend to have more emphasis than do programs in North America. Again, these are generalizations, and there can differences at different schools in the same country.

Another difference in mathematics exposure for physics and engineering students in North America is that physics students do a double major or major/minor in mathematics than engineering students do. I took courses in real analysis, measure theory, functional analysis, topology, and abstract algebra, even though my physics program did not require me to do this.