Possible to become a physicist these days?

[Corpuscule]

Here's a little more on that "1 in 10" estimate.

According to the AIP, there are roughly 1600 PhDs awarded in the US in physics every year.
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/physgrad2008.pdf

Further there are roughly 9400 physics full time equivalent faculty positions. Note that this includes positions where the highest degree the department confers is either a BSc or an MSc (about 3800 positions) and may be seen as "teaching" positions.
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/awf10/table1.htm

If we assume a 30 year career for a professor (starting at 35 and fnishing at 65), we might expect roughly 30*1600 = 48000 new PhDs over that time.

48000/9600 = 5.

I realize I've made some gross oversimplifications here. The number of physics graduates may not be stable over a 30 year period for example. But there you have it. Maybe it's a little better than I thought... but not enough to alter the advocacy for having a strong backup plan.

I guess this estimate would be useful a while ago. Now however a significant number of retired professors is replaced by adjuncts and postdocs instead. The academia is transforming, therefore looking at the current number of faculty positions does not tell you much about the job openings.

I also have a feeling that the process of academic casualisation is accelerating quite rapidly.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Sure, but how long did it take to get there? I'm in a "tech related job" doing data mining/stats, but it took quite a while post-phd to get where I am.

It sounds like your sample is mostly one group at one school (a group where the PI has personal connections he can use to help students get jobs).

True, it varies depending upon where you go; however, of these mentioned, the staff scientists had to do a postdoc first, and several of the fellas got their tech jobs after doing post docs with the lab through which they obtained their connections.

So perhaps nuclear physics is not the best choice, but for the guys doing materials/condensed matter getting a job was relatively straight forward; the point I am aiming to make is that you are not even remotely doomed after getting you're phd, so that if being a bona fide scientist for 5-7 years appeals to you, you should probably give it a go.

 

[jesse73]

Right, so there are 5 phd students for each full time position. So you've got a chance of making it around 20%, since that number depends upon your specialty and your quality (it is not hard to be better than many of the graduates coming out of top 50 schools from what I can see).

I think that's a decent bet, particularly considering that I've yet to meet a physics phd student at my local university who didn't have a good job lined up right after grad school working for a hedge fund, a robotics company, Raytheon, Intel, Lockheed Martin, or elsewhere... and I'm going to a top 50 school, not top 10!

This reeks of confirmation bias and a biased sample. Professors and the physics programs are obviously going to introduce you to graduates getting the top jobs.

 

[jesse73]

I guess this estimate would be useful a while ago. Now however a significant number of retired professors is replaced by adjuncts and postdocs instead. The academia is transforming, therefore looking at the current number of faculty positions does not tell you much about the job openings.

I also have a feeling that the process of academic casualisation is accelerating quite rapidly.

How many professors retire at 65. I would say most retire in their 70's and get their first assistant professor position around 30-33. The people who are actually going to become professors tend not to have to spend 5+ years doing postdocs but rather 2-4 years. Most people are post bachelors which means the graduate in their late 20's.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

This reeks of confirmation bias and a biased sample. Professors and the physics programs are obviously going to introduce you to graduates getting the top jobs.

...except that these are not professors I do not personally know, but rather professors I've worked with for 6-24months depending upon who I'm talking to, with the exception of one professor who I simply did an undergraduate project with.

Look, I can believe that somebody who did his doctorate in quantum gravity might have trouble getting employed somewhere, but a rather hefty portion of modern physics is interdisciplinary and applied. Many of the labs at my school are collaborating with engineering and chemistry groups as well; a lot of them have direct industrial contacts. Perhaps if you study esoteric physics at a no-name school you have a rough time of it, but it seems unfathomable to me that a physics phd will not wind up with a reasonable middle class living, provided she or he actually takes the requisite steps that push him or her towards getting those vital contacts outside academia, since mos subfields requires the development of skills which are directly applicable to the real world.

 

[kinkmode]

Perhaps if you study esoteric physics at a no-name school you have a rough time of it, but it seems unfathomable to me that a physics phd will not wind up with a reasonable middle class living, provided she or he actually takes the requisite steps that push him or her towards getting those vital contacts outside academia, since mos subfields requires the development of skills which are directly applicable to the real world.

I hope you don't run into problems 5 years post-PhD. It can happen.

I went to a pretty good school. I don't know if it's top 10 or whatever you guys always talk about, but I suspect it's up there. Most of the people from my cohort are not only employed in a tech field, but are still employed in our field. A few went to banks. A few went directly into industry. 5 years out and everyone looked good. That's when the postdocs started end, etc. That's when I stepped off the train, and I'm finding it very difficult to get industry interested in me in my location, even though I have applicable skills. Several of my other friends are thinking of exiting the field and I suspect are going to find similar types of issues making the transition. Not that they aren't fully capable of making that transition, but they do need to be given the chance to.

It's good that you are making contacts in industry through your research groups. Not all types of physics research has those kinds of connections, even non-esoteric ones.

 

[Corpuscule]

...except that these are not professors I do not personally know, but rather professors I've worked with for 6-24months depending upon who I'm talking to, with the exception of one professor who I simply did an undergraduate project with.

Look, I can believe that somebody who did his doctorate in quantum gravity might have trouble getting employed somewhere, but a rather hefty portion of modern physics is interdisciplinary and applied. Many of the labs at my school are collaborating with engineering and chemistry groups as well; a lot of them have direct industrial contacts. Perhaps if you study esoteric physics at a no-name school you have a rough time of it, but it seems unfathomable to me that a physics phd will not wind up with a reasonable middle class living, provided she or he actually takes the requisite steps that push him or her towards getting those vital contacts outside academia, since mos subfields requires the development of skills which are directly applicable to the real world.

Maybe some people get lucky like this... Or maybe it's just a thing of the past...

I am finishing a Physics PhD with the highest distinction in a leading uni, I closely collaborate with chemists and engineers, and I do a fair bit of engineering and programming myself. I have exactly 0 industry contacts, as do all other PhD students who I know (even those chemists and engineers). I am fairly certain that it will be almost impossible for me to get a job, unless I somehow completely reeducate myself. The evidence is a big number of unemployed or underemployed physics/chemistry/engineering PhDs, with whom I have a pleasure to be aquatinted.

I don't want to sound negative. I know that if I try really hard, learn to be a better programmer/statistician/salesman, get more widely marketable skills, volunteer for a year in high-tech industry, then I will get a chance of eventually finding a job. I just want to emphasise that it is not as simple as getting a top 5% applied physics PhD in a leading uni these days.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Maybe some people get lucky like this... Or maybe it's just a thing of the past...

I am finishing a Physics PhD with the highest distinction in a leading uni, I closely collaborate with chemists and engineers, and I do a fair bit of engineering and programming myself. I have exactly 0 industry contacts, as do all other PhD students who I know (even those chemists and engineers). I am fairly certain that it will be almost impossible for me to get a job, unless I somehow completely reeducate myself. The evidence is a big number of unemployed or underemployed physics/chemistry/engineering PhDs, with whom I have a pleasure to be aquatinted.

I don't want to sound negative. I know that if I try really hard, learn to be a better programmer/statistician/salesman, get more widely marketable skills, volunteer for a year in high-tech industry, then I will get a chance of eventually finding a job. I just want to emphasise that it is not as simple as getting a top 5% applied physics PhD in a leading uni these days.

I mean, that's positively mind boggling. One of the guys I know got a job out of grad school at a hedge fund from my humble top 50 school after studying some kind of crystallography/materials physics in an experimental/computational lab.

Have you ever gone to a career fair, or talked to your professors about who they know? I mean, even a bachelors in engineering must do that!

 

[Corpuscule]

I mean, that's positively mind boggling. One of the guys I know got a job out of grad school at a hedge fund at my humble top 50 school after studying some kind of crystallography/materials physics in an experimental/computational lab.

Have you ever gone to a career fair, or talked to your professors about who they know? I mean, even a bachelors in engineering must do that!

I guess it may be area-specific. My supervisors know none. A couple of other professors with whom I collaborated during my PhD know a few companies that have recently moved most of their R&D to China. They also know a few startups that have just popped. Finally some of their previous students are now engineers in Korea and Japan. However I would strongly prefer to stay in one of the western countries, which is probably hurting my chances of getting a job in the industry more than anything else.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Speaking of things which reek, a lot of the latest and greatest gloom and doom has to do with the horrendous economic conditions which persist to this day. Some of the hires I referred to were pre-2008 which may explain part of the ease with which jobs were found.

Your difficulty with foreigners is not a new one and a tragic emblem of the ailing of the West. Perhaps I would do well to pick up some Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Indian before I graduate...

 

[Choppy]

I guess this estimate would be useful a while ago. Now however a significant number of retired professors is replaced by adjuncts and postdocs instead. The academia is transforming, therefore looking at the current number of faculty positions does not tell you much about the job openings.

I also have a feeling that the process of academic casualisation is accelerating quite rapidly.

I don't doubt that you're right. But I suspect this is still a second order effect. On the other side of things you have growth - another second order effect that likely balances it out. Again, I realize that I've made gross oversimplifications though.

How many professors retire at 65. I would say most retire in their 70's and get their first assistant professor position around 30-33. The people who are actually going to become professors tend not to have to spend 5+ years doing postdocs but rather 2-4 years. Most people are post bachelors which means the graduate in their late 20's.

I'm not sure that I agree completely. Some profs do stick around after 65. Not many are hired in their early thirties these days. But even if the numerator changes by a factor of 2 the we recover the 1 in 10 number.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think that worrying about second order effects is helpful. For example, community colleges aren't replacing full-timers with part-timers; they did that decades ago. Neither are major research universities or elite four-year colleges. The institutions doing so are largely small colleges with no physics majors, but who need physics classes for other majors - like premeds. So it's certainly happening, but this is a perturbation on the numbers.

The fundamental issue is that if a professor graduates N students, if all of them go on to become professors and graduate N students, in a very short time, the world will be hip deep in professors.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

I mean, I would never expect all Phd graduates to get jobs as physicists; that would be similar to expecting all engineers to work at top employers like Intel whether they've got a 3.75+ or not.

What I'd like to know is, are there really phenomenal physicists with phd's not getting academic jobs? Not that I have any delusions about myself (I am, strictly speaking, not what I'd call phenomenal) but suppose I got lots of good to great publications throughout my undergraduate/graduate career. Am I really going to be transitioning to finance? It seems as though physics is a field which requires you be much more than average, either in the sense of luck or skill.

 

[atyy]

I mean, I would never expect all Phd graduates to get jobs as physicists; that would be similar to expecting all engineers to work at top employers like Intel whether they've got a 3.75+ or not.

What I'd like to know is, are there really phenomenal physicists with phd's not getting academic jobs? Not that I have any delusions about myself (I am, strictly speaking, not what I'd call phenomenal) but suppose I got lots of good to great publications throughout my undergraduate/graduate career. Am I really going to be transitioning to finance? It seems as though physics is a field which requires you be much more than average, either in the sense of luck or skill.

Not in physics, but in biology, an example is Douglas Prasher.

In other times there are stories like those of Schwarzschild and Gentzen. In an interview, Jocelyn Bell said that Rosalyn Yalow taught high school because she couldn't get a faculty position. (Edit: a quick search indicates my memory may be faulty about Yalow.)

 

[kinkmode]

What I'd like to know is, are there really phenomenal physicists with phd's not getting academic jobs? Not that I have any delusions about myself (I am, strictly speaking, not what I'd call phenomenal) but suppose I got lots of good to great publications throughout my undergraduate/graduate career.

Absolutely. You could very well not end up in academia. You could find out that while it might be possible to stay in academia, your future significant other (who is not in your life right now) doesn't want to move to Nebraska for that postdoc/leave-replacement prof position. So you step off the train. You might find that you want to stay in academia, and you have the chops, but a family member gets real sick and you want to move back home for a year. You could find out that you get the tenure-track position, but funding is so tight because of the sequester that you are really never able to get your research program off the ground and get denied tenure. So on and so forth; I don't have to write down all the possibilities.

Most of these have happened to my friends at some point. I've quoted it before, but only one of the graduates from my program (a good program) since 2001 is a professor. He graduated in 2001 and was a phenomenal scientist - walked right into a tenured track position. Most are at the government labs - I don't know if you count that as an academic job. The http://www.princeton.edu/plasma/academics/employers-of-program-grad/ I refer to also probably isn't updated for the post-post-grad school jobs of my fellow alum. I see one person as listed as working at Lehman Brothers still.

From what I've seen, if you really want to do science at the cost of all else, and you are reasonably good at it, you can stay in the field as a postdoc for years and years, and maybe you'll eventually end up at a small college somewhere or as a soft-money staff scientist. Maybe. Most of the people I've associated with voluntarily left the market though because they decided staying in science at all costs wasn't really worth it to them. Keep in mind that this was from interacting with people at pretty 'good' schools where the students generally have a lot of opportunities. I have no idea what goes on at the lesser known programs and how those students fair, regardless of their ability.

 

[ParticleGrl]

What I'd like to know is, are there really phenomenal physicists with phd's not getting academic jobs?

Yes, absolutely. If we judge "quality" simply by total citation count (certainly not the best metric, but its easy to grab), the five highest cited graduate students who were in my cohort have all left not just physics but science in general. Some of this was probably by choice, but I know for a fact all of them wanted academic careers when they started.

The HEP theory rumor mill has a section called "where are they now" (http://particle.physics.ucdavis.edu/rumor/doku.php?id=where_are_they ) that has a selection of people with a thousand+ citations who failed to get academic jobs in the crowded market of the 90s. I imagine there are similar stories now.

suppose I got lots of good to great publications throughout my undergraduate/graduate career. Am I really going to be transitioning to finance?

It depends on things beyond your control, mostly the funding climate. The other problem is that there are more and more programs dedicated to producing finance graduates then there used to be. Ten years down the line, it might not be that easy to transition. Right now, its pretty easy to break into big data, because its hard to find good people. I imagine in a few years, undergrad CS majors will routinely graduate having seen some of the relevant algorithms.

 

[jesse73]

I hope you don't run into problems 5 years post-PhD. It can happen.

I went to a pretty good school. I don't know if it's top 10 or whatever you guys always talk about, but I suspect it's up there. Most of the people from my cohort are not only employed in a tech field, but are still employed in our field. A few went to banks. A few went directly into industry. 5 years out and everyone looked good. That's when the postdocs started end, etc. That's when I stepped off the train, and I'm finding it very difficult to get industry interested in me in my location, even though I have applicable skills. Several of my other friends are thinking of exiting the field and I suspect are going to find similar types of issues making the transition. Not that they aren't fully capable of making that transition, but they do need to be given the chance to.

It's good that you are making contacts in industry through your research groups. Not all types of physics research has those kinds of connections, even non-esoteric ones.

Exactly.

Postdocs are easier to get than assistant professorships so people are going to drop off even after phD. You need to wait 5+ years after graduation once the postdoc are going to dry up to really consider how transitioning is working out.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

I wonder if this is merely a symptom of the fact that there simply isn't that much to do in modern research physics, and that much that is done is little more than a rehash of that which was done before, or extremely incremental; thus, even those with apparently engaging ideas cannot find careers within the field.

I think this thread is clearly pointing in the direction of an engineering phd or masters as a good career choice, since they seem to have an easier time of things.

It would also be interesting to see some sort of para-academic association of physicists eventually spring up, since it is inconceivable to me that such a large number of phd's outside academia aren't getting any good ideas (although it's clearly a challenge to be an unfunded experimenter).

 

[jesse73]

I wonder if this is merely a symptom of the fact that there simply isn't that much to do in modern research physics, and that much that is done is little more than a rehash of that which was done before, or extremely incremental; thus, even those with apparently engaging ideas cannot find careers within the field.

I think this thread is clearly pointing in the direction of an engineering phd or masters as a good career choice, since they seem to have an easier time of things.

It would also be interesting to see some sort of para-academic association of physicists eventually spring up, since it is inconceivable to me that such a large number of phd's outside academia aren't getting any good ideas (although it's clearly a challenge to be an unfunded experimenter).

There are tons of unsolved problems in physics but nobody researches them for free and there isn't a ton of money for researching physics.

There is a billion dollar initiative for brain science and an absurd amount of money for renewable energy. Physics isn't considered a priority by the powers that be.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Physicists are leaving physics departments too. There is research opportunity outside of physics for the skills physicists have. My undergrad adviser left physics for biology and my graduate adviser left physics for chemistry.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I wonder if this is merely a symptom of the fact that there simply isn't that much to do in modern research physics, and that much that is done is little more than a rehash of that which was done before, or extremely incremental; thus, even those with apparently engaging ideas cannot find careers within the field.

Do you have any evidence for this?

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Do you have any evidence for this?

No, it is mere speculation, I neglected to include the appropriate words to indicate this. One does continually hear that there is "nothing left to do" in particle physics, however.

 

[atyy]

I wonder if this is merely a symptom of the fact that there simply isn't that much to do in modern research physics, and that much that is done is little more than a rehash of that which was done before, or extremely incremental; thus, even those with apparently engaging ideas cannot find careers within the field.

I think this thread is clearly pointing in the direction of an engineering phd or masters as a good career choice, since they seem to have an easier time of things.

It would also be interesting to see some sort of para-academic association of physicists eventually spring up, since it is inconceivable to me that such a large number of phd's outside academia aren't getting any good ideas (although it's clearly a challenge to be an unfunded experimenter).

It's the same in mature fields like computer science.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-spring-2005/lecture-notes/l12_recur2.pdf (Section 2)

The thing is if for some forseen or unforseen reasons your PhD/postdoc/faculty plans are derailed at some stage, it may be easier to transition out into industry in some fields than others.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It depends on things beyond your control, mostly the funding climate. The other problem is that there are more and more programs dedicated to producing finance graduates then there used to be. Ten years down the line, it might not be that easy to transition. Right now, its pretty easy to break into big data, because its hard to find good people. I imagine in a few years, undergrad CS majors will routinely graduate having seen some of the relevant algorithms.

I think this quote further underscores in my mind that a physics PhD is a waste (at least for many if not most branches of theoretical physics PhD -- things may be different for experimentalists), since in a few years time, one avenue (finance) in which a physics PhD could transition to is shut out. Other areas such as data mining/big data will also likely close as CS and stats majors will become better acquainted with the relevant algorithms for the analysis of big data.

Over time, what will then be left for physics PhDs who are unable to find a position in academia or national labs?

As an aside, during my days as an undergraduate student I had at one time seriously considered pursuing a BS in physics with the ultimate aim of pursuing a PhD (I had also considered studying CS or pure math); I wonder to myself how my career would have evolved had I gone down that route, instead of pursuing graduate studies in statistics.

 

[atyy]

I think this quote further underscores in my mind that a physics PhD is a waste (at least for many if not most branches of theoretical physics PhD -- things may be different for experimentalists), since in a few years time, one avenue (finance) in which a physics PhD could transition to is shut out. Other areas such as data mining/big data will also likely close as CS and stats majors will become better acquainted with the relevant algorithms for the analysis of big data.

Over time, what will then be left for physics PhDs who are unable to find a position in academia or national labs?

As an aside, during my days as an undergraduate student I had at one time seriously considered pursuing a BS in physics with the ultimate aim of pursuing a PhD (I had also considered studying CS or pure math); I wonder to myself how my career would have evolved had I gone down that route, instead of pursuing graduate studies in statistics.

As a non-physicist, I feel not too worried about this. Theoretical physics, although the most widely appreciated by the non-physicists like me, seems to have always been done by a relatively fraction of the physics community. The core of physics, surely, is experimental and observational physics. Obviously for those to remain healthy, their graduates must be able to get non-academic jobs.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

As a non-physicist, I feel not too worried about this. Theoretical physics, although the most widely appreciated by the non-physicists like me, seems to have always been done by a relatively fraction of the physics community. The core of physics, surely, is experimental and observational physics. Obviously for those to remain healthy, their graduates must be able to get non-academic jobs.

Well, I don't think many art history phd's have jobs lined up for them after grad school, although I would not know. for sure.

I think this quote further underscores in my mind that a physics PhD is a waste (at least for many if not most branches of theoretical physics PhD -- things may be different for experimentalists), since in a few years time, one avenue (finance) in which a physics PhD could transition to is shut out. Other areas such as data mining/big data will also likely close as CS and stats majors will become better acquainted with the relevant algorithms for the analysis of big data.

Over time, what will then be left for physics PhDs who are unable to find a position in academia or national labs?

As an aside, during my days as an undergraduate student I had at one time seriously considered pursuing a BS in physics with the ultimate aim of pursuing a PhD (I had also considered studying CS or pure math); I wonder to myself how my career would have evolved had I gone down that route, instead of pursuing graduate studies in statistics.

I don't think it's a waste; most theorists do computational work. A condensed matter theorist working at my local school wound up changing careers and leaving the department for a job making well into the six figures for an oil company of all things. Frankly if you're clever enough to get a theory phd from a good school (and you'd be a fool to get one somewhere else, as far as I can tell) it seems greatly implausible that you will not be able to employ yourself afterwards.

The evidence seems to suggest that, as anybody should have expected, there's only room for extraordinary geniuses in particle theory, given the list of individuals with high citations out of academic work posted earlier in this thread. If you are not incredibly brilliant, perhaps you should not pursue one of the most competitive and challenging disciplines on earth? I doubt I will, unless I am struck by lightning and an ingenius idea falls out of my head (hint: nobody believes it happens that way).

The question is, if you're doing something more down to earth, what happens to you when you jump ship? It looks like you do generally fine, but some anecdotes in the thread suggest otherwise. I'd like to see a similar citations list for, say, condensed matter experimentalists or people in optics or something of that sort.

 

[kinkmode]

The question is, if you're doing something more down to earth, what happens to you when you jump ship? It looks like you do generally fine, but some anecdotes in the thread suggest otherwise. I'd like to see a similar citations list for, say, condensed matter experimentalists or people in optics or something of that sort.

While I may or may not be one of the anecdotes that suggest otherwise, I'm sure in the long run, something will work out for me reasonably well. There just might be a year or two of uncomfortable times, soul searching, etc.

Frankly, getting the Ph.D. (in experimental physics) made me a WAY more competent person. If companies would just realize that, they'd get an amazing employee out of it. It's not that I'm not capable of doing the work, it's that it's tough breaking through the barrier.

Though if you want an easier path to employment, an engineering degree or something would probably be a wiser choice.

 

[jesse73]

A condensed matter theorist working at my local school wound up changing careers and leaving the department for a job making well into the six figures for an oil company of all things.

This is deceptive (although not on purpose) to pretend an oil company is an unlikely place for a condensed matter theorist to end up. Condensed matter researchers work on topic related to materials ,fluid flow , and phase transitions. This is why for a condensed matter theorist working on these topics oil companies is on a very short list of industries that would be the first place to look if you are transitioning out. Most oil companies are in based out of Texas so don't expect much flexibility.

 

[jesse73]

While I may or may not be one of the anecdotes that suggest otherwise, I'm sure in the long run, something will work out for me reasonably well. There just might be a year or two of uncomfortable times, soul searching, etc.

Frankly, getting the Ph.D. (in experimental physics) made me a WAY more competent person. If companies would just realize that, they'd get an amazing employee out of it. It's not that I'm not capable of doing the work, it's that it's tough breaking through the barrier.

Though if you want an easier path to employment, an engineering degree or something would probably be a wiser choice.

In the long run 92% of people regardless of major will find a job even art history phDs.

 

[Corpuscule]

In the long run 92% of people regardless of major will find a job even art history phDs.

The question is which job and where?

From my anecdotal experience, all recent applied physics PhD graduates who I know (mostly optics and condensed matter) can be divided into two groups:
1. Those who have a couple of years of corporate experience (obtained before PhD and before GFC).
2. Those who don't.

All PhD graduates from the first group managed to get non-academic jobs at least marginally relevant to their expertise, although all had to spend a few months searching, and most ended up in entry-level positions.

All PhD graduates from the second group without exception ended up in one of the following sub-categories:
a. Postdocs.
b. Unemployed / unskilled labour.
c. Moved to Asia.

I myself will try really hard to become an exception to this "rule", but I know that it is not going to be even remotely easy.

 

[Locrian]

In the long run 92% of people regardless of major will find a job even art history phDs.

I don't think this means what you think it means.

 

[jesse73]

I don't think this means what you think it means.

Im not sure I understand what you mean. Doing something like the following might make it clearer and less of a one way comment.

"I don't think this means what you think it means. Do you mean ..."

 

[ParticleGrl]

The evidence seems to suggest that, as anybody should have expected, there's only room for extraordinary geniuses in particle theory, given the list of individuals with high citations out of academic work posted earlier in this thread. If you are not incredibly brilliant, perhaps you should not pursue one of the most competitive and challenging disciplines on earth?

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Some of those people are MORE cited than established professors. Look at the example in biology of Doug Prasher that was brought up.

The point is that ITS NOT ENOUGH TO BE GOOD. You have to be good AND lucky, and the luck element is the more crucial of the two.

 

[AccAcc]

The question is which job and where?

From my anecdotal experience, all recent applied physics PhD graduates who I know (mostly optics and condensed matter) can be divided into two groups:
1. Those who have a couple of years of corporate experience (obtained before PhD and before GFC).
2. Those who don't.

All PhD graduates from the first group managed to get non-academic jobs at least marginally relevant to their expertise, although all had to spend a few months searching, and most ended up in entry-level positions.

All PhD graduates from the second group without exception ended up in one of the following sub-categories:
a. Postdocs.
b. Unemployed / unskilled labour.
c. Moved to Asia.

I myself will try really hard to become an exception to this "rule", but I know that it is not going to be even remotely easy.

What do you consider unskilled labor? What category do the giant boatload of physicists that have gone into Finance/Data Science/Consulting/Insurance fall under?

 

[ZapperZ]

No, it is mere speculation, I neglected to include the appropriate words to indicate this. One does continually hear that there is "nothing left to do" in particle physics, however.

The last time someone said something similar, it was about superconductivity circa 1985. Then all hell broke loose and no one in their right mind will want to be caught with their pants down by saying such a silly thing again.

Obviously, some people have never learned.

Zz.