Should You Pursue a Physics PhD? Advice from Brian Schwartz

[imy786]

wow great comments, it was good idea that i did start off this thread, anywayz at one time i was keen on persuing a PHD in physics, defintely not now.

 

[J77]

wow great comments, it was good idea that i did start off this thread, anywayz at one time i was keen on persuing a PHD in physics, defintely not now.

I don't see how one could persue a PhD.

For me, it was an extension to my studies, as my research work for the past 6 years has been to my PhD.

(And when I say extension, I don't mean that it's all been based on the same subject. More an extension to my knowledge.)

 

[J77]

Yes there are jobs that require a PhD. But just remember, for that position there are 30 other applicants for that spot, not only are you competing against people that have graduated from places like MIT, Harvard, etc. you are competing against a TON of individuals who have gotten their PhDs from over seas. 99% of people who go to grad school aren't fortunate enough to go to the top 5 schools in the country and will have extreme difficulty getting a job with their PhD.

This kind of answers why PhDs are still special -- imo, you have to go to a good "school" to do your PhD; ie. one with world-class researchers.

While someone is in grad school for 5 years, then doing a post doc for another 4 years I have already worked for almost 10 years and have made $500,000+, bought a decent house and car, started a family, and my retirement account has compounded exponentially for all that time, while someone who has decided that they want a PhD only starts making real money by the time they are 30-35. And by then with 10+ years experience I could probably make about 60-65 grand, while a fresh PhD would start at around 60-70 grand. All that time too I have the opportunity to earn a Masters degree while my company pays for everything which could even increase my salary further.
Also remember, that if you have any student loans, the interest piles on the entire time while you are pursuing a PhD which can add on thousands of dollars that will be due on a student loan.

Ahhh, the money thing.

Well, I wouldn't do a PhD without a grant. In the UK you get around 10k plus another 6ish through teaching. Thia makse it around $30,000 tax-free -- which is quite nice for a 21/22 year old; especially considering they're pretty much their own boss.

And, good postdocs in Europe would typically be on a start of 27k (gbp) or high 30s (euro) -- over $50,000. Which is even nicer when you consider a UK PhD comes when you're 25/26 (central Europe a bit later, around 30).

I would highly recommend that everyone who is an undergrad now, but wants to go to grad school for a PhD live out in the real world first for 2 or 3 years. Grad school will always be there for you, you can always go back if you want. See what it is like to pay rent/mortgage, student loans, car payments, utilities, groceries, etc. After that, if you think you are comfortable living on 20-25 grand per year, then by all means go to grad school.

I would say don't live out in the "real world" -- a PhD requires a continuation of knowledge -- and you probably get money concerns which stop you doing your PhD.

In summary, everyone only has their opinions.

Mine comes from liking the university lifestyle.

I think yours comes from having gone into industry -- which begs the question, how can you advise against a PhD when you haven't done one?

 

[gravenewworld]

I think yours comes from having gone into industry -- which begs the question, how can you advise against a PhD when you haven't done one?

Do I need to gouge my eyes out with a pencil to advise against doing it? No, I already know it is bad without ever having to experience it. I have straight up asked the PhDs where I work, that if they could do it all over again, would they still have gotten their PhD. A lot of them say no, and the ones that say yes, say yes, but only if the market conditions were like they were back when they were getting their PhDs, not like the markets today. You can get a PhD and hope that you will get a position in a government lab, but just remember that government funding is directly tied to the economy. Whenever the economy tanks, one of the first things cut is R&D spending. Remember a few years back when the Bush administration promised billions and billions of dollars for funding for a new space station? Well, where is that money? It is no where to be found. You can't count on government promises for funding for R&D all the time. The government can stop spending money on science research in an instant.

With a PhD you have to ready for the fact that you might not get a job doing what you studied. YOu have to be prepared to accept that. If you want a PhD in say physics, are willing to hold a job say working as a computer scientist? I doubt that the unemployment rate among PhDs is very high, but you have to dig deeper. What jobs are PhDs doing? How many are actually doing jobs related closely related to their field? If I were the manager at McDonald's and I had to choose between someone with a PhD and a high school teenager for a cashier position, I would definitely choose the PhD. Just because the number for unemployment maybe low for PhDs doesn't mean they are getting jobs doing what they are trained for. I know several physics people who ended up getting jobs as commodities traders on wall street, business analysts, and computer programmers.

 

[Quaoar]

...which begs the question...

Off-topic, but I think you mean raises the question. Begs the question implies circular logic.

 

[cristo]

I know several physics people who ended up getting jobs as commodities traders on wall street, business analysts, and computer programmers.

Is that a bad thing? Just because someone earns a PhD in a subject does not necessarily mean that they intend to pursue a career in academia. In my opinion, one does not have any idea as to what a career in academia would entail after finishing their undergraduate degree, and a PhD is a good way of seeing whether the career suits them. This is by no means a waste of time! As J77 mentions above, a student (in the UK) gets paid to undertake a PhD (I think it's more like £12k nowadays), which is not a bad wage to start on. By the end of a PhD, a student will know whether he will fit into a career in academia, and whether he is good enough! If not, then one could start a job in, say, a graduate scheme for a bank, or something like that, having learned many transferable skills, and only being three years older than his undergraduate counterparts.

Earlier on in the thread, you gave the impression that obtaining a PhD implies that one is pretty much unemployable, and that it is a waste of time! Well, 3 extra years of study in a subject that one enjoys, at the age of 21/22 is hardly a waste of time, no matter how you look at it.

It seems to me that this thread has deteriorated into a "doom and gloom" thread spelling out the dangers of studying for a PhD. I'm not sure that this is helping any student balance the pro's and con's of further study!

 

[gravenewworld]

Is that a bad thing? Just because someone earns a PhD in a subject does not necessarily mean that they intend to pursue a career in academia. In my opinion, one does not have any idea as to what a career in academia would entail after finishing their undergraduate degree, and a PhD is a good way of seeing whether the career suits them. This is by no means a waste of time! As J77 mentions above, a student (in the UK) gets paid to undertake a PhD (I think it's more like £12k nowadays), which is not a bad wage to start on. By the end of a PhD, a student will know whether he will fit into a career in academia, and whether he is good enough! If not, then one could start a job in, say, a graduate scheme for a bank, or something like that, having learned many transferable skills, and only being three years older than his undergraduate counterparts.

Earlier on in the thread, you gave the impression that obtaining a PhD implies that one is pretty much unemployable, and that it is a waste of time! Well, 3 extra years of study in a subject that one enjoys, at the age of 21/22 is hardly a waste of time, no matter how you look at it.

It seems to me that this thread has deteriorated into a "doom and gloom" thread spelling out the dangers of studying for a PhD. I'm not sure that this is helping any student balance the pro's and con's of further study!

Well, sorry I wasn't clearer. What I am trying to say that with a PhD you have to be ready for the fact that you might not get job doing what you are trained for. I was simply trying to respond to posts that said that their life wouldn't be complete without doing physics for the rest of their life. I was trying say that with a PhD in physics, employment as a "Physicist" may be awfully difficult to find. If you can live with this fact, then getting a PhD might not be so bad. But don't be upset over the fact that once you leave grad school with a PhD, you may never do a physics lab experiment ever again if you can't find employment as a physicist. So the question you should really ask is "Am I willing to get a PhD in physics if I may not be employed as physicist but rather find a job as a ____ ?" (you can fill in the blank with any job you can think of).

 

[Cyrus]

Is that a bad thing? Just because someone earns a PhD in a subject does not necessarily mean that they intend to pursue a career in academia. In my opinion, one does not have any idea as to what a career in academia would entail after finishing their undergraduate degree, and a PhD is a good way of seeing whether the career suits them. This is by no means a waste of time! As J77 mentions above, a student (in the UK) gets paid to undertake a PhD (I think it's more like £12k nowadays), which is not a bad wage to start on. By the end of a PhD, a student will know whether he will fit into a career in academia, and whether he is good enough! If not, then one could start a job in, say, a graduate scheme for a bank, or something like that, having learned many transferable skills, and only being three years older than his undergraduate counterparts.

Earlier on in the thread, you gave the impression that obtaining a PhD implies that one is pretty much unemployable, and that it is a waste of time! Well, 3 extra years of study in a subject that one enjoys, at the age of 21/22 is hardly a waste of time, no matter how you look at it.

It seems to me that this thread has deteriorated into a "doom and gloom" thread spelling out the dangers of studying for a PhD. I'm not sure that this is helping any student balance the pro's and con's of further study!

Youtch. 12k a year is pitiful. Most entry level engineers get starting of around 45-50k per year. Thats more than double.

 

[cristo]

Youtch. 12k a year is pitiful. Most entry level engineers get starting of around 45-50k per year. Thats more than double.

It's not that bad. ~$25k plus $x depending on how much tutoring/marking you want to do. Admittedly, it doesn't compare to industry, but $30k is enough to live on!

 

[cristo]

Well, sorry I wasn't clearer. What I am trying to say that with a PhD you have to be ready for the fact that you might not get job doing what you are trained for. I was simply trying to respond to posts that said that their life wouldn't be complete without doing physics for the rest of their life. I was trying say that with a PhD in physics, employment as a "Physicist" may be awfully difficult to find. If you can live with this fact, then getting a PhD might not be so bad. But don't be upset over the fact that once you leave grad school with a PhD, you may never do a physics lab experiment ever again if you can't find employment as a physicist. So the question you should really ask is "Am I willing to get a PhD in physics if I may not be employed as physicist but rather find a job as a ____ ?" (you can fill in the blank with any job you can think of).

Sorry, I must've misinterpreted your responses! I agree that the number of graduating PhD students each year must be greater than the number of postdoc positions available!

 

[Cyrus]

It's not that bad. ~$25k plus $x depending on how much tutoring/marking you want to do. Admittedly, it doesn't compare to industry, but $30k is enough to live on!

Its a big hit on the pay for 4-6 years if your getting a PhD. It works out to 120K if you do your PhD in 4 years, and don't consider that in 4 years your pay will go up. At school, it wont.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is the latest statistics from the AIP regarding employment for Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D's in physics, including "satisfaction" in their choices of field of study and where they end up.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp.pdf

Judge for yourself. This is THE most complete study of this type anywhere for the job situation in the US.

Zz.

 

[Cyrus]

This is the latest statistics from the AIP regarding employment for Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D's in physics, including "satisfaction" in their choices of field of study and where they end up.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp.pdf

Judge for yourself. This is THE most complete study of this type anywhere for the job situation in the US.

Zz.

That pay is sad all across the board.

 

[ZapperZ]

That pay is sad all across the board.

But is this news?

Have you seen the pay scale for other academic areas? Note that for those accepting academic positions, these are roughly the SAME pay scale for all assistant professor position. So this isn't JUST unique for physics.

Zz.

 

[Cyrus]

But is this news?

Have you seen the pay scale for other academic areas? Note that for those accepting academic positions, these are roughly the SAME pay scale for all assistant professor position. So this isn't JUST unique for physics.

Zz.

I agree, its sad all around. That is as much pay as a high school dropout working at McDonalds. At the very least, a BS should start at 50k, MS 70K and a PhD at 80-90k.

It's insulting to be offered 20k a year for a technical position when you can clean garbage cans for the same amount of pay. If someone offered me 20k for a job, Id laugh at their face and walk out the interview office.

 

[Astronuc]

There are some great opportunities in Astrophysics at U of Leicester!

http://www.star.le.ac.uk/phd/


I was trying to post the other day, and the browser choked.

Anyway, I was going to say that I agree with Dr. Transport and gravennewworld. However, I think one should also consider ZapperZ's experience and most adamantly I recommed Zz's thread on "So you want to be a physicisit."

Anyway, I would say "don't do a PhD just to do a PhD and get those letters or Dr. attached to one's name." One should do a PhD because one wishes to contribute to the advancement of the state-of-the-art, or because one wishes to teach and do research, particular in academia.

I think one however needs to maintain a realistic perspective of the market out there in the world and the fluctuating demand and supply of PhD's. Engineers face the same challenge.

The economy is volatile at the moment, and that may be reality for sometime. New technologies come to market and are sometimes superceded shortly after they mature. Different sectors of the economy seem to move through boom and bust cycles more rapidly than in the past.

There are two companies, which still have strong R&D facilities, IBM and GE. There are others, but those two have maintained a strong commitment, while I've seen others decimate their R&D groups.

Where one does a PhD and in what subject/field one does a PhD is important in terms of opportunities. If one picks an esoteric field, then one may very well limit one's opportunities - other than teaching. So be versatile and diverse.

Money can be good, but then one's salary is subject to the vagaries of 'supply and demand'.

If one is contemplating a PhD - look ahead, keep all options open, diversify one's skills and knowledge.

 

[Quaoar]

I agree, its sad all around. That is as much pay as a high school dropout working at McDonalds. At the very least, a BS should start at 50k, MS 70K and a PhD at 80-90k.

It's insulting to be offered 20k a year for a technical position when you can clean garbage cans for the same amount of pay. If someone offered me 20k for a job, Id laugh at their face and walk out the interview office.

You're forgetting that you ARE getting something out of the process, namely, an education!

 

[Cyrus]

No, I can get an education while working. I get the best of BOTH worlds, but it will take longer and be harder.

I don't need to be an underpaid slave for 25k a year. And I could get a PhD in something related to my work, thus benifiting both myself and my company.

Also, those are pay for someone out of school. Your not getting any education based on that chart. You are just doing work for some company.

 

[Quaoar]

No, I can get an education while working. I get the best of BOTH worlds, but it will take longer and be harder.

I don't need to be an underpaid slave for 25k a year. And I could get a PhD in something related to my work, thus benifiting both myself and my company.

Also, those are pay for someone out of school. Your not getting any educatoin based on that chart. You are just doing work for some company.

Not every topic is available in industry. You can't get an education for certain topics outside of academia.

 

[Cyrus]

And those are exactly the topics that will keep you unemployed.

 

[gravenewworld]

And those are exactly the topics that will keep you unemployed.

LOL Blunt & brutal but true.

 

[colin.mcenroe]

Isn't that the starting pay scale you are referring to? I would assume that over time it would go up.

 

[Dr Transport]

Now that i have been quiet for a couple of pages of posts, let me make a few general staements to tie up some things...

As many of us have said, be careful about jumping into a PhD program, you might get into it too far to get out but may be pigeon holed into something that may prevent you from being employable later.

No one here said that the road to a PhD is easy, far from it, the satisfaction in getting the degree should be first and foremost. ZapperZ, myself, Astronuc and a host of others here with the credentials will be the first to tell you. Persoanlly I got so ticked off at my advisor I threatend to quit at least 3 times, only to come back the next day to take more abuse and work all the harder. Each time we went out to lunch, buried the hatchet and had a couple of cold coctails, we would both settle down and life would get back to normal.

If your advisor has a sense of reality, they will try to get you to keep your options open for later employment, remember that they are not just your advisors, but mentors, both personal and professional. To this day I still email or talk to my advisor at least once a week, he does the same to his advisor and he earned his degree in 1977.

Working towards your degree while being employed full-time is not a bad thing. You can live comfortably and better yet maybe get your employer to pay for your eduaction. You and they will apreciate it much more and if they are decent, reward you down the road.

If you work hard, you can get your degree, and if you are willing to take on adversity, you can obtain your goals no matter what you want to do. If you insist onan academic career or a govt lab or something else, someday you can get there if you persevere. Be realistic, work hard and if nothing else have fun doing what you are doing.

 

[Quaoar]

And those are exactly the topics that will keep you unemployed.

Haha, who cares? If you are doing a topic that is primarily academic, then you've chosen to remain in academia. Some people make this choice because they love the subject. It's not all about money.

 

[leright]

Well, I have decided to pursue a PhD in physics (or possibly in electrical engineering) to study solid state device physics. I am hoping this field of study will give me a decent amount of opportunities in the semiconductor industry. However, ideally I would land a solid tenure track faculty position. Getting tenure is usually a tough road, but once you get it must be nice to have such amazing job security. Plus, in academia I would have more control over my research and more job flexibility.

If I were given the choice of either a postdoc or a long term industry position when I finished the PhD, I would have to pick the industry position. I think that industry prepares you for a faculty position just as well as a postdoc, and the pay is much better. I know lots of professors that got their PhDs, got industry positions, and then took associate professor positions later in life.

Also, as others have said, you don't do a PhD for financial reasons...you do a PhD because of a passion for the subject you're studying.

BTW, it seems the semiconductor company engineering and research positions equate a PhD with 4-6 years of experience in the semiconductor field. A lot of the positions (Intel, for instance) request a BS with 4-6 years of experience, MS with 2-3 years experience, or a PhD.

 

[Cyrus]

Haha, who cares? If you are doing a topic that is primarily academic, then you've chosen to remain in academia. Some people make this choice because they love the subject. It's not all about money.

Because how many universities and government lab positions are there in the country compared to industry?

I care. I want money that reflects my ability. If I love the subject, Ill read it on my own time. I don't need to be underpaid just to love it.

 

[StatusX]

Youtch. 12k a year is pitiful. Most entry level engineers get starting of around 45-50k per year. Thats more than double.

Yea, but then you're an entry level engineer, not a physics grad student. I'd choose the latter if the former paid 10 times as much. It's easy to make money; I'm looking for a challenge.

 

[Cyrus]

No, not really. In 4-6 years you won't be an entry level engineer anymore, and you can be earning the same pay as the guy who just finished his PhD and got hired.

Whats so special about being a grad student? If you are going to work in industry, I promise you that your co-workers with experience know more than you after you graduate with your graduate degree.

I'm looking for a challenge

You think Industry is easy? Grad school doesn't fire you if you fail to do your task as fast and cheap as possible. There are just as many challenges in one as the other. In fact, in industry your now dealing with the real world and all its complications. Its going to be interesting when your formulas predict one thing and you get something else because of variations.

 

[gravenewworld]

Haha, who cares? If you are doing a topic that is primarily academic, then you've chosen to remain in academia. Some people make this choice because they love the subject. It's not all about money.

Money does matter. Do you want to travel the world a little bit? Are you going to need a new car to drive in the future? What about a down payment for a house? Do you want children? What about your kids' college tuitions? What about your student loans that you have to pay back with interest? Can you afford to set aside a few hundred dollars per month into a retirement account? What about groceries? What about utilities? What about a mortgage or rent? What about insurance payments? What about health care costs? What about money to buy new clothes? Have you ever even worried about these things yet? Creditors don't care about you, your situation, or how educated you are. When your bill is due, they will want their money. If you don't have it they can screw you royally.


I make roughly $50k per year with my BS straight out of college. Sometimes I even have trouble making ends meet with all the bills I have and that salary, especially when gas was over $3.00 per gallon. I don't even have a family for christ's sake! I would definitely have to work two jobs if I had a family to support. You should definitely keep in the back of your mind how much you stand to make in the future with the education you are going to pursue. Those that don't tend to end up in miserable conditions. Money is what makes the world go round, if you are going to completely ignore this aspect you are living in a dream world my friend. The world is not a nice place.

 

[StatusX]

And again, I'd rather be a physics post-doc than a mid-level (or high-level) engineer, even if it paid x times as much. Ultimately you have to set your own goals, and you have to understand that while yours is apparently making a lot of money, not everyone else's is.

And how is physics research further from the real world than industry? Yea, it lacks all the noise like company politics, profitability, etc, but those are just annoying variables. If anything, it's closer to the real world. If my equations don't exactly work with your project, then it's because of other trivial, case specific facts, and I'll leave to the engineers to work on those, if it's economically practical for their bosses to allocate their resources that way that day.

 

[leright]

Whats so special about being a grad student? If you are going to work in industry, I promise you that your co-workers with experience know more than you after you graduate with your graduate degree.

Not necessarily. While the people in industry are doing paper work and administrative duties and dealing with red tape (which isn't necessarily hard to learn...just boring and annoying) the graduate students are spending almost all of their time learning technical subject matter and working on their research.

 

[Cyrus]

The point of any company is to put out a product fast that works. They don't care two cents about the theory of why it works. Thats YOUR job in getting a PhD. Thats NOT what the company cares about.

Not necessarily. While the people in industry are doing paper work and administrative duties and dealing with red tape (which isn't necessarily hard to learn...just boring and annoying) the graduate students are spending almost all of their time learning technical subject matter and working on their research.

What? No, they are doing engineering work and analysis. Things like FEA, PDP, and the like. They have experience doing what you read in a book.

For one of my classes, we work with DeWalt power tools. We took a tour of their design facilities. They were doing technical work and analysis. Maybe you should visit more companies and see the real work that people do. Its not sitting behind a desk doing paperwork.

 

[leright]

What? No, they are doing engineering work and analysis. Things like FEA, PDP, and the like. They have experience doing what you read in a book.

You keep telling yourself that.

And if some engineers get the opportunity to do that, trust me...the grad students are doing it too. The grad students where I am doing my REU use cadence, ansys, labview, etc extensively, but are not burdened with the red tape of industrial processes.

However, I will say learning how to deal with beauracracy is a very important skill, but a few months at the company you are working for is all you need in order to master this.

Grad school is very much unlike ugrad school...

 

[Cyrus]

What experience are you telling me this from leright? The fact is, most engineers do go into product development, and that involves engineering analysis and testing on the product.

You as a graduate student do not use labview cadence or ansys to the full level that industry does. Maybe I should take you to the DeWalt company and show you the parts they have on Catia that have hundreds of man-hours dedicated to them.

 

[gravenewworld]

Not necessarily. While the people in industry are doing paper work and administrative duties and dealing with red tape (which isn't necessarily hard to learn...just boring and annoying) the graduate students are spending almost all of their time learning technical subject matter and working on their research.

trust me, if you met the MA and BS people where I work that have 10-20+ years experience in industry, you would definitely mistake them for PhDs. One of our BS chemists wrote a paper on a reaction he accidentally discovered while working on a project. Emails started flooding into his mail box with questions about his reaction. Most of them started with "Dear Dr. _____".

Whenever we interview a candidate for a post doc position we ask them if they know or ever have carried out what is known as a "suzuki coupling". Most of the time the PhDs have only barely heard of it and have never done one. I have done suzuki reactions many times over as it is one of the most useful reactions in the real world and know how it works. Industry teaches you what is practical and most efficient, university teaches you theory. What grad students learn in a textbook, myself and others are actually doing it in the lab. If you read one of my posts earlier, we had a phd one time deviate from a synthetic scheme that was already known to work because he thought he could come up with a better way. The theory said his way should work, but guess what? His proposed scheme was an abysmal failure and it ended up costing thousands of dollars in wasted precious chemicals.