The Real Science Gap: An Overview

[D H]

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. The poster was saying that HE (she?) finds theory more interesting.

Which poster, ParticleGrl? The original poster is twofish-quant, who (surprise!) is a quant, and one who has a PhD in physics. Per another post by twofish-quant, sky-high salaries in that world are the norm:

Ph.d. astrophysicists are very commonly employed by Wall Street. Starting salary for an associate is $100K + $50K bonus. Someone with 3-5 years of experience at VP level can make $200K-$300K. I personally know of people with physics Ph.D.'s that make close to $1M/year.

There is no way the technical world can compete with that on a salary basis.

 

[caffenta]

If your interest is experiment, great. If its in theory, don't pick your specialty solely on interest.

You can pick your specialty based on interest, but you have to be prepared for the consequences. So yes, it shouldn't be based solely on interest. But I don't think anyone was really saying that it should.

 

[twofish-quant]

Increasingly, this isn't true- more and more people are being forced into less traditional work (finance, insurance,etc).

Well...

The part that's annoying to me is that this isn't a new thing. Physics Ph.D.'s have been forced to look for non-academic jobs since the *early-1970's*. The current situation with physics Ph.D.'s is hardly a new thing.

The issue is that getting a phd isn't actually doing anything for a lot of people's careers.

In my case it is, because I absolutely could not do the work that I'm doing without having gotten a Ph.d.

 

[twofish-quant]

I assumed that with a phd in theoretical physics I could find technical work (maybe computer simulations, modeling,etc) related to physics somewhere. Increasingly, this isn't true- more and more people are being forced into less traditional work (finance, insurance,etc).

This isn't true. The number of Ph.D.'s that go into academia has been roughly constant since the early 1970's. The only time in which the "traditional job" really was "traditional" was a very brief time in the 1960's. It really surprised me when I found this out.

Investment banks hire physics Ph.D.'s to run computer simulations and modelling and to do technical work. I don't spend my days talking to clients or trading. I'm not good at it, and I don't particularly like that sort of work.

I spend most of my day writing C++ code modelling financial markets, which uses roughly the same equations and techniques (and in some situations exactly the same equations and techniques) that get used in radiation hydrodynamics.

 

[twofish-quant]

I've talked to roughly a dozen phd physicists working in insurance and finance, and they all say that if a stable research job magically fell into their lap they would take it, even with the massive paycut.

I'm one of them. If someone offered me a job as a tenured research professor, I'd take it. On the other hand, I should have enough money so that within the next few years, I'll be the functional equivalent of a tenured research professor. At some point, I'll have enough money to self-fund my research.

 

[D H]

The part that's annoying to me is that this isn't a new thing. Physics Ph.D.'s have been forced to look for non-academic jobs since the *early-1970's*. The current situation with physics Ph.D.'s is hardly a new thing.

Why is that annoying? Classic language departments only crank out about as many PhDs as academia can bear because that is about the only place a person with a PhD in classic languages can find a job. Physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science, and math departments crank out a lot more PhDs than academia can bear because our modern technological society needs those PhDs out in industry.

 

[twofish-quant]

Sample bias, false expectations, and, I suspect, more than a bit of hubris.

It's mostly brainwashing. Since I've been brainwashed into thinking that the research professor is the top of human achievement, that still sticks, even after several years of un-brainwashing myself.

The other issue is that I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or not that you have so many physics Ph.D.'s working for investment banks. There is part of me that thinks that I'd be doing "greater good" if I was doing global climate simulations or designing electric cars. Then again maybe not.

What's wrong with looking a bit further afield, such as a stable non-research but physics-oriented job, and what's wrong with looking a bit harder than having the job magically fall into their laps?

Nothing really. The trouble is all that brainwashing that there is something wrong with that. Also a lot of brainwashing isn't explicit messages. You can *say* that there isn't anything wrong with not being an academic, but talk is cheap. What tends to happen is that people that are in positions of power in academia are academics, and until that changes, it will be sending out those messages.

One of the things I look for when interviewing freshly-minted PhDs is an attitude against working in industry. Are they going to jump ship as soon as one of those rare jobs in academia shows up because academia is where they really want to be? Do they secretly look down on those who work in industry?

In finance this isn't a problem because every physics or math Ph.D. that I know of would be willing to jump if there were something attractive. It's not necessarily a bad thing. If people wanted to be here out of love, there wouldn't be such high salaries.

As far a secretly looking down on people that work in industry. There is still this annoying voice that I've been able to manage, but I haven't been able to get rid of that says that I'm doing something wrong.

I suspect these employment issues are limited to the most theoretical of theoretical physicists.

I don't think so. Also I don't think that there really is an employment problem among theoretical physicists. It's more of a psychological problem. There's plenty of good stuff out there, but you have to get around some of the psychological barriers.

Hint: It's not because industry wants more cosmologists. High-tech industry wants cosmologists about as much as they want cosmeticians.

Depends on the industry. If you've done massive cluster N-body simulations of the early universe, then we need to talk. Finance wants astrophysicists. The reason you have so many theoretical physicists working on Wall Street is that it so happens that the skills that you need as a theoretician is *precisely* the skill that you need for one of the jobs in finance.

Fortunately, for now, finance and insurance have come to the rescue with over-the-top salaries magically plopped into the laps of those misguided students. Don't look for this trend to continue.

Not sure that I agree with this.

Business schools are now starting to teach the kinds of mathematics that is needed in order to be a quant.

Which is useful for a certain type of job, but not the type of job that they hire physics and math Ph.D.'s for.

I can open up a textbook in financial engineering and quantitative finance. About 80% of the equations any book that was written in 2005 are *WRONG*. If you read any intro financial textbook, you'll read about the Black-Scholes equation. What they won't mention is that equation is *WRONG* and has been wrong since 1987.

So where can you find a textbook that lists the correct equations? You can't. Even if one magically appeared today, it will be out of date in three to six months. And that's assuming that we understand the markets. There are some things that people don't quite completely understand about the markets. Also different markets can be very different. What equations that work for trading Chinese steel companies won't work for trading Mexican petrochemical companies (and there are people that know scary amounts of stuff about these details).

So who do you call, if you have billions of dollars at risk on some mathematical system that no one completely understands.

Hmmmmmm...

Sounds like a cool theoretical research job for someone that has experience in mathematical model of complex system. Wonder who would be good at that... Hmmmmm...

This will eventually dry up the demand for physicists and astronomers to serve as quants.

One other thing is that we are talking about tiny number of jobs, maybe a few hundred a year.

 

[twofish-quant]

AS LONG AS you pick the right area of specialization? But there are some subjects and areas of specialization that you can do your PhD in that are completely useless for career prospects unless you happen to be in the top X% (where X is small) of candidates in both networking/connections and ability?

Perhaps, but then you run into the problem with of bad information. People assume for example that computational cosmology is useless for getting a job in industry, when people with that sort of skill is something that investment banks are looking for.

 

[twofish-quant]

Not sure why a software developer would hire a PhD to write code that some B.S. could write for cheaper (and probably do a better job too!).

1) Because for some things they can't.

2) Because people in application development still make decent amounts of money. I know of Ph.D.'s that do work that *could* be done by someone with a bachelors, and they get paid about the same as a bachelors, but it's still decent money.

 

[twofish-quant]

Quants don't work in our egalitarian technical world. They work in the dog-eat-dog financial world. Back in the heady days before the collapse quants bragged about making a lot more than $300K.

And they still do. It's just that people are a lot quieter about making large sums of money so as not to attract lynch mobs.

A fresh out of school Ph.D. is likely to get a total comp of $150K/year. With three years of experience you get to VP level, and the comp there is about $250K/year. It tends to stabilize after that unless you get into management level, and the salaries there are scary.

The cool thing about finance is that people with physics Ph.D.'s are much more likely to get into some sort of middle management role than in other industries.

 

[twofish-quant]

There is no way the technical world can compete with that on a salary basis.

The really cool thing is that the people that I know that are making $1M are doing technical things. The thing about finance is that if you have a physics Ph.D., there are very strong odds that you aren't going to be a stock trader, but rather a glorified computer programmer.

Also there's no need to compete on the basis of salary. The people that I know that make $1M would have given that up if they could do something in academia.

 

[twofish-quant]

Why is that annoying? Classic language departments only crank out about as many PhDs as academia can bear because that is about the only place a person with a PhD in classic languages can find a job. Physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science, and math departments crank out a lot more PhDs than academia can bear because our modern technological society needs those PhDs out in industry.

It's annoying to be lied to by people that you trust. To quote Mike Nesmith...

"It's like finding your grandmother stealing your stereo. You're happy to get your stereo back, but it's sad to find out your grandmother is a thief."

 

[D H]

It's annoying to be lied to by people that you trust.

As you have noted, this situation has been well known for decades. So who is doing the lying here? It appears to me that part of the blame lies with the students themselves for choosing to go into what they perceive as a sexy field rather than looking toward the long-term. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[twofish-quant]

As you have noted, this situation has been well known for decades.

It's been known to teachers. Less known to students, and I refer you to the constant stream of reports talking about a shortage of scientists in the 1990's.

Also it *wasn't* well known to me. I didn't quite realize that the fact that most physicists don't go into academia since the 1970's until a few years ago, when this book came out

http://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/CWB.html

In the 1990's, I *assumed* that the lack of jobs was a recent thing, and I was rather surprised that it wasn't. It's funny that among the pages of pages of NSF reports never mentioned any of this.

Also, I'm using the word *liar* deliberately. There are people that you can excuse on the basis of lack of knowledge, but if lack of knowledge becomes a defense, then this encourages people in power to be idiots.

So who is doing the lying here? It appears to me that part of the blame lies with the students themselves for choosing to go into what they perceive as a sexy field rather than looking toward the long-term.

I don't think it is unreasonable for students to rely on teachers for this sort of information, since students are students and teachers are ummmm... teachers. If someone gets ripped off by a con artist or used car salesman, then well maybe I should blame the buyer, but if tenured faculty expect more respect from me than I would give a used car salesman, then they have to accept some responsibility, and if they don't, they we really start having to ask questions about why they have their job security.

Also it's the job of a teacher to recognize the consequences of what they are teaching, and to realize that teachers teach more than facts, but also by example, they teach a way of looking at the world.

If I get in front of some eight year olds and I'm giddy about astrophysics and the universe, I have to realize that that has consequences, and if I light a fire in someone, they I'm responsible for some of the consequences of that.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

I want teachers to accept some basic responsibility for what they teach. Also my cake is being eaten by someone else.

Also, part of how I got around the brainwashing is that I got rid of this "blame the victim" crap. The reason that people lie about this is that it gets cheap labor to keep the system working. If people didn't believe that they would be tenured faculty in the end, there would be more protest and it would be harder to keep the system running.

If I accept all of what I've been taught, then I would end up depressed and hating myself for being a failure. Since there is nothing wrong with me, all of that depression and hatred becomes anger and bitterness, and that's not a bad thing since anger at least gets you up in the morning.

Part of the reason, that I got into finance is that I figured out that a lot of the world revolves around money, and it won't be long before I have enough money to "do something interesting" to the system that I hate.

As far as Ph.D.'s go, there really isn't an employment problem. It's a psychology problem, and I dealt with the psychology issue by getting angry.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Twofish, again, I think you are letting your bitterness get away from you.

I got my PhD's in the 90's.

Nobody was telling me that academic jobs were "better" or even the norm. I also looked around to see where the graduates were going, and discovered that most were going into industry.

So who exactly is lying?

I would think that anyone smart enough to get a PhD could figure out that if each professor creates 10 new professors who create 10 new professors and so on and so on it won't be long before we are hip-deep in physics professors. So even if there is lying going on (and I have seen no evidence that there is) a PhD student should be immune to this kind of nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that the fraction of jobs where you get to decide what to work on as opposed to someone else getting to decide what you get to work on is small. People who get PhD's in physics are used to being the smartest person in the room, and conclude "the odds are low, but they don't apply to me - I will beat the odds".

 

[caffenta]

Nobody was telling me that academic jobs were "better" or even the norm. I also looked around to see where the graduates were going, and discovered that most were going into industry.

I also don't remember ever being told that academic jobs were better. In fact, the prevailing view was that those who stayed in academia were those who couldn't find real jobs.

 

[twofish-quant]

Nobody was telling me that academic jobs were "better" or even the norm. I also looked around to see where the graduates were going, and discovered that most were going into industry.

So who exactly is lying?

Well, one thing that you find in working in the financial industry is that people end up being very skilled liars. One problem with lying is that if you have one person responsible for the lie, then that one person feels guilty, and you have an obvious person to blame.

So you end up with systems that lie, in which it's cleverly set up so that no one has to accept responsibility or feel guilty.

Let's say you want to sell sub-prime mortgages to people. You want their money, but you don't want the guilt. So one person just shows pictures of white picket fences and houses, one person talks to the person at the bank. In the end the sucker signs the papers, gets into a ton of debt, people collect their fees, and when it all falls apart, then everyone can say "who me? I didn't do anything."

But the cool thing is that you get money, without the guilt. After all, no one person convinced the sucker to hand over their wallet, but you get the money the same.

I would think that anyone smart enough to get a PhD could figure out that if each professor creates 10 new professors who create 10 new professors and so on and so on it won't be long before we are hip-deep in physics professors.

That's an easy one. Like Las Vegas and stock scams, you can get around that by thinking that you are smarter/luckier/better than the other losers. You are in the middle of an obvious housing bubble, but the person at the bank convinces you that you are "special" and that you'll get out before it all comes crashing down.

People who get PhD's in physics are used to being the smartest person in the room, and conclude "the odds are low, but they don't apply to me - I will beat the odds".

Sure, and if we were talking about used cars salesman or people peddling life insurance, and you insist on buying a car that you can't afford or buying life insurance that doesn't make sense, then we'd expect that used car salesman to take advantage of one's ignorance.

But I'm old fashioned and silly since I thought that professors had a higher standard of morality and duty to their students.

 

[twofish-quant]

I also don't remember ever being told that academic jobs were better.

I was, but fortunately for me, I didn't really believe much of what I was told.

 

[twofish-quant]

Twofish, again, I think you are letting your bitterness get away from you.

But that's a little scary if you think about it. Things turned out for me as well as they possibly could have, and I'm still incredibly bitter and angry. One wonders what happens to someone that ended up with a less good career path.

 

[twofish-quant]

Least anyone thinks I'm delusional.

An Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and Engineering Labor Force
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0407/

Neuroscience for Kids
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/short.html

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2002_10_25/noDOI.9805709845991966162

And here is a paper from *1959* talking about how the then claimed shortages are false

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1883726

 

[Vanadium 50]

But I'm old fashioned and silly since I thought that professors had a higher standard of morality and duty to their students.

Name two professors who have (recently - Sputnik doesn't count) told that to their students and a reference that one can look up.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That NSB report says "the number of jobs in the U.S. economy that require science and engineering training will grow". It does not say, "get a PhD in physics and you are likely to get a professorship".

 

[D H]

Least anyone thinks I'm delusional.

An Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and Engineering Labor Force
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0407/

Neuroscience for Kids
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/short.html

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2002_10_25/noDOI.9805709845991966162

All of the above directly contradict the article (IMO, terrible article) cited in the original post, which opened with

It’s not insufficient schooling or a shortage of scientists. It’s a lack of job opportunities. Americans need the reasonable hope that spending their youth preparing to do science will provide a satisfactory career.​

While some of the points raised in that article are valid, that intro paragraph completely invalidated the entire article to me. They authors drove that invalidation home when they narrowly defined scientists as people who work in universities and national labs. What about industry and government?

The reason those schools can train more scientists than are needed to sustain academia is because industry, and benefactors who went into industry, give huge endowments to schools to pump out people with advanced degrees in technical fields. There is a problem here in physics. Physics departments for the most part don't know (and don't appear to care) why they are getting all that money, and both students and teachers in some fields in physics very much look down on those who go into industry.

This perception is not nearly so strong in chemistry, biotech, and engineering. Those schools work in close collaboration with industry. Students in those fields who get a job in industry as opposed to academia are not looked down upon by their peers.

And here is a paper from *1959* talking about how the then claimed shortages are false http://www.jstor.org/pss/1883726

Thank goodness President Kennedy paid no attention to those idiots. Thanks to the programs started by the Kennedy administration, I had the opportunity to study, as a high school student, non-Euclidean geometry between my freshman and sophomore years in one NSF-sponsored summer program and then to study digital electronics and nuclear physics between my junior and senior years in another NSF-sponsored summer program. These programs still exist, but not nearly to the extent they did in the 1960s to mid 1970s.

 

[FroChro]

All of the above directly contradict the article (IMO, terrible article) cited in the original post, which opened with

It’s not insufficient schooling or a shortage of scientists. It’s a lack of job opportunities. Americans need the reasonable hope that spending their youth preparing to do science will provide a satisfactory career.​

Well, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that that "contradiction" was exactly the point of the post.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Which poster, ParticleGrl?

Diracula, who was the poster G01 was quoting.

Physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science, and math departments crank out a lot more PhDs than academia can bear because our modern technological society needs those PhDs out in industry.

But we are also cranking out more phds than industry can bear! In my experience, with few exceptions, theorists simply aren't getting jobs in the technical world. Yes, we can command high salaries in other fields, but we want to be doing some physics- its why we got the degree.

Its not the lure of high salaries drawing theorists into finance, its the lack of other work.

As you have noted, this situation has been well known for decades. So who is doing the lying here?

It isn't being publicized- its a lie by omission. In the climate I grew up in, everyone said America was facing a scientist and mathematician shortage. Look at the recent State of the Union address- it was all about America losing its competitiveness because of a lack of STEM graduates. Most of my undergraduate students who asked about my career options were surprised- they still bought the myth of the shortage and they'd been physics majors for 4 years.

My own advisor (not out of malice, but of ignorance) was confident that a transition out of academia to the technical world would be easy. "There are lots of technical jobs out there that need theorists." I bought it. As an academic particle physicist, I have no contact with technical industry, so no one can point out the incorrectness.

There is a serious moral hazard in the existing advising system- the scientists that students have the most contact with are academic, and the academic scientists NEED talented graduate students to stay afloat.

That NSB report says "the number of jobs in the U.S. economy that require science and engineering training will grow". It does not say, "get a PhD in physics and you are likely to get a professorship".

But it does imply "get a PhD in physics and you are likely to get some technical work." For a large chunk of physicists, this isn't true- we are cranking out more phds than industry can bear. The APS's own data suggests that pre-recession 17% or more of recent phds are underemployed, and that's likely to skew low due to the nature of the way surveys are done.

The chemistry societies are all worried that (due to the contraction of pharma), there graduates aren't getting work.

 

[Dale]

From this discussion it seems to me like the markets are working. We don't really need more physics professors, and there is a relatively large supply of people applying for such jobs, so those jobs are poorly paid. We do need more financial analysts with a physics background, and there is a relatively small supply of people applying for such jobs, so those jobs are highly paid. Sounds like a functioning free-market to me.

The cultural and psychological environment mentioned by twofish quant is an important factor that contributes to the current supply and demand situation. Changing that would change the market, but is that necessary or even beneficial?

 

[kanato]

It isn't being publicized- its a lie by omission. In the climate I grew up in, everyone said America was facing a scientist and mathematician shortage.
...
My own advisor (not out of malice, but of ignorance) was confident that a transition out of academia to the technical world would be easy. "There are lots of technical jobs out there that need theorists." I bought it. As an academic particle physicist, I have no contact with technical industry, so no one can point out the incorrectness.

Even as a theoretical condensed matter physicist, I have few industry contacts. Most of them are physics PhD's who now have jobs as software engineers and don't do any physics. Those are the jobs I'm applying for now. And yeah, they're not unemployed, but I could have had a job as an SE after my bachelor's degree was done. More than once during my PhD I had a friend from undergrad call up and offer me a job as a software engineer. The PhD adds some extra experience in that field to my resume, although it's much less than I would have had if I had worked as an SE for those years. Someone with a PhD in theoretical physics going into software engineering is the definitive example of underemployment for physicists IMO.

Like particlegrl, I was fed the same lines and I believed them. People kept telling me how versatile my degree would be, because "I could learn anything." Probably true, but most technical positions in industry want specific skills, and can find individuals that already have skill sets that better match the job descriptions. There are not many jobs out there in industry doing density functional theory calculations.

The cultural and psychological environment mentioned by twofish quant is an important factor that contributes to the current supply and demand situation. Changing that would change the market, but is that necessary or even beneficial?

Changing the system from something that is built upon dishonestly attracting individuals would be ethical. Would changing the system to just be upfront and honest about job prospects cause it to collapse? If so, are you happy being part of that system? I wouldn't be.

Here's another thing to think about. Many of the people who are grad students and postdocs in physics are foreigners. They have an easy time getting a visa but an even harder a time getting a job since industry doesn't usually want to sponsor visas. So after they live here for a few years becoming highly skilled in their fields, they end up leaving back to their home countries for permanent positions. It seems to me like a rather short-sighted way to use US tax dollars is to bring in foreigners, train them for a few years, then send them home, all just to get a few research papers published while they are here.

 

[D H]

Someone with a PhD in theoretical physics going into software engineering is the definitive example of underemployment for physicists IMO.

That is exactly the "looking down one's nose upon industry" attitude that I have been talking about. This same attitude does not apply in other fields. I very recently interviewed a PhD aerospace engineer who was (rightfully so) quite proud of his abilities to work adeptly in the scientific/mathematical modeling, software engineering, and analysis worlds. This is not something the typical aerospace engineer armed only with a BS can do. This is something to be proud of, not ashamed of. It is not beneath you.

Here's another thing to think about. Many of the people who are grad students and postdocs in physics are foreigners. They have an easy time getting a visa but an even harder a time getting a job since industry doesn't usually want to sponsor visas. So after they live here for a few years becoming highly skilled in their fields, they end up leaving back to their home countries for permanent positions. It seems to me like a rather short-sighted way to use US tax dollars is to bring in foreigners, train them for a few years, then send them home, all just to get a few research papers published while they are here.

This a very recent, post-9/11 turn of events. A lot of those industry jobs are now closed to foreigners because of ITAR restrictions. My current and former employers used to employ quite a few foreigners with advanced degrees and student visas. They sponsored their H1-B visas and even their permanent residency and citizenship applications. No more. There isn't enough non-ITAR restricted work to justify having someone onboard with only an student visa on hand.

 

[Ryker]

People kept telling me how versatile my degree would be, because "I could learn anything."

Yeah, that's probably the biggest ******** statement there is. Don't get me wrong, I'm now a second degree first-year Physics student, and I do hope that there is some versatility to my degree, but I don't think saying one "could learn anything" describes a Physics major any more than it does your average Arts major. I come here and sometimes see people asking such ridiculous questions that are so out of step with reality that I really have a hard time imagining any of my previous fellow students (I guess you could consider my first degree falling under Arts) would be so confused. So I don't really think this "look at me and look at what I've learned during my undergrad" is something that the employers buy in. I can always hope I'm wrong, though, as it would certainly benefit me when I'll be looking for a job

 

[kanato]

That is exactly the "looking down one's nose upon industry" attitude that I have been talking about. This same attitude does not apply in other fields. I very recently interviewed a PhD aerospace engineer who was (rightfully so) quite proud of his abilities to work adeptly in the scientific/mathematical modeling, software engineering, and analysis worlds. This is not something the typical aerospace engineer armed only with a BS can do. This is something to be proud of, not ashamed of. It is not beneath you.

A software engineering position which utilizes scientific/mathematical modeling would be a great position for someone like me... I'd *love* to have something like that. Hell, I'd be happy to do tech support answering the phones and helping grandmas write email to their grandchildren if I could do some kind of mathematical modeling on the job. And it doesn't have to be physics, it could be any science, or economics, or other kinds of data. The vast majority of software engineering positions that I'm finding are not like that though. They're web development jobs, database admins, applications developers, iPhone developers, etc.

And I'm not saying it's beneath me, I'm saying I had the necessary skills before I got a PhD. The skills I developed during my PhD are minimally applicable. As far as career development goes, the PhD in theoretical physics is good for going into academics, or a small handful of industry jobs that require those specific skills (like quants). Beyond that, the opportunity cost of the skills and career development forgone to spend the time getting the PhD catches up.

But the situation could be better. I've never heard of anyone in physics being encouraged to develop other skills that might be helpful for career development. I've definitely heard cases where established physicists were actively discouraging young physicists from having other interests, because having other interests interferes with their research output.

Oh and you've got me pegged wrong. I'm not "looking down [my] nose upon industry," I'm irritated at how when I was considering going to grad school I was told that it would be a good choice, a versatile degree, etc. And now what I'm seeing is it's much less useful for transitioning to industry than spending that time getting a PhD in EE, or working in industry getting experience. If anything I'm looking down my nose upon the academy because of what I perceive as a complete disconnect from the real world. Especially since the production of PhD's is so much higher than academic jobs available, I feel that they should take more responsibility in helping students transition to industry.

 

[kanato]

Yeah, that's probably the biggest ******** statement there is. Don't get me wrong, I'm now a second degree first-year Physics student, and I do hope that there is some versatility to my degree, but I don't think saying one "could learn anything" describes a Physics major any more than it does your average Arts major. I come here and sometimes see people asking such ridiculous questions that are so out of step with reality that I really have a hard time imagining any of my previous fellow students (I guess you could consider my first degree falling under Arts) would be so confused. So I don't really think this "look at me and look at what I've learned during my undergrad" is something that the employers buy in. I can always hope I'm wrong, though, as it would certainly benefit me when I'll be looking for a job

I think for the most part they mean, if you can learn physics then you are smart enough to learn any other technical field. I think that's true, but there's a often overlooked caveat that employers would often rather not spend the extra time training someone without the specific experience they're looking for, even if they're really smart, particularly in the current market situation.

 

[D H]

The vast majority of software engineering positions that I'm finding are not like that though. They're web development jobs, database admins, applications developers, iPhone developers, etc.

You're looking in the wrong place.

Look instead at developers of scientific software packages, the developers of scientific and medical instruments, at biotech companies, aerospace companies, and weapons manufacturers (particularly, things that go BOOM). Those companies need engineers and physicists. While you can't compete with the typical computer science major when it comes to web development and databases, the typical computer science major can't compete with you when it comes to scientific software.

But the situation could be better. I've never heard of anyone in physics being encouraged to develop other skills that might be helpful for career development. I've definitely heard cases where established physicists were actively discouraging young physicists from having other interests, because having other interests interferes with their research output.

I know first-hand that some advisors can be complete jerks. However, a lot more are just clueless about what is valuable outside of academia. ("Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.")


This issue often does come up here at PhysicsForums, particularly from those who go into the deepest of theoretical physics. It doesn't come up nearly so often with other physicists, and hardly ever from engineers. Most of our members who are in a graduate engineering program tend to vanish after four years or so. No complaints, they just vanish. It's as if they got an overly demanding job in industry. Perhaps physics departments need take a lead from engineering departments rather than classics languages departments.

 

[Dale]

Changing the system from something that is built upon dishonestly attracting individuals would be ethical. Would changing the system to just be upfront and honest about job prospects cause it to collapse? If so, are you happy being part of that system? I wouldn't be.

I think this is an inaccurate portrayl. Even before I picked a field, let alone an advisor, I examined and thought about the job prospects and that was a factor in my choice. It is not as though the information were unavailable or even difficult to obtain. If a person makes a critical life choice like their field of study out of ignorance or whim then it is not really "the system" that is at fault if it turns out to be a suboptimal choice.

Now, there may be a few dishonest people in the system, and there are certainly many ignorant or biased people, and those people may even hold positions of power within the system. But the system itself is fundamentally not capable of hiding information about job prospects. If an individual enters the system without that knowledge then that individual made an important choice rather carelessly.

Here's another thing to think about. Many of the people who are grad students and postdocs in physics are foreigners. They have an easy time getting a visa but an even harder a time getting a job since industry doesn't usually want to sponsor visas. So after they live here for a few years becoming highly skilled in their fields, they end up leaving back to their home countries for permanent positions. It seems to me like a rather short-sighted way to use US tax dollars is to bring in foreigners, train them for a few years, then send them home, all just to get a few research papers published while they are here.

I don't know the statistics, but anecdotally my company sponsors visas and green-cards quite often, including several I have hired and others that I didn't hire but are on my team. The cost of sponsoring a visa is relatively minor if the employee is worth it.

 

[twofish-quant]

That NSB report says "the number of jobs in the U.S. economy that require science and engineering training will grow". It does not say, "get a PhD in physics and you are likely to get a professorship".

Again, I've dealt with enough liars in finance that this just doesn't hold water. This is liar trick #344. You have a written contract that explicit states X but implies Y, and then you have a nice person that reassures you that Y is true. Then when things blow up, the liar collects the money, and then says you have no proof that anyone ever offered Y.

It's a cool trick. It's cool enough so that people have spent decades figuring laws around this, and they still don't completely work.

Look, if you ask people when they first get interested in science, it's usually around age eight or nine, and at that age, kids really can't make these sorts of fine distinctions.

The thing that I can't figure out is why people keep defending things. You can argue that this is the best people could think of, and that's fine, but sometimes people can think of better things.

One thing that helped me a lot was when I gave myself "permission to be angry and bitter."

 

[Dale]

if you ask people when they first get interested in science, it's usually around age eight or nine, and at that age, kids really can't make these sorts of fine distinctions.

I agree completely with this. We definitely should stop admitting 8 and 9 year olds into physics PhD programs since they are incapable of making these fine distinctions.