Theoretical Physics PhD worthless nowadays?

[twofish-quant]

Twofish says that there's a shortage of candidates for tenure-track positions.

I said no such thing. I said that the job prospects for Ph.D. physicists is extremely good. Those are two separate statements.

 

[arunma]

I said no such thing. There is something of a shortage of qualified teachers at community college and high school teachers, but the pay isn't good. The jobs prospects for academia truly stinks, and you should not go into a Ph.D. program with any hope of getting a job in traditional academia.

I said that that job prospects for physics Ph.D.'s is good. That's a different statement.

Hi Twofish, sorry for misreading your posts. I can certainly see why you say that one shouldn't go into a PhD program with the hope of getting an academic position. Problem is, I'm just starting my fourth year, so it would be sort of pointless to quit now. Honestly if someone told me all of this back when I was an undergrad, I would have dropped my physics major at the earliest opportunity and done something that could get me a normal job. Alas, it's spilled milk now, so I'm trying to see what I can squeeze out of this PhD thing in terms of employment.

Regarding the job security issue, I know many people don't mind moving from job to job. I'm looking more for the kind of job I can hold down for life. And I don't mind if the tradeoff is a low wage. One thing I did know from the outset is that you don't go into physics to get rich.

It depends what you define as physicist. I spend most of my time writing and debugging numerical code, but I spend most of graduate school writing and debugging numerical code, so it's not that much different.

Same here. Personally I don't like computers all that much. But I don't mind developing C++ code and stuff, because I know that at the end of the day, I'm detecting gamma rays and deriving AGN spectra. I know that the average day as a financial analyst is much like the average day of a physicist, but to me it matters to know that what I'm doing is science and not finance. Nothing against finance, it's just not my cup of tea. So I guess I would define "being a physicist" as working on problems whose solutions will be used to answer some sort of physics question. Are there any jobs like this in industry?

 

[twofish-quant]

Regarding the job security issue, I know many people don't mind moving from job to job. I'm looking more for the kind of job I can hold down for life.

One should point out that academia is a pretty horrible thing to do for this. You will get job security if you get tenure, but your odds of getting tenure even if you assume tenure track isn't that good. The nice thing about industry is that if you have skills, and you lose one job, you find another one.

The other thing is that just because you have a physics Ph.D. doesn't mean that you have to do physics. You can sell used cars or run a pizza parlor.

One thing I did know from the outset is that you don't go into physics to get rich.

But you can if you want, and there really is nothing wrong with getting rich, and if that's what you want to do with your life a physics Ph.D. is a pretty good route to make pretty large sums of money.

One thing that you do have to ask yourself (and a lot of people don't) is "so why do you want to get rich?" For me, it's the intellectual challenge, which means that I act in different ways than someone whose motive is to impress other people with consumption.

I know that the average day as a financial analyst is much like the average day of a physicist, but to me it matters to know that what I'm doing is science and not finance.

Why? (Not a rhetoric question?) At some point, you'll likely find that you just can get what you what, and I've found it useful in these situations to ask the question, "so why is it that I want what it is that I want?" I got into physics because I'm interested in figuring out how the universe works, and money is part of the universe.

Also, on the one hand you say that you want to do science and aren't interesting in industry, but then you also regret going into the program in the first place.

 

[BenTheMan]

Regarding the job security issue, I know many people don't mind moving from job to job. I'm looking more for the kind of job I can hold down for life. And I don't mind if the tradeoff is a low wage. One thing I did know from the outset is that you don't go into physics to get rich.
...
So I guess I would define "being a physicist" as working on problems whose solutions will be used to answer some sort of physics question. Are there any jobs like this in industry?

I don't know about industry, but I have spent a lot of time looking for jobs like this in government. Ultimately, I decided I didn't want to go down that road.

There are a lot of cool jobs like this in Federally Funded Research and Development companies: The Center for Naval Analysis, MITRE, RAND, Institute for Defense Analysis. You typically have to be a US citizen eligible for security clearance (read: don't donate to Islamic charities or smoke pot for a few years). These are government consultancies, who work primarily for the military, and (to some extent) for local and state governments. The CNA, for example, is currently consulting on the air traffic control problems in America (which are pretty huge). These jobs are not very ``science-y'', but you will use the scientific method (loosely defined) in terms of the way you attack problems.

There are also jobs at the national labs, and other places like Lincoln Labs at MIT. These are more science-based jobs, (as the name implies) you'll be working in a lab. Citizenship in the US is required for most of these positions, as well as security clearance.

I also looked into non-proliferation jobs for a while---check out the NNSA's non-proliferation graduate fellowship program (just google it). There are also jobs in science policy that are tougher to get, and may depend on your personal political views. There are a lot fellowhsips that you can do to get your foot in the door, but few that actually pay well. Your best bet is to talk your advisor or department into funding you in one of these positions, but that may be hard. Some fellowships come with a stipend, but living in D.C. is expensive. If you think you really want to do science policy, then it may pay to take one semester of student loans.

In general, though, most of these jobs are in D.C./Alexandria. You can expect a lot of job security, and structured raises (~2-5% a year), and top notch benefits including retirement funds. On the down-side, there's no real ``pay-for-performance'' (which ultimately turned me off), and promotions are based almost strictly on tenure, which means incompetent people who have been around longer will always be your boss. This is another reason not to take these jobs---the government is in the business of employing people, and not in the business of running efficiently, especially (it seems) when the democrats are in office. (Republicans, on the other hand, hire less people, but still seem to make things inefficient.) Note that this problem is much worse in Europe than America. A friend of mine calls DOE the ``Department of Entropy''.

That being said, you can have a real impact in science policy, or national defense, or whatever, in these jobs. You will be hooked in with the world's power brokers, and D.C. is a pretty cool town. One of the professors here has a friend (with a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics) who is now in charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), appointed by Obama.

 

[arunma]

Why? (Not a rhetoric question?) At some point, you'll likely find that you just can get what you what, and I've found it useful in these situations to ask the question, "so why is it that I want what it is that I want?" I got into physics because I'm interested in figuring out how the universe works, and money is part of the universe.

Also, on the one hand you say that you want to do science and aren't interesting in industry, but then you also regret going into the program in the first place.

Heh, I suppose I do sound like I'm contradicting myself, don't I? I guess for me, collecting data, analyzing it, and getting a result that explains some physical phenomenon is pretty cool. If I did finance, I'm sure I would use many of the same tools, but my end result wouldn't have anything to do with physics. I know that finance is interesting to many people (which is convenient, since you can also make a lot of money doing this). But it's not as interesting to me. Which isn't to say I'm ruling out the financial route completely. As I said, I'll take any job I can get, and I don't have too many qualifiers on the word "any."

Now as for my wanting to do pure science, it's not that I'm opposed to going into industry. If I could work for some pharmaceutical company doing biophysics, I'd be perfectly happy doing that. As long as I'm doing actual physics, it doesn't really matter to me if it's in an academic or industrial setting. But the reason I regret going into physics in the first place is because after three years in grad school, I've seen the poor job prospects of physics PhDs. Getting a relatively stable job is more important to me than intellectual fulfillment, and I could have gotten a job with an engineering or computer science degree. Neither of those subjects is interesting to me, but they are highly employable.

But like I said, no sense worrying about that now. As it stands I'll have a physics PhD in two or three years. And given this, I'd like to see if there's any possibility that I can spend the rest of my career doing physics.

 

[arunma]

I don't know about industry, but I have spent a lot of time looking for jobs like this in government. Ultimately, I decided I didn't want to go down that road.

There are a lot of cool jobs like this in Federally Funded Research and Development companies: The Center for Naval Analysis, MITRE, RAND, Institute for Defense Analysis. You typically have to be a US citizen eligible for security clearance (read: don't donate to Islamic charities or smoke pot for a few years). These are government consultancies, who work primarily for the military, and (to some extent) for local and state governments. The CNA, for example, is currently consulting on the air traffic control problems in America (which are pretty huge). These jobs are not very ``science-y'', but you will use the scientific method (loosely defined) in terms of the way you attack problems.

There are also jobs at the national labs, and other places like Lincoln Labs at MIT. These are more science-based jobs, (as the name implies) you'll be working in a lab. Citizenship in the US is required for most of these positions, as well as security clearance.

I also looked into non-proliferation jobs for a while---check out the NNSA's non-proliferation graduate fellowship program (just google it). There are also jobs in science policy that are tougher to get, and may depend on your personal political views. There are a lot fellowhsips that you can do to get your foot in the door, but few that actually pay well. Your best bet is to talk your advisor or department into funding you in one of these positions, but that may be hard. Some fellowships come with a stipend, but living in D.C. is expensive. If you think you really want to do science policy, then it may pay to take one semester of student loans.

In general, though, most of these jobs are in D.C./Alexandria. You can expect a lot of job security, and structured raises (~2-5% a year), and top notch benefits including retirement funds. On the down-side, there's no real ``pay-for-performance'' (which ultimately turned me off), and promotions are based almost strictly on tenure, which means incompetent people who have been around longer will always be your boss. This is another reason not to take these jobs---the government is in the business of employing people, and not in the business of running efficiently, especially (it seems) when the democrats are in office. (Republicans, on the other hand, hire less people, but still seem to make things inefficient.) Note that this problem is much worse in Europe than America. A friend of mine calls DOE the ``Department of Entropy''.

That being said, you can have a real impact in science policy, or national defense, or whatever, in these jobs. You will be hooked in with the world's power brokers, and D.C. is a pretty cool town. One of the professors here has a friend (with a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics) who is now in charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), appointed by Obama.

Hi Ben, thanks for the info. Citizenship requirements are no problem for me since I'm a born citizen, so I'll certainly look at the national lab route.

The science policy path is on I've heard about, but never looked into very much. Political views aren't aproblem for me, since I'm willing to believe whatever my employer tells me to believe. I guess the downside here is that I wouldn't be doing physics. But hey, nothing beats a steady paycheck.

 

[twofish-quant]

If I did finance, I'm sure I would use many of the same tools, but my end result wouldn't have anything to do with physics.

Curiously enough one reason why I didn't see much of a future for me in academia is that I'm a bit too curious. I like asking "so how does this work?" and I didn't like the fact that people wanted me to be curious about some things and not others.

But the reason I regret going into physics in the first place is because after three years in grad school, I've seen the poor job prospects of physics PhDs.

You've seen poor career counseling. The job prospects of physics Ph.D.'s are actually incredibly good. The problem is that people get career advice from people that have never been outside of academia, and have no idea what life is like on the outside.

Getting a relatively stable job is more important to me than intellectual fulfillment, and I could have gotten a job with an engineering or computer science degree. Neither of those subjects is interesting to me, but they are highly employable.

You do seem to be contradicting yourself here. Let me point out that with a physics Ph.D. you can get a job that is makes just as much money and has as much job security as anything that you can get with an engineering and computer science degree. But when this is pointed out, then the standards for what constitutes a good job changes. A physics Ph.D. is a very employable degree. Just not in physics academia.

But like I said, no sense worrying about that now. As it stands I'll have a physics PhD in two or three years. And given this, I'd like to see if there's any possibility that I can spend the rest of my career doing physics.

If you go into academia, then you are looking at two post-docs followed by junior faculty heck, which means you are looking at about ten years before you end up with anything stable.

 

[twofish-quant]

Political views aren't aproblem for me, since I'm willing to believe whatever my employer tells me to believe.

Just one piece of advice. If you want to survive in the corporate world, it is critically important that you *DON'T* believe what people tell you to believe. You can pretend and fake your beliefs if you have to, but at the end of the day, people can force you to say anything, but they can't force you to believe what you are saying.

The reason this matters is that there are people in the world that will actively lie to you and get you to believe something that isn't in your own interest to believe. Also, one good thing about having marketable skills, is that you can walk out of a situation that you don't like.

 

[BenTheMan]

You've seen poor career counseling. The job prospects of physics Ph.D.'s are actually incredibly good. The problem is that people get career advice from people that have never been outside of academia, and have no idea what life is like on the outside.

This is a general problem. Most academic physicists look down on grad students who leave. After I mentioned that I was leaving, one of my advisor's former students, now faculty, said ``Why would you ever want to do a thing like that?'' He was only HALF-joking.

Unless you're at a top tier place (like Princeton, Stanford, etc.), you don't have a lot of contact with people who have left. I spent a few months at Stanford visiting, and there all of the high energy grad students knew people who worked on Wall Street and in industry, and they all KNEW their choices if they didn't want to stay in academia. In my dept., no one knows ****! There is no lore about past grad students, like there is in other places. My guess is that you are in a similar situation---you KNOW that some students in the past have left, but you don't have any idea where they went or what they did.

This is exacerbated byt he fact that your department, like mine, is probably pretty awful at actually letting you know what kind of opportunities there are for you. My department's idea of career counseling is to forward a half-dozen open post-doc positions around the dept. email once a month. Everyone is completely clueless about the real world, with some less-so than others: one of my committee members has kept contact with his friends who left the field (this is the guy who knows Mr. NRC).

 

[arunma]

You've seen poor career counseling. The job prospects of physics Ph.D.'s are actually incredibly good. The problem is that people get career advice from people that have never been outside of academia, and have no idea what life is like on the outside.

Perhaps this is the case. That's why I always like talking to physics PhDs (like yourslf) who are in industry.

You do seem to be contradicting yourself here. Let me point out that with a physics Ph.D. you can get a job that is makes just as much money and has as much job security as anything that you can get with an engineering and computer science degree. But when this is pointed out, then the standards for what constitutes a good job changes. A physics Ph.D. is a very employable degree. Just not in physics academia.

Actually I'm glad to hear this. While I'd prefer getting a job related to physics in some way, I'd be just fine doing engineering. But what sorts of engineering jobs are available to a particle astrophysicist?

If you go into academia, then you are looking at two post-docs followed by junior faculty heck, which means you are looking at about ten years before you end up with anything stable.

Yeah, that's the one career path I do know a lot about. The part that concerns me is the post-doc to junior faculty transition, which I'm told has a very low probability amplitude.

Just one piece of advice. If you want to survive in the corporate world, it is critically important that you *DON'T* believe what people tell you to believe. You can pretend and fake your beliefs if you have to, but at the end of the day, people can force you to say anything, but they can't force you to believe what you are saying.

The reason this matters is that there are people in the world that will actively lie to you and get you to believe something that isn't in your own interest to believe. Also, one good thing about having marketable skills, is that you can walk out of a situation that you don't like.

Yes, I can see the importance of this, and I'll keep it in mind. What I meant when I said that I'll believe whatever anyone tells me to believe is that I'll regurgitate whatever political platform someone wants me to so long as they keep writing me paychecks. I wouldn't necessarily believe something just because someone tells me to. But hey, if they pay me to tell them what they want to hear, that's fine wth me. Some might call this selling out. But I figure it beats being unemployed.

 

[twofish-quant]

Actually I'm glad to hear this. While I'd prefer getting a job related to physics in some way, I'd be just fine doing engineering. But what sorts of engineering jobs are available to a particle astrophysicist?

If you can pick up some basic programming skills, there is lots of stuff available. I worked in the oil industry, then flipped to logistics, then jumped to finance. The one common factor is that it all involved numerical simulation of rather nasty equations.

I wouldn't necessarily believe something just because someone tells me to. But hey, if they pay me to tell them what they want to hear, that's fine wth me. Some might call this selling out. But I figure it beats being unemployed.

1) You just aren't that desperate. It's really important to realize that you are extremely unlikely to be in a situation were you have to make a choice between lying and starving. Something that I've found out is that if you think you are desperate with no choices then people will take advantage of you, whereas if you are able and willing to just quit, you end up with nicer jobs. Unemployment is annoying, but its not the worst thing in the world.

2) One big problem is that if someone is paying you not to hear the truth, then there is a pretty good chance that they are detached from reality, and if they are detached from reality there's a good chance that they will quickly run out of money to pay you.

 

[DrRocket]

Actually I'm glad to hear this. While I'd prefer getting a job related to physics in some way, I'd be just fine doing engineering. But what sorts of engineering jobs are available to a particle astrophysicist?

If you demand a job that is directly related to your thesis, then your chances in industry are slim to one.

But if you are willing, and you seem to be, to do work that will take advantage of broad technical knowledge, then there are all sort of jobs that might be available to a particle astrophysicist.

I once had a colleague who had a PhD in elementary particle physics. He job was basically engineering. In one assignment he was the resident expert on the statistics of reliability. Then he quit to buy and run a bar. But that was his choice.

The bottom line is that I have found very few people in industry who actually work in the narrow speciality in which they were educated. But I know lots of people with all sorts of degrees who have applied their education in a broad way and are quite successful.

So, to be specific, your chances of an industrial job as a particle astrophysicist are just about zero. But your chances of finding a good job that will challenge you to apply a broad education and to learn some new areas are very good.

It will help a lot if you can explain technical issues to people with a wide variety of backgrounds -- i.e. speak English to management people who have not slightest idea about quantum mechanics or Hermitian operators.

FYI non-destructive testing groups in the aerospace industry have a high percentage of physicists in the population. Their job is to develop new and sophisticated means of inspecting high value systems, using techiques that include radiography, ultrasound, eddy current methods, etc.

 

[Dr Transport]

You've seen poor career counseling. The job prospects of physics Ph.D.'s are actually incredibly good. The problem is that people get career advice from people that have never been outside of academia, and have no idea what life is like on the outside.

Here is a story that will amplify the above quote:

When I was in grad school, a friend of my advisor asked that he and I go to a meeting that she had set up with the physics department. This individual had a company in town and tended to hire people with physics degrees, both bachelors and advanced degrees. She also had a PhD in physics along with her husband and other key members of the corporation. They also hired co-op students but were not too happy with their preparation. We all showed up to this meeting and they outlined a plan to work with the university and department to better prepare the students and make them more marketable. The department chair, who had NEVER set foot outside of academia listened then said "I'll tell you what the students need to learn to be more marketable...". At this point my advisors friend stood up and told him that they were leaving and how dare someone without an industrial background tell them what skills people needed outside of academia.

Nothing was said until the next semester when students in town who were co-oping started to loose their positions, i.e. they were not renewed. The students had not a clue as to why. They went back to the placement office to get new work when the head of the placement office started to make phone calls. Every answer was about the same, the students didn't have the necessary skills to continue. The next semester after that was graduation, and there were not any placements outside of the government labs nearby. Again, curious, the placement office started to make phone calls, the answer was the same. Another meeting was called, this time with the dean and a couple of the major research center directors and the physics department chair. Industry told the dean that they were offended that the department chair tried to tell them how to run their business and what skills were needed outside of academia and that they were not going to hire any graduates until the program was made better to their satisfaction.

Magically, after the next faculty meeting a committee was formed to investigate how to change the curriculum to better place the students. The faculty was out canvasing industry trying to get a handle on the skills needed by their students. The department chair remained in place, but had his hand slapped by the university, a year later he was promoted, but 3 years later he was forced to retire early in order to a harassment suit dropped.

A long story, but one that drives the point home about academics and their lack of reality.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Wow! Very interesting anecdote! I know you can't name the institution or company but may we at least get the state where this happened?

 

[arunma]

This is exacerbated byt he fact that your department, like mine, is probably pretty awful at actually letting you know what kind of opportunities there are for you. My department's idea of career counseling is to forward a half-dozen open post-doc positions around the dept. email once a month. Everyone is completely clueless about the real world, with some less-so than others: one of my committee members has kept contact with his friends who left the field (this is the guy who knows Mr. NRC).

Yeah, that's more or less how my department is too. Most of the astro and high energy people recite the meaningless platitude "if you're good, you'll find a job somewhere." Some of the condensed matter people have actually laughed at me when I ask about employment after grad school, and only offer the advice "don't major in particle astrophysics." They've done a good job of making me kick myself for doing this; if I could go back to first year I'd certainly join the CMP group with the most practical research I could find. But it's a bit late to switch, and as you say, no one seems to have any clue how the real world works.

If you demand a job that is directly related to your thesis, then your chances in industry are slim to one.

But if you are willing, and you seem to be, to do work that will take advantage of broad technical knowledge, then there are all sort of jobs that might be available to a particle astrophysicist.

I once had a colleague who had a PhD in elementary particle physics. He job was basically engineering. In one assignment he was the resident expert on the statistics of reliability. Then he quit to buy and run a bar. But that was his choice.

The bottom line is that I have found very few people in industry who actually work in the narrow speciality in which they were educated. But I know lots of people with all sorts of degrees who have applied their education in a broad way and are quite successful.

So, to be specific, your chances of an industrial job as a particle astrophysicist are just about zero. But your chances of finding a good job that will challenge you to apply a broad education and to learn some new areas are very good.

It will help a lot if you can explain technical issues to people with a wide variety of backgrounds -- i.e. speak English to management people who have not slightest idea about quantum mechanics or Hermitian operators.

FYI non-destructive testing groups in the aerospace industry have a high percentage of physicists in the population. Their job is to develop new and sophisticated means of inspecting high value systems, using techiques that include radiography, ultrasound, eddy current methods, etc.

I'm fine with not having an industry job as a particle astrophysicist. Actually I'd prefer not to. All of my engineering friends, who are now in industry with their BS degrees, actually get to calculate forces and moments of inertia on the job. This is the sort of stuff that got me interested in physics, but I don't do any of it these days. I wouldn't mind having a job where I have to sit down with a piece of paper and calculate something once in awhile. Really, anything where I'm not programming for programming's sake would be fine (as much as I hate programming, I'll even do it as long as there's some physics involved too).

Anyway, thanks for the info!

 

[Goldbeetle]

Dr Transport,
what were skills that those students were missing?

Here is a story that will amplify the above quote:

When I was in grad school, a friend of my advisor asked that he and I go to a meeting that she had set up with the physics department. This individual had a company in town and tended to hire people with physics degrees, both bachelors and advanced degrees. She also had a PhD in physics along with her husband and other key members of the corporation. They also hired co-op students but were not too happy with their preparation. We all showed up to this meeting and they outlined a plan to work with the university and department to better prepare the students and make them more marketable. The department chair, who had NEVER set foot outside of academia listened then said "I'll tell you what the students need to learn to be more marketable...". At this point my advisors friend stood up and told him that they were leaving and how dare someone without an industrial background tell them what skills people needed outside of academia.

Nothing was said until the next semester when students in town who were co-oping started to loose their positions, i.e. they were not renewed. The students had not a clue as to why. They went back to the placement office to get new work when the head of the placement office started to make phone calls. Every answer was about the same, the students didn't have the necessary skills to continue. The next semester after that was graduation, and there were not any placements outside of the government labs nearby. Again, curious, the placement office started to make phone calls, the answer was the same. Another meeting was called, this time with the dean and a couple of the major research center directors and the physics department chair. Industry told the dean that they were offended that the department chair tried to tell them how to run their business and what skills were needed outside of academia and that they were not going to hire any graduates until the program was made better to their satisfaction.

Magically, after the next faculty meeting a committee was formed to investigate how to change the curriculum to better place the students. The faculty was out canvasing industry trying to get a handle on the skills needed by their students. The department chair remained in place, but had his hand slapped by the university, a year later he was promoted, but 3 years later he was forced to retire early in order to a harassment suit dropped.

A long story, but one that drives the point home about academics and their lack of reality.

 

[BenTheMan]

Yeah, that's more or less how my department is too. Most of the astro and high energy people recite the meaningless platitude "if you're good, you'll find a job somewhere." Some of the condensed matter people have actually laughed at me when I ask about employment after grad school, and only offer the advice "don't major in particle astrophysics." They've done a good job of making me kick myself for doing this; if I could go back to first year I'd certainly join the CMP group with the most practical research I could find. But it's a bit late to switch, and as you say, no one seems to have any clue how the real world works.

I'm not sure why people are down on high energy theory, in this regard. You probably could have done condensed matter blah blah blah, but who cares? It's not interesting. The condensed matter experimentalists who spent their six years wishing they were good enough to do theory can console themselves with the fact that it may be easier to get a lab monkey job in industry with their experience. (Tell that to the next CME who laughs at you.)

The point is, you have to bust YOUR *** to get a job, figuring out what your skill set is, and improving it where need-be. I think this is probably true for most people, whether they be MBAs, PhDs or anyone who's trying to find a job in a buyer's market. Sure, you could have done condensed matter experiment, but then you'd be doing that for the rest of your life, and I'd rather stick a pin in my eye. Do you really think that you can't learn what you need to? Do you think that someone with an online degree from University of Phoenix would trade places with you? Would you trade places with someone from some state university with a B.B.A.?

There are some people who don't have trouble finding a job: but these are the same people who wouldn't have trouble doing ANYthing. Most of the people (within 2 sigma of the mean) actually have to work to find a job. That shouldn't surprise you. Buy a suit. Learn how to tie a tie. Get a LinkedIn account (PM me and I'll give you my name so you can look me up).

Most people who you talk to who actually have PhD's in physics aren't working as Wal-Mart greeters, if you know what I mean. It's just a matter of getting out into the world and working for what you want :)

 

[BenTheMan]

A long story, but one that drives the point home about academics and their lack of reality.

So...are you currently working in academia?

 

[Locrian]

It’s good to see at least “theoretical PhD” is being broken down into some different categories, because it doesn’t make the least bit of sense to try to value a “theoretical physics PhD”. The area of study has tremendous impact on its value in both a subjective sense and a measure of financial value. I don’t think most theoretical physics PhDs are worthless, but I think it can come pretty close (or worse!) if one isn’t careful.

If people want to argue that the kind of person that can get a PhD in physics can end up doing reasonably well in life if they keep their options open, I’m on board. However I know a few students that managed to become Dr. Soandso with no marketable skills in any line of work except teaching, and it doesn’t take very long teaching physics to realize it isn’t the same as doing physics. Unfortunately some of these people – imagine this! – went into physics because that’s what they wanted to do, and the harder they hung onto that dream, the worse things got.

And after four years of reading posts in this forum that say “Yea, physics is awesome, so long as you don’t plan to do physics!” the sentiment rings really hollow. There are some areas of study in physics that don’t have any industry application and that have little to no chance of academic employment. Those PhD’s might be worse than worthless – they might represent a serious loss in net present/future earnings combined with a sense of failure and lack of personal achievements. Anyone reading this thread that is still making decisions about graduate school would do well to read between the lines and start making smart decisions now, before they end up making hard ones later.

Just so we’re clear, I loved studying physics, and consider it one of the more rewarding things I’ve done in my life. Not everyone is so lucky.

 

[arunma]

It’s good to see at least “theoretical PhD” is being broken down into some different categories, because it doesn’t make the least bit of sense to try to value a “theoretical physics PhD”. The area of study has tremendous impact on its value in both a subjective sense and a measure of financial value. I don’t think most theoretical physics PhDs are worthless, but I think it can come pretty close (or worse!) if one isn’t careful.

If people want to argue that the kind of person that can get a PhD in physics can end up doing reasonably well in life if they keep their options open, I’m on board. However I know a few students that managed to become Dr. Soandso with no marketable skills in any line of work except teaching, and it doesn’t take very long teaching physics to realize it isn’t the same as doing physics. Unfortunately some of these people – imagine this! – went into physics because that’s what they wanted to do, and the harder they hung onto that dream, the worse things got.

And after four years of reading posts in this forum that say “Yea, physics is awesome, so long as you don’t plan to do physics!” the sentiment rings really hollow. There are some areas of study in physics that don’t have any industry application and that have little to no chance of academic employment. Those PhD’s might be worse than worthless – they might represent a serious loss in net present/future earnings combined with a sense of failure and lack of personal achievements. Anyone reading this thread that is still making decisions about graduate school would do well to read between the lines and start making smart decisions now, before they end up making hard ones later.

Just so we’re clear, I loved studying physics, and consider it one of the more rewarding things I’ve done in my life. Not everyone is so lucky.

Heh, I guess I'm not so lucky. While I'm doing experimental physics rather than theory, I feel that astrophysics is "worthless" enough (in the employment sense) that I really see what you're saying about the loss of present and future earnings. As much as I like physics, I have to say that deciding to major in it back in undergrad was probably the biggest blunder I've ever made. I hope the high schoolers and college freshmen who frequent this forum will think very seriously about going down this route, because you're basically gambling with your economic future just for the sake of satisfying intelletual curiosity.

But one thing I've figured out so far is that if you are decided on the physics PhD route, you shouldn't even think about looking outside of condensed matter.

 

[Niles]

But one thing I've figured out so far is that if you are decided on the physics PhD route, you shouldn't even think about looking outside of condensed matter.

I agree with you, but I think the competition in the theoretical CMP departments is high as well. But the numerical CMP-guys and the experimental X-ray department seem to be doing pretty good (especially the latter at my school).

 

[Rika]

I think it's much better to find sth more employable outside of physics that you are passionate about rather than forcing yourself into CMP. I guess PhD is for people who are interested in certain field, not for people who want to do anything "scientific". Experimental CMP is very interesting field and it would be sad if it was filled with frustrated wanted-to-be string theorists.

 

[arunma]

I think it's much better to find sth more employable outside of physics that you are passionate about rather than forcing yourself into CMP. I guess PhD is for people who are interested in certain field, not for people who want to do anything "scientific". Experimental CMP is very interesting field and it would be sad if it was filled with frustrated wanted-to-be string theorists.

Actually I think I'd find CMP to be more interesting than what I currently do. "Particle astrophysics" sounds really science-ish, but I spend most of my time programming. It's not so bad, since I am doing science at the end of the day. But most of my CMP friends are setting up samples and taking actual data every day. They also get to do a lot of calculations. I can't remember the last time I actually did a physics problem as part of my research, but the CMP folks actually put their quantum and Jackson E&M knowledge to use every day at work. If I could go back to first year of grad school I'd definitely do experimental CMP, and not just because it's so much more employable.

If I stay in academia after grad school, I'm definitely going to veer away from astrophysics and go into something where I'll actually sit down with a piece of paper and do a physics calculation at least once a month. Heck, maybe I'll see if someone is willing to take me on to do CMP (assuming this is even remotely possible). Any suggestions?

 

[BenTheMan]

There are some areas of study in physics that don’t have any industry application and that have little to no chance of academic employment. Those PhD’s might be worse than worthless – they might represent a serious loss in net present/future earnings combined with a sense of failure and lack of personal achievements.

This statement pretty much directly contradicts my personal experience, I can say. After spending some time as a string theory grad student, I can say that my former colleagues have gone on to do lots of interesting things, some of which pay ridiculously well, some of which pay pretty good, but all of which pay more than their advisors, except, of course, for those who stayed in physics.

 

[BenTheMan]

but I spend most of my time programming.

Marketable skill. Check

But most of my CMP friends are setting up samples and taking actual data every day. They also get to do a lot of calculations. I can't remember the last time I actually did a physics problem as part of my research, but the CMP folks actually put their quantum and Jackson E&M knowledge to use every day at work.

That's appealing to you?

If I stay in academia after grad school, I'm definitely going to veer away from astrophysics and go into something where I'll actually sit down with a piece of paper and do a physics calculation at least once a month. Heck, maybe I'll see if someone is willing to take me on to do CMP (assuming this is even remotely possible). Any suggestions?

Particle astrophysics would be what I would do if I stayed in academia. Man---you're not excited about the WMAP haze, COGENT/DAMA/CDMS, Pamela, Fermi, ATIC (...) ?

 

[arunma]

Marketable skill. Check

Good point. I'm sure a CSci undergrad could run circles around me, but I'll still be sure to put programming on my resume.

That's appealing to you?

Absolutely! I'd love to do a Jackson problem in the morning, and then go into the lab in the afternoon and see the data curve match my calculation. Stuff like that is what got me into physics (so maybe I should hate it, but I suppose I'm good at contradicting myself).

Particle astrophysics would be what I would do if I stayed in academia. Man---you're not excited about the WMAP haze, COGENT/DAMA/CDMS, Pamela, Fermi, ATIC (...) ?

Personally I think WMAP is awesome. But I deal with ground-based Atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (I'm in the VERITAS collaboration), so most of what I do is detector calibration. There's some cosmology to be done, but I only get to think about actual physics maybe once a month. As for Fermi, others in my group work on it. Maybe I'll try to get involved, it does sound pretty cool.

Don't get me wrong, particle astro can be fun. But it requires a lot of patience. The CMP guys can just go into the lab and cook up a sample in a few days, whereas I've got to wait for months of observations (and go down to take some of those observations myself) before I can get any meaningful science. Just the nature of the beast, I guess...

 

[twofish-quant]

I don’t think most theoretical physics PhDs are worthless, but I think it can come pretty close (or worse!) if one isn’t careful.

Personally, it's very hard for me to imagine a field of physics that doesn't have major industry application if you do a few things while you are getting the Ph.D. The fact that people aren't taught some skills that increases the marketability of their Ph.D. enormously is a problem with academic advising.

However I know a few students that managed to become Dr. Soandso with no marketable skills in any line of work except teaching, and it doesn’t take very long teaching physics to realize it isn’t the same as doing physics.

Curiously I don't. It may be that I lucked out and went into a program that doesn't look down on people getting marketable skills.

There are some areas of study in physics that don’t have any industry application and that have little to no chance of academic employment.

The problem is that without industry exposure, people can make totally incorrect estimations as to what those areas are. Doing radiation hydrodynamic calculations of supernova might be something that seems like it has no application, but it does, since the diffusion equations happen to be the same ones that you use in financial derivative models.

Anyone reading this thread that is still making decisions about graduate school would do well to read between the lines and start making smart decisions now, before they end up making hard ones later.

Sure, but the employment situation outside of academia is hardly gloom and doom.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The condensed matter experimentalists who spent their six years wishing they were good enough to do theory can console themselves with the fact that it may be easier to get a lab monkey job in industry with their experience.

You give physicists a bad name. IMO.

 

[twofish-quant]

Heh, I guess I'm not so lucky. While I'm doing experimental physics rather than theory, I feel that astrophysics is "worthless" enough (in the employment sense) that I really see what you're saying about the loss of present and future earnings.

Except it's not true. When I was being interviewed for my current employer, the interview questions ended up being about algorithms for general relativity calculations, because one of the hiring managers happened do their Ph.D. in numerical relativity. My boss's boss's boss's boss has a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

I hope the high schoolers and college freshmen who frequent this forum will think very seriously about going down this route, because you're basically gambling with your economic future just for the sake of satisfying intelletual curiosity.

Again, what you are saying is just not true. There are a few things that you need to do to make your Ph.D. marketable, but if you can learn differential geometry then figuring out how to write a decent resume isn't that tough. As far as economic future, I make fairly large amounts of money, and my boss's boss's boss's boss likely makes scary amounts.

One thing that's nice about a physics Ph.D. is that you have a lot of choices. If you get a physics Ph.D. and you then want to sell used cars, you can, whereas if you get a law degree, your choice of career is fixed because you have to pay off your loans. Whether you want to make $20K or $200K is pretty much up to you, and having the choice of wanting to make money or not make money is pretty nice.

But one thing I've figured out so far is that if you are decided on the physics PhD route, you shouldn't even think about looking outside of condensed matter.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but this is utter non-sense. Pretty much anything that requires that you deal with heavy numerical code will get you skills that are marketable. This includes N-body simulations, CFD, lattice gauge theory.

 

[BenTheMan]

You give physicists a bad name. IMO.

meh.

 

[Count Iblis]

Yes, I agree that you should be able to work almost everywhere with a theoretical physics Ph.D. There was even a theoretical physics Ph.D who did quite well in the show http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461607/Why-earth-want-work-Sir-Alan-Sugar.html"

Sir Alan's mentality hasn't changed in more than 20 years and he looks like a dinosaur. Even worse, he has a chip on his shoulder. Having left school at 16, he seems determined to humiliate publicly all those with a university education.

Although he constantly claims: "I don't care if you come from a council estate or you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth," there is no disguising his delight when candidates such as Tim, a Sandhurst-educated ex-Army lieutenant, fail.

"You're a total, absolute disaster!" he shouts. "Your luck has run out. You're a total shambles. You're fired."

 

[twofish-quant]

Unless you're at a top tier place (like Princeton, Stanford, etc.), you don't have a lot of contact with people who have left.

The astronomy department at UT Austin is pretty good about keeping track of alumni, and much of that is because of a single professor that has made it her job to keep track of this. The other thing to point out is that top-tier places are "top-tier" precisely *because* alumni are highly encouraged to help each other out.

Also keeping track of graduates reduces the fear factor since you end up with hard numbers about what people end up doing, and everyone that has gotten an astronomy Ph.D. from UT Austin has ended up with some decent job.

It's something that any department or school can do, which why it's surprising to me that more departments don't try to keep alumni connected or to gather these sorts of statistics. Something that helped me a lot was just knowing that so-and-so managed to get a job at a hedge fund. Now, I never was able to track down so-and-so, but just knowing that he got that job created a "well if he could do it, so can I" mentality.

One thing that puzzles me is that there seems to be a huge inconsistency in the criteria people are using for employment. The physics Ph.D. may not get you your dream job, but it will get you something decent, but because the physics Ph.D. won't get you the dream job, it's seen as useless and so the career advice is to do something else that won't get you the dream job anyhow.

Also, I don't see any conflict between being intellectually curious and making large sums of money or getting stable employment. One question that I find intellectually stimulating is to ask "so how does this money and power thing work anyway?" One reason I ended up in finance is that I found a lot questions seemed to involve this money thing, so I figured that my education would be very incomplete if I didn't learn about money. So in some sense, I'm a post-post-post-post-doc.

 

[Rika]

The physics Ph.D. may not get you your dream job, but it will get you something decent, but because the physics Ph.D. won't get you the dream job, it's seen as useless and so the career advice is to do something else that won't get you the dream job anyhow.

For some people starting with decent salary after 4 years od education is much better than being a cheap labor for the next 6 years.

People do phd in physics because they want to do physics not because they want to be quants or programmers (in my country you can do MSc in econophysics or computional physics). Some people prefer lab work over programming so BSc in applied science may be better choice. If you like quant job then good for you but don't expect people to say: "it doesn't matter if I can't get job in physics after 15 years of hard work, I still can be a prorgammer/quant, I am so happy" because having your dreams shattered is always painful but it's much more painful after 15 years (phd+post-docs) than after 4.

Science is not the only one interesting field in the world. Finding sth (that you are really passionate about) outside of it, doing it during your science education and making it your part - time job and backup plan is the best thing that one can do. It doesn't have to be extremely marketable or $$ but if you can make a living from it then that's fine.

 

[BenTheMan]

One thing that puzzles me is that there seems to be a huge inconsistency in the criteria people are using for employment. The physics Ph.D. may not get you your dream job, but it will get you something decent, but because the physics Ph.D. won't get you the dream job, it's seen as useless and so the career advice is to do something else that won't get you the dream job anyhow.

I would like to hear these people tell me what degree DOES get you the ``dream job''...

People do phd in physics because they want to do physics not because they want to be quants or programmers (in my country you can do MSc in econophysics or computional physics).

And people major in history because they like history, but I don't see too many historians floating around. But yesterday I found a recruiter who has a B.A. in History. How well did that degree prepare him for finding people to work on Wall Street? I did a summer research internship at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and one of the scientists there, who was researching moderating a fusion reaction, had a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering.

The point is, the probability that ANYBODY gets a job that is more or less completely unrelated to their undergrad degree is pretty high. Why on Earth would you expect that that would be any different for physicists?

I love physics, but I love physics because I think it's absolutely fascinating how you can describe Nature with relatively simple mathematical tools. The fact that you can write down a model of electrons and photons, and calculate a cross section, and then go and measure that cross section, and find exactly what you calculated is amazing. From there, it is only a short intellectual hop to try and understand financial markets in the same light. The fact that you can understand, qualitatively and quantitatively, the nature of the world financial markets using relatively simple tools is as fascinating to me as understanding nature using physics.

Arun---you just have to find what you really enjoy doing. It sounds like you're still a few years out from graduating. If you like doing calculations, and you like programming, try picking up a book on quantitative finance. If you like to solve problems, irrespective of the nature of the problem, check out the field of management consulting. If you want to punch a clock, work 40 hours a week for 40 years, and make a good salary, check out the government agencies I listed above. If you like to program, sit in on some upper level programming classes and check out google. (I have a friend (PhD from Stanford) who had very little programming experience, and got a job at IBM working on pattern recognition. Now he works for Facebook.) In this vein, there are also a lot of policy jobs right now trying to understand the internet as a public space, many of which google funds. If you really like pure research, check out the government labs.

The bottom line is, no matter what anyone here tells you, your PhD is not inherently worthless. What makes your PhD worthless is you---if you don't get out and hustle, just like everyone else in the world has to, you will end up unemployed and posting on physics forums all day long. The bad news is that people are not falling all over themselves to throw money at you. But guess what---unless you're one of the 1-in-a-1000 type physicists (you know who they are), no one ever will. This isn't just true in physics, this is true for anyone. If you want something, you generally have to work for it.

 

[twofish-quant]

For some people starting with decent salary after 4 years od education is much better than being a cheap labor for the next 6 years.

True.

People do phd in physics because they want to do physics not because they want to be quants or programmers (in my country you can do MSc in econophysics or computional physics).

Some people like me do Ph.D.'s in physics because I'm curious about how the universe works. Since "money" and "finance" are part of the universe, I'm pretty curious about those things too. There are also some very interesting connections between physics and computer science. Statistical mechanics and Shannon information, or general relativity and virtual functions in C++.

If you like quant job then good for you but don't expect people to say: "it doesn't matter if I can't get job in physics after 15 years of hard work, I still can be a prorgammer/quant, I am so happy" because having your dreams shattered is always painful but it's much more painful after 15 years (phd+post-docs) than after 4.

At some point you have dream new dreams. It's also important to dream your own dreams rather than someone else's. One of the ironies is that the reason I got interested in money is that I was pretty curious about the questions "so why *can't* I be a tenured faculty profession?" and that got me into thinking about finance and money. And then the question "so what do I need to get what I want?" also got me to money. If I had a huge bank account, I'd just camp out at some university, and just write astrophysics papers for the rest of my life. The cool thing is that it's going to happen eventually. Whether it happens at 45, 55, or 65, at some point, I'm just going to show up at university and then teach and write papers.

Science is not the only one interesting field in the world. Finding sth (that you are really passionate about) outside of it, doing it during your science education and making it your part - time job and backup plan is the best thing that one can do. It doesn't have to be extremely marketable or $$ but if you can make a living from it then that's fine.

Which gets back to the money thing.