Hypography Science Forums: Erasmus00 - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

Qfwfq, on 26 February 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

I think part of my outlook is colored by the fact that most of my cohort finished a phd between in 2008 and today. Science took a huge beating in the recession.

Ultimately, the "first world" is shifting away from a manufacturing economy and more and more to a service economy. If you don't build stuff, you don't need scientists working to develop newer products. There seems to be plenty to do in economics, and still some to do in computer science, but knowing and understanding physics is a total career dead end. I imagine the crunch in physics will eventually spread to other fields. Its already spreading to biology and chemistry.

But the thing I still don't understand is why career counselors/academics/teachers all push students toward careers in science.

maddog, on 21 February 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

But here is the thing- if you get a phd you WON'T get more academic work. You'll find yourself on the other side of a phd working the same job you are doing now, having sacrificed several years of earnings. A phd in theoretical physics doesn't open many doors, and the ones it does open tend to be pretty awful (adjuncting for 2k a class),

Most of my friends with phds in physics (myself included) are working for insurance companies doing stats work we could have done after undergrad. Do you think you would have been happier working in insurance than you were doing engineering work? Because thats the trade off- you get to learn a lot of stuff, but you won't be able to find a job that actually uses any of it.

Quote

If only. The best I can find is a job that requires a moderate amount of undergrad level statistics. I feel like I've learned all this stuff just so that I can slowly forget it.

So whats the point of encouraging people to pursue science? Why not be open with people 'science is neat, and its a good way of looking at the world, but its an awful job so you shouldn't pursue it.' The only people I could potentially encourage to get a phd are people who don't care even a little about career prospects. If you are independently wealthy/retired and want something to keep your brain active and don't plan to make a full time job out of it, science is fun. If you want to feed a family, science is a huge, huge mistake.

lawcat, on 15 February 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

What are you talking about? Academics are NOT recession proof. Science funding was the first area of discretionary spending to get cut when the deficit exploded. When funding gets cut, jobs go away. Most academics scientists are contingent labor, which means they are the first to go when the soft money dries up. When the SSC was cut in the 90s, hundreds of particle physicists lost their jobs. Most never had another job in science. You seem to have a very idealized view of the academic labor market. Go to your local university and talk to the adjunct professors, the science postdocs and the soft money positions. Academia has a fairly large underclass, much of it in the sciences. Most of them will never get a full time academic position.

And what are you basing this advice on? How long should I tough it out? If I'm still not gainfully employed after another 3 years on the market do I keep going? Right now, I am loosely acquainted (through conferences,etc) with about 50 people in my same position. Would you suggest they "tough it out"? Maybe 1 in 10 physics phds will get to be academics. I've met several people in their early 40s who still only make 35k a year or so. They are still hoping for that tenure track position. Do you think the people who told them to keep 'toughing it out' were really helping them?

My pedigree is better than most, so lets say I have a 1/4 shot of a tenure track position. Would you, personally, spend the next few years working for 25k for a 1/4 shot at a tenure track position? I have a physics phd and several years experience- what sort of salary do you think I should be trying to command? I can keep 'toughing it out' for a 1/4 chance at a liberal arts position and 40k a year, or I can give up on science and take the actuarial job I could have had after undergrad and make nearly twice that.

lawcat, on 15 February 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Not all STEM phds are created equal. Economics, computer science and engineering phds are very different fields than science/math- if you have industrial demand your career options are tremendously expanded. Its also why economics and CS phds make 50% more than physics phds do when they teach at liberal arts colleges. No one in engineering/economics/CS does a postdoc, scientists usually postdoc for 5+ years (many professional societies use postdocs as a measure of a weak labor force instead of unemployment). Its a totally different job market. The majority of economics, engineering and CS phds end up in their field, according to the NSF. The majority of science phds don't.

You should ask your math phd friend how many of his/her friends from grad school ended up with jobs in academia. The company I work with has four math phds (one from Harvard, one from Princeton, and two from California Berkeley. all of them did postdocs at MIT) that work as straight actuaries- i.e. they got their phd, couldn't find any research work and took the actuary tests.

I know 30+ physics phds, 5 are doing some sort of research (2 academic). The rest aren't.

I have no problem encouraging careers in engineering or economics (thats why I suggested careers in engineering are much better in my previous post). Its specifically science I am discussing. Science is a dead end, and encouraging a kid to pursue a career is asking them to throw a decade of their prime earning years away. To be clear, a large part of the problem with doing a phd in science is that you aren't pursuing a career in engineering- its a huge opportunity cost.

lawcat, on 15 February 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

I have been, for several years. I've spent the last few years applying to every university with a position for which I'm vaguely qualified. When do you decide to see the writing on the wall? Every single person stuck in postdoc limbo thinks "I just need to keep applying" and suddenly they are 40 years old, they've never made more than 40k a year, they have no savings, and NOW they are trying to switch jobs.

I HAVE worked as an adjunct professor at a community college for the princely sum of 3k for a 4 credit course. If you manage to get a full teaching load, you can make maybe 20k a year, no benefits. The janitors make more than that. I certainly can't start a family on that little pay.

Basically, careers in science suck- the median scientist in this country makes less than someone with just a highschool degree. If you know a kid who wants to be a scientist, tell him its a fun hobby but he is better off managing a fast food restaurant. If you have any math or science talent, a degree in engineering or even actuarial science will make you lots more money with much less effort- and as a bonus you'll get to do the job you trained to do. There are lots of jobs a smart person can do that will actually earn a living- science is not one of them. Getting the phd just means you'll be competing for jobs with people a decade younger and trying to dodge the label of "overqualified."

If you are from India or China and a phd represents a chance to immigrate, more power to you. If you are from a first world nation, a phd is just a way to throw away the earning potential your undergrad degree represents.