Expert: Daniel Mazur - 10/7/2010

Question
QUESTION: Hi Daniel,

I do know, from our past discussions and from various other
sources online, that job prospects as a physicist at the
university are not so good.

I know that it's not a highly paying job too. But lately I
have been reading a few posts on the job prospects at
various websites and I also came across this article by a
professor of physics at the univ. of Washington, which is
titled, "Don't be a scientist". Here's the link :
http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
Is it actually THAT bad? I knew the prospects were bad, but
the way this article seems to put it and various other posts
I have read recently, have started not just concerning me,
but infact scaring me.

Will I then, as an aspiring physicist, be simply wasting my
time going through a Ph.D.?
I have heard all those cliches of "you don't do a Ph.D. for
the job, but for the sake of it"

That is true a great deal, but then what's the point if I
have to eventually end up working in some other industry or
finance, and if I won't even get the time to stay in touch
with physics? Wouldn't it be better to start off in these
other areas early on, if even after a Ph.D. you are most
likely to end up there?

The most important question I would like you to answer, is
there any difference between what a student of an average
university would go through and what a student of a top
school would go through after their Ph.D.'s?

Do Ph.D. pass outs from top schools like caltech or
stanford, and Ivy leagues too get kicked about as post docs
from place to place, for years?

If that's the case, I would reconsider my plans of being a
physicist, but if that's not the case, atleast I can still
hope to make it into top schools to be in a better situation
than many others.

Thanks,
Shikhin

ANSWER: Hi Shikhin,

the honest answer is yes, it is that bad. Only a decade ago the graduates from Ivy League, MIT, Caltech were receiving preferential treatment in the struggle for jobs, but even then (I started working on my PhD in 2003) the rumor was around that those Graduates were actually receiving poorer education and were being (ab)used as a "trained monkey" workforce during their PhD, because everybody knew they wouldn't leave.

Nowadays the scientific workforce is moving globally and it will hardly ever seize to do so. At the same time the scientific PhDs (as well as all other degrees) are granted to ever larger number of people. This "inflation of degrees" is driven politically, because politicians can promise "future higher salaries" to people through the promise of larger numbers of college/university graduates. The university departments are happy with more students, but they don't have as many jobs open. In a result, where they used to have a quiet, settled middle-class life (like the article author), scientists now have a repeated struggle for a job or funding. Yes, he is right about the struggle and the problem to settle down.

I still wouldn't swap my degrees for any other. I am happy to have been a nomad for 8 years. I feel that a few more years of uncertainty back in my home city, where I am moving to fairly soon (got a postdoc job with a fair prospect to gradually become a faculty member) will actually help me get the best out of myself professionally. Indeed my salary won't support a family and had I had one, I would worry about that more. As it is I am only concerned with paying my monthly bills and am fairly certain that I can switch to a more-earning job at any time before I turn 40. Working on "my own ideas" is less important for me than working on something that needs to be solved.

It is all about priorities. Of course you don't have to make a "promise of poverty and celibacy", but you must consider this when making your career decision. I think that the professor's suggestions about becoming a doctor, or a programmer or a lawyer are valid now, but in 10 years there will be overcrowding in those professions as well. And most of them will not be earning huge sums, most of them will not have their job safe. Programmers know about that already, medical doctors are starting to feel it.

The best bet, I think, is to become an engineer and perhaps take some managerial, business classes on the side. It will give you the best grounds for what the competition in the real world needs - you need a trade so you can be an employee, and you need business skills in order to spot your chances at starting up a business based on your previous experience, contacts, your designs and patents. So, this is my advice. The bottom line is that you need to judge all the downsides of being a scientific graduate as well as the ups. There is much more that could be said on the subject, but that would be already too much for your current purpose.

Good luck, whatever career you choose!
Daniel




---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the reply.
Considering the fact that I am already in an engg. course
and would be an engineer four years down the line, wouldn't
it be equally good to go in for a Ph.D. so as to fulfil my
passion instead of a business degree like MBA?

If I go in for a MBA right after my engg., I lose the chance
of being a physicist ever, of studying what I want to.

The employers who would employ the MBA guys would also be
willing to employ a guy with a Ph.D. in physics and a
bachelors in engg.? or wouldn't they?

And how much of preference would they give to an engineer
with an MBA over an Engineer with a physics Ph.D. when
employing them? The employers could be the typical ones who
employ guys with Business degrees like MBA, i.e.
corporations, big MNC's, banks etc...

And is there a possibility of my getting an academic job
much later on, after working for a few years in
industry/corporations?

Are post-docs absolutely necessary in today's time to be
eligible for a good academic tenure?


Thanks
Shikhin

Answer
Hi Shikhin,

[Q]wouldn't it be equally good to go in for a Ph.D. so as to fulfil my
passion instead of a business degree like MBA?
[A]This is a different question than I was answering last time. Last time I described, what I thought the most useful pick, if your priority was a decently paid job and a settled middle-class life-style. Then your engineering program is already heading that way, getting a Master's in engineering is just enough education for that. But if you are willing to accept the less paid, less settled career of a scientist then of course (!) I am 100% behind you with the Ph.D. See, I believe that one must follow one's desire in order to have chance at hapiness at work.

If I go in for a MBA right after my engg., I lose the chance
of being a physicist ever, of studying what I want to.
[A]I mentioned the MBA in a certain context, which was: Get an MBA to be prepared to become a private entrepreneur one day. If you develop something substantial in your early career as an engineer (or a scientist, but your area needs to be a very applied science) then you can, if you want to, go private and build a business of your own building products based on your invention. This again is the path to some decent wealth and life-style. If you have no desire to ever run a business, then an MBA has no use for you and you can safely disregard it.

[Q]The employers who would employ the MBA guys would also be
willing to employ a guy with a Ph.D. in physics and a
bachelors in engg.? or wouldn't they?
[A]As I said above, I had suggested MBA for your own benefit, should you desire starting a business. I don't think it will increase your market value after you already have an Eng.Bc. or a Ph.D. in science.

[Q]And how much of preference would they give to an engineer
with an MBA over an Engineer with a physics Ph.D. when
employing them? The employers could be the typical ones who
employ guys with Business degrees like MBA, i.e.
corporations, big MNC's, banks etc...
[A]If you want to do Research and Develoment, then MBA is worth almost nothing. An engineer with a physics Ph.D. doesn't have almost any job market advantage over an engineer with an engineering Master's degree. Not when landing your first job, for sure. After accumulating several years of R&D job experience you will have some advantage with a Ph.D., because that will make you fit for leadership (head of department, chief engineer etc.) positions. But only after years of normal engineering job experience, that is how it works.

[Q]And is there a possibility of my getting an academic job
much later on, after working for a few years in
industry/corporations?
[A]Yes, there is. However, if this is your desire, you should keep links to academia alive all the time. It is not as difficult as it may sound, I just mean that you must stay in touch. Perhaps come to universities to give invited lectures/seminars a few times a year. If you work in R&D, also try to get some publications out over your career (articles in professional engineering journals). Otherwise your transition to academia will be difficult.

[Q]Are post-docs absolutely necessary in today's time to be
eligible for a good academic tenure?
[A]There is no law to say so, but the practice says that pretty much, yes. If you have "connections" (good friends among the faculty) at a University somewhere and if you make yourself famous already during your Ph.D. research work (in a small specialist community would be enough) then you might be offered a tenure-track position without a post-doc. I see little chance of this happening otherwise.

Take care!
Daniel