<p>I heard from my fellow labmates that embarking on research yields little $, so little to the point of being near minimum wage.. Is this true?! I will definitely go into research, but I do have a family to support.</p>
<p>Depends on how well you do, what area, etc. The thing about research is that you probably won’t get paid per hour, and you’ll likely word well over 40hrs/week. The total amount of money you’ll make is survivable, but dividing it up over the hours, it may not pay a huge amount :P</p>
<p>Though I should probably let someone like Mollie take this one, as I’m an undergrad and don’t have first-hand knowledge.</p>
<p>Darn… I guess I can’t do what I love and make a living at the same time.</p>
<p>It definitely depends on how well you do and your area of specialization, exactly as PiperXP said. Laboratory technicians for the most part definitely earn near minimum wage but as professor or assistant professor, to the best of my knowledge, you receive your yearly wage mostly through your own research grant that comes from government (and perhaps private organizations?). How much money you earn depends on your ability to successfully apply for funding, which in turn depends on how well your lab performs, the area of specialization, etc. In a way, I feel that as researchers, you are almost hiring yourself.</p>
<p>The most frustrating part for many people is not the wage but rather the lack of job security. When economy suffers, government pulls back on the amount of money delegated to science research to focus on the more pressing issues, so it becomes so much harder to apply for grants, without which, unless you’re tenured or something similar, within a few years you’ll no longer have a job. I don’t know, that’s just my perception of the career as a college freshman.</p>
<p>
Not necessarily. You can probably combine it with another, more stable job (as in if you specialize in a certain medical field, you can definitely conduct research related to that field while also holding a M.D. job) so that one helps you maintain a source of income while the other provides a sense of enjoyment and satisfaction.</p>
<p>Oh, for heaven’s sake.</p>
<p>Minimum wage in Massachusetts for a year is $16,000. As a PhD student in biology, I am earning $30,000 this year.</p>
<p>Even as a graduate student, one is earning much, much more than minimum wage, and it’s absolutely absurd to say that $30,000 a year isn’t a living wage. My first year of graduate school, my husband and I lived in Boston on only my stipend, and we did just fine. We managed to pay for part of our wedding and put away money for a house down payment.</p>
<p>The professors at Harvard and MIT own houses in nice parts of Boston. Although they’re generally not wealthy (unless they consult for outside companies), they are perfectly comfortable and have more money than they need.</p>
<p>HAHAHAHAHA</p>
<p>Okay, so if you wanna go into a life of research, you’re going to make sacrifices because that’s exactly how much you’d love science. You shouldn’t care too much about money, but about the scientific discoveries you’d make. It’s still manageable though, but you’d make a lot less and you probably won’t be able to give your family as much time or financial support as you’d like. I’m speaking as the child of researchers.</p>
<p>But I think it’s funny how somebody with a PhD can earn less than an intern (with no degree at all) in a consulting company. LOL</p>
<p>Lucifer, for some reason I cannot associate “luciferlied” and “family”</p>
<p>Anyways, it depends on what type of position. I know (just from people I know, not statistics) that people have made 70-120k on research. I’m sure that time has played a role in the salary; the numbers I’ve posted are people with 5+ years experience. Hope this helps</p>
<p>Not true at all. Engineering/CS PhD’s working in research labs at major IT corporations (e.g. Microsoft, IBM, HP) have some of the top salaries in the current job market. And, yes, they really do research (although not exactly the kind of research you typically think of when you picture a physics/chemistry/biology lab).</p>
<p>If you prefer “pure research” combined with teaching, academia is actually a good option. University professors don’t make a lot of money (compared to investment bankers !), but their profession has several advantages including tenure and independence. You have to make the cut first though , i.e get a tenure-track assistant professor position and then succeed in your tenure review. That is by no means trivial (in fact, it may be pretty hard).</p>
<p>
That’s because your getting paid to get an education that you can use later on.</p>
<p>If you want really big bucks right out of college, go play in the NBA. But if you like research and want to do that for living, you won’t make quite that much. </p>
<p>Like any profession you will have to work your way up. But I can tell you that in my field (biotech research in private companies), good scientists with a Ph.D. and 10 or 15 years of work experience routinely earn a 6-figure salary. It’s not wealthy but it’s WAY beyond minimum wage.</p>
<p>If you prefer “pure research” combined with teaching, academia is actually a good option. University professors don’t make a lot of money (compared to investment bankers !), but their profession has several advantages including tenure and independence. You have to make the cut first though , i.e get a tenure-track assistant professor position and then succeed in your tenure review. That is by no means trivial (in fact, it may be pretty hard).</p>
<p>One of the least attractive things about this is that not only is your pay lower than you could be making while doing other things, but also the nature of the position: temporary. Typically a postdoc has to move on after a period at a university, most especially postdocs at good schools which aren’t in any hurry to push them up the ladder. There are definitely easier ways to “settle down” … so the issue is not just about pay.</p>
<p>Of course, on the flip side, sticking around and working at a great university is a pleasure, and my impression is also that many postdocs get a fair bit of freedom, given they don’t have a ton of grad students under them, but of course they have to grind it out if wishing for their career to advance at all.</p>
<p>That’s because your getting paid to get an education that you can use later on.</p>
<p>Depending on the nature of your education, you may not get to <em>use</em> it as much as you’d like.</p>
<p>If your doing biological research, then going into pharmaceutical can make you a lot of money. But that depends on your personal philosophy. In academia the works you do are publicized, but you get less $$. In pharmaceutical industry, your work remains the sole property of the company, and no one knows you made a discovery. But you get paid much more.</p>
<p>
I would say that, more accurately, you’re getting paid to continue your training in research. As collegealum314 has pointed out on another thread, grad school (and any subsequent postdoctoral work) doesn’t really involve getting an “education”, unless you define education in an extremely narrow way. Most people refer to it as training. </p>
<p>So in the same way that a physician is trained via an arduous process that involves low pay and long hours for many years, a scientist is trained in graduate school and then as a postdoctoral fellow before starting his or her own lab.</p>
<p>^ To add a tiny bit, this is possibly why one of the points in a rather popularly-circulated article by a CMU professor regarding his view on CS grad school admissions (and grad schol in general) is that someone who pursues a PhD and doesn’t do any form of research ever again in his life largely wasted his/her time. It is not an education that one uses, it is the nature of the training achieved through the path of becoming an expert on something narrow. Some job descriptions can call for PhDs even if unrelated to the exact thesis topic or even the ultra-specialized field of study, because the nature of arduous research-training achieved may be desirable itself.</p>
<p>^can one choose to do engineering, get a job, and then go back for a PhD?</p>
<p>^ Yes, but keep in mind there will likely be questions about your intentions to do a PhD. If for instance you want to deeply understand something which will help you in your job, that could be one good reason, and sometimes companies will actually tell you to get your PhD. More common perhaps is their telling you that you can go get your master’s degree if you wish.</p>
<p>I’ve had thoughts about being old and grouchy and wanting to do my PhD in some interesting field after having worked for many years, just as a fantasy thing because I feel like doing something like that in life, but I don’t know how practical that would be, and/or how willing a program would be to indulge such a fantasy. Although, a lower tier school may be more likely to do so (total shot in the dark, not sure myself).</p>
<p>I’m a tenured academic, and my perspective is admittedly anecdotal. But here’s my take:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In some cases, a PhD can be extraordinarily useful, even if an individual abandons the idea of research. I know several individuals – one this past year – who established their own successful businesses, largely on the basis of experience, a good business plan, and this degree. Quite a bit of research has practical applications, and sometimes an entrepreneurial person can think of ways to apply them after having spent 5 years or so in the field. </p>
<p>Another reason I disagree with this statement has to do with real, authentic passion. If you love research, then the opportunity to devote 5 years to original work in an academic field is not one you should give up lightly. It’s like saying, “If you never travel ever again in your life, then spending four or five years traveling the world is a waste of your time.” The journey itself is worthwhile.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If anyone views research and publication as something they’d have to “grind out,” then they should probably never start down the path toward a PhD. On the other hand, if you love research and writing, go right ahead. You will continue to engage in research and writing throughout an academic career without ever feeling that you have to “grind it out.” Instead, you will always be doing the things you most want to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lower tier school would be far more likely to admit an older PhD candidate, but probably without financial support. It’s definitely possible to take a few years to work and come back to get a PhD from a top-tier school, but it’s easier in some fields than in others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not as weird in engineering to work in the field for a couple of years. In fact, people do it in science (laboratory, not theoretical) as well and get into the top schools. It strengthens your lab experience, which is crucial to success in grad school.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t recommend it unless your work experience relates to something being done at the grad school you are applying. </p>
<p>For math or theoretical physics, I wouldn’t recommend waiting. Sometimes people work consulting positions for a couple of years to put some money in the bank, but I would think twice about doing that if you’re serious about your field. You’re going to start forgetting stuff.</p>
<p>Another thing–if you get a PhD at a top school (top 5 or so), getting a well-paid consulting position is not a tough thing to do. This is especially true if your undergrad pedigree is impressive as well. So it’s not like you are locked into a life of poverty. One canard I’ve found that seems to be common among kids at top schools: they are told by their parents that it’s an either/or thing. Either choose the apparently “lucrative” career from the get-go or you’re going to be poor. So people choose engineering because, as “what can you do with an undergrad degree in science?” That’s true, but it’s a bit like saying, “what can you do with 3 tires?”</p>
<p>The salary of a lab technician or someone with a B.S. shouldn’t be relevant to anyone on this thread. </p>
<p>Concerning mathboy’s idea about going back to grad school in another department just for fun: One thing about grad school is that being a known quantity to a dept. or a school is a valuable thing. If you start a PhD program and are doing well but then decide to leave to make money, you will be likely welcomed with open arms if you want to come back. If you are in mathematics but want to do something different later (but also theoretical), a department may admit you. Also, if you are getting a degree on a whim later on, I assume you would have enough money in the bank that you could do this and not be concerned about the income. If so, you could work in that department for 6 months; then, getting in would be much easier because the dept. would be familiar with the quality of your work.</p>
<p>@CalAlum - I myself do think (along with most non-professors, it seems) that the best reason to get a PhD is precisely wanting one, in line with your travel analogy. I guess a lot of professors seem to be of the mindset in the article I mentioned - especially when they assess whether or not you should go to grad school at all.</p>
<p>Regarding the notion of “grind” - I think I was thinking of how some foreign greats have labeled US academia as being more publication-happy and demanding in that area than they would approve. If their sentiments are not baseless, then admittedly there would be a notion of “grind” independent of loving research. This is probably one of the many quirks that those pursuing research careers must awaken to. But I’m no professor, and am attempting to cite the opinions of others more - feel free to correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Under what position could one work in the dept if, presumably, not yet a grad student (i.e. looking to be admitted to pursue the whim)? And yes, it would likely be a theoretical field in my case, I can’t imagine starting to work in a lab all of a sudden when older. A lower tier school would obviously be fine for the purposes.</p>
<p>I don’t have any numbers (do you?), but don’t most PhDs work in industry along side their lower-paid non-PhD colleagues? Aren’t beginning PhD researchers in, e.g., the bio industry paid very well?</p>