<p>I largely disagree with Dr. Katz, although there are certain pieces of what he says that I do not dispute. </p>
<p>However, let me pick out the following sections</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, you don't go into science to get rich. So you choose not to go to medical or law school, even though a doctor or lawyer typically earns two to three times as much as a scientist (one lucky enough to have a good senior-level job).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I've said countless times, if you just want money, then don't get your PhD. And, frankly, don't get a medical degree or law degre either. Instead, just get an MBA and go into investment banking or related fields like private equity or venture capital. Seriously. Those guys make far far more money than scientists, doctors, or lawyers. Top Wall Street investment banks now pay 300k (salary + bonus) to start, right after getting their MBA. Business Week has reported that private equity firms pay top MBA's 450k and equity to start. And remember, those compensation figures are just * starting * figures. No need to grind your way through a low-paying medical residency right after you get an MD. While first year law firm associates can get paid quite well, it's still not as good as the money that bankers make. Banker pay packages increase very quickly as you get experience. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyone who does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue another career. This will spare you the misery of disappointed expectations. Young Americans have generally woken up to the bad prospects and absence of a reasonable middle class career path in science and are deserting it. If you haven't yet, then join them. Leave graduate school to people from India and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse. I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The first thing I would point out here is, while getting a PhD in science may not be the most lucrative thing in the world, hey, it's still far more marketable than getting a PhD in the arts. If you REALLY want to talk about people having their lives 'ruined', what about those people who are getting PhD's in art history? </p>
<p>Secondly, as has been pointed out here in this thread, what's so bad about people with PhD's going to industry? You don't HAVE to be a professor, you know. Almost all PhD disciplines in the sciences have some private-sector employers. True, you may not get to work on the problems you want, you don't enjoy academic freedom, but hey, join the club. The vast majority of people with any kind of degree (bachelor's degree, MD, JD, MBA, etc.) also usually don't get to work on the problems they want or enjoy any sort of academic freedom either. At least with a Phd, you MIGHT get an academic career and thus enjoy academic freedom (once you get tenure). So at least you have a chance. If it doesn't work out, fine, screw it, oh well, just get an industry job. </p>
<p>Some might say that getting a PhD in physics puts you in worse shape than a PhD in chemistry or biology (as the latter 2 often times allow you to get a job in the private sector in the life sciences). This might be true, but it doesn't leave you badly off either. Unless your physics specialty is deeply theoretical or has to do with astrophysics, you can usually find an industry job that is related to your work. For example, those who pursue AMO (Atomic, Molecular, Optical), quantum, plasma, or condensed matter as their physics specialty can generally find a materials science/nanotech company to work for. It doesn't even have to be a startup (although there are plenty of startups who do that). Large semiconductor companies like Intel could basically be considered a materials science/nanotech company, as semiconductor companies are starting to reach nanotech dimensions. You could work for the R&D divisions of large chemical companies like DuPont or BASF. </p>
<p>And besides, who says that you have to stay in your field of study anyway? I know that if you get a Phd, you obviously want to stay. But you don't HAVE to stay. After all, plenty of people end up in jobs that have nothing to do with what they studied. This is obviously most prevalent in undergrad, but happens even in grad school too. In the case of the sciences, especially physics, plenty of newly minted PhD's go off to investment banking or hedge funds, where they can make boatloads of money by applying their quantitative skills. They can become management consultants. I've known people who have gotten technical PhD's and immediately joined McKinsey or other management consulting firms. </p>
<p>And what of just teaching in high school after you get your PhD? I know people who have done that. What's wrong with that? Again, nothing says that you HAVE to try to become a professor after you get a PhD. If what you love is teaching, then what's so bad about teaching in high school? I know that plenty of school districts would LOVE to hire people with PhD's, especially PhD's in technical subjects as many school districts just don't have enough highly qualified science teachers, to the point that many districts are providing signing bonuses and boosted salaries for science teachers. So why not consider doing that, just as a backup? Dr. Katz talks about how you can't support a family on a science PhD, but last time I checked, high school teachers aren't exactly starving. Sure, they're not rich, but it's not a bad lifestyle, especially considering that they get the whole summer off, they get winter break and spring break off, that many school districts offer tenure after a few years, which effectively makes you unfireable, and that the fringe benefits you get for working as a teacher tend to be pretty good - often times far better than what you would get in the private sector. So you add in the salary boost you would get for being qualified in math/science plus another salary boost for holding a PhD, plus teacher benefits, plus the fact that you don't work the whole year (you get the whole summer off) and I would say that that's a pretty decent lifestyle that is available to anybody with a science PhD. Again, you won't be rich, but you'll live a lifestyle that is, frankly, a lot better than what the majority of Americans have. I know a lot of people who wouldn't mind earning a solid middle-class salary while getting the summer off and having the possibility of tenure. </p>
<p>I know my high school REALLY needed some strong physics teachers. Frankly, of the ones that were there, I think less than half of them even had a physics bachelor's degree, and obviously none of them had a graduate physics degree. Hence, a lot of them just didn't know very much physics and so weren't in a position to teach their students much. Hence, it seems to me that that's a prime opportunity for somebody. </p>
<p>To summarize, if you get a science PhD, you have a shot at entering academia, which is your dream job, especially if you eventually win tenure. Maybe you really will be one of those people who gets picked up on a tenure-track position right after graduation without having to endure multiple post-docs. But if you can see that you're not going to get that tenure-track job, oh well, then you can consider an industry job. Or in the worst case scenario, you just go become a high school teacher. I really don't think it's that bad.</p>