"Don't Become a Scientist"

Graduate School
181

<p>
[quote]
They might actually prefer the physics/math major over economics, because physics/math require you to be smarter. Go ahead and major in physics. Or double major in physics and economics. You probably could pull it off.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your grades should be perfect when you apply.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I can see 2 major dangers associated with choosing physics over econ if your goal is to become a consultant. </p>

<p>The first would obviously be: what if you don't do well in physics? Yes, I'm well aware that Big Brother did say that he feels that he could do very well in physics. But what if he doesn't? I've known plenty of people who were highly accomplished in various disciplines in high school, and then went to college and got absolutely creamed - with some of them even flunking out entirely. High school and college performance are very different things. Notably, a strong high school performance is often predicated on the psychological boost you get from being a superstar within your high school. However, many students crumble when they go to college and realize that they're no longer a star - that they're just one among many highly qualified students. </p>

<p>Now of course, one could argue that the same thing could be true about economics as well, and that's true. However, the major difference is that economics (along with social sciences in general) tend to be grade-inflated relative to the natural sciences. Frankly, you don't really need to do that well in order to get quite decent grades in economics. In other words, economics can help you to protect your grades better. The sad truth is that if you major in physics and end up with a poor GPA, as many physics students do, your career is basically stalled. Economics is therefore the safer choice. Perfectly safe? Of course not. But safer. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You should talk to people who are actually at high level consulting/banking firms before you make a decision based on what you <em>think</em> they want. I know a guy who majored in Aerospace Engineering (actually got a PhD in aerospace) and he works at McKinsey. I know another person who got a PhD at CalTech in chemE and she also works at McKinsey. Neither of these people had any experience in economics. (McKinsey is probably the top consulting firm out there.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right there you've just highlighted the other major danger. Sure, McKinsey is quite well known for hiring people with unrelated degrees. A few other consulting firms (usual,ly other top ones) will do so as well</p>

<p>But what if you don't get an offer from one of these consultancies? Most people who want to work at McKinsey, regardless of what degree they have, won't get an offer. McKinsey tenders offers to only a small minority of the people that they interview. And plenty of people won't even get an interview. The same holds true for the other consulting firms who hire people with unrelated degrees.</p>

<p>Hence, you have to consider the possibility (indeed, the probability) that you won't get an offer from any of the top consulting firms. If you still want consulting, you're going to be looking at one of the smaller boutiques. Such boutiques are far more interested in a degree that is specifically related to what they do. That's simply because these boutiques, unlike McKinsey, just don't have the muscle to extensively train those people who have unrelated degrees. Hence engineering consulting boutiques will obviously favor engineering degrees. Policy consulting boutiques will favor people with degrees poli-sci/government. Biotech consulting firms will favor people with biology/biochem degrees. All of them will favor undergraduate economics degrees. But it's hard for me to think of any of them who would favor physics degrees. The same holds for banking. </p>

<p>Bottom line: economics is the risk averse choice over physics because of its flexibility. Such a degree allows you to pursue numerous broad objectives.</p>

<p>Truth be told, I don't think that's the way it should be. Specifically, with the notable exception of econometrics (for empirical research) and industrial organization (for strategy), I don't think that economics is a particularly useful major for consulting. But it doesn't really matter what I think, it only matters what the firms think. While McKinsey will certainly consider hiring a physics major, a lower-tier consulting firm probably will not. And you have to consider the probability that you won't get into McKinsey.</p>

182

<p>My assumption that BigBrother would do well in a physics major was based on his qualifying for the USAMO and USAPHo tests...if by some reason he gets in a physics major and can't do it, he can always drop whatever class he's taking and switch majors.</p>

<p>I really don't know how much economics applies to most consulting or Wall Street jobs. That's why I don't think there would be a preference. A Wharton business degree is much more practical, so that's why I think that would be preferred. I have known many people to get banking/consulting jobs out of colleges, and most of them majored in math, physics, or engineering. (I doubt this is representative because my friends were all very interested in science to begin with.) A Chem E grad from MIT recently wrote in the school newspaper how most of his classmates were cashing in by going to Wall Street. I also know a math/physics double major from University of Chicago who ended up going into banking.</p>

<p>If you really want to prepare your resume' for a consulting job, summer internships are key. That's where you get real experience which could actually be applicable to a future job.</p>

183

<p>Thank you for the responses guys.</p>

<p>collegealum, I did indeed qualify for the USAPhO just this past year. I've never qualified for the USAMO on my only 2 tries - I was always within 10 points away on my AMC + AIME composite, so I would say that my preliminary scores were fairly decent. I have qualified for both the Canadian and Asian Pacific Mathematical Olympiads twice, just so you know.</p>

<p>I think I have a psychological advantage in my new situation next year though, sakky. Trust me, I've had my @$$ kicked so many times in high school, that I kind of had to check my ego from time to time and just step up my game. It really is hard to be a superstar when everyone you associate yourself with is a USAMO qualifier + Science whiz. You can believe me when I say that I've been humbled quite a bit in my high school career - but I continue to try and do my personal best. The rest of your advice still holds though.</p>

<p>I don't actually have to declare a major anytime soon, so I'll probably try a couple classes in areas that I deem interesting, and I'll go from there. I'll consider that double major, collegealum.</p>

<p>What do you guys think about being a Mathematics major?</p>

184

<p>A math major would be just as impressive as physics IMO. It might set up better for economics grad school too if you chose to go that route. </p>

<p>I know that it's trite to say, but my opinion is that there will be opportunities to cash in and go to Wall Street as long as you do well in your major. So therefore you should major in what you are interested. You don't want to be feeling like you want to open up a number theory book 10 years from now when you're in your Wall Street job. It could affect your performance in that job if you aren't ready to move on. If you want to learn something which is less than practical, <em>now</em> is the time to do it. The opportunities you might have with a physics vs. math vs. economics degree will be pretty identical, and in fact the physics and math degree will always label you as the "genius" once you get that real job so in fact it could be a benefit. If you were considering turning down Wharton business major, then that would be a decision you might think twice about. However, I think the difference in post-grad opportunities between the three majors are pretty neglible. </p>

<p>If I was in your shoes, I would try an economics course or two in undergrad just to see if I liked it. But I would major in whatever field I found the most interesting as long as it was quantitative.</p>

<p>Another thing is that going to a top 5 math or physics grad school (HPMitCaltech) might set you up to be recruited by Wall Street, so that is something to think about, too. You wouldn't have to necessarily do the PhD, just spend a couple of years to get a masters and take some fun classes...</p>

185

<p>And what of computer programming? Does this seem to be a common career option among PhDs? My parents tell me that they're fine with letting me go on with a PhD - provided that I'm willing to accept a career in computer programming should i fail to get into academia. This is based on the assumption that PhDs are able to get into computer programming relatively easily. Is this common? Or not?</p>

<p>I know quite a few programmers with PhDs in the more theoretical sciences for one thing. But yet this thread seems to speak only of industry vs. academia vs public school teaching. Where did the discussion of programming go? (if programming jobs are indeed quite common?)</p>

186

<p>i love science no matter what... no matter how low the pay is... but im thinking about becoming a paleontologist does this still apply?</p>

187

<p>SamWise - this thread was (at one time) mainly about the "lab sciences" - like the various branches of chemistry/biology, physics, and so forth. </p>

<p>In paleontology you'll be looking mainly at university teaching/research positions, museum posts, and state and national park services. </p>

<p>University pay scales vary widely from a couple thousand per course taught for an adjunct to the low $30K range for new assistant profs on up to $100K or a little more for full professors at big (or wealthy) universities. </p>

<p>Museum pay tends to be rather low, and park service is (literally) all over the map.</p>

<p>Being a professor is just about the best job there is for people who love their field and have the intellectual stamina to get through the PhD, and then successfully play the tenure game. For insight on what is involved, check out the Chronicle of Higher Education chat boards:</p>

<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

188

<p>I haven't read like any of the previous posts but I just wanted to say, yeah I completely agree about how discouraging it is to become a scientist, and I might not know how bad it is yet but I love science and I'm going to give it a try- I think the whole "hey don't become a scientist" thing was completely unnecessary</p>

189

<p>As WillC's post alluded to, becoming a professor can be an extremely enjoyable job as long as you love your research and don't mind the ****ing contest like atmosphere of academia. I have met profs who love their jobs and genuinely relish every minute of it while others detest it. My father once had a prof who had been tenured at Yale, retired, moved to Southern California and taught at Long Beach State part time for pennies just because he loved teaching so much.</p>

<p>As such, becoming a professor (or a scientist, in the case of thsi thread's original meaning) is, like any job, made for some while not made for others. You just have to be sure you know what you are getting into.</p>

190

<p>Don't put too much stock in these arguments that "science should be left to the foreigners." </p>

<p>As baby boomers begin to retire en masse, I envision this glut of postdocs will move up. How many faculties around this country are made up of almost exclusively baby boomers? </p>

<p>Furthermore, with the increase of research facilities in Singapore, China, India and Europe, who suspects that recent trends of scientific immigration to the United States will continue at current levels? </p>

<p>As society changes and we enter into an information based economy, a college degree is a de facto requirement for professional jobs. Who will teach these (ever increasing enrollment sizes) young students? </p>

<p>The NIH budget has increased from 13 billion dollars in 1998 to almost 30 billion dollars now. Biotech has exploded in the same period of time with doubling and tripling market capitalizations. Pharmaceutical is one of the largest industries in our current economy. Healthcare is enormous. </p>

<p>Surely, (if you're still reading my rant) you can tell that this is a heated issue for me and I don't buy into this pessimistic argument that nothing is as good as it was during the 'good ole days'</p>

191

<p>gjanie29, a master’s degree doesn’t really qualify to make an informed judgment. It will take 3 to 5 years in a PhD program to truly understand what this professor is saying. In my department, I only truly know 1 graduate that is happy. I don’t think a single postdoc is happy with there position. Sometimes that’s fine when the person is a truly talented researcher and his/her belief in the impact of the work exceeds their personal concerns. Those take the next faculty openings. Most others will remain postdocs for 10+ years.</p>

192

<p>You’ve just replied to a thread whose last reply was posted almost two years ago.</p>

193

<p>traditionally those who get their PhD in the sciences do a post doc and somehow wind up the academia. nowadays there are other avenues and i don’t know if this was mentioned already but i suppose most go into the biotech industry and others go into consulting and law firms. some people also wind up doing some sort of scientific writing and administrative work. i think there are plenty of other opportunities when you get your PhD.</p>