"Don't Become a Scientist"

<p>This is kind of scary, and definitely pushes me to go into engineering rather than pure physics (im still in high school, and have been debating between the 2). I would really love to end up a professor of physics or engineering, but if I couldn't make that I would be happy doing research in non-academia (I would love working in a government research lab and they pay well). Oddly enough, it doesn't take a PhD to do research in engineering anymore. Most of the research scientists at NASA when I interned there had MEng's and worked in applied research. I would have to kiss any hopes of working on string theory goodbye though...</p>

<p>And btw, I have to say I can't fully disagree with a lot of the things in Katz's papers, and I think I would rather shoot myself in the foot than teach high school. Not to offend anyone, but unless I was teaching quantum at TJ, I would hate it. I haven't had the greatest experiences with public high schools...</p>

<p>
[quote]
And btw, I have to say I can't fully disagree with a lot of the things in Katz's papers, and I think I would rather shoot myself in the foot than teach high school. Not to offend anyone, but unless I was teaching quantum at TJ, I would hate it. I haven't had the greatest experiences with public high schools...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, PhDs don't have to teach high school if they were strongly against it; there are other backup jobs and careers that a PhD holder could have. Sakky was using that career as an example; it is closely related to the responsibilities of teaching and research that you'll have as a professor. I personally have nothing against teaching high school, although I would like more information about the career before I decide it as a backup (I want a PhD in computer science, by the way).</p>

<p>What Sakky (and Dr. Katz) was saying is that there is more to becoming a professor or researcher than getting a PhD. In some fields, it's almost like the lottery. There are more PhDs produced per year than tenure-track assistant professorships available for that year. Naturally, a sizable amount of people won't have tenure track jobs. And even if you went on the tenure track, tenure is still difficult to obtain. What are they going to do? That's what backup plans are for. There is industry, lecturer positions, researcher positions, community college professorships and instructorships, and, of course, high school. You can start your own business, make money, and use the profits to do your own research and prove the universities who rejected you wrong. I don't know. Whenever you are in a lion's mouth, you try to get out of it.</p>

<p>I like this thread. Even though I'm only a sophomore in college now, I am much more aware of the actual odds of becoming a professor or industrial researcher. There is so much written on the web about graduate admissions and about getting through graduate school, but not much about what you do after earning your PhD. A PhD is a huge accomplishment, but I think we PhD seekers and earners get a false feeling of invincibility. But earning the best professorships and research positions require that we out-qualify other PhD holders; no easy feat. I won't these hard facts stop me from pursuing a PhD in computer science. However, I am aware of the odds, and I won't be angry if it doesn't work out. Perhaps disappointed, but I'll get over it because I knew the odds.</p>

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>You misunderstood the gist of my post. I wasn't saying that teaching high school was NOT a viable option for PhD's. I was just stating that many indivudals with PhD's would never do it, just because they would consider it completely under them.</p>

<p>I totally agree that teaching HS is not that bad of a gig, especially at a private HS or somewhere where kids are actually paying to be there. You make a modest salary, but you get lots of time off and youre helping to form young minds!</p>

<p>The real problem, in my opinion, is that alot of folks who go into science PhD's do it because they think they will end up with tenure at a university, or with a sweet job in the industry. Life doesn't work that way.</p>

<p>I'm with Sakky. Optimism bias sets people up to get crushed. People just overestimate their own abilities and underestimate the abilities of others. Except for the lucky few who are in the top 10% of "success" the rest will have to make do with something less. As a risk averse person I went with a path that I would enjoy and had a relatively high median level of "success".</p>

<p>
[quote]
You misunderstood the gist of my post. I wasn't saying that teaching high school was NOT a viable option for PhD's. I was just stating that many indivudals with PhD's would never do it, just because they would consider it completely under them.</p>

<p>I totally agree that teaching HS is not that bad of a gig, especially at a private HS or somewhere where kids are actually paying to be there. You make a modest salary, but you get lots of time off and youre helping to form young minds!</p>

<p>The real problem, in my opinion, is that alot of folks who go into science PhD's do it because they think they will end up with tenure at a university, or with a sweet job in the industry. Life doesn't work that way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, and I think that that's the real problem. The problem is not so much with getting a Phd per se, but rather with the unrealistic expectations and the accompanying pride that seems to come with it. That is where I can agree with Katz.</p>

<p>Where I disagree with Katz is that many of the problems that he cited exist in the other fields he recommends. For example, he recommends law school, ignoring the fact that there are plenty of lawyers out there who aren't practicing the kind of law that they really like, but instead are in boring, relatively low-paid jobs. Or perhaps a better comparison could be made to the population at large. Somebody with a PhD in science, even if he specialized in something highly theoretical, is still better off than the vast majority of Americans out there for the simple fact that plenty of Americans don't even have a degree at all, and even of those that do, plenty of them have degrees in fundamentally unmarketable majors like Art History or Leisure Studies (yes, Leisure Studies is an actual major). </p>

<p>
[quote]
What Sakky (and Dr. Katz) was saying is that there is more to becoming a professor or researcher than getting a PhD. In some fields, it's almost like the lottery. There are more PhDs produced per year than tenure-track assistant professorships available for that year. Naturally, a sizable amount of people won't have tenure track jobs. And even if you went on the tenure track, tenure is still difficult to obtain. What are they going to do? That's what backup plans are for. There is industry, lecturer positions, researcher positions, community college professorships and instructorships, and, of course, high school. You can start your own business, make money, and use the profits to do your own research and prove the universities who rejected you wrong. I don't know. Whenever you are in a lion's mouth, you try to get out of it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's why I think that if you are going to get a Phd, you ought to pay heed to how marketable your research is to industry. Obviously things can change, and nobody can predict perfectly what will be marketable in the future. But general observations can be made. For example, in the case of physics, anything to do with theoretical astrophysics or cosmology is probably never going to be marketable (which is probably why Katz, an astrophysicist, is saying what he is saying). However, if your physics research has to do with the condensed matter subjects of semiconductors or materials science, then you should have very little trouble in getting an industry job. Heck, you may be able to earn a very lucrative living as an industry consultant, or even start your own company to commercialize your discoveries. Robert Noyce got his PhD in physics at MIT, immediately after graduation joined Nobel Prize winner William Shockley to work at Shockley Semiconductor, then 4 years later founded Fairchild Semiconductor and got rich off that. Then after that, Noyce achieved one of the most important accomplishments in business history - he founded Intel. </p>

<p>In the case of CS, computational/complexity theory will almost certainly never be commercializable. Proving P=NP will undoubtedly win you a Turing Award, but won't make you highly marketabe. But anything having to do with computer networks, algorithms (especially search algorithms), computer graphics, cryptography/security, etc. will mean that you will surely have a nice backup job waiting for you in industry. Computer security in particular seems to be extremely lucrative if you decide you want to be an industry consultant.</p>

<p>"Optimism bias." I like the term. I may start using it with undergrad applicants or their parents who look only at the applicant's strengths without looking at the profile of other applicants. "Yeah, you're pretty good. So are 15,000 others and then there's the group that's ahead of y'all."</p>

<p>For many career paths, the future is much more plastic and less deterministic than many undergrads perceive. Academic fads, industry demands, flukey good luck and bad luck about who you happen to connect with, economic changes of directions, evolutions of technology, etc. all affect your career path. Think of all the scientists who ultimately <em>worked</em> for Fairchild Semiconductor and were pleased to do so when the concept didn't even <em>exist</em> when they were in undergrad. Be flexible. Carry plenty of water. Always cut cards.</p>

<p>Sakky, got a direct question for you.</p>

<p>Do the Investment banking firms hire PhDs in engineering? I'm guessing having someone specializing in a hot industry field like semiconductors, energy, biotech or nano, would be very useful to have to scope out big corporations as well as startups. I've seen some big finance firms listed as Ph.D. employers at the top 20 schools. You seem to be really knowledgeable in this area, so do you know how true this is? </p>

<p>It seems like engineering/applied science majors have a whole host of options: academia, teaching, industry, joining/founding startup, and now finance.</p>

<p>How does grad student life compare to post-doc life anyways? The way I see it [correct it if I'm wrong] is that graduate students have to make some progress towards a dissertation, but don't have to work X number of hours, whereas postdocs do [and grad students seem proud to procrastinate on their dissertations]. Some people say that their grad student years are the best years of their lives. </p>

<p>And as for me, I'm not terribly talented, but on the other hand, I don't want a family and I don't have [nor want] any extra-curriculars. The only thing I want is some time to surf the Internet and play computer games [a few hours per week should suffice - and I'm definitely not going to get my hands on MMORPGs again].</p>

<p>And on a side note - for males, does family life take away a lot of time away from academic pursuits? I'm asking because I kind of want to get a feel of how much more time I will have compared to those who are married [which seems to constitute the majority of post-docs].</p>

<p>merper68: Of course I'm not sakky, but I would chime in since I can answer for this question, partly.</p>

<p>Background: HK follows the British system in which a MPhil (2-year masters degree that has similar requirements as a British-style PhD) is usually a necessity for the entrance of a PhD program.</p>

<p>I have a friend who studied in Computer Science and was third in his undergrad class (2002), and then got a MPhil in industrial engineering. After he got his masters, he decided not to go on a PhD-- but entered a small I-Bank that specializes on tech investments.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The way I see it [correct it if I'm wrong] is that graduate students have to make some progress towards a dissertation, but don't have to work X number of hours, whereas postdocs do [and grad students seem proud to procrastinate on their dissertations].

[/quote]

Neither postdocs nor graduate students have to work a set number of hours. Anecdotally, I think postdocs work harder than graduate students, but that also only makes sense -- after graduate school, all the people who aren't interested in gunning for a faculty position go to industry or quit science altogether, so the people who take postdocs are driven workaholics anyway.</p>

<p>i can only argue for the case for life sciences since this is the field which i am more familiar with and have personally seen and heard many unpleasant stories. i am sure cases for engineering or mathematics can be quite different.</p>

<p>the problems with obtaining a PhD in biological sciences are the amount of time one invests into and the risks that are involved.
spending four years getting a medical degree can almost guarantee a position in a hospital.
simiarly, spending three years getting a law degree in a good enough law school can almost guarantee you to work as an attorney.
however, spending 5 years in a top ten program to get a PhD in, say, immunology, and then 3 to 4 years for postdoc will not necessarily get you anywhere unless you have an amazing publication record or possess a set of highly marketable skills for the industry. </p>

<p>most students who enter medical schools aspire to become a medical doctor, and the truth is, a majority of them actually do. simiarly, most students who enter graduate schools in sciences aspire to become a well-respected, if not well-compensated, scientist. if the chances for achieving such goal is slim, it is only natural to see that people will grow more reluctant to pursue such career track.</p>

<p>Nobody goes into research science for the money... nobody with any sense, anyway. Still, it's important for people to know how bad the situation is before they choose research science as a career. </p>

<p>Katz is not crazy. He's right that any one who is not willing to make large sacrafices in terms of money, family, etc. should not pursue a career in science. The fact is that, thanks to the global market for research scientists, there are far too many qualified people for far too few positions. This is NOT the case in any other profession that requires a training process that is of similar length (e.g., law business, etc.). </p>

<p>Please listen to him. Please refer to this website:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.phds.org/the-big-picture/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.phds.org/the-big-picture/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>and check out:</p>

<p>An Enron of Our Own
<a href="http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/1890__1/an_enron_of_our_own/(parent)/12098%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/1890__1/an_enron_of_our_own/(parent)/12098&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Thanks for the Great Post Doc Bargain
<a href="http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/1820/thanks_for_the_great_postdoc_bargain%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/1820/thanks_for_the_great_postdoc_bargain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Stimulating Careers in Science and Engineering
<a href="http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/3010/stimulating_careers_in_science_and_engineering/(parent)/158%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/3010/stimulating_careers_in_science_and_engineering/(parent)/158&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
And on a side note - for males, does family life take away a lot of time away from academic pursuits? I'm asking because I kind of want to get a feel of how much more time I will have compared to those who are married [which seems to constitute the majority of post-docs

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I'm absolutely certain this is clearly going to vary from family to family depending on the relationship and their financial status, etc. Not a big surprise.</p>

<p>But unfortunately (for those of us who are female), married men with children are <em>more</em> likely to get tenure than single men, who are in turn more likely to get tenure than single women.... and all of them are more likely to get tenure than married women with children.</p>

<p>There's a variety of reasons for this including: lack of flexibility of the tenure system, sexism-discrimination against women esp those with children, lack of time, etc. Women generally get stuck with the majority of the childcare even if the women are tenure-seeking faculty, while your average tenure-seeking man has a wife who does the majority of childcare.</p>

<p>There was a study recently that showed a correlation between production of important result in the sciences and waiting to marry until one is in one's mid-30s. I can't remember the reference, sadly.</p>

<p>This book:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Science-Occupational-Scientific-Careers/dp/0871546949%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Science-Occupational-Scientific-Careers/dp/0871546949&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Is a great study on why so many professionals leave science, when they do so, etc. The author also focuses specifically on the effect of unequal domestic burdens on the careers of women and men in science.</p>

<p>"Alarmingly, by the end of the follow-up survey, only 51 percent of the original respondents were still working in science.[...] Preston identifies the main reasons for people leaving scientific careers as dissatisfaction with compensation and career advancement, difficulties balancing family and career responsibilities, and changing professional in! terests. Highlighting the difference between male and female exit patterns, Preston shows that most men left because they found scientific salaries low relative to perceived alternatives in other fields, while most women left scientific careers in response to feelings of alienation due to lack of career guidance, difficulty relating to their work, and insufficient time for their family obligations."</p>

<p>Hmmm.... I see... Difficult indeed...</p>

<p>On the other hand, perhaps one could resort to modafinil to make more time for oneself. But modafinil pills cost $7/pill without prescriptions. Modafinil's an uncontrolled substance in Britain, another reason to move there... Most people aren't willing to pump in pills just to get more work done - but Erdos did it. ^_^ It depends on one's value system, on whether one is willing to take pills to get more into one's ouevre.</p>

<p>It also depends on how quickly CX717 wins FDA approval...</p>

<p>It would be really ironic if a scientist working on artificial intelligence or bionic muscle enhancement refused to take performance enhancing drugs for ethical reasons.</p>

<p>Maybe the best thing is to get out of science, but take up a more relaxing and rewarding career like financial modeling or real estate development or something.</p>

<p>Alternatively, you might consider moving to a place where middle class scientists can still do rather well (e.g., Europe, Canada, Australia or Japan).</p>

<p>Actually, I recently did some work in the applied mathematics dept at Moscow State University. It was interesting to hear there, from Russian scientists, that "nobody wants to go to the US any more." They told me that everybody in Russia knows that, while the research going on in the US is top-knotch, quality of life for technical people in Canada is much better.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How does grad student life compare to post-doc life anyways? The way I see it [correct it if I'm wrong] is that graduate students have to make some progress towards a dissertation, but don't have to work X number of hours, whereas postdocs do [and grad students seem proud to procrastinate on their dissertations]. Some people say that their grad student years are the best years of their lives.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually, yeah. I think most former PhD students would agree that the lifestyle is very enjoyable, because you are working on a topic that is highly interesting to you, and you have the complete freedom and security to work on it whenever you want. It's basically like being your own boss, but even better because you are on a stipend. Granted, it's a low stipend, but you don't have to worry about where your next paycheck is coming from, while working on something that you find extremely interesting. </p>

<p>I think essayist and entrepreneur Paul Graham (whose PhD is from Harvard) said it best: "...grad school is close to paradise. Many people remember it as the happiest time of their lives. And nearly all the rest, including me, remember it as a period that would have been, if they hadn't had to write a dissertation"</p>

<p><a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/college.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.paulgraham.com/college.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In fact, I think the fact that it is so enjoyable and interesting is part of the problem. It's so interesting that it tends to pull in people who might be better off doing something else. And then after you're done, you don't want the enjoyment to stop, so you can't bear the thought of taking a regular job like (gasp) working as a high school teacher for the rest of your life, even though it's really a pretty decent lifestyle. </p>

<p>Personally, I agree with Paul Graham quite a lot and I would say that the best thing to do is pursue a PhD topic that is highly marketable, if possible. That way, if you ever get sick of the student lifestyle, you always have the option of just taking your research and turning it into a startup company. That's what the founders of Google did, and look at them now. Even certain fields that you don't think are marketable can be turned into marketable skills. For example, Charles Ferguson earned his PhD in political science at MIT. One might think that poli-sci has no market. Not so for him. His specialty was technology policy, specifically how the US should face the competition in the electronics industry from Japan (this was back in the 1980's when Japan was seen as an economic juggernaut poised to take over the world). Before he even finished his Phd, he became a fixture in Washington, serving on various Congressional subcommittees, writing op-ed pieces in newspapers, and helping to formulate government policy. After he graduated he became a very very well paid consultant to US tech companies - reportedly making a half-million dollars a year in the early 90's (and then he founded a company called Vermeer, sold it to Microsoft for $133 million in 1996, and you know it now as MS Frontpage). </p>

<p>But I think that hits on a major part of the problem - that a lot of graduate students and newly minted PhD's just don't know how to market their skills. For example, not to put her on the spot, but somebody like molliebatmit, right now, could quite graduate school right now and become a quite highly paid consultant to biotechs and pharmas, and after she graduates, she could * really * be a highly paid consultant. How do I know that? Simple. Plenty of her old classmates became highly paid consultants right after undergrad, and they didn't even have the benefit of any graduate school training. So if they could get that, I am quite certain that molliebatmit can get it anytime she wants, and certainly after she finished her PhD, she could nab a much better consulting job. {To her credit, I think she knows she can do this and she knows how to market herself, so I don't worry about her.} But it's these other PhD students who don't have this self-awareness and don't know how to market themselves - that's where the problem lies. Not all new Phd's can become well-paid consultants, but a lot more can do it than think they can do it. There are a LOT of consulting firms out there looking for sharp people.</p>

<p>Hence, I would say that if you try to become a scientist. If you find that you're not going to get a good academic job (and you should be able to tell within a few years whether you think you are going to make it), then screw it, turn your research around such that you can become a consultant. Or so you can form a startup company. Or, if you can't do that, then use your time at your school to network, find a good job, and then drop out. Treat it the way that many MBA students treat their time, as a networking opportunity. The difference is that MBA students * pay * to get 2 years of networking. But you, as a PhD student, are * getting paid *.</p>

<p>Think of it this way. Many MBA students pay a small fortune for the chance to find their plum consulting or investment banking job. However, a PhD student is getting paid to be there, and if he plays his cards right, can still get that same plum consulting/banking job. Granted, it's harder to do that for the Phd students than the MBA students, but far from impossible. I see plenty of newly minted PhDs getting jobs at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs that many MBA students would kill for.</p>

<p>It was certainly true that PhD's could easily find work as consultants in the 90s, but I'm not so sure it's true any more. When I was a grad student (96-01), McKinsey wouldn't leave us alone. I interviewed with them and was hired (turned the offer down for a position at a nat'l lab), but 2 others in a class of 8 went to work for them in the New York and London offices. However, both have since been laid off and friends currently enrolled in the same program (ivy league program in applied physics) have told me that McKinsey doesn't come calling as much any more.</p>

<p>Also, I've been told that it is tough to adjust to a business environment after being a researcher. It's a very different culture. Some people may appreciate it more than academic culture, but many people choose graduate school because academia is a good fit for them.</p>

<p>Another option that may work is to go to law school and become an IP professional. I have a few friends who did this and none of them regret it. There is plenty of work for patent attorneys and the money is very, very good. It's also a pretty interesting line of work.</p>