"Don't Become a Scientist"

Graduate School
61

<p>Another thing anybody in the sciences should be aware of: your ability to leave the academic/research track drops off exponentially after graduate school. </p>

<p>By the time you're done with your second post-doc, most private companies (including those that do research) don't even want to see your CV. They feel you've been contaminated by too much time in academia or pure research. </p>

<p>While doing 2 or more post-docs is absolutely essential for applying to most academic jobs or the kind of research position I have at a national lab, it's a gamble. The gamble is that, if you don't get the research position you seek, you'll find that you spent 5-7 years working like crazy only to make yourself <em>LESS</em> desirable to the people who might hire you. </p>

<p>This makes being a post-doc extremely stressful. Before I got some good academic job offers, I was a 33 year old single guy in a studio apartment with minimum health insurance, no permanent employment or prospects and was making $50k/yr (which is extremely well paid for a post-doc). Again, please bear in mind that I had a PhD from a top program, 12 publications in high-quality journals, my thesis won two awards and I was a fulbright fellow. Most of my colleagues who were in the same position, people with CVs just as good as mine, didn't find jobs in research. </p>

<p>Even now that I have a stable job and salary at 34, I wonder if I wouldn't have been better off doing something else. I'm newly married and ready to settle down, but I can't think of buying a house yet. I've spent the last 10 yrs of my life just barely surviving and have little savings. </p>

<p>In contrast, everybody who dropped out or failed out of my PhD program already has a home. Most are IT professionals, patent attorneys or business people and are doing rather well financially.</p>

<p>Please weigh this in when you decide on a career in research. There is no parallel career in terms of intellectual and personal fulfillment, but the sacrifices are pretty enormous... and that's not entirely obvious from the outset. I had no idea about this when I was a PhD student.</p>

62

<p>Is money seriously that important for many people? Granted, it's important for a house in a good neighborhood and all that and for spoiling one's own children, but aren't most people not even spending most of their money anyways? Besides, people often become enslaved to their own material wealth [such that they use their perceived level of wealth as a basis of comparison to future levels of wealth]. And Scientific American has run an article about unhappiness not arising due to lack of good, but rather, due to lack of income compared to others [though this is an issue for those of low SES, who have little chance at social mobility]. </p>

<p>I like Richard Stallman's attitude, though Stallman's lifestyle is unparalleled by all but Paul Erdos. </p>

<p>"Professing to care little for material wealth, he explains that he has “always lived cheaply… like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me what to do.”"</p>

<p>I actually find living with little money fun. That way, I can look forward to something. SimCity and The Sims were both the most fun when you just didn't have much money - so you kept on looking forward to the next paycheck. It's money to be proud of - each additional dollar having quite a lot of net utility for oneself. Of course, those games don't parallel reality - because there is no goal in those games other than to purchase more and more; whereas there in life, one becomes secure for other pursuits when one stops worrying about one's income. </p>

<p>Of course, I do not speak for all. But I honestly feel that money is overrated. Now, concerns over working hours are of course different.</p>

63

<p>Believe me, I lived on nothing for most of the last 10 years... and even turned down several high-paying jobs in the 90s to continue doing the research I love. Money's definitely not the most important thing for me now, nor has it ever been. It's just that I realize now, in my mid-thirties, that financial considerations can't be completely ignored even if you derive most of your fulfillment from what you do rather than how much you get paid to do it.</p>

<p>For example, I dread the day when I have to tell my kids that they'll have to settle for the university of maryland instead of princeton just because I chose a career for my own fulfillment rather than for the money. My kids are going to have far fewer advantages than I had growing up as a result of my career choice. Further, and somewhat ironically, they're going to have far fewer advantages than the kids of my friends who failed out of my PhD program. </p>

<p>This is one of the major reasons I think being a researcher in Europe or Canada is better than it is here. There, because of a greater degree of socialized services like education and health care, you can choose the career you want without disadvantaging your children or being irresponsible.</p>

64

<p><offtopic> I'm being neutral in this post, but, jake_modn3, as many parents would tell you, it's not important to go to an elite college. </offtopic></p>

65

<p>Even if it's not fair and it doesn't make sense, going to an elite college opens up doors and makes your life much easier. I think our system is kind of screwy, mainly because it depends on being able to finance an elite education as much or more so as being academically qualified for it, but that's the reality. </p>

<p>This is even more true if you want to succeed in academia. </p>

<p>Again, I'm not saying it's right - I would prefer a real meritocracy to our system and I'm not very impressed by educational name-branding. But that's the way the system works.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If anything, the availability of consulting positions is arguably even greater now than it was during the time you cited. McKinsey has been greatly expanding its hiring of non-MBA's. But even more importantly, McKinsey was the first consulting firm to hire many non-MBA's. Many other consulting firms are now following suit. </p>

<p>Remember, you don't need to work for McKinsey. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of consulting firms out there. Some of them pay even better than McKinsey does (although you won't get to be paid in the form of the "McKinsey prestige"). I know some consultants who have started at well over 250k a year (although, granted, they had very specialized and marketable knowledge). </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's exactly right, but it gets back to what I said before. You don't always get to do the things you like. Sometimes you gotta do things you don't like. That's life. </p>

<p>Hey, don't get me wrong. Academia is fun. It's interesting. It's inspiring. And if you can do it forever, then go for it. But not everybody gets that choice. For some people, the fun has to end eventually, and they have to put away their toys and do something that is less fun in order to support their families.</p>

67

<p>True, but you don't really find out if you can make it in academic science until you're in your early 30s. By that time, you really have invested a lot of your life into your work and doing so has, more often than not, sculpted your personality and your ambitions. It's also seriously decreased your lifetime earning potential even if just because you've spent ~10 yrs of your prime earning next to nothing.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm still in academic science and I've found I can make a living doing it. However, I'm not sure this was the wisest choice and I think people should be made aware of the financial sacrifices it entails. I don't think that academic programs, particularly doctoral programs, make all of this clear to their students. </p>

<p>Further, academic work is not always fun. Especially when you're trying to prove yourself, it can be back-breaking work. I don't know any post-doc who took more than 1 day off a week. Among those who got academic positions, I can't think of any who took even 1 day off. Typically, you work from 10 am to midnight, which is comparable to the schedule of a corporate attorney or a wall st analyst. Yet, you get paid like a janitor. Most assistant professors make roughly the same salaries as bank tellers. The work isn't that glamorous either. If you've spent a saturday night re-vamping a failed NIH proposal for NSF submission... or a sunday morning soldering sub-par equipment, you know what I mean.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
<offtopic> I'm being neutral in this post, but, jake_modn3, as many parents would tell you, it's not important to go to an elite college. </offtopic>

[/quote]
I think a closer re-reading of those posts indicate substantial context dependencies. For some fields, or some ambitions, going to a top college is absolutely essential but even there the thumb is on the scale for top graduate or professional school, not undergrad, which is what most parents are talking about; it's certainly possible to get into top graduate and professional programs from non-elite undergrad colleges and isn't even particularly rare. However, for many other avenues to any traditional "success," no, going to a "top" undergraduate college is an unwarranted obsession.
[quote]
Academia is fun. It's interesting. It's inspiring. And if you can do it forever, then go for it. But not everybody gets that choice. For some people, the fun has to end eventually, and they have to put away their toys and do something that is less fun in order to support their families.

[/quote]
Party pooper.
[quote]
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...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.

[/quote]
There is much truth in what you say. I wouldn't want to overgeneralize but I think there is a large segment of PhD's that lack the equivalent of "street smarts" in the employment world.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Even now that I have a stable job and salary at 34, I wonder if I wouldn't have been better off doing something else. I'm newly married and ready to settle down, but I can't think of buying a house yet. I've spent the last 10 yrs of my life just barely surviving and have little savings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, I dread the day when I have to tell my kids that they'll have to settle for the university of maryland instead of princeton just because I chose a career for my own fulfillment rather than for the money. My kids are going to have far fewer advantages than I had growing up as a result of my career choice. Further, and somewhat ironically, they're going to have far fewer advantages than the kids of my friends who failed out of my PhD program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, honestly, I think you're being a bit melodramatic. After all, you haven't talked about the potential huge carrot that is coming up in your life - which is the possibility of winning tenure. Think about what it means to get tenure. You have a job FOR LIFE. That's the kind of job stability that most people in the world can only dream of having.</p>

<p>I happen to think that tenured professors have one of the sweetest deals around. It is a gravy train. Once you get tenure, then as long as you do the bare minimum, you always have a job. Furthemore, let's keep in mind all the huge blocks of time off you get. You get the summer off. You get winter break off. You get spring break off. Larry Summers once calcuated that the average Harvard tenured prof only has to be in session for about 28 weeks in the year. You also get paid sabbaticals every 7 years or so. </p>

<p>Now, granted, when I say 'off', it is true that many tenured profs don't really take that time off. Many of them use that time to do more research. But the point is, you don't HAVE to do that. If you just decide that you want to do nothing for an entire summer, you can choose to do that. A friend of mine is the son of 2 tenured professors at a no-name school, and he recalls that during most of his childhood summers, his family would just take months-long vacations to various places in the world. That's why he was able to visit over 50 countries before he was 18. Granted, there were a few summers where his parents actually did some real work so they couldn't travel. But most summers were travelling/vacation summers.</p>

<p>Other than being a K-12 teacher, what other job out there will allow you to consistently take summers off like that? I can't think of too many. </p>

<p>Furthermore, let's not discount the consulting work that many tenured profs do on the side. I know a LOT of profs who are extremely wealthy from their side-consulting. Some profs are able to found their own companies on the side. Amar Bose founded Bose Corporation (the audio speaker company) while he was a prof at MIT. Forbes Magazine estimates he is now worth about $1.5 billion. </p>

<p>You also talk about having difficulty sending your kids to a top school. Well, I think we should point out that many (probably most) schools provide large subsidies to faculty kids who choose to go to that school. For example, I know a girl whose father is a prof at UNC, and because of that, she basically got a full ride to UNC (and now she is at Harvard Business School, so it clearly worked out pretty well for her). For example, if you work at MIT full-time, your child gets to go to MIT for zero tuition. Granted, he still has to pay room & board, but if you work at MIT and your child goes to MIT, then he can obviously just live at home. Heck, you don't even have to be a faculty member to get this benefit. You just have to be a * staffer * at MIT. In theory, you could just be a janitor at MIT and get this benefit. {Of course, your child still has to get admitted to MIT, but that's another story}. </p>

<p><a href="http://hrweb.mit.edu/benefits/education/scholarship/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://hrweb.mit.edu/benefits/education/scholarship/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, granted, it is true that there is a good chance that you won't get tenure, and all of those benefits will not accrue to you. That is why I see the academic lifestyle as being a high-risk, high-reward lifestyle. If you get tenure, you're golden. But then there is the chance that you won't get tenure (or that you won't even get a tenure-track job). Hence, I can agree with Katz that shooting for academia is not for the risk-averse. </p>

<p>However, we should also admit that being a tenured prof is a pretty sweet deal.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
True, but you don't really find out if you can make it in academic science until you're in your early 30s.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, I'm not sure about that. Specifically, while you obviously don't know * for sure *, there is a lot of information you can glean while you're still a graduate student. I mean, if you can tell that you're near the bottom of your class, I think it's fairly clear that you're probably not going to make it as an academic, so it's time to consider other options. Or if in your final year (your job-talk year), you find that you are having great difficulty in getting offers from any of the top post-doc positions, then again, I think it's pretty clear that it isn't going to work out. So it's time to bail.</p>

<p>Personally, I think that those PhD's who immediately head off to consulting or investment banking got one of the sweetest deals around, because they basically got paid to get their degrees, and presumably had a relatively enjoyable and interesting experience in getting it, as opposed to those guys who had to pay a small fortune to get their MBA's in order to get to consulting or banking. {Granted, those MBA guys only spent 2 years getting their degree, while a Phd can take 4-6, but still, it's a pretty nice deal to not have to pay for your degree, and end up being a consultant/banker anyway}. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Further, academic work is not always fun. Especially when you're trying to prove yourself, it can be back-breaking work. I don't know any post-doc who took more than 1 day off a week. Among those who got academic positions, I can't think of any who took even 1 day off. Typically, you work from 10 am to midnight, which is comparable to the schedule of a corporate attorney or a wall st analyst. Yet, you get paid like a janitor. Most assistant professors make roughly the same salaries as bank tellers. The work isn't that glamorous either. If you've spent a saturday night re-vamping a failed NIH proposal for NSF submission... or a sunday morning soldering sub-par equipment, you know what I mean.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would compare post-doc work to working at a tech startup. The vast majority of tech startups will fail. And the work is definitely backbreaking. So you could spend years of your life making slave wages, all for nothing. But if it succeeds, you're rich and you can enjoy life. Similarly, the post-docs and then assistant professorship might all result in nothing. But if it succeeds, you got tenure, and after that, you can enjoy life.</p>

71

<p>You don't get summers "off" as a science prof - you just don't get paid for them by your educational institution. You are expected to supplement your salary by obtaining grant funding, of which you have to give the university its cut. Also, taking more than a couple weeks off a year before you get tenure (i.e, in your first ~7 years of university employment) is a pretty good way to ensure that you won't get tenure.</p>

<p>"You also talk about having difficulty sending your kids to a top school."
I'm actually not a professor, I am currently a research scientist at a national laboratory. As such, I get no tuition benefits whatsoever... even at the university with which my lab is directly affiliated. This is true of every national lab. While it is true that there are tuition benefits for the children of professors, these are, more often than not, restricted to the school at which those professors teach.</p>

72

<p>

And, of course, it comes back to a central issue: I don't want to do anything but science, and the idea of going into consulting makes me want to gnaw off my own foot. The idea of a gorgeous two-bedroom apartment with a view of Boston Common (which one of my undergrad classmates now pays for with her consulting job) is alluring, but not alluring enough.</p>

<p>But then, I am lucky because a) I'm not totally hung up on an academic position, and I think I would enjoy working in pharma (to get my "saving the world" fix) and b) I have an awesome rocket scientist fiance who will make enough money next year to keep us in a two-bedroom apartment. It won't be on Boston Common, but I'll take it. :)</p>

73

<p>True, if you're in the bottom of your class you know you're not going to make it in academia. However, you don't know you're going to make it even if you're in the top of your class. I was the first to graduate in mine and was as strong as anybody academically and in terms of research. I got a fulbright fellowship to do my first post-doc at one of Europe's most prestigious labs, then followed by doing another post-doc at one of the US's most prestigious universities. Even still, good offers for top-tier academic jobs didn't start coming until I was half-way through a third post-doc at a well-known national laboratory. </p>

<p>My story is that of someone who did make it... but I wasn't sure I was going to make it until I was 33 or so. That's certainly not atypical. Note that, if I were to go for an academic position now, I wouldn't know if I were going to get tenure for another 5-7 years. Then, I wouldn't be "golden" until I was around 40. That's a long time to wait to "enjoy life."</p>

<p>I don't mean to come across as negative. I love what I do. It's just that I think people choosing this career should be aware that there are pretty major sacrifices associated with it that may not be that obvious at the begining.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The answer is, yes, they hire PLENTY of engineering PhD's. But not really for the reasons you cited. Usually, what they are looking for are just people with strongly honed quantative skills, especially a facility for advanced mathematics, modeling, and numerical analysis. People with engineering PhD's obviously have such skills. </p>

<p>The reason they want such people is simple - they want people to build their backoffice financial trading models, which are essentially akin to complex engineering models. There is a reason why they call it 'financial engineering', because it does carry much of the quantitative rigor and analysis of engineering models. Basically, if you can understand highly quantitative engineering journal articles, you should be able to understand financial models. It wouldn't be that hard for you to pick up, and the banks know that. </p>

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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I personally think the most marketable and safest PhD's to get are the business PhD's - because basically ALL of the ones who don't enter academic can become highly paid consultants instead. In many ways, a business PhD is teaching you 4-5 years worth of consulting skills (and for the finance/accounting PhD's, investment banking skills). But yes, you are right, engineering and applied science PhD's, especially from the top schools, have a wide range of available options.</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
And, of course, it comes back to a central issue: I don't want to do anything but science, and the idea of going into consulting makes me want to gnaw off my own foot. The idea of a gorgeous two-bedroom apartment with a view of Boston Common (which one of my undergrad classmates now pays for with her consulting job) is alluring, but not alluring enough.</p>

<p>But then, I am lucky because a) I'm not totally hung up on an academic position, and I think I would enjoy working in pharma (to get my "saving the world" fix) and b) I have an awesome rocket scientist fiance who will make enough money next year to keep us in a two-bedroom apartment. It won't be on Boston Common, but I'll take it

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, consulting is not that bad. Especially if you can consult for pharma or biotech (and there are plenty of consulting firms that do just that and only that). I would argue that you could save lives by pulling off a successful consulting project for a pharma or a biotech just as you could if you actually worked directly for a pharma or biotech, maybe even more. For example, right now, Big Pharma really needs a way to optimize its research processes and expenditures because in the last few years, Big Pharma has been spending ever-more research dollars for ever-fewer successful product launches. A consultant who could break that logjam would basically allow Big Pharma to redirect their research dollars to develop a bunch more cures, and hence save more lives.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
However, you don't know you're going to make it even if you're in the top of your class. I was the first to graduate in mine and was as strong as anybody academically and in terms of research. I got a fulbright fellowship to do my first post-doc at one of Europe's most prestigious labs, then followed by doing another post-doc at one of the US's most prestigious universities. Even still, good offers for top-tier academic jobs didn't start coming until I was half-way through a third post-doc at a well-known national laboratory. </p>

<p>My story is that of someone who did make it... but I wasn't sure I was going to make it until I was 33 or so. That's certainly not atypical. Note that, if I were to go for an academic position now, I wouldn't know if I were going to get tenure for another 5-7 years. Then, I wouldn't be "golden" until I was around 40. That's a long time to wait to "enjoy life."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, I agree, it's a high-risk, high-reward play, akin to working for a tech startup. If you graduate #1 in your PhD class, you could still choose to cash in your chips and become a consultant or investment banker or go to industry, especially if you're risk-averse. Just like nobody is ever forced to work for a tech startup and live on Ramen and sleep under their desks and not even step foot outside the office for an entire week (I've done that, thank God the office bathroom had a shower). You do it because you want to take a shot at the brass ring.</p>

77

<p>I agree, but I'll bet that 9.75 out of 10 phd students think that becoming a research scientist isn't anywhere near as risky a proposition as working for a starup company. If they did, they'd probably reconsider.</p>

<p>In fact, it wasn't nearly as risky an academic generation ago when most current department chairs were young assistant profs. Perhaps because the employment situation in science has changed so much over the last decade or so, people have been slow to understand this. As a result, many, many students are making career decisions based on poor understanding of the situation or outdated advice. </p>

<p>I think that Katz should be applauded because his is one of the few honest voices out there addressing this issue.</p>

78

<p>Incidentally, there are plenty of less honest voices out there... like the voices from the NSF constantly whinging about a shortage of technicallly trained people:</p>

<p>What scientist shortage?
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38006-2004May18.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38006-2004May18.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"In reply to its own question, the editorial observed that "policies are set mainly by elders, who, like the institutions that employ them, have little incentive to downsize their operations." To which it added, "We've arranged to produce more knowledge workers than we can employ, creating a labor-excess economy that keeps labor costs down and productivity high." </p>

<p>Average salary scales for professors show the marketplace value of different disciplines: law, $109,478; business, $79,931; biological and biomedical sciences, $63,988; mathematics, $61,761. </p>

<p>The failure of more Americans to pursue science studies can in part be attributed to poor high school and college programs for nurturing scientific talent. But the much-lamented turn away from science also reflects sound economic calculation. The post-college route to a science PhD usually takes five to seven years. Postdoctoral fellowships, now a commonplace requirement for most academic and many industrial jobs, run for two to three years. Postdoctoral wages average around $35,000 a year, without benefits.</p>

<p>At the postdoctoral stage, fledgling scientists are well into their thirties, some in their early forties. With good luck, the next step will be a tenure-track academic appointment, which, after seven years, may or may not result in a secure job. No wonder fewer and fewer Americans opt for a career in science. Even so, jobs remain scarce. "</p>

79

<p>Good editorial from the chief editor of Science (who's cited in the WashPost article above):</p>

<p>Supply Without Demand
<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5661/1105%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5661/1105&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"The consequences of this are troubling. To be sure, the best graduates of the most prestigious programs may eventually find good jobs, but only after they are well past the age at which their predecessors were productively established. The rest--scientists of considerable potential who didn't quite make it in a tough market--form an international legion of the discontented"</p>

80

<p>How is the market for computer science PhDs?</p>