<p>I'm pretty sure the job market for people with backgrounds in comp sci is significantly better than it is for people in the physical or biological sciences. I don't know the specifics, however.</p>
<p>This is a pretty recent article that says that computer science related phds are in relatively high demand:</p>
<p>Of course, this is somewhat disheartening. What do you think about the job prospects for someone with a PhD in mathematical/theoretical phsycis? This is probably the most intriguing area for me, but I can't imagine there being a job for someone who wants to work on Yang-Mills and then realizes he just can't quite cut it enough to get a tenured professorship. Maybe I should stick to electrical engineering, that site says its the most demanded doctoral degree.</p>
<p>Theoretical physics people often find work in financial services. In fact, most of the theoretical physicists I know work in wall street. I'm a professionally employed experimental physicist.</p>
<p>Look up "quant jocks" or the like.</p>
<p>Because of wall st., it might actually be better to have a background in theory than in experiment... in terms of finding a job outside of science. In science, it's the opposite.</p>
<p>That does make sense, I don't know if I would enjoy it, but its another thing to keep in mind. I am still in high school (senior) and I'm trying to decide where I want to go. I'm considering engineering (electrical) or a dm in physics/math and I have always wanted to get my PhD and work in research preferably as a professor, but col hard reality is starting to set in and I'm just not quite sure I can make it (it seems PhD in mathematical physics -> professor ~ college basketball player -> NBA). I'm afriad I just may become a smart guy stuck in a world of geniuses, I guess we'll see.</p>
<p>I wouldn't worry too much about things at the undergraduate level or high school level. You're pretty young and any experience/education you get now will be a benefit to you. I wouldn't discourage getting a master's degree either. That can't hurt and it only takes a couple of years. </p>
<p>I would, however, recommend that you not rush into a PhD program four years from now. Take your time to examine all your other options before you commit to it. Also, talk to current graduate students and post-docs about it before you commit. You'll find them all over the place when you get to college. It's a really good idea to do undergraduate research too... and that will provide an opportunity to meet current PhD students and post-docs.</p>
<p>I would say that an undergraduate background in physics is a pretty versatile one. You could try it and see where it goes. If you feel like physics is working out for you, you could stick with it. On the other hand, most EE grad programs accept people with physics bachelor's degrees provided they also have some device experience. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if you get a bachelor's in EE you might be able to get a pretty good job with that alone.</p>
<p>One other possibility is to use your PhD as a platform for writing non-fiction. Many professors do this, but it isn't limited to them. Certain subjects, especially in the humanities can be very interesting, and if you have the talent, you can easily supplement your income - or perhaps even replace it altogether and make bank for all you Freakonomics Econ majors - with writing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't think it's as risky either. Like I said before, if worst really does come to worst, and you really can't find anything at all - no academic position, no industry job, no job in consulting/banking - then you can always just become a high school physics teacher, which is not that bad. True, it's not what you want. But like I said, most people in the country don't get the job that they want. Let's face it. Most working Americans have jobs that they don't really like, but it's the best they can get and they need to put food on the table. </p>
<p>Even if we are talking about professional graduate degrees like law or medicine, the fact is, plenty of those graduates don't get the job that they really want. Like I said, a lot of prospective lawyers dream of becoming the next great swashbuckling jurist, but many (probably most) of them will end up doing low-level, boring work for some rinky-dink law firm. True, it's still a job in the field (and hence, it's a * safer * bet), but it's still not the job that you really want. </p>
<p>Furthermore, most law students have to pay a small fortune to get their law degree. In contrast, most physics PhD's get paid to get their degree. They don't get paid much, but at least it's better than not getting paid anything at all, and having to pay law school tuition. </p>
<p>The same can be said for medicine. What if you get into $250k+ in debt to go to medical school (for 4 years of tuition, room + board), and then find out that you can't get into the medical specialty that you really want? Not every med-student gets to practice the kind of medicine that they want. The residency matching process means that some people who want certain specialties will not get them. </p>
<p>The point is, while we obviously shouldn't romanticize the prospects of a PhD student, let's not romanticize the prospects of other career tracks either. There are no easy answers. All career tracks have potential problems. Getting a PhD doesn't mean that you will get the job that you want, but getting any other degree also doesn't mean that you will get the job that you want. </p>
<p>Granted, some tracks are less risky than others. But it all comes down to how risk-averse you are and whether you are fine with the taking the worst possible outcome of a particular track. For those people who are completely risk-averse, I would recommend getting a professional bachelor's degree (i.e. engineering, nursing, accounting), and then following that up with a medical degree, or if you can't get that, then perhaps a pharmacy degree or a physician's assistant program. That is probably the safest track you take because you will always have a decent-paying job. It may not be the job that you want, but at least you will have a job. However, if you're willing to take some risk and you don't mind possibly ending up as a high school teacher, then you can consider getting a PhD. And of course if you're a daredevil, then you can join a startup company, or even found your own. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, that's another part of the problem - that students don't know what is really available out there. For example, they don't know that lots of newly minted PhD's won't be able to become tenured profs. On the other hand, they also don't know about their alternatives, for example, the sheer proliferation of consulting or investment banking opportunities out there. Street-savvy people like molliebatmit know, but many others, sadly, do not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, this is somewhat disheartening. What do you think about the job prospects for someone with a PhD in mathematical/theoretical phsycis? This is probably the most intriguing area for me, but I can't imagine there being a job for someone who wants to work on Yang-Mills and then realizes he just can't quite cut it enough to get a tenured professorship. Maybe I should stick to electrical engineering, that site says its the most demanded doctoral degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One thing you can do at certain schools is pick up a master's degree in engineering along the way towards getting your science Phd. Certain schools, notably MIT, allow you to do this. For example, I know some science PhD students at MIT who have managed to pick up various engineering master's degrees along the way. So in the worst case scenario, and they really can't find anything at all related to their science background, they can just work as engineers. </p>
<p>And that leads to another possibility. Even if your school doesn't offer such an option, you can still almost certainly enter another master's degree, say, in finance, after you get a PhD in science. For example, if you get a PhD and you really find that you can't get any job that you want, you can probably get admitted into the Master's of Finance program at Princeton, and after you get that, you can almost certainly get a job in investment banking. Similar programs exist at Chicago, Berkeley, CMU, and other schools. I don't see any 'shame' in getting a master's degree after you get a PhD. I know lots of people who do that. For example, you can read the bios of the students in the MFE program at Berkeley and see that lots of them already have their PhD's. Of course it is better if you can just get an investment banking job right after you get your PhD, without needing to get a master's. But if you can't, you can consider this an alternative route. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ebcf/master.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/~bcf/master.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ebcf/mfaqapply.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/~bcf/mfaqapply.htm</a>
<a href="http://www-finmath.uchicago.edu/new/msfm/home/index.php%5B/url%5D">http://www-finmath.uchicago.edu/new/msfm/home/index.php</a>
<a href="http://mfe.haas.berkeley.edu/current/%5B/url%5D">http://mfe.haas.berkeley.edu/current/</a>
<a href="http://business.tepper.cmu.edu/default.aspx?id=141030%5B/url%5D">http://business.tepper.cmu.edu/default.aspx?id=141030</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
That does make sense, I don't know if I would enjoy it, but its another thing to keep in mind. I am still in high school (senior) and I'm trying to decide where I want to go. I'm considering engineering (electrical) or a dm in physics/math and I have always wanted to get my PhD and work in research preferably as a professor, but col hard reality is starting to set in and I'm just not quite sure I can make it (it seems PhD in mathematical physics -> professor ~ college basketball player -> NBA).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That last sentence, I think, is an excellent analogy that should be explored further. So let's say that you are a division 1A basketball player that doesn't make it to the NBA. Well, at least you got your education paid for via your basketball scholarship. Most undergrads have to go into debt to get their degree. You actually * got paid * to get your degree. So even if you don't make it to the NBA, you are still better off than most people. </p>
<p>Now, think of the science PhD. You might be able to hit the jackpot and eventually get that tenure-track job and ultimately win tenure, and you're golden. But even if you don't, hey, at least you effectively got paid (through fellow/TA/RA-ships) to get a graduate degree, which you can now leverage to doing other things, like getting a job in industry, or going to banking/consulting, or going off to one of those finance master's programs, or in the worst case scenario, just becoming a high school teacher. A lot of people out there out there have to pay a small fortune for those opportunities. For example, most MBA students have to pay an arm-and-a-leg to have a shot at banking or consulting. You * got paid * to get your PhD, and you still have a shot at banking and consulting. Granted, it's a less likely shot, but it's still a shot. </p>
<p>You could also join a tech startup right after your PhD. Again, many MBA students pay out of their nose for the opportunity to be exposed to a bunch of tech startup opportunities through proper networking. You * got paid * and you still can get that exposure if you choose to. To give you an example, the MIT Sloan School runs the 100k program (it used to be called the 50k program, but now it's the 100k) which is basically a business plan contest to match entrepreneurs with venture capitalists (and winning teams receive an aggregate of 100k in venture money, and more importantly, contacts with prominent VC's). However, not all contestants are Sloan MBA students. In fact, many of them are MIT PhD students and many of the winning ideas are basically outgrowths of the research of one or more of the PhD-student team members. For example, the successful Internet company Akamai was a former 50k competitor that was the outgrowth of MIT PhD research that made all its founders rich. Danny Lewin was a MIT PhD student in mathematics who ended up being a founder of Akamai and who got rich. </p>
<p>But think about what that means. Plenty of MIT Sloan students are paying a small fortune just for the opportunity to be around the 100k program. But the PhD students aren't paying anything, and can participate in 100k. </p>
<p>So I think the analogy to college sports is apt. You're getting paid to get your PhD, just like a scholarship college basketball player is getting paid to get his degree. After getting your PhD (for free), you might eventually get the academic job you want. But even if you don't, oh well, at least you got paid to get a degree and you got exposed to a bunch of other career opportunities. So while it's unfortunate that you didn't get the job you really wanted, frankly, I don't feel THAT sorry for you. There are a lot of people out there who would like to get paid to get a graduate degree and be exposed to to a bunch of career opportunities, even if does mean taking 4-6 years. </p>
<p>The REAL problem that I see is that, like I said, a lot of PhD students just don't know what their career opportunites are, or they don't bother to find out. I agree - that's sad.</p>
<p>i don't think getting a phd is risky in terms of finding a relatively stable job (i.e. high school teacher).
however, it is risky in terms of career fulfilment if we consider into the factors of time investment (5 years of phd + 3 to 5 years of postdoc) and personal efforts.</p>
<p>of course, medical and law school graduates don't always find the jobs or specialty they really want. but at least they are well-compensated in terms of money, job stability, ease of getting a relevant position, and quicker career advancement.
by the way, many researchers end up doing research topics they don't really like anyway.</p>
<p>again. the above statements are applicable to biological sciences. phds in computer sciences and engineering can be much better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
by the way, many researchers end up doing research topics they don't really like anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not once you get tenure. After all, once you're tenured, you really can choose to do no research at all. Your colleagues won't like it, and you won't get respect in the community, but you can choose to do that and they can't get rid of you. Hence, simply by definition, once you're tenured, you can't really end up working on research topics that you don't really like. </p>
<p>Like I said, it's a high risk, high reward play. You take the risk that you won't get tenure. </p>
<p>But like I said, if you don't want to take that risk or you think it's not going to work out, then you can just cash in your chips and go for consulting or banking. By doing that, your Phd basically became a cost-effective MBA. Think of it this way. Most new Phd's have very little debt (apart from whatever they had from undergrad). However, most new MBA's are in substantial debt, because their pre-MBA working years were usually insufficient in generating enough income to pay for the MBA years. So if you end up getting the same consulting/banking job that those MBA's want, then you're better off than they are.</p>
<p>Or consider law. A lot of law school grads, especially at the top schools, find out that they don't want to be lawyers, and that they too would rather be consultants or bankers. For example, the top private recruiter at Harvard Law School is not a law firm. It's McKinsey. Robert Rubin graduated from Yale Law, worked for a short while at Cleary Gottlieb and then jumped to Goldman Sachs (eventually becoming co-Chairman and then later Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury). And most law school grads, like MBA grads, are in substantial debt. Granted, again, a PhD does take longer than law school (4-6 years vs. 3 years). But even after several years of working at either a law firm or a consulting firm, most law school grads STILL haven't paid off their law school debt. So, again, you start off financially better off than law school grads, and if you end up in consulting or banking, you will probably always be better off than them.</p>
<p>The key to this analysis is that the PhD, unlike the professional graduate degrees, is paid for. I would agree that if you actually had to pay to get your PhD, it would be a bad deal indeed. But you're getting paid to get it. And you have many of the same opportunities as the professional grad degree students are getting. Obviously you don't have ALL of the same opportunities. But you do have some overlap. Consulting/banking are the ultimate wild card plays because they're open to everybody.</p>
<p>The NBA analogy is really apt. </p>
<p>"Even if we are talking about professional graduate degrees like law or medicine, the fact is, plenty of those graduates don't get the job that they really want."</p>
<p>You're absolutely right about this, of course, but consider the numbers (i.e., the relative riskyness and return) of getting a PhD and any professional degree from highly ranked institutions. They're not really comparable.</p>
<p>If you're an average graduate with a JD from a top 10 law school, take UPENN for example, a good predictor of your average salary would be the median starting salary. According to US NEWS this is well above $120k/yr. An average, 27yr old, graduate is practically guaranteed a six figure salary. USNews currently ranks UPenn law as 7th.</p>
<p>If you graduate from a top 10 medical school, say Columbia, you're virtually guaranteed a much higher salary post-residency regardless of specialization. USNews currently ranks Columbia med 11th.</p>
<p>Out of my program, which is currently ranked #2 in condensed matter physics, only 50 % of the 2001 graduates have permanent jobs in research science. This may not be as relevant, but none of the 4 in that 50 % make more than $80k/yr despite the fact that the average age is 35 and we're ~5 years out of the PhD. </p>
<p>Further, consider the fact that competition in the sciences is global while it is not in medicine or law. Surviving in grad programs in the sciences at top institutions involves competing with the top grads from masters programs at places like Tsinghua University and the Indian Institute of Technology. Sure, Colombia med and Harvard Law take America's top undergrads. That's the top 1-3 % of a country of~300 million people. </p>
<p>Tshinghua and IIT represent the top 0.1 % of countries that have more than a billion people. A billion people is more like the US, Canada and the entire European Union combined.</p>
<p>I was one of two Americans to get a PhD in my class.</p>
<p>So... now that we've made it to the promised land... do we all get to spend our days doing exactly what we want to all the time (i.e., playing with "toys") and are we accountable to no one but ourselves? </p>
<p>Hardly. We have to beg for research funding nearly constantly, do the budgeting for our research labs (which is really a lot like running a start-up) and contend with teaching and administrative issues. On top of that, none of us has a job with much stability and we have the added stress of knowing that, at any given time, there are about 10 open positions for people with our qualifications in the entire country. Then, any job loss is sure to involve relocating. Since our salaries aren't enough to support our families, this means that our professional wives will have to find new jobs in new locations as well. The risk doesn't end once you find a "permanent" position at 35. The liklihood that you will have to start all over again 5-7yrs later is reasonably high, especially if you teach/work at a top-level insitution.</p>
<p>When and if you do get tenure can you just muck about and do nothing? You better not. As I mentioned, your academic salary only covers 8 months of the year... and it's not a very high one at that. If you don't pull in grant money in addition to it you'll find it really hard to make mortgage payments. Further, your department can decide not to increase that salary with inflation if they don't like the work you're doing. In a high-cost area, like SF, NYC or Washington DC, that can mean that you'll be squeezed out relatively quickly.</p>
<p>Too bad this thread is buried away here, it's one of the best on CC.</p>
<p>I'll second Jake's notions about instability from another direction: I see it in both academia and industry. I'm tangentially involved in recruiting for both and get to spend lots of time talking to them as they weigh job offers, moves, etc. Tenure in academia may ameliorate some of the problems but not completely for the most ambitious.</p>
<p>Amen to this being one of the best threads I've seen on CC. Familiar territory to some, but new material to others. And definitely something that is recommended reading to those contemplating the pursuit of a Ph.D. Not that I agree w/everything said in the thread, but each person's experiences and interpretations thereof will differ. Thanks to jake_modn3, sakky, and others.</p>
<p>Like science, but want money and stability without grad school? My recommendations follow:</p>
<p>No interest in college? Electrician or plumber. 5 or so years to a Journeyman's license. Skilled tradespeople can do quite well financially, use applied scientific principles regularly, and are very unlikely to be outsourced.</p>
<p>B.S. Degree. Engineering - don't worry about grad school. Work and get a PE license. Perhaps your company will pay for an MBA later. Nursing - our country's demographics plus bad habits equals serious job security.</p>
<p>Professional School? Medical, Dental, Optometry, or Pharmacy. Entry is competitive, but you'll be in a well-respected and well-paying profession a few years after a B.S. Uncle Sam can help you pay off those loans in a big way if you agree to give him a few years in return.</p>
<p>I would not suggest that a 20 year old take up any blue collar skilled profession or anything that can be reduced to a few rote algorithms. The last thing you want is to get to 40 and find Asimo replacing your job.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're absolutely right about this, of course, but consider the numbers (i.e., the relative riskyness and return) of getting a PhD and any professional degree from highly ranked institutions. They're not really comparable.</p>
<p>If you're an average graduate with a JD from a top 10 law school, take UPENN for example, a good predictor of your average salary would be the median starting salary. According to US NEWS this is well above $120k/yr. An average, 27yr old, graduate is practically guaranteed a six figure salary. USNews currently ranks UPenn law as 7th.</p>
<p>If you graduate from a top 10 medical school, say Columbia, you're virtually guaranteed a much higher salary post-residency regardless of specialization. USNews currently ranks Columbia med 11th.</p>
<p>Out of my program, which is currently ranked #2 in condensed matter physics, only 50 % of the 2001 graduates have permanent jobs in research science. This may not be as relevant, but none of the 4 in that 50 % make more than $80k/yr despite the fact that the average age is 35 and we're ~5 years out of the PhD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But see, there it is again. You are not properly accounting for the various options and various features inherent to each career path. Let me enumerate a few:</p>
<ul>
<li>Law and med students tend to graduate with a giant yoke of debt. Phd students rarely do (again, except for whatever debt they brought in from undergrad, but that's the same debt that law/med students bring in). For example, a law student can easily have accumulated over 100k, in some cases over 150k in debt. Med students can reach 200k in debt. Science Phd programs, on the other hand, are not only free, but almost always come with some sort of funding.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Hence, I think it's fairly clear that upon graduation, the PhD student is far better off from a debt standpoint, at that moment in time, than a JD/MD grad. Even if you factor in the extra time taken to get a PhD, you are STILL probably better off financially, than the JD/MD student. For example, let's say a PhD takes 5 years, whereas a law degree takes 3, so that lawyer gets to earn money for an extra 2 years. Even if he did take that high-paying corporate law firm job, he STILL probably hasn't dug completely himself out of his debt in 2 years. After all, even with a 120k salary, after taxes and living costs, I think the most you can reasonably save is maybe 35-40k a year (and I think even that's a stretch). Hence, if you graduated with 100-150k a year in law school debt, you're going to need more than 2 years to dig yourself out. Newly minted PhD's, on the other hand, are debt-free.</p>
<p>Let's also talk about the case of doctors (physicians). Keep in mind that physicians don't start earning serious money right after they graduate from medical school. They have to complete a 3-7 year residency process plus usually a 1-year internship, in which they are basically paid a pittance. In fact, this is the medical professions' version of the "post-doc". I know plenty of resident doctors, none of whom are making more than 50k a year, and are working 80 hours a week doing it. During all that time, your med-school debt is accumulating interest. </p>
<p>So not only are PhD students better off than MD's from a debt standpoint right after they graduate, they are also better off for another 4-8 years after they graduate, again, simply because the PhD student isn't dragging around a giant albatross of debt. </p>
<ul>
<li>Now, of course you would probably respond that eventually the lawyer or doctor will dig himself out of debt and pull ahead financially. Again, there is no doubt that that is true, if the PhD student really does choose to try to become an academic. But what if that PhD student decides he'd rather work in industry? Or as a consultant/banker? Especially if he does the latter, then that PhD guy might be able to stay ahead financially forever. For example, if you get your PhD, and then become an associate for a consulting firm, you're probably also going to be paid around 120k, in fact probably more. In fact, you'll probably make just as much as a lawyer would. The same with being a physician - again, physicians only make real money quite late in their career, after they have completed internship/residency. So it's actually not entirely clear to me that doctors will eventually pull out ahead, particularly when you factor in the time value of money (i.e. that money earned earlier in your life is more valuable than money earned later, because early money can be invested to generate even more money).<br></li>
</ul>
<p>*The 'earning power' of lawyers/doctors is somewhat of an endogenous variable. I see that you keep talking about how lawyers can make huge amounts of money if they choose to by going in to corporate law. Yet the fact is, from what I can tell, law students don't really want to go into corporate law. They'd rather do NGO work. They'd rather do pro-bono work. They'd rather work for the government. I don't know that many law students who are actually truly enthused about doing corporate law. But they feel like they have to PRECISELY because they are in so much debt. The same seems to be true of med students. Lots of them seem to want to do NGO work, or work in clinics for the poor. But again, many of them feel like they cannot because they have to chop down their debt. </p>
<p>Conversely, I suspect that a lot of new PhD students feel like they can take low-paying postdocs and live the mendicant life of an academic precisely because they don't have any debt to deal with. If they did, they'd probably be making the same career choices that the law/med students are. </p>
<p>*But like I said before, that comes down to choices and career awareness. Again, nobody is forcing you to try to become an academic once you get your PhD. You can just take your paid-for PhD and then run off to another career entirely, often times an extremely high paying one. This is especially so if you can see that you won't get a top post-doc.</p>
<p>To give you an example, take a gander at the career destinations of PhD grads from MIT, which is arguably the #1 physics PhD program in the country. It is on page 15 of the following pdf. While the majority (5 of them) took positions at universities, 1 became an investment banker and another works for a financial services firm (Kuberre Systems) that sells software to investment banks. Hence, 2 of them entered the financial services industry. And I'm quite sure that both of them are getting paid extremely well. </p>
<p>Furthermore, as seen on page 18, of the 5 that took academic positions, while, granted 4 of them are post-docs (at an average of about 51k a year), that means that 1 didn't. Hence, I suspect that that means that that 1 of them actually got a true tenure-track academic position right out of the gate. I suspect it's probably at a lower-tier school, but hey, it's still probably a tenure-track position. </p>
<p>But the point is, you don't HAVE TO take a low-paid postdoc. Once you get your PHD, if you don't like your odds of making it as a top-tier academic, and/or if you really need money, you can just pursue another career path, i.e. investment banking. That MIT physics PhD guy who went to Goldman Sachs is probably laughing all the way to the bank - as he got a position that many graduate students (especially MBA's, but also law students and even some medical students) would sacrifice a limb for, and he didn't even have to pay to get his degree. Even that other guy who went to that financial software company is still probably sitting pretty. Think about it. Get a degree paid for, and still end up with a plum job? That's a pretty sweet deal.</p>
<p>So, like I said, I think it all comes down to career awareness. A lot of PhD students just don't know, and, more importantly, don't * want * to know about all their career options. </p>
<p>*Besides, why always 'look up'? Why not 'look down' too? Even post-doc scientists are still far better than a lot of other people in the country. If you think science Phd's have it rough, think about what humanities PhD's are going through. Or think of it this way. How much does a post-doc pay - 40-50k? Whatever it is, it is still almost certainly higher than what the average job pays in the country. The average American only makes something like 35k a year. Granted the average American doesn't work as hard as a post-doc does, but that's self-generated pressure. You don't HAVE to work 80 hours a week at your post-doc. You can choose to not work hard at all. You probably won't help your academic chances by doing so, but like I said, nobody's forcing you to become an academic. You could always just pursue other careers. </p>
<p>So when people in the sciences 'look up' and see that lawyers and doctors are making more money, they need to 'look down' too and see all the other people who are making less than they are. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Hardly. We have to beg for research funding nearly constantly, do the budgeting for our research labs (which is really a lot like running a start-up) and contend with teaching and administrative issues. On top of that, none of us has a job with much stability and we have the added stress of knowing that, at any given time, there are about 10 open positions for people with our qualifications in the entire country. Then, any job loss is sure to involve relocating. Since our salaries aren't enough to support our families, this means that our professional wives will have to find new jobs in new locations as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that getting a tenure-track position was the 'promised land', just like graduating from med-school and become a resident is clearly not the 'promised land'. </p>
<p>But I see you're complaining about salaries again. You say that you can't support your family on your salary. Well, again, the average American only makes about 36k a year ($3200 a month). Yet the average American is evidently somehow able to support his/her family. Perhaps they have their 'professional spouses' working too, but so what? Just because you have a PhD, you automatically feel entitled to not have to have your spouse work? Look, in most American marriages, both the husband and wife work. That's life. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The risk doesn't end once you find a "permanent" position at 35. The liklihood that you will have to start all over again 5-7yrs later is reasonably high, especially if you teach/work at a top-level insitution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And the same is true for most Americans. Most Americans have no job security either. Heck, most of them can't even count on having their current job for even 5-7 years. I think that plenty of Americans would like to have a career where they have to worry about changing jobs only every 5-7 years. Every time a recession comes along, plenty of Americans lose their jobs. So how is being an academic any worse? </p>
<p>The same holds true for even law and medicine (even law). In corporate law firm work, you are fighting for a partnership position with no guarantee you will get it. At many firms, the vast majority of new associates will not become partners, and thus have to work somewhere else. </p>
<p>
[quote]
When and if you do get tenure can you just muck about and do nothing? You better not. As I mentioned, your academic salary only covers 8 months of the year... and it's not a very high one at that. If you don't pull in grant money in addition to it you'll find it really hard to make mortgage payments. Further, your department can decide not to increase that salary with inflation if they don't like the work you're doing. In a high-cost area, like SF, NYC or Washington DC, that can mean that you'll be squeezed out relatively quickly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, the average science professor makes FAR FAR more than the average American does, yet the average American is still somehow able to afford to live life. You might say that a tenured prof doesn't make a high salary, but trust me, a lot of Americans would love to make that salary, especially when combined with the fact that they can't be fired and they only have to work 8 months a year. Believe me, the vast majority of Americans would consider that to be a dream. </p>
<p>Let's not forget that many profs, especially in the sciences, take a lot of side-consulting work that can easily double or triple your salary. Because they have vast blocks of time off, they can easily do this. Heck, I know many tenured profs that are doing basically nothing but consulting - they haven't published anything in years, and don't intend to. How many Americans have this opportunity? </p>
<p>Finally, I would ask, why do you raise the issue of places like NY, SF, or DC? The vast majority of Americans don't live there. You might live in a relatively cheap place like Texas. Housing is dirt-cheap in places like Houston. You can buy a house for $50k in Houston. Granted, it's not going to be a very good house. But hey, it's still a house. You can buy a quite decent house in Austin, TX for less than 100k.</p>
<p>But the bottom line is that a lot of the 'pain' associated with a science career is really self-imposed pain. There are many opportunities for you to exit if you don't like what you see. Enter grad school and then find out you don't like it? Fine, leave with a consolation master's that's paid for. Actually finish your PhD, and find out that you don't like it? Ok, then look at other career opportunities, such as consulting or banking, or industry work, or (as a safety), teaching high school. Enter a post-doc and find out that you don't like it? Ok, then quit quickly and then do the same as above. Certainly, you don't take a 2nd or 3rd post-doc. Or perhaps you should consider trying to win tenure at a no-name school. Or try to win tenure at a foreign university. I know a guy who graduated with his PhD from MIT and took a faculty position at a university in Singapore. Sure, it's not MIT or Caltech or Harvard, but hey, nobody says that you have to shoot that high. </p>
<p>Hence, I think the real problem is the lack of career awareness among PhD students. A lot of them simply don't know what's out there.</p>
<p>I don't know if this has already been covered (I haven't read 100 percent of the posts)...</p>
<p>But, I wonder if the extremely long-term career development is the reason women aren't as attracted to science. I mean, men can afford waiting until they're in their 40's for a family, but women who do so are seriously risking having children with health problems (or no children at all).</p>
<p>Yes, I know that women sort of get fast tracked sometimes because of affirmative action. But even accelerating the tenure process by a full 5 years wouldn't help that much. Take the professor's article example of the "brilliant" 35 year old who was offered a tenure-track position. Then after 6 years the guy might (again, <em>might</em>) have job security. So, maybe he'd have job security at 41.</p>
<p>Women obviously can't have everything in life (like some men seem to have). But, it seems that science is demanding much more than other professions would.</p>
<p>(And, science here could be read to be academia in general.)</p>
<p>Of course, for me, this comes into play (yes, I am a woman, I just happen to love Ender Wiggin). But, also, as other posters have pointed out, another thing that bothers me is relevant to both genders: science just ain't as exciting as it once was. People carve out intensely focused little nitches for themselves, but my interests are interdisciplinary. You just don't find that too often in science anymore.</p>
<p>For me, then, I'm going with law school. At least as a lawyer, I'll be able to have a career and side interests (most of my profs again seem super focused).</p>
<p>Godspeed to all who choose the research scientist route.</p>
<p>First of all, any hardship incurred by students as a result of their decisions to study science is certainly self-imposed. I wasn’t arguing otherwise. I was simply saying that a scientific education does not, on average, result in increased financial opportunity. My first point was that anyone who choses this route is making a pretty big financial sacrafice. My second point was that this sacrafice isn't always well-understood by those in the process of making it. My third point was that this sacrafice is far less likely to result in the intended outcome than is the sacrafice made by those pursuing careers in legal or medical fields.</p>
<p>Yes, the average scientist makes more money than the average American or the average Rwandan… but let’s be serious. Wouldn’t we expect people who have a minimum of 10 years education and training beyond that of an average American to earn a bit more? The question that interests me isn’t whether they earn more than auto workers (and, in most cases, post-docs earn far less), it’s whether the career path represents a sound financial investment over other potential career paths and potential investments.</p>
<p>Secondly, pointing out that people who graduate with PhD’s in physics from MIT, Cornell and another other top 5 program earn more than the average American doesn’t do a lot for me. I don’t find it surprising, frankly. My point is that these grads typically earn a lot less than their counterparts in just about any other professional discipline. </p>
<p>The fact is that the average starting salaries for fully trained legal and medical professionals, across the board and from any institution, have one more zero tacked onto them than do the average starting salaries of people with science PhDs.</p>
<p>Finally: “How much does a post-doc pay - 40-50k?”</p>
<p>No, actually. According to the Washington post article quoted previously the average is around $33k and that's w/out benefits. The average household income figure you quote above ($36k) sounds about right. It’s substantially more than the average post-doc makes.</p>
<p>See previous posts and links supplied for explanations as to why this is the case.</p>
<p>First of all, any hardship incurred by students as a result of their decisions to study science is certainly self-imposed. I wasn’t arguing otherwise. I was simply pointing out that a scientific education does not pay, on average, either in terms of increased financial opportunity or even in terms of ability to pursue a career in research science… full stop. My point was that anyone who choses this route is making a pretty big financial sacrafice.</p>
<p>Yes, the average scientist makes more money than the average American or the average Rwandan… but let’s be serious. Wouldn’t we expect people who have a minimum of 10 years education and training beyond that of an average American to earn a bit more? The question that interests me isn’t whether they earn more than auto workers (and, in most cases, post-docs earn far less), it’s whether the career path represents a sound financial investment over other potential career paths and potential investments.</p>
<p>Secondly, pointing out that people who graduate with PhD’s in physics from MIT, Cornell and another other top 5 program earn more than the average American doesn’t do a lot for me. I don’t find it surprising, frankly. My point is that these grads typically earn a lot less than their counterparts in just about any other professional discipline. </p>
<p>The fact is that the average starting salaries for fully trained legal and medical professionals, across the board and from any institution, have one more zero tacked onto them than do the average starting salaries of people with science PhDs.</p>
<p>Finally: “How much does a post-doc pay - 40-50k?”</p>
<p>No, actually. According to the Washington post article quoted previously the average is around $33k and that's w/out benefits. The average household income figure you quote above ($36k) sounds about right. It’s substantially more than the average post-doc makes.</p>
<p>See previous posts and links supplied for explanations as to why this is the case.</p>
<p>Although education isn't all about the evtnual payoffs, it does boggle my mind to see people run off so eagerly to ivnest 10 years in getting a PhD as a scientist only to end up getting paid much less than many other Americans who have much less education. Saying that PhD's make slightly more than the national average also doesn't do it for me. When you consider that the number of Americans with college degrees isn't that high in the first place, and those with graduate degrees is even lower, it seems somewhat odd to me that someone would want to spend a decade of their life working towards a career that will not end up paying them that well, or give them much job security for that matter.</p>
<p>I truly believe that, beyond actually getting educated and learning new things, an education should provide one of two things (or both, if your lucky):</p>
<p>1) A better job.
2) A better salary.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, being a science PhD provides you neither. Whats the point?</p>
<p>"From what I can tell, being a science PhD provides you neither. Whats the point?"</p>
<p>The only point, really, is if you absolutely love science so much that other concerns are not as important. Science is fun, it's addictive and it's a wonderful creative outlet. There is really something fantastic about discovering something new or knowing that you're the first human in the history of the species to understand something, even a small something, about the natural world. </p>
<p>Whether it's worth all the sacrifices... I'm not so sure these days. I would recommend that others give more thought to making these sacrifices than I did.</p>
<p>On another note: </p>
<p>Can you really buy a house in Houston for $50k? That's amazing. You literally could not buy a parking spot here for that.</p>