<p>Thank you very much</p>
<p>The advices are all good, but you never know what will happen in the future. Just do what you love to do.</p>
<p>Also, there are about 5000 colleges in US, you can probably always find a place to teach.</p>
<p>just for your interest:
<a href="http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2007_06_01/caredit_a0700077%5B/url%5D">http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2007_06_01/caredit_a0700077</a></p>
<p>not to say that everyone shouldn't pursue a phd in science, but people who are interested in academic or industry research positions should seriously reconsider their decision.</p>
<p>Now, when we're talking about tenure here - do most graduate students care whether they get tenure at MIT or Wayne State? From personal experience, I know that a lot of the professors at the no-name schools are extremely intelligent. As for the graduate students who really want to go into academia - are most of them fine with a position in a no-name state school? Are tenure tracks at no-name state schools extremely competitive? What about tenure tracks in other countries - like Canada?</p>
<p>After all, isn't the lifestyle of a prof at Wayne State not much different from that of one at MIT?</p>
<p>I would say it's more about the advisor than the name of the school. It's the advisor thats going to write your recommendation and give you connections to other top names in the field. Work for an advisor who's top 5 in the field as a grad student, and you'll likely land a post-doc with another top 5 name in the field. And all these connections add up when ur trying to get your own tenure-track position.</p>
<p>And slightly off-topic, but undergrad research for prospective grad students is important for that other reason...you learn who are the top names in your field (if you do extensive literature review).</p>
<p>Mostly importantly though, it's not even about the name of the professor or the name of the school. The salient metric to look at is where are the graduate students of the advisor going after they obtain the Ph.D. If 70% become faculty, then you know that's the place you want to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would say it's more about the advisor than the name of the school. It's the advisor thats going to write your recommendation and give you connections to other top names in the field. Work for an advisor who's top 5 in the field as a grad student, and you'll likely land a post-doc with another top 5 name in the field. And all these connections add up when ur trying to get your own tenure-track position.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course the advisor and profs are more important than the department reputation. The more important issue is this - we know that tenure tracks at upper-level universities are very difficult to land. So then why not land a tenure track at a TTT university? Isn't the lifestyle just as good at those universities? Because that's precisely what we're talking about in this thread. If one can land tenure at an upper-level university - that's awesome. But if one can't - then why not try an university lower down the chain? Like University of Wyoming or Wayne State. The privileges are the same - the lifestyle is the same - it's just that the research isn't likely to be groundbreaking. But it's a lot more desirable than dropping out of academia entirely. Yet dropping out of academia entirely is precisely what most graduate students do. Is this because they have considered all of their options (including TTT universities like Wyoming) or is this because they're too prideful to consider employment at a TTT university?</p>
<p>TTT - slang for third tier trash</p>
<p>Interesting thread and I am jumping in late. The one area where I think things are a little bit skewed regarding the discussion is the financial attractiveness of the alternatives.
Law, medicine and business may be better bets then tenure track PhD's, but they are more highly competitive then it may look from the other side of the fence. Anyone that has watched Grey's Anatomy on television has an idea of work/life balance in medicine. And all that to jump into a field where you have to both deal with patients and managed care. The law route is also difficult. The top firms only hire out of the national law schools. From there, its a rather cutthroat climb to partner, with most not making it. For the losers, a lot of alternatives aren't bad, but aren't spectacular either. I wouldn't advise law unless you really like the law and want to be a lawyer. The typical MBA works after their undergraduate degree prior to entering a program -- and the top schools look for people that they will be attractive and well paid grads.
Consulting is also brutal at the entry levels. Above that, it involves the ability to bring in work -- that is, sales. The number of very highly paid jobs in investment banking and finance at junior levels (over $200k) is very small compared to the pool of people that want them.
The one exception is that scientists with very strong math skills have opportunities to move into quantative finance. </p>
<p>I suppose this could be beaten to death (if it hasn't already been), but the same kinds of people that are going to do well in the professions or wall street seem to me like the exact same type of individuals that do well in academia. Flexible, good people/soft skills, politically astute. Driven, and hard working. Intelligence is a given at these levels.</p>
<p>That's why doing something that you have some passion for is really a good idea. That plus keeping your eyes open and have some flexibility.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course the advisor and profs are more important than the department reputation. The more important issue is this - we know that tenure tracks at upper-level universities are very difficult to land. So then why not land a tenure track at a TTT university?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, to answer your question in simple terms, while it is obviously easier to land tenure track at a lower tier university, it is usually still far from easy. Of course this depends on the field (for example, I don't think it is that difficult to land a job as a tenure-track business school professor at a low-tier business school). But there are certainly plenty of stories where hundreds of applicants attempt to obtain a single tenure-track job at even a low-tier school. You can go to <a href="http://www.chron.com%5B/url%5D">www.chron.com</a> and other such websites to read stories like this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't the lifestyle just as good at those universities? Because that's precisely what we're talking about in this thread. If one can land tenure at an upper-level university - that's awesome. But if one can't - then why not try an university lower down the chain? Like University of Wyoming or Wayne State.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first off, the lifestyle isn't the same. First off, the top schools tend to pay much better than the lower-tier schools do. Exceptions do exist, but that is the general trend. </p>
<p>But secondly, and more importantly, there is an important difference between * tenure-track * and * tenure*. The reason why obtaining a tenure-track position at a top school is so desirable is because it expands your options. If you have a tenure-track position at a top school and you fail to actually get tenure, you are still strongly in the running for another tenure-track position at a lower-ranked school. That's how general career progression works - those who fail to get tenure at a top-tier school usually have the option to try again at a 2nd tier school, and those who fail at a 2nd tier school can try again at a 3rd tier school, etc. But the reverse practically never happens - i.e., you can't fail to get tenure at a 2nd-tier school and then expect to try again at a top-tier school. </p>
<p>In fact, sometimes you don't even have to fail. Some lower-tier schools will offer tenured positions to tenure-track profs * at another school*, provided that that other school is at least of the same tier, and usually of a higher tier. For example, I some former tenure-track professors at Harvard Business School had been offered tenured positions at lower-ranked schools and took the offer, rather than risk staying and waiting for the HBS tenure review and perhaps find out that they didn't win tenure. But the reverse never happens - HBS won't offer tenure to some assistant prof at some lower-ranked B-school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The privileges are the same - the lifestyle is the same - it's just that the research isn't likely to be groundbreaking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it's more than that. The truth is, whether we like it or not, your ideas are going to be partly judged by what school you come from. Even if your ideas truly are groundbreaking, your ideas will enjoy increased receptivity if you happen to come from a top school. It's nice and idealistic to think that academia really does judge ideas solely on their merits. But in reality, this doesn't always happen. Academia is a very political beast. There has in fact been much work within the sociology of science regarding those scientists with high status serving to either block innovations or derive disproportionate credit for ideas that weren't even really theirs.</p>
<p>As a case in point, consider the story of Lord Rayleigh, the discoverer of Rayleigh scattering and Rayleigh waves and who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1904 for discovering argon. His son recounted that he once submitted a paper on divided electric circuitry, yet his name was somehow omitted from the paper. The paper was subsequently rejected as being purportedly the work of a charlatan. "However, when the authorship was discovered, the paper was found to have merits after all." (Barber, 'Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery', * Science *, Vol. 134, No. 3479., Sep. 1, 1961, pp. 596-602.) Like it or not, even in the world of academia ideas are judged by the status of their authors. This is the reality of academia. </p>
<p>Hence, new PhD's rationally want to shoot for the highest-possible tenure-track position they can get because they know intuitively that greater status means their ideas are more likely to be promulgated. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet dropping out of academia entirely is precisely what most graduate students do. Is this because they have considered all of their options (including TTT universities like Wyoming) or is this because they're too prideful to consider employment at a TTT university?
[/quote</p>
<p>Well, like I said, if you're an academic at what you call a TTT university, your ideas are less likely to become accepted. Hence, many people figure that, given those odds, they would rather just take a private industry job where at least they can make more money. </p>
<p>Having said that, I also agree that there probably is some level of pride informing the decision. After all, if you take a private sector job because you couldn't get a top-tier tenure-track job, you can just always tell people that academia didn't appeal to you and nobody is the wiser. But if you end up at a lower-tier school, everybody realizes that that's because you wanted to get a top-tier job and just didn't get it.</p>
<p>i would say it's a prestige issue. the MIT Ph.D academic doesn't want to go to southwestern hawaii state university. </p>
<p>also, if you're at a TTT school, it's not even that your ideas won't get accepted. a more basic problem is you will have a hard time getting FUNDING, let alone quality grad students. I know new faculty who only have 1 or 2 or zero students working for them. heck, if you're not in a hot field, even at a top school, you will have trouble getting funding. I would say funding moreso than publiciation record determines whether u pass the tenure review.</p>
<p>I just want to say thanks for providing all the links and information. As a lowly hs student, I don't really have much to contribute...but I love the idea of pursuing a phD in some sort of science and this thread has been extremely helpful in outlining different options once you get the degree.</p>
<p>And another question - what of the question of transfer? Cristof Koch PhD'ed in physics and went into neuroscience, David Perkins PhD'ed in math and went into psychology. </p>
<p>There's a so called hierarchy of difficulty that varies according to field. One person's conception of such a hierarchy is here: <a href="http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001068.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001068.html</a> . Few can dispute that many people trained in mathematics or the sciences can switch to other fields. But the question, then, is - how many people who PhD in the natural sciences or mathematics ultimately manage to transfer to another field that demands mathematical aptitude? Can anyone doubt that a mathematician can easily self-teach himself the tools needed for a "lower" science in a relatively short amount of time? Don't a lot of finance sectors value the people who earn PhDs in the natural sciences - because that is sufficient in itself to demonstrate talent? (and a quick learning transition to another field?). A lot of famous people in many fields were trained in physics and mathematics. Francis Crick was a physicist by training. In fact, don't PhD and research programs often value people who are trained in math/science? I think that it's common for many PhD programs in the social sciences to accept people who have very poor skills in math - for example - and many of the students in those programs ultimately drop out. So then wouldn't a degree in, say, physics be of higher value than a degree in say, economics?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And another question - what of the question of transfer? Cristof Koch PhD'ed in physics and went into neuroscience, David Perkins PhD'ed in math and went into psychology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, the truth is, people in academia don't care so much about the specific title of your degree. What they really care about is where you publish, what conferences at which you present, and generally which fields hold your work in the highest esteem. If your work happens to be highly regarded in the neuroscience, then you will probably be able to be placed in that field regardless of what your actual PhD is in. </p>
<p>Speaking of Christof Koch, you can see in his publication history that most of his work has to do with neuroscience. Hence, it should not be surprising in the least that that's where he got placed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a so called hierarchy of difficulty that varies according to field. One person's conception of such a hierarchy is here: <a href="http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001068.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001068.html</a> . Few can dispute that many people trained in mathematics or the sciences can switch to other fields. But the question, then, is - how many people who PhD in the natural sciences or mathematics ultimately manage to transfer to another field that demands mathematical aptitude? Can anyone doubt that a mathematician can easily self-teach himself the tools needed for a "lower" science in a relatively short amount of time? Don't a lot of finance sectors value the people who earn PhDs in the natural sciences - because that is sufficient in itself to demonstrate talent? (and a quick learning transition to another field?). A lot of famous people in many fields were trained in physics and mathematics. Francis Crick was a physicist by training. In fact, don't PhD and research programs often value people who are trained in math/science? I think that it's common for many PhD programs in the social sciences to accept people who have very poor skills in math - for example - and many of the students in those programs ultimately drop out. So then wouldn't a degree in, say, physics be of higher value than a degree in say, economics?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's difficult to say. I would say that if you want to enter fields like finance or economics, you should just enter those fields directly. I see little value in pursuing this in a roundabout way. Going to finance 'through' a math PhD should be considered only as a backup strategy. </p>
<p>As far as what degrees have 'higher' values, well, let's just say that the world is not always fair. Some skills that should be valued aren't valued. For example, one might say that if you have a math PhD, you can easily learn whatever skills you need for many quantitative industry jobs. But companies don't really care about that. They will only provide high-paying jobs who have the skills right now. Whether you can learn those skills quickly or not is irrelevent to them - if you don't have the skills they want right now, the best you are going to get from them is an entry-level job for an entry-level wage. This seems to be particularly common in the software industry: software companies will happily pay a high school dropout very high wages if he happens to know a specific software/IT skill that the company wants, but won't hire even somebody with a PhD in CS if he doesn't know that specific skill. It doesn't matter if that latter guy could easily learn that skill - all that matters is that he doesn't know it right now. </p>
<p>{Now, to be fair, one could say that this behavior by the company is economically rational, as the company fears paying somebody to train up on that specific skill only to have him immediately quit to work for somebody else as soon as he's fully trained.} </p>
<p>But anyway, like I've said throughout this thread, I think much of the real problem with PhD employment is really just a failure of imagination. Sadly, a lot of people with PhD's just don't seem to want to know what their extra-academic career options are. That's why you see so many of them being miserable serving an endless string of postdoc after postdoc, or taking on untenured 'gypsy lecturer' positions that pay them a pittance. Not to be harsh, but there are a LOT of people in industry who have quite decent jobs who, frankly, don't know that much. If you can get a PhD in a subject, I have to believe that you can at least do as well as those people. Like I've always said, in the absolute worst case scenario, you can always just become a high school teacher.</p>
<p>Hey sakky, what about making the choice of what to major in at the undergraduate level?</p>
<p>I'm not sure what's more marketable - an economics degree, or a physics degree. Of course, what's most important is what skills a person could offer to the table. So does it necessarily matter what one majors in at the undergraduate level? Of course, this highly assumes that a person is openly willing to explore a lot of career paths - academia, finance, professional school, etc.</p>
<p>I might be going off-track here, but an economics major is always seemingly more popular than a physics one. So it might be easier for certain people to stand out in the latter?</p>
<p>Regarding tenure track positions:</p>
<p>I think its important to point out that this illustrates another case against pursuing pure sciences (in general). Remember that in order to even be considered for tenure-track positions, PhD's will probably have to do more than one postdoc appointment, often 2 or 3. That could mean another 3-9 years of relatively low pay (45k/year is probably the highest you can hope for) and long hours for a chance to be tenured.
Of course, with all that competition floating around, that means that being on the tenure-track is probably becoming less likely to yield a tenured position. </p>
<p>The reason I bring all this up is because one of my co-workers had a woman in her lab who was on tenure-track for 13 years, and found out last week that her contract is simply not being renewed next year. Obviously this could be an extreme example, but one that I feel is more likely to happen in pure sciences.</p>
<p>my dad is a Phd distinguished proffessor....more amd more...he gets more titles, more $, writes more books, discovers more things.. he has a steady job at the current university...he has worked at several (never unemployed)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hey sakky, what about making the choice of what to major in at the undergraduate level?</p>
<p>I'm not sure what's more marketable - an economics degree, or a physics degree. Of course, what's most important is what skills a person could offer to the table. So does it necessarily matter what one majors in at the undergraduate level? Of course, this highly assumes that a person is openly willing to explore a lot of career paths - academia, finance, professional school, etc.</p>
<p>I might be going off-track here, but an economics major is always seemingly more popular than a physics one. So it might be easier for certain people to stand out in the latter?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If we are talking about any possible undergrad degree, then I would still say that the most flexible degree to have is an engineering (including CS) degree. This is true despite all of the problems with engineering degrees, about which I have written numerous posts. If nothing else, engineering gives you a relatively strong backup career that you can always fall back upon. </p>
<p>Engineering is particularly attractive to those who are inclined to the sciences. For example, chemistry and chemE share much in common, math and CS share much in common, and physics and ME (as well as EE) also share much in common, yet the starting salaries and job availability are obviously better for the engineers than for the pure science majors. </p>
<p>Another tack is to get an undergraduate business degree, presuming that your school has a respected undergraduate business program. However, it should be noted that most schools have only mediocre UG business programs. </p>
<p>Now, if forced to choose between econ or physics, frankly, I would probably take econ. Econ (and the social sciences in general) just seem to enjoy greater overall market demand right now. It's a more direct path to get from econ to consulting or investment banking (the 2 hot industry fields right now) than from physics to consulting/banking.</p>
<p>Thank you for the post sakky. I would like to relieve all doubts from my mind before I embark on my collegiate journey. I've had several discussions with other people, and here are my thoughts:</p>
<p>I've noticed your posts on engineering but to be honest, my school doesn't really seem to be that big with engineering. There aren't really a lot of traditional engineering fields like EECS, ME, or ChemE but it does have Engineering Physics, Biomed, and Eng. Sci. Career-wise, I'm not sure if it's a smart move to major in Engineering at my school over seemingly more lucrative majors.</p>
<p>Another thing is that your message might be focused towards a more general audience. I've excelled greatly at Physics in high school (taking part in several United States Physics Olympiads, doing physics research, building a robot - although the last point is probably more engineering focused), and I strongly suspect that I could do exceptionally well in Physics at the undergraduate level. I've also humored with the thought of majoring in Math, but I don't think I'm that kind of person who can just "see" obscure things.</p>
<p>I'm still wondering if your advice would still be the same. I guess you could think that I'd want you to say, "Yeah go ahead, major in Physics." But I'm really indecisive, and I really do want to open myself up to a wide range of opportunities. I'm pretty sure Econ is a fairly exciting major as well, but it's also probably the most popular major at my school - so I'm not sure how that's going to affect things.</p>
<p>I've heard people say many times that a good academic performance is really what mostly matters (regardless of the major - provided that it's not exactly fluff). I'm not sure about that though. I'm also not sure what consulting/banking firms would think.</p>
<p>"I've heard people say many times that a good academic performance is really what mostly matters (regardless of the major - provided that it's not exactly fluff). I'm not sure about that though. I'm also not sure what consulting/banking firms would think"</p>
<p>They might actually prefer the physics/math major over economics, because physics/math require you to be smarter. Go ahead and major in physics. Or double major in physics and economics. You probably could pull it off.</p>
<p>You should talk to people who are actually at high level consulting/banking firms before you make a decision based on what you <em>think</em> they want. I know a guy who majored in Aerospace Engineering (actually got a PhD in aerospace) and he works at McKinsey. I know another person who got a PhD at CalTech in chemE and she also works at McKinsey. Neither of these people had any experience in economics. (McKinsey is probably the top consulting firm out there.)</p>
<p>BTW, did u say u qualified for both the USAMO and USAPHo tests?</p>
<p>To expand on my post, if you want to really pursue a consulting/banking job after graduation, what you want to do is apply for a summer internship at some point. Your grades should be perfect when you apply. I don't think what you learn in an economics major is that applicable to these jobs anyway. Maybe a Wharton Business major would have an advantage over Dartmouth physics major...But if you are talking economics vs. physics, I don't think consulting/banking firms would prefer economics.</p>