<p>I was always told to pursue a PhD if I was passionate about the field. As I contemplate what to do with my future (law, business, etc.), the lingering thought of getting a PhD has always been in my mind. My field is Electrical Engineering btw. Yet, the desire for wealth outweighs the need to do something that I am passionate about. Not that I would do anything for money; I just want whatever I do to be both profitable and respectable. </p>
<p>So, should I pursue a PhD with idea that I will become wealthy? </p>
<p>As an aside, I was down in one of the Motorola offices and was told that Motorola acquired a wireless company and then laid off the PhDs working there, which was a significant number of people. This sort of thing troubles me.</p>
<p>What do you plan on doing with your PhD once you get it? How do you plan on obtaining “wealthy” status? What’s your definition of wealthy? </p>
<p>My personal take is that a PhD is not all that profitable an endeavor. Looking at some of the different posts as well as the stickies above, people will ward you against pursuing a PhD. I feel like you have to have an end-goal plan that includes a need for a PhD to make it “profitable” for yourself; I don’t use “profit” as monetary gain but instead something more intellectual/practical that you need to help you get forward in life. </p>
<p>You can make money and get respect no matter what your life choices: you don’t need a PhD for that. From what you described, I would assume an M.S. in engineering or even an MBA and go into some kind of engineering field on the marketing/business side of things would seem like the tree you’re barking up.</p>
<p>I’ve been working in academic science for over five years and I’ve met a lot of PhD students, and I have yet to hear a single one say they were in it for the money. Some people hope to go into industry after graduation because the salaries are usually higher and the jobs (at least in some fields) are easier to come by, but the reason they get the PhD is because they want to contribute to research. </p>
<p>If your primary goal is a big paycheck, I would consider another route. As Bass51az said, an MS or an MBA would be a much easier route, maybe even a law degree. The legal job market is very saturated now, but with an EE undergrad degree you could potentially make a lot of money doing patent law (if you can get a job). </p>
<p>If you were to go the engineering route, in many engineering subfields the MS is considered the preferred professional degree anyway.</p>
<p>^Now, to be fair, med students usually have to take out loans, and homarus included assistant professorship, which is not terribly paying. But the math is still clear. Don’t do a PhD for money.</p>
<p>OK, fair enough. But I also compared average full professor salary to average cardiologist salary–the average cardiologist 5 years in is probably making more than 300K. The loans can be big, but if you’re making that much, they’ll be pretty easy to pay off. Whereas with a PhD, if tuition weren’t waived, few (sensible) people would do it.</p>
<p>You may make lots of money, particularly if you get an engineering PhD and go into industry. You might even make six figures.</p>
<p>Chances are, you won’t make much more than you would with an MS and you’ll take a lot longer to do it. Don’t listen to the myth of getting your PhD in 3-4 years: Nature released a report (I think in 2009) that shows that most science PhD students spend, on average, 6-8 years completing their PhDs. There wasn’t a single field that dipped below the 6-year line as far as average time to degree went. You may take 5, if you are lucky. That’s 3-4 years that you COULD be earning a master’s level salary that you are forfeiting - let’s say that you could’ve earned 70K, you are forfeiting $210-280K. (And that’s assuming that you don’t borrow ANY money during your PhD years).</p>
<p>Not only that, but the Nature report also noted that 1-3 years after graduation, only around 20% of PhD holdes in the sciences or engineering were in full-time, non-tenured non-faculty positions (industry). Less than 30% were full-time tenured or tenure-track faulty. It seems that about half go to post docs (45%) or part-time work, likely adjuncts (5%).</p>