So you want to be a scientist in industry

[gravenewworld]

Before you even start reading, if you are pursuing your degree to work in academia or for altruistic reasons, GREAT! However, this thread isn't for you so don't bother responding. If you actually care about your 401(K), your stock options, what kind of lifestyle you will be able to afford, and your retirement account, then keep on reading, this thread is for you. If you aren't going to read this entire post, then don't bother responding either.


People will tell you that you shouldn't pursue science if you are interested in making money. This is completely faulty logic in my opinion. If science interests you, what would be wrong with making money off of doing something you love to do? Yes folks, there are some wealthy scientists out there who make in excess of $300,000 per year in industry, and not all of them are PhDs believe it or not.


Alright where to begin?

Let's start with what everyone is concered about:

"How much am I going to make?"

Let's look at the general pay scheme for the company I work at. The pay scheme is pretty much the norm in industry (with room for some deviations of course). The levels and titles might be called different things, but where you will be placed in the scheme given your education and experience is pretty much always the same in all different types of industries.



Research Associate: BS/BA with 0-2 years experience or equivalent

Associate Scientist: BS/BA with 2+ years experience or MS

Research Scientist I: BA/BS with 4+ years experience or MS with 2+ years experience

Research Scientist II: BA/BS with 6+ years experience or MS with 4+ years experience

Research Investigator: BA/BS with 8+ years experience or MS with 6+ years experience or PhD

Senior Research Investigator: BA/BS with 10+ years experience MS with 8+ years experience or PhD with 2+ years experience

Principal Research Investigator: BA/BS with 15+ years experience MS with 13+ years experience or PhD with +7 years experience

Research Fellow: BA/BS with 20+ years experience MS with 18+ years experience or PhD with 12+ years experience.


Principal Research Fellow: open to anyone with an outstanding career

Pay starts at about $40-50 grand on the bottom with increments of about $5000 between each level.

Notice a few things. A bachelor's or master's is capable of running their own programs and even being in charge of PhDs given that they have enough experience. The level of degree doesn't matter that much so in industry when compared to experience. How long would a PhD take? 4+ years after graduating and then another 4+ years of postdocs. Well, if you look at the scheme you could get a Masters and 6+ years experience in that amount of time and be on the same level as a PhD who is for the first time entering industry.

Also, look harder. Let's say you are on the very bottom. Most companies will pay for additional education. Thus, if you are BS you could earn your master's degree WHILE working. This could be completed in 2-3 years. If you choose to study while working, you get to gain experience WHILE getting an advanced degree. Thus in 2-3 years after getting your BS you could be a Research Scientist I since you now have a Master and 2+ years experience. You could completely skip the Associate Scientist level all together. Since you skipped a level, you could be on par witha PhD with just working in industry for 6 years, if you went to school while working.

Think about all the income you would lose if you decided to get a PhD. You would lose out on 8 years of income, while someone who just went right into industry with a bachelor's would be getting paid the same as you in only 6 years if they chose to studying for a master's while working. They would also be making a salary for that entire 6 years as well. In industry a PhD isn't always worth it.


Nature has had some interesting articles recently on finding employment as a scientist in industry. Anyone who is thinking about going into industry should read these:

"A degree of professionalism: There's a growing career path for students who like science, but don't want to be academics."

Nature Vol 445 25 Jan. 2007

From the article:

Recruiters in many industries say that a large fraction of their recruits don't nee dto be PhDs, and may even be better off without them.

"A question of supply and demand: Simply having a PhD may not be enough-you need to marry scientific expertise with the right skills."

Nature Vol 445 4 Jan. 2007


From the article:

In the past, becoming a good researcher served as adequate preparation for a carreer as a scientist. Now, although solid rsearch skills are as essential as ever, in many cases they are insufficient when it comes to contributing in a given work setting or advancing one's career...Most training environments are focused on research, and pay little attention to the practical requirements of the labor market, perhaps owing to the fear that time spent by trainees thinking about something other than their specific discipline mght detract from prductivity.

"Great expectations: You know what you want from a job. But how do you convince an employer that your skills are relevant?"

Nature Vol 445 18 January 2007

From the article:

Working in the field of human resources has given me first hand experience of the problems faced by both academics and employers seeking skilled workers. One of the most significant issues in the scientific sector is a mismatch in expectations. Often, a single vacancy in industry can generate hundreds of applications from academic scientists. Yet, despite this apparent wealth of choice for the prospective employer, none of the initial applicants will secure the job--leaving both sides disappointed.

This happens because industry often expects its candidates to have a set of specific attributes--it wants them to be highly motivated, to have a sound background in research, such as a good academic postdoc, and to have done at least one internship in industry. Meanwhile, what most academic candidates offer is a good research background, management experience and a host of 'soft' skills, such as writing and presenting data. But they often fail to explain how these skills will help them meet a company's needs.

"Are we producing to many PhDs?"

Nature Vol 445 4 January 2007

From the article:

[Are Western universities currently producing too many PhDs or too few? The answer depends largely on whether you are recruiting for a job or looking for one. For recent graduates who are struggling to beat hundres of other applicants to claim a full time post, the answer is fairly obvious. But for those in industry who are trawling this sea of talent, the issue is less clear cut. Many recruiters say that they are unable to find the skills they require in the traditional marketplace. Depending on your level of cynicism, this is either an honest assessment or an apologia for outsourcing farther afield. /QUOTE]




So what to conclude from all of this? In industry a PhD is NOT required. Too often, employers have way too many PhD candidates with absolutely 0 useful skills and knowledge. I would be lying if I said that there were no positions for which a PhD is required. But be aware that for those positions, competition will be intense. Those who will do the best will have skills that the employer will find useful. You can have all the book knowledge in the world, but if you have never even performed that experiment you learned about in your book in a real lab, you are pretty much toast. Also be aware that employment opportunities for PhDs also depend on your specialty. Since I am a chemist I will use chemistry as an example. A PhD who specializes in organic synthesis or analytical chemistry has a MUCH MUCH greater chance at finding employment in industry than someone, who say, specializes in physical/theoretical chemistry. Employers want knowledge that will make them profits, not Nobel prizes. PhDs will give you more expertise not necessarily more flexibility. I have seen it a countless times, rooms full of scientists have no sense of economics at all. Scientists are constantly trying to improve on existing products/technology, but in some cases improvements aren't necessarily needed in order to make a PROFIT. Some scientists will spend years and years trying to beat the best product out there and spend millions of dollars doing so, when they could have marketed their product 5 years ago and made a profit even though it wasn't better than the competition. As long as you can carve out a niche market, profit is possible. You need to be more than just a scientist, you have to be aware of costs and financial issues. In order to find decent employment you should be aware of the market, gain managing skills, and learn how to present you work to not only scientists, but those in other areas like marketing, finance, and human resources.


In industry learning is done all the time on the job, even for PhDs. Much of the science done in industry is practical. A lot of the theories taught in academia are not used at all in industry. You have to be comfortable with this, especially if you choose to spend a lot of your time pursuing an advanced degree BEFORE you even enter into the market place.

 

[Yowhatsupt]

you get a phd cause you love science or a subject not because its your most financially sound option.

 

[gravenewworld]

you get a phd cause you love science or a subject not because its your most financially sound option.

Once again, this has little relevance to those who want to pursue a career in industry. If one wants to pursue a PhD AND WORK IN INDUSTRY, they better damn well know what employers are looking for. If one wants to pursue a PhD in something it better be something relevant to the industrial setting, not theoretical academic work. There are people who want PhDs because they want to work in industry believe it or not.

 

[tmc]

you get a phd cause you love science or a subject not because its your most financially sound option.

Read the first line of the first post again.

 

[arunma]

OK, I admit I'm one of those altruistic persons who's pursuing a PhD to be an academic, and I haven't considered working in industry. Alas, this thread catches my attention. Here's a question for gravenewworld: from your experiences in industry, how easy is it for a PhD to transition back and forth between academia and industry? Do corporations have research groups, similar to what we've got in universities? And perhaps most importantly: do industry scientists publish papers?

I'm far more interested in being a scientist than making money, but it's not as though I'm specifically opposed to making money on the side, if possible. So if life in industry science is similar enough to life in academia, I just might consider it.

 

[gravenewworld]

OK, I admit I'm one of those altruistic persons who's pursuing a PhD to be an academic, and I haven't considered working in industry. Alas, this thread catches my attention. Here's a question for gravenewworld: from your experiences in industry, how easy is it for a PhD to transition back and forth between academia and industry? Do corporations have research groups, similar to what we've got in universities? And perhaps most importantly: do industry scientists publish papers?

Industry to academia "easier", academia to industry "harder". A PhD in industry always has the option of going back to academia. They may even have an advantage if they chose to leave industry for a highly coveted academic position. In industry PhDs are required all the time to attend conferences, present posters at national conventions, etc.

Corporations definitely have research groups. That is what R&D is all about. In industry R&D is all about discovering what is new, you simply aren't doing old science all the time--however it does have to be science that will hopefully lead to a profit. You will find that in industry a lot of the instrumentation and equipment available far surpasses what is available at most universities in terms of both quality and quantity. The only downside-- the equipment has to be used for work, not personal research (most of the time).

Do scientists in industry publish papers? OF COURSE THEY DO! Take a look at all the patents that you would find in something like scifinder. Those patents are owned by private companies most of the time, but they are published by scientists in industry. Where I work, all PhD scientists are actually REQUIRED to submit 1 article per year to a journal. Currently our PhDs are submitting articles to journals like Journal of the American Chemical Society, Journal of Organic Chemistry, and Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (which are huge name journals). The head honcho in our department acually wrote THE most referenced article of 2006 in the Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry. There is plenty of room for publishing in industry. Companies encourage this, as it only adds to their reputation.

I'm far more interested in being a scientist than making money, but it's not as though I'm specifically opposed to making money on the side, if possible. So if life in industry science is similar enough to life in academia, I just might consider it.

Just remember, in industry you will probably have a boss. You probably won't get to research everything your heart desires, but if you can live with that then industry might be a good place for you. In academia you have more freedom to come and go as you please. In industry, you better produce results and they better be within a certain time frame.

 

[NeoDevin]

gravenewworld

Do you know if it's also possible to get a PhD while working in industry, in the same way you describe earning your MS. Or are there not very many opportunities for that?

Also

Could you explain more on specifically what skill sets they're looking for in industry, and how to acquire them while in school?

I'm currently in my third year of my BSc, and planning to work in industry after I finish.

 

[arunma]

Just remember, in industry you will probably have a boss. You probably won't get to research everything your heart desires, but if you can live with that then industry might be a good place for you. In academia you have more freedom to come and go as you please. In industry, you better produce results and they better be within a certain time frame.

Thanks for your response, it was quite helpful. Based on what you've said about having a boss, I think I'll probably stick with academics. But hey, I've got five years of grad school to consider all this.

 

[gravenewworld]

gravenewworld

Do you know if it's also possible to get a PhD while working in industry, in the same way you describe earning your MS. Or are there not very many opportunities for that?

Also

Could you explain more on specifically what skill sets they're looking for in industry, and how to acquire them while in school?

I'm currently in my third year of my BSc, and planning to work in industry after I finish.

It isn't really possible to get a PhD while working in industry at the same time. But look at it from the perspective of an employer. With an MS +6 years experience, they see you pretty much the same as a PhD, and I guarantee you that in those 6 years you are doing PhD level science a lot of the time.Industry wants more than just a good scientific background or theoretical knowledge, every candidate has that. What skills would be applicable?

-Computer skills. If you can program or know some of the programs that are used in the field that you are trying to get into, you have a huge advantage.

-Bilingual. Employers (not just in the science industry) love to see anyone who can speak other languages.

-Communication skills. Are you clear when you explain something? How well are you at presenting your material? A rhetoric class would definitely help with this. From my very first week on the job I have been forced to give a presentation on what I have been doing every 2 weeks.

-Writing skills. Enough said. If you can't clearly write down exactly what you did in an experimental procedure or can't write coherent and lucid reports, you are toast. People have had their PhDs revoked by their universities for not maintaing their notebooks properly while working in industry. Take some English classes.

-Learn some business skills. Take a course(s) on basic economics, finance, or marketing. Many scientists in the lab are clueless when it comes to this kind of stuff. Some PhDs even have no sense of supply and demand or how to market a product. Like I said before, in order to make a profit for a company, one only really has to make a product with a unique niche, not something that is necessarily groundbreaking. Scientists always have a hard time swallowing this fact.

-Knowledge of statistics. Industry is all about stats, if you know some statistics, it will take you a long way.

I would suggest getting an intership if you want to work in industry. That way you gain a little bit of experience and also see what it is like out there. You have to sell yourself. Don't be afraid to brag about your accomplishments and your goals for the future. Employers want someone who is motivated.

What else could you do? Do you know of any recent graduates from your univ. and your major who work in industry close by? Drop them an email and see if you could follow them around for a day. A lot of the times they will say yes and would love to have a college student in (but don't be upset if they say no). It may also take a while for all the paper work to clear.

 

[NeoDevin]

Thanks, I've got the computer skills and the communication skills, and I am decent at technical writing. I'll see if I can fit any language, business, or writing courses into my schedule next year. I can't fit any stats courses in though...

 

[symbolipoint]

The managers in industry need people who can write; and who can think fast, and solve problems in a matter of minutes. If your investigative problem-solving process takes time, the managers do not care. They only care about results.

 

[ZapperZ]

Nature Vol 445 18 January 2007

From the article:

"Are we producing to many PhDs?"

Nature Vol 445 4 January 2007

From the article:

[Are Western universities currently producing too many PhDs or too few? The answer depends largely on whether you are recruiting for a job or looking for one. For recent graduates who are struggling to beat hundres of other applicants to claim a full time post, the answer is fairly obvious. But for those in industry who are trawling this sea of talent, the issue is less clear cut. Many recruiters say that they are unable to find the skills they require in the traditional marketplace. Depending on your level of cynicism, this is either an honest assessment or an apologia for outsourcing farther afield.

I think you are being very disingenious here. At the very least, you should have told people the whole story about this. This article was commenting on the glut of Ph.D's in the fields associated with the funding from NIH, of which YOUR FIELD is also one of those affected. This is a direct consequence of the "wealth" of money pouring from the doubling of the NIH budget done during the last decade. This "article", which is really a letter written to Nature, made zero mention about such glut in the physical science, which did not enjoy such wealth of money. In fact, one can only look at the number of US born Ph.D's in physics, for example, to see that this number is in fact declining!

This lack of manpower is what caused the US to continue to depend on foreign scientists to populate many of its research centers. One can clearly see such dependence when practically every educational institution, high-tech business, and others asked for the visa process to be improved after Sept. 11.

Can you, for example, look at the statistics of B.Sc degree holder in physics, and point out to where this matches exactly what you have claimed here?

Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

I think you are being very disingenious here. At the very least, you should have told people the whole story about this.

Why? That is why I gave the reference to the article and since the files are pdf files (can't copy and paste), I am not about to type out an entire article.

This article was commenting on the glut of Ph.D's in the fields associated with the funding from NIH, of which YOUR FIELD is also one of those affected. This is a direct consequence of the "wealth" of money pouring from the doubling of the NIH budget done during the last decade. This "article", which is really a letter written to Nature, made zero mention about such glut in the physical science, which did not enjoy such wealth of money. In fact, one can only look at the number of US born Ph.D's in physics, for example, to see that this number is in fact declining!

What? The brief article was clearly talking about if the glut of PhDs exists at all for the sciences in general. Did you read the right excerpt (maybe I got the title wrong I am trying to work off of the top of my head with the names of the articles)? The one written by Paul Smaglik, Nature Jobs editor? The NIH was not mentioned once in the brief article. The excerpt even mentions Peter Henderson, who reports about scientific workforce issues for the US national Academy of Sciences, that said that even from his own institution, reports have been prepared about the issue of "Whether or not there are too many PhDs" and that the data are contradictory. I think you must have read the latest letter in the new Nature issue that was entitled "Are there too many scientists". I read that one too, but that was not what I was referencing.

Also from the article (if you can call it that):

Cutting through this, Rodney Moses, vice-president for recruitment at reagents firm Invitrogen in Carlsbad, California, explained that he tends to put more faith in his own experiences than in data on the labor market. He told the meeting that he gets a lot of applicatins from PhD scientists [note there is no mention as to what field of science, just scientists in general!] but that few of them have the requisite business experience. "My ideal candidate would be a PhD with an MBA," Moses said. Failing that, he said, the prospective employee should at least have some understanding of how research skill can translate into the marketplace.

So what should I make of this? Should I trust all the stories of people trying to find jobs in industry that I read in Nature and Science and from my own experience, or should I trust statistics from places like ACS, AIP, MAA, etc. ?

This lack of manpower is what caused the US to continue to depend on foreign scientists to populate many of its research centers. One can clearly see such dependence when practically every educational institution, high-tech business, and others asked for the visa process to be improved after Sept. 11.

And employers care about this because? Employers don't care where their employees come from, whether they are homegrown or foreign. They only want employees that will make them profits, if foreign born students are the ones possessing the right skills to make it into the market place, then why is it such a surprise they they are relied upon heavily in industry?

Please if you are not going to contribute anything to as how one would get a job in industry, don't bother responding.

 

[ZapperZ]

Why? That is why I gave the reference to the article and since the files are pdf files (can't copy and paste), I am not about to type out an entire article.

What? The brief article was clearly talking about if the glut of PhDs exists at all for the sciences in general. Did you read the right excerpt (maybe I got the title wrong I am trying to work off of the top of my head with the names of the articles)? The one written by Paul Smaglik, Nature Jobs editor? The NIH was not mentioned once in the brief article. The excerpt even mentions Peter Henderson, who reports about scientific workforce issues for the US national Academy of Sciences, that said that even from his own institution, reports have been prepared about the issue of "Whether or not there are too many PhDs" and that the data are contradictory. I think you must have read the latest letter in the new Nature issue that was entitled "Are there too many scientists". I read that one too, but that was not what I was referencing.

Also from the article (if you can call it that):



So what should I make of this? Should I trust all the stories of people trying to find jobs in industry that I read in Nature and Science and from my own experience, or should I trust statistics from places like ACS, AIP, MAA, etc. ?

And NOTE the nature of the business that he was in! This is why I said that the whole article, NOT ONCE, mentioned anything about engineering or physics fields. Furthermore, how accurate do you think for someone who is surveying the field of study from one particular area to extrapolate that into the job situation in another field of study?

And if you care that much about anecdotal evidence versus large sampling of data, then how come my anecdotal evidence do not count in your book? Every specific examples that you have given, I've also given a counter example. It seems that when faced with statistics that counter your observation, you prefer to hold up your personal views, but when I counter it with my own personal observation, somehow that doesn't count. I'm sorry, but this is the WORST example of non-scientific deduction.

And employers care about this because? Employers don't care where their employees come from, whether they are homegrown or foreign. They only want employees that will make them profits, if foreign born students are the ones possessing the right skills to make it into the market place, then why is it such a surprise they they are relied upon heavily in industry?

You obviously do not know that US Employers simply can't hire a non-US citizen that easily. That employer has to, first of all, prove that they have advertised the position AND have tried to hire US citizens that best match the criteria that is required. Besides, this is NOT the point. The point being the there clearly is a decline in US-born physics Ph.D's award in the US, NOT more. This causes both research institutions and private industries to hire non-US citizens to fullfill their needs. THAT is my point that you have missed!

Please if you are not going to contribute anything to as how one would get a job in industry, don't bother responding.

Not if you continue to mislead people with your quotations and observation. If you had done this only for YOUR field of study, I wouldn't have cared. But you are trying to over-generalized the WHOLE scientific field of study which includes MY field, and which I certainly have MORE of a direct knowledge to it than you do! I asked you specifically to correlate what you have claimed versus the statistics provided by the AIP about B.Sc physics degree recipient and the nature of the jobs and salary that they get. You dismissed that and prefer to use your own observation, not on physicists, but on people in your field!

It is a highly irresponsible act on your part to over-generalized your own observation and think that it can be extrapolated not only to everyone, but also outside of your field. When I wrote my series of essays, I was never under any delusion that what I wrote would apply to someone in Chemistry or biology, or even engineering. In fact, even within physics itself, there's a tremendous variation from one area to another, and I constantly have to make reminders of this fact!

Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

A
And if you care that much about anecdotal evidence versus large sampling of data, then how come my anecdotal evidence do not count in your book?

And how come Dr. Transport's anecdotal evidence doesn't count in your book? Why did you choose to simply ignore his experiences? He is a physicist after all.

You obviously do not know that US Employers simply can't hire a non-US citizen that easily. That employer has to, first of all, prove that they have advertised the position AND have tried to hire US citizens that best match the criteria that is required. Besides, this is NOT the point. The point being the there clearly is a decline in US-born physics Ph.D's award in the US, NOT more. This causes both research institutions and private industries to hire non-US citizens to fullfill their needs. THAT is my point that you have missed!

Really. Two of my bosses are foreign born and have been waiting for their green cards for 4 years. I know it is difficult to get a job as a foreign born scientist, but if you think this is stopping private companies from highering foreign born people you are wrong. Companies have armies and armies of lawyers who spend all day and are paid to deal with these kinds of issues.

Not if you continue to mislead people with your quotations and observation. If you had done this only for YOUR field of study, I wouldn't have cared. But you are trying to over-generalized the WHOLE scientific field of study which includes MY field, and which I certainly have MORE of a direct knowledge to it than you do! I asked you specifically to correlate what you have claimed versus the statistics provided by the AIP about B.Sc physics degree recipient and the nature of the jobs and salary that they get. You dismissed that and prefer to use your own observation, not on physicists, but on people in your field!

Great so post how a physics student, who may not even want a PhD, should pursue a career in industry or provide links to posts that you already have made about this issue. Nature has been running a series of articles as to what it is like to pursue a job in the science industry since Jan. Maybe you should write them a letter and tell them that they can't generalize either. ZZ you are a good guy I really like you. If I ever met you in real life I would probably buy you a beer and we would get along easily.

 

[ZapperZ]

And how come Dr. Transport's anecdotal evidence doesn't count in your book? Why did you choose to simply ignore his experiences? He is a physicist after all.

Where did I ignored it? I've acknowledged Dr. Transport's experience several times, and not just in that thread!

And you seem to keep ignoring the fact that I have mentioned several times about the varying experience and opportunities that many of us have! I never claim, based on anecdotal evidence alone of any generalized situation for all of physics. That would be a LIE!

I have ZERO disagreement with what you are experiencing or observing. I do, however, have a tremendous disagreement with your ability to project what you observe and using that to generalized it to not only all of your field, but all of science! That, if you still could not see, is my objection to what you have written!

Really. Two of my bosses are foreign born and have been waiting for their green cards for 4 years. I know it is difficult to get a job as a foreign born scientist, but if you think this is stopping private companies from highering foreign born people you are wrong. Companies have armies and armies of lawyers who spend all day and are paid to deal with these kinds of issues.

And where did I say they can't? First of all, the number of H1-B1 visa for industries has a CAP on it every year. Most foreign scientists start with that status first before they are even considered for a green card, which is much more difficult to get. Most have to get it via the petition by their employer to claim that they are either an outstanding scientist, researcher, professor, etc, because these do not have a limit. The other employment base green card has a lenghthier process AND gets capped every year on the number that can get through.

Still, this is BESIDES the point once again. The data is very clear and has no dispute. The # of Ph.D's in physics received by US-born recipients is dropping. It is why many companies and research institutions have to hire foreign scientists. That is my point. And so far, in 2 replies, you have not been able to dispute that.

Great so post how a physics student, who may not even want a PhD, should pursue a career in industry or provide links to posts that you already have made about this issue.

And this clearly shows that you haven't read my essay on this very topic, even though I and several others (Astronuc was the last one to mention it in the other thread). So in case you are too lazy to read the whole thing, or to find it in the Sticky, here it is:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=51406&page=8

This is not something that I've dreamed up just yesterday, or even recently. It is something that I've thought about for a long time, and have seen at least a dozen people who went on this route. As far as I can tell, their experience matches in general to the AIP statistics regarding how difficult and easy it is to (i) stop at the B.Sc level and (ii) seek jobs in a different profession other than physics.

Based on these two sources, it is IMPERATIVE that a student that intends to not pursue graduate school should know what he/she is facing, the SAME way students who intend to pursue graduate school and the physics profession should be made aware of what lies ahead. The ability for a B.Sc-only holder to work in physics is extremely limited. It is not based only on my observation, but also on the most complete statistics obtained by the AIP year in and year out. For you to paint a rather rosey picture of it is highly irresponsible.

ZZ you are a good guy I really like you. If I ever met you in real life I would probably buy you a beer and we would get along easily.

I'm sure we would, since we both are passionate about what we believe in. However, I don't drink beer.



Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

I wouldn't doubt at all that a BS in physics has extremely limited options when it comes to finding employment as a physicist. The point of this thread was the fact that with say something like a BS in physics, employment in industry is still possible. With a BS in physics and a set of skills like being good at using a computer, speaking another language, good written and oral skill employment is very possible. I would also think that having a those set of skills would make one more easily employable no matter what field of science they were in. That is what I was trying to do with this threadt, come up with a set of skills that are universal that would make one more employable in industry no matter what field of science or engineering they were in. This is definitely doable, and too often science students have little or none of these skills at all when they graduate from college. Too many science student graduate from college without ever having taken a course on something like economics or a writing intensive English class.

Still, this is BESIDES the point once again. The data is very clear and has no dispute. The # of Ph.D's in physics received by US-born recipients is dropping. It is why many companies and research institutions have to hire foreign scientists. That is my point. And so far, in 2 replies, you have not been able to dispute that.

I don't dispute it, but have you ever wondered why the number of US born students might be dropping? For those that wanted to work in industry, maybe they may be discouraged from pursuing a science degree based on what they are observing. The fact is many many of our universities are not preparing students who want to work in industry for the real world. They are only training them with knowledge of the science, but this isn't good enough! Many universities and many doctoral advisers, simply refuse or don' even bother to train scientists with skills that are marketable.
The point of this thread is the fact that I believe that you can talk about science in general and how you can find employment as a scientist in industry. It doesn't take a genious to figure out what is necessary [other than scientific skills] to find employment, but plenty science students ignore the need for these skills. That is what the whole point of the articles I posted in Nature were about. Many employers in industry can't find the right candidates among a plethora of PhDs because they have 0 marketable skills, but all the scientific knowledge in the world. Competition of PhD positions in industry is intense because of the sheer volume of applicants. Those that find the PhD jobs will have those skills mentioned above.

You might not like the fact that I advocate getting a master's degree. However, I was simply offering up and alternative suggestion to getting a PhD for someone who wants to work in industry. After all, employers equate a master's and plenty of experience with a fresh PhD. That, you simply can't deny.

 

[ZapperZ]

The point of this thread is the fact that I believe that you can talk about science in general and how you can find employment as a scientist in industry.

But that is why I asked to you compare your claims with the AIP statistics as far as physics is concerned. You never did. For example, look at Figure 9 of the most recent http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp.pdf". What you claim does match the data being collected. Is it possible for someone with a B.Sc to work in physics? Sure? Is it LIKELY? NO!

I see a complete disservice to sell something that isn't likely to occur. You are giving a false impression to students that such a thing is common and widely attainable. It isn't. Can you find a job with a B.Sc in physics? Sure! Can you work as a physicist? Not very likely. The scenario you painted cannot be applied across the board, and certainly NOT with physics.

Zz.

 

[Ki Man]

this thread should be renamed 'how to argue your opinion on employability and the job market in scientific careers'

 

[ZapperZ]

this thread should be renamed 'how to argue your opinion on employability and the job market in scientific careers'

The only problem with that is that it isn't just my opinion. I haven't seen any other more extensive data on physicists as the AIP data. If someone has one as extensive with a different conclusion, and as recent as that data, he/she is welcome to present it here.

It is based on those data that I argued why what has been presented here is NOT accurate, at least not as far as physics is concerned. If all we care about is arguing "opinions" based on anecdotal and personal observations, then we might as well argue about favorite colors. It would be THAT futile.

Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

The only problem with that is that it isn't just my opinion. I haven't seen any other more extensive data on physicists as the AIP data. If someone has one as extensive with a different conclusion, and as recent as that data, he/she is welcome to present it here.

It is based on those data that I argued why what has been presented here is NOT accurate, at least not as far as physics is concerned. If all we care about is arguing "opinions" based on anecdotal and personal observations, then we might as well argue about favorite colors. It would be THAT futile.

Zz.

I think you are misinterpreting the scenario I presented. According your AIP stats 56% of Physics BS, who decide to work, go into private industry and 2/3 that go into private industry take up jobs that are STEM (science, technoogy, engineering, and math).
So let's say Jane gets a job in industry doing STEM with her physics BS at company doing material science. Even though she has never even taken a course on material science, her skill from her BS degree would enable her to learn the knowledge necessary to do material science by working on the job. While she is working, her compnay could pay for additional eduation; she could easily go on for her master's degree in say material science while on the job. Then after she earns her master's in material science and with a enough experience, she would be above or on par with someone who wanted to enter industry with PhD in material science.

This is the scenario I was trying to present, and it is definitely quite possible. You are assuming that BS in physics would want to stay in physics only. I was simply trying to say that a BS in science could pursue a career in that field OR another related field, eventually get more education in that same field OR related field through one's company, and then become manager with enough experience (even manager over PhDs). Even with a BS and enough experience it is quite possible to become a manager. This is something a lot of students who want a PhD don't understand. They automatically think that with a PhD you will be in charge of your own discovery group managing after BS and MS scientists. This isn't the case. PhDs can be low man on the totem pole too.

This is why I advocate a master's so much. For those working in industry, money is an issue. Why miss out on 8 years of income earning a PhD when you could be making money for those entire 8 years in industry, earning your master's while you work, and then be equivalent in pay to a PhD in 6 years. PhD in industry doesn't always give you an advantage.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think you are misinterpreting the scenario I presented. According your AIP stats 56% of Physics BS, who decide to work, go into private industry and 2/3 that go into private industry take up jobs that are STEM (science, technoogy, engineering, and math).
So let's say Jane gets a job in industry doing STEM with her physics BS at company doing material science. Even though she has never even taken a course on material science, her skill from her BS degree would enable her to learn the knowledge necessary to do material science by working on the job. While she is working, her compnay could pay for additional eduation; she could easily go on for her master's degree in say material science while on the job. Then after she earns her master's in material science and with a enough experience, she would be above or on par with someone who wanted to enter industry with PhD in material science.

This is the scenario I was trying to present, and it is definitely quite possible. You are assuming that BS in physics would want to stay in physics only. I was simply trying to say that a BS in science could pursue a career in that field OR another related field, eventually get more education in that same field OR related field through one's company, and then become manager with enough experience (even manager over PhDs). Even with a BS and enough experience it is quite possible to become a manager.

Come again?

2/3 of 55 percent is LESS than 50%. Already this isn't a likely occurence. You also made several speculation on what could happen. Besides, since when are we arguing that one can get industrial job with a B.Sc?

In physics, the high-tech/material science industries also tend to hire Ph.D's in material science/condensed matter. I know this for a fact because I was in the whole mix at the same time. So this is the very type of industry that I mentioned way earlier in the other thread, in which you utterly dismissed with your argument that had more to do with an attack against physics than doing a Ph.D in physics.

The total number of physics B.Sc pursuing this is still utterly small. The overwhelming majority still pursue graduate studies and most will pursue a Ph.D. So if you look at that, the overall percentage of physics majors who actually go into such area is VERY small. Which brings my original argument in this thread, that you are presenting a scenario that is not very likely as far as a physics major is concerned! And if that is a small percentage in the first place, what is the likelihood of that very particular scenario that you just described would happen?

You are presenting a false hope of something that doesn't occur very often. It is MORE likely that a physics Ph.D would find a suitable job than what you have described. Yet, you had a boatload of objection against the former, all based on what you saw in YOUR sector, and not even in the same field of study!

Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

Come again?

2/3 of 55 percent is LESS than 50%. Already this isn't a likely occurence. You also made several speculation on what could happen. Besides, since when are we arguing that one can get industrial job with a B.Sc?

In physics, the high-tech/material science industries also tend to hire Ph.D's in material science/condensed matter. I know this for a fact because I was in the whole mix at the same time. So this is the very type of industry that I mentioned way earlier in the other thread, in which you utterly dismissed with your argument that had more to do with an attack against physics than doing a Ph.D in physics.

The total number of physics B.Sc pursuing this is still utterly small. The overwhelming majority still pursue graduate studies and most will pursue a Ph.D. So if you look at that, the overall percentage of physics majors who actually go into such area is VERY small. Which brings my original argument in this thread, that you are presenting a scenario that is not very likely as far as a physics major is concerned! And if that is a small percentage in the first place, what is the likelihood of that very particular scenario that you just described would happen?

You are presenting a false hope of something that doesn't occur very often. It is MORE likely that a physics Ph.D would find a suitable job than what you have described. Yet, you had a boatload of objection against the former, all based on what you saw in YOUR sector, and not even in the same field of study!

Zz.

Besides, since when are we arguing that one can get industrial job with a B.Sc?

Since the thread began. That is why the thread is entitled "so you want to be a SCIENTIST in industry". The term scientist in the title of the thread is ambiguous. It could be for any field of science. This thread is about pursuing a career in industry with a science degree in general.

So basicaly what you are saying, is that if one wants to study physics, they BETTER want a PhD if they want to go into industry or else their employment outlook is bleak? You are assuming all physics students must take up jobs that have solely to do with physics. Even in the AIP report itself, it said many physics BS find jobs as engineers.

I think this stance would turn even more students away from studying physics, as they would be more likely not to pursue physics if they believe that they would HAVE to spend 12 years
getting a PhD and training in order to find a job. There are plenty of students studying physics who don't want to go on for a PhD, but simply want to work in industry after graduating with a BS. They don't have to work in industry doing physics, they could do something else, earn an advanced degree in the field they find employment in and become manager. PhD not required.
The AIP report even also said that the trend for STEM jobs for physics BS looks positive, and that it expects more jobs for BS grad in STEM.


Alright so the material science example may have been a bad example. Use your imagination. A company could higher a physics person to do computer programming, then the story could progress the same from there...

 

[ZapperZ]

Since the thread began. That is why the thread is entitled "so you want to be a SCIENTIST in industry". The term scientist in the title of the thread is ambiguous. It could be for any field of science. This thread is about pursuing a career in industry with a science degree in general.

And what I'm saying is that this is NOT what I'm arguing about! That's why I asked since when are we ARGUING about this? It isn't what *I* am arguing. So I don't know why you are bringing this up!

So basicaly what you are saying, is that if one wants to study physics, they BETTER want a PhD if they want to go into industry or else their employment outlook is bleak? You are assuming all physics students must take up jobs that have solely to do with physics. Even in the AIP report itself, it said many physics BS find jobs as engineers.

I think this stance would turn even more students away from studying physics, as they would be more likely not to pursue physics if they believe that they would HAVE to spend 12 years
getting a PhD and training in order to find a job. There are plenty of students studying physics who don't want to go on for a PhD, but simply want to work in industry after graduating with a BS. They don't have to work in industry doing physics, they could do something else, earn an advanced degree in the field they find employment in and become manager. PhD not required.
The AIP report even also said that the trend for STEM jobs for physics BS looks positive, and that it expects more jobs for BS grad in STEM.

And it seems that you still don't want to read the essay that I have written, because if you have, you would have clearly understood my stand on this. And the fact that I continue to tell people about all the different route that one can take with the B.Sc degree clearly indicates that I am AWARE of such possibility.

However, and as someone else has mentioned in the other thread, MOST physics majors go into this field to work as physicist. Why would you go into it to be a computer programmer? You major in computer science to do that. You also do not plan on become in "engineer" to major in physics - you take up engineering to do that.

Yet, it is to the credit of a good physics program and to the degree recipients themselves that with a B.Sc in physics, one CAN actually be all of those because of the training one gets. However, this number is NOT LARGE when compared to those that go on to work in physics, which is what most physics major ultimately want to do when they start out.

So to make something which is a small percentage, as being highly viable and likely, to me is extremely misleading. If your intention was to show other possible avenue, then sure! Even *I* would encourage that. However, look at how you started this thread, and how you continue to belittle graduate education that MOST physics majors actually end up pursuing. You made it sound as IF the doom and gloom is universal in all of science employment, and that everyone is better off looking for a job as soon as one gets a B.Sc degree. This is FALSE as far as physics is concerned simply based on the AIP statistics.

Again, you somehow cannot distinguish between what is "possible" versus what is "likely" or something that has a higher probability. I mean, if we only want to argue about "possible", I could easily say that you could be a world famous physicist and work at Princeton as a physicist without getting a Ph.D! Why? Because Freeman Dyson did it, so it IS possible. But that would be horribly wrong, because Dyson is an EXCEPTION, not the rule, and certainly not the norm in physics employment.

Many Ph.D's in physics that I know that went into industrial settings work as physicists, or at least within the field of study that they were trained in. I know that when Applied Materials offered me a job, I was going to essentially do almost the same thing that I have already done during my Ph.D work. Now, people may go on to other areas eventually, and their "title" may have the word "engineer" in it, but it is STILL similar to what they know.

Most B.Sc degree holder that *I* know that went into industries do not get to do that. They become line engineers, or have to work in computer simulation of engineering processes. They do USE the analytical skills that they got as a physics major, but they do not work as physicists or in areas that are identified as physics. This is a more common scenario. I am not saying it is better or worse. I make no value judgment of the nature of the job, or the choices that people have to make. But they should not be misled into think that this is a common occurrence! It isn't! Engineering positions tend to be filled by ENGINEERS who have more practical skills than most physics majors.

Alright so the material science example may have been a bad example. Use your imagination. A company could higher a physics person to do computer programming, then the story could progress the same from there...

They could. But what is the percentage of incoming physics majors in the statistics end up with that kind of a job? It certainly isn't common enough that you'd use it as a poster to advertise people to major in physics, is it?

Zz.

 

[NeoDevin]

ZZ or graven,

Do you have any suggestions on good industries to get into, or companies to work for if someone (ie. me) did want to go into industry after their BSc, and would prefer to work in physics?

I plan to get a job once I have my BSc, and I would prefer (though not require) it to be in physics, or something closely related, and work towards my MS while working. I may or may not decide to get my PhD later, depends on circumstances.

 

[gravenewworld]

And what I'm saying is that this is NOT what I'm arguing about! That's why I asked since when are we ARGUING about this? It isn't what *I* am arguing. So I don't know why you are bringing this up!

We were arguing about it in the "don't do a PHD in physics". You told me to make a different thread for what I was trying to say, so I did. What was discussed in the "don't do a PhD in physics thread" is completely irrelevant here.

However, and as someone else has mentioned in the other thread, MOST physics majors go into this field to work as physicist. Why would you go into it to be a computer programmer? You major in computer science to do that. You also do not plan on become in "engineer" to major in physics - you take up engineering to do that.

No, you study what you think is interesting as an undergraduate. You can take a job doing something else not even related to what you studied as an undergrad because it would pay the bills.

Yet, it is to the credit of a good physics program and to the degree recipients themselves that with a B.Sc in physics, one CAN actually be all of those because of the training one gets. However, this number is NOT LARGE when compared to those that go on to work in physics, which is what most physics major ultimately want to do when they start out.

So to make something which is a small percentage, as being highly viable and likely, to me is extremely misleading. If your intention was to show other possible avenue, then sure! Even *I* would encourage that. However, look at how you started this thread, and how you continue to belittle graduate education that MOST physics majors actually end up pursuing. You made it sound as IF the doom and gloom is universal in all of science employment, and that everyone is better off looking for a job as soon as one gets a B.Sc degree. This is FALSE as far as physics is concerned simply based on the AIP statistics.

Once again you are assuming that physics BS students want to go into STEM industry as physicists. This doesn't have to be necessarily the case. In fact from your AIP statistics, 41% of physics BS go on to private industry (2/3 of which find employment in STEM). So roughly 1 out of every 4 physics BS grads finds jobs in STEM directly out of college. This is still a significant number of physics grads who find employment in STEM with their BS degrees. 25% is NOT a small percentage of physics grads.

So to make something which is a small percentage, as being highly viable and likely, to me is extremely misleading. If your intention was to show other possible avenue, then sure! Even *I* would encourage that. However, look at how you started this thread, and how you continue to belittle graduate education that MOST physics majors actually end up pursuing. You made it sound as IF the doom and gloom is universal in all of science employment, and that everyone is better off looking for a job as soon as one gets a B.Sc degree. This is FALSE as far as physics is concerned simply based on the AIP statistics.

No, I was simply looking at the stats you gave me.

Straight from the AIP stats you gave me:

93% of physics master's degree holders in private industry enjoy employment in STEM. With the Master's physics was the most common employment in STEM followed by engineering

Only 25% of physics PhDs who accepted permanent positions were employed in physics. The biggest field of employment for PhDs is Engineering.

So really, according to your AIP statistics, if one wanted to do physics for a living and not something else in STEM, their best chance would be to get a master's (pg. 11 and 16 CLEARLY state this fact). More MS physics people get jobs doing physics, while the biggest chunk of PhDs in physics goes into engineering as a career. It is clearly stated in your AIP stats that most master's recipients in physics are employed in industry to do physics. PhDs who want to work in industry, according to the AIP stats, are employed mostly as engineers, followed then by physics as a career.

Most B.Sc degree holder that *I* know that went into industries do not get to do that. They become line engineers, or have to work in computer simulation of engineering processes. They do USE the analytical skills that they got as a physics major, but they do not work as physicists or in areas that are identified as physics. This is a more common scenario. I am not saying it is better or worse. I make no value judgment of the nature of the job, or the choices that people have to make. But they should not be misled into think that this is a common occurrence! It isn't! Engineering positions tend to be filled by ENGINEERS who have more practical skills than most physics majors.

EXACTLY! This is what I have been trying to say all along. BS degree recipients may go into STEM doing something else that may not even be related or loosely related to physics at all. According to the AIP stats, roughly 1:4 students with a BS degree in 2007 found a job in STEM and that this number is even expected to improve. 25% is definitely a significant number who found a job in industry, and considering the fact that most master's degree holders find jobs in industry doing physics a master's degree seems like a good choice, at least according to the AIP stats you gave me.

That is what this thread was about. How does one with a science degree (any field of science at all!) get a job in industry doing science for a living (this may be any field of science, not just the one a person studied as an undergrad!). It is definitely possible to make general observations on how a science student can pursue a job in science in industry. Nature magazine does it every week.

 

[gravenewworld]

ZZ or graven,

Do you have any suggestions on good industries to get into, or companies to work for if someone (ie. me) did want to go into industry after their BSc, and would prefer to work in physics?

I plan to get a job once I have my BSc, and I would prefer (though not require) it to be in physics, or something closely related, and work towards my MS while working. I may or may not decide to get my PhD later, depends on circumstances.

If you ONLY want to do physics as a career then ask ZZ.

According to the AIP stats , the largest chunk of BS physics people who decide to go into industry doing science, engineering, technology, or math go into engineering. Would you want to do engineering possibly? Earning a MS in engineering after working for a little bit as an engineer is definitely possible.

The other largest sector of employment for BS physics holders is in computing and information systems. Would that be an acceptable form of employment for you?

 

[ZapperZ]

We were arguing about it in the "don't do a PHD in physics". You told me to make a different thread for what I was trying to say, so I did. What was discussed in the "don't do a PhD in physics thread" is completely irrelevant here.

No, I actually told you to create a thread on why people shouldn't do physics, because you were bashing the subject matter rather than why people shouldn't do a Ph.D in physics, remember?

So instead, you created a thread in which the whole purpose is NOT to give a viable alternative to people who want to stop at just the B.Sc level, but also take a SWIPE at people who want to go on to do a graduate degree. It is just not enough to simply tell people that there are other means to make a living with a B.Sc degree, but you just HAD to also criticize people who do go on to get the higher degree, all based on YOUR narrow observation. Again, THAT is what I criticized!

No, you study what you think is interesting as an undergraduate. You can take a job doing something else not even related to what you studied as an undergrad because it would pay the bills.

But you're assuming here that the person who took that did it by his/her own choice! I'd say that for most physics majors, if they had a choice, they want to become physicists. What percentage of incomming undergraduate who choose a major as DIFFICULT as physics, with the hope to be something else after they graduate? That's insane!

The may opt for other fields later on for whatever the reason, but the MAJORITY of them STILL go on to graduate school. We see this clearly in previous year's statistics because when the opportunities are available with increase funding, the percentage of those pursuing graduate degree increased!

Once again you are assuming that physics BS students want to go into STEM industry as physicists. This doesn't have to be necessarily the case. In fact from your AIP statistics, 41% of physics BS go on to private industry (2/3 of which find employment in STEM). So roughly 1 out of every 4 physics BS grads finds jobs in STEM directly out of college. This is still a significant number of physics grads who find employment in STEM with their BS degrees. 25% is NOT a small percentage of physics grads.

But 25 % is NOT a "likely" scenario either! Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, because you still continue to argue that "so-and-so is possible". I am pointing out that the opportunity is quite narrow and HIGHLY dependent on what the student did as an undergraduate. It is why I strongly advised a student to get as wide of an experience as an undergraduate as possible and learn all those different skills that could be of value if he/she decided for whatever reason to stop at the B.Sc level. Now why did I do that if I didn't think this line of occupation is not possible? You are preaching to the choir here!

However, I would seriously question the notion that this is WHAT these students wanted to do way in the beginning of their studies. Now whether they chose such a career out of the need to make a living, or they simply had a change of heart and decided physics isn't for them, or maybe they could not get into graduate school, that remains to be seen. The people that I know of who did not go to graduate school, half of them wanted to earn money because they had the opportunity, while the other half could not get into graduate school and decided to abandon the field.

In other words, many of these were NOT PLANNED. It is why in my essay, I keep emphasizing that while one has one's aim at a goal, one MUST NOT forget to build up some safety net just in case that goal isn't achievable! I do not try to discourage, nor do I belittle those who do make one choice over the other. I only try to make them aware of what is out there and to prepare for it if they could not get there. It is a completely different approach than what you are doing here.

No, I was simply looking at the stats you gave me.

Straight from the AIP stats you gave me:

93% of physics master's degree holders in private industry enjoy employment in STEM. With the Master's physics was the most common employment in STEM followed by engineering

Again, you got mislead by what you're reading. What exactly is the percentage of students who STOP at the M.Sc level when compared to (i) the total number of students in graduate school and (ii) the total orginal number of students in physics?

I have lots of pants, and about 20 percent of those pants are khakis. Out of those khakis pants, 80% are shorts. So if you go into my closet, how likely is it for you to get a khaki short? The way you have tried to mislead people here, you are making it seems as if it is VERY likely.

A M.Sc degree is extremely helpful if you want to do a lot of things. In fact, even as a high school teacher, many schools offer M.Sc degree is physics plus teaching to teachers to help them improve not only their physics knowlege, but also their teaching methods. I also know personally a couple of people who were working at Motorola who were taking their M.Sc degree. However, before we make blanket statements about such thing, we cannot be BLIND to the fact that these are VERY SPECIFIC AREA of studies in which these students go into. I have never, ever seen someone who were working in industries who got paid to do their M.Sc majoring in STRING THEORY! Or try to find someone who did their M.Sc in theoretical particle physics who actually got a job as an engineer. You will, however, find condensed matter/solid state physics, atomic/molecular, modern optics, or even medical physics as THE common area of studies that these people go into. It means that you simply cannot make a BLANKET STATEMENT about just getting a degree of any level and assume that you have the ability to work in STEM. This is simply not true.

This is EXACTLY the point that I've said SEVERAL times. Physics is so varied and our experience in each part can be quite different. It is why graduates in one part of physics can struggle to find a job, while those in other parts have offers waiting for them even before they graduate! It is this one FACT that I used to criticized what you said in the other forum, and it is something you continue to carry over here without any consideration.

I think I am done with this, and I believe anyone reading this thread (if they aren't fed up with it already), would have gotten the point. I simply cannot sit by and let the misinformation, and certainly not the criticism, go unchallenged. I dislike the tone of the opening of this thread, especially with all the negativism. Rather than simply telling people all the available opportunities, you simply cannot resist putting another dig into your extreme hatred for people who would want to pursue their ultimate dream, all based on not some valid statistics, but your own anecdotal observation from your own narrow field of study. That faulty extrapolation is something I simply cannot let slip by.

So if you're a physics major, go do yourself a favor and look at the statistics from the AIP, and not just from the latest. You'll see how the students who have gone on before you did. That, to me, is more valuable than anything I or anyone could say on here. There's enough information in there for you to make your own decision, and to know what to expect. I do not need to put down any of those choices to make my point.

If you're majoring in the other sciences, I'm sorry but I have no knowledge of what goes on there.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZZ or graven,

Do you have any suggestions on good industries to get into, or companies to work for if someone (ie. me) did want to go into industry after their BSc, and would prefer to work in physics?

I plan to get a job once I have my BSc, and I would prefer (though not require) it to be in physics, or something closely related, and work towards my MS while working. I may or may not decide to get my PhD later, depends on circumstances.

The only thing I can recommend is the high-tech, semiconductor industry. But this means that you need to gear your undergraduate degree towards that. You need to have taken a class in solid state physics, electronics, programming, and have done lots of advanced laboratory courses. It would also help if you have participated in research projects that allow you to work with advanced equipment and knowledge of vacuum systems, thin film deposition, etc..

One of my friends actually got a job at a hospital after getting his B.Sc degree. If I remember correctly, he was a technician doing PET scans. He later on came back to do his Ph.D in medical physics, but I don't know if he finished it. But this is only ONE example that I know of, and I don't know how prevalent this is. So it might be also a field of study that you might want to consider, but don't use this to think that there is a large opportunity here.

Zz.

 

[gravenewworld]

But you're assuming here that the person who took that did it by his/her own choice! I'd say that for most physics majors, if they had a choice, they want to become physicists. What percentage of incomming undergraduate who choose a major as DIFFICULT as physics, with the hope to be something else after they graduate? That's insane!

Is it really? Do you think most math students also hope to find jobs as mathematicians once they leave school with their BS? Their major was difficult too, but they don't bank on becoming mathematicians. It really isn't that unreasonable at all for physics students, who want to work and not pursue an advanced degree, to hope that they can find employment doing something related to physics such as engineering. In fact, a lot of students who leave college and don't want to go on for an advanced degree are just happy to find a job in general, it doesn't matter what they get it in. We can agree to disagree here.

Again, you got mislead by what you're reading. What exactly is the percentage of students who STOP at the M.Sc level when compared to (i) the total number of students in graduate school and (ii) the total orginal number of students in physics?

I have lots of pants, and about 20 percent of those pants are khakis. Out of those khakis pants, 80% are shorts. So if you go into my closet, how likely is it for you to get a khaki short? The way you have tried to mislead people here, you are making it seems as if it is VERY likely.

Thats because a large number of those who want advanced degrees in physics want to pursue careers in academia! How many of those in graduate school doing physics have their primary goal as doing research or working at a college or university in the future? It doesn't make sense to throw in those numbers with those who's primary goal is to work in industry. FOR THOSE MS RECIPIENTS WHO WANT TO WORK IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, 93% find jobs in STEM and the primary field of employment is physics. I would imagine that a physics student who reads this thread would most primarily be concerned with working in industry.


And this also doesn't change the fact that only 25% (straight for the AIP stats) of physics PhDs that accept permanent positions in the private sector are doing physics. You said that 25% "was not a likely scenario" for physics BS students who go into the private sector and who find jobs in industry doing STEM. Well to me, 25% of physics PhDs who find jobs in industry doing physics only doesn't sound like a likely scenario either.

Straight from the AIP:

PhD's who took potentially permanent positions considered their positions less professionally challenging than individuals accepting postdocs did, and they were less likely than postdocs to consider physics an appropriate background their positions. This is not surprising because fewer of the PhD's in potentially permanent positions are employed in the field of physics, and PhD's in potentially permanent positions say they use their knowledge of advanced physics principles lss frequently.

This is what I have been saying all along. If one chooses to pursue an advanced degree, are you going to be comfortable with the fact that in industry, you probably aren't going to use a lot of the
theory that you learned while getting your PhD? Industry is about practicality, not theory.

A M.Sc degree is extremely helpful if you want to do a lot of things. In fact, even as a high school teacher, many schools offer M.Sc degree is physics plus teaching to teachers to help them improve not only their physics knowlege, but also their teaching methods. I also know personally a couple of people who were working at Motorola who were taking their M.Sc degree. However, before we make blanket statements about such thing, we cannot be BLIND to the fact that these are VERY SPECIFIC AREA of studies in which these students go into. I have never, ever seen someone who were working in industries who got paid to do their M.Sc majoring in STRING THEORY! Or try to find someone who did their M.Sc in theoretical particle physics who actually got a job as an engineer. You will, however, find condensed matter/solid state physics, atomic/molecular, modern optics, or even medical physics as THE common area of studies that these people go into. It means that you simply cannot make a BLANKET STATEMENT about just getting a degree of any level and assume that you have the ability to work in STEM. This is simply not true.

I've already clearly stated, that what you study/specialize in has a significant impact on your employability. Specializing in theoretical work is more suited to an academic environment while experimental skills are much more applicable in industry. I don't know why you think we disagree on this point, I perfectly agree with you here.

I think I am done with this, and I believe anyone reading this thread (if they aren't fed up with it already), would have gotten the point. I simply cannot sit by and let the misinformation, and certainly not the criticism, go unchallenged. I dislike the tone of the opening of this thread, especially with all the negativism. Rather than simply telling people all the available opportunities, you simply cannot resist putting another dig into your extreme hatred for people who would want to pursue their ultimate dream, all based on not some valid statistics, but your own anecdotal observation from your own narrow field of study. That faulty extrapolation is something I simply cannot let slip by.

ZZ, COME ON NOW. Can you really determine tone of voice over postings on a forum on the internet? I DON'T THINK SO. I told you, I am extremely cynical. If you ever met me, I would probably be one of the most cynical bastards you have ever met. It is just my nature. Ahhhhh everyone loves a cynic .

 

[Mororvia]

Haha jeebus. I think ya'll actually are arguing nearly the same thing, the difference is in the numbers. You seem to both agree that if you want to get a job in industry with a BSc in physics (or any science field as it turns out):

1) You should supplement your major training with practical courses that will hopefully teach you skills that could be used in your job.

2) If you want to get a job in engineering, the best way would probably be to study engineering! However, if you do like in point 1), it is possible to get that job with a different major, but it isn't necessarily the norm. The reason WHY it isn't the norm is, IMHO, many(not all!) students just do the requirements and try to get out with as little work as possible. By time they realize they have no job skills, its too late.

3) The same points actually apply for advanced degrees as well.

Just as a recap, it may be helpful for Zz and gravenewworld to post the main points they are trying to get across in 3 or 4 sentences (if you go over, you will get 0 points for the exercise ;) )

Industry is about practicality, not theory.

Just one little thing to nitpick here. I find this somewhat not true. I would say that nothing is more practical than good theory. If your company is developing something new, your first step shouldn't be to make the widget and hope it works. You need a good theoretical background on the widget to determine what is possible and what is not. Good theory is the first step to making a good widget. Once it is determined the theory is sound and know what you want from your widget, then it all shifts to what you said.

I think this thread has potential. It could sort of be an extension on Zz's section on the topic in his essay. We just need to sort out the misconceptions.

 

[NeoDevin]

Engineering and/or computers are both fields I'll be looking at, I was just hoping to get an idea of what to look for to do physics. I know there aren't many jobs for a BSc to work in physics, but there has to be a few. If not, I guess I'll be looking more at engineering.

I'd prefer to do physics, but I think I would enjoy engineering or another science as well. Even if I end up with my masters in something else, doesn't mean I need to work in that field forever, right?

 

[NeoDevin]

Semi-Conductors could be interesting too, but I don't think I have room in my program for those courses, I'll have to check.

Medical Physics doesn't sound as interesting, I never like biology much, and I haven't taken any biology since I left high school.

 

[Dr Transport]

Just one little thing to nitpick here. I find this somewhat not true. I would say that nothing is more practical than good theory. If your company is developing something new, your first step shouldn't be to make the widget and hope it works. You need a good theoretical background on the widget to determine what is possible and what is not. Good theory is the first step to making a good widget. Once it is determined the theory is sound and know what you want from your widget, then it all shifts to what you said.

Since my name came up in this thread, I'll add my 2 cents worth. Yes, in industry you spend more and more time doing analysis, theory and more analysis before you ever build anything to test, why you might ask, well here is the reason, testing is very very expensive. The time to build, test etc... really blows the heck out of your budgets, believe me I know. We have programs that are in serious $$ trouble right now because they didn't spend the time doing the analysis up front. That is not to say that testing isn't important, it is but when it costs you 50% or more of an annual budget to build and test parts, but if your analysis tools are robust you can analyse 100's of cases for the same money.

 

[arunma]

Medical Physics doesn't sound as interesting, I never like biology much, and I haven't taken any biology since I left high school.

I actually did some research in a medical physics department way back in my senior year of high school. You've got to have some anatomical and medical knowledge, but I didn't really encounter biology, per se. I assume that when you refer to biology, you're thinking about molecular biology, genetics, cell structure, evolution, ecology, biochemical pathways, etc. I'm pretty sure that medical physicists don't deal with that sort of stuff. So if you don't like biology, this doesn't necessarily need to deter you from medical physics.