The discussion surrounding the recent post about jobs continues to bubble along nicely, both in the original post, and the follow-up. I love it when a plan comes together.
There's been a lot of discussion of following the advice in the Katz letter and seeking non-academic careers, but Jeff F. (who I know from my post-doc days) puts his finger on a major problem with this plan: The faculty who advise students on career choices don't know, well, much of anything:
Unfortunately, I was mostly on my own in making the jump from academics to industry. I chose to do a postdoc on a project with my former PI (that's usually death in academics but then again, I knew at this point I wasn't staying in academics) that had a lot of exposure to industry and government. This is where I made the contacts to learn about job opportunities for someone with my background. Being in the purely academic environment as a grad and undergrad student, no one ever really talked about working in industry. And when they did, no one could adequately define what "work in industry" entailed. Unless a professor collaborates or consults with a specific industry sector, how could a professor talk to a student about a career outside of academics?
This is absolutely true, and a really severe deficit in my education. So, here's your chance to educate me-- if you've got a physics degree (BA/BS, MA/MS, or Ph.D.), and you aren't a professor or trying to become a professor, tell me about yourself: What do you do for a living? How did you get your job? What should a physics student do if he or she wants to go into your line of work? (Sample advice, from Jeff's comment, below the fold.)
If you're wondering whether this information will actually be used, I'm teaching our senior seminar this fall, meeting weekly with our senior Physics majors to discuss topics of interest to them. If I can get my hands on good information about non-academic careers, it will go directly into that class. So, help me do my job better.
This is a decent example of the sort of advice I'd like to have to give to students:
Based on my lessons learned, my advice for undergrad physics students would be to follow the advice given above and join an engineering society to form contacts. Also, adjust your academic curriculum to make you more attractive to an industry sector. Take a broad exposure of physics courses and take a number of non-physics but science related courses as well. Also, think about getting an MS degree, because that will always make you more hirable. For grad students, and I think this mostly applies to CM/AMO experimentalists, try to attend SPIE and CLEO type conferences where you will get more exposure to industry based research work and develop contacts as well. I think that something similar may be said for Nuclear/Particle physics. Theorists: You're mostly out of luck here, unless you like hedge funds. I'm not saying theorist can't get a job in an industry sector. I'm saying that usually lab/bench experience is often desired because it demonstrates that you can tackle real world problems.
I'd also love to have some description of what it is that people with a physics background end up doing: What's the job title? What's the work like? What are the long-term prospects (for example, do you need to get another degree to advance in the company)? Special bonus points for anybody in the Northeast who would be willing to come to Schenectady and talk to students in person about this sort of stuff (email me, we'll talk).
I don't know if I have enough non-academic readers for this to really work, but it can't hurt.
- Log in to post comments
You should have a quick look at:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/pandaweb/newtour/stud_com/grad_com…
which is a very brief list of where a few of St. Andrews graduates ended up - yes there are a number who went on to grad school, but there are many who ended up in lots of other careers. I suspect less than a quarter of any given graduating year stay in higher education.
Although I'm now an academic I went through various job searches after my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. After my undergraduate degree I was offered but turned down a job at GCHQ as an IT/Electronic engineer type (GCHQ is the UK's equivalent of the NSA). After my PhD I worked for Dstl, which is the UK military research arm. I worked on optical device evaluation, research and system development.
The GCHQ job is interesting in that it was a generalist job - no specific need for physics was required, but you did need a mathematical background. In the same process of applying for these jobs I applied for many jobs in a variety of fields, from IT, engineering, consulatancy, finance, technology fields and industrial science. I had no doubt that I could do any of these things. Note I am referring here mainly to graduate training schemes which very many companies offer.
The question to ask is not what one can do with a Physics degree, but what can one not do? The answer, aside from a few specialist vocational subjects is very little.
Also don't most colleges have careers advisors - I got a huge amount of info from our careers advisory department?
I have a B.S. in Physics and graduate degrees in Meteorology. I work at a DoD laboratory. Many of our researchers have a similar background. Meteorologists need to know some fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, E&M (radiation and remote sensing), and chemistry. Experimentalist types are sometimes electrical engineers, but a physics lab background wouldn't hurt either. The industry jobs I know are mostly with contractors who build remote sensing instruments or in forecasting (these folks tend to have a B.S. in meteorology I think). Academic/research institutions are often interdisciplinary and might hire people from meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, physics, computer science, or engineering.
I have a BS in Physics and, after stints as a gymnastics coach and HS math teacher, am now employed as a Staff Scientist for a contractor in the Chem-Bio Defense Industry. Our specialty is creating modeling and simulation software and using those and other M&S tools to perform analyses in support of (or sometimes to the demise of) product develpment programs as well as for Battlefied Visualizations and Situational Awareness. I actually said to my boss when I interviewed something to the effect of, "Someone with a BS in Engineering can become employed as an engineer. Likewise for someone with a degree in Comp Sci. However, a person with a BS in Physics is merely someone who has studied the natural and computational sciences and can't really be employed as a physicist." Well, that was exactly the sort of thing that they were looking for: someone who isn't intimidated by mathematical algorithms or scienitific jargon, who is familiar with the way nature works, who is conversant in computing (programming - I had 15 credits of comp sci coursework - and applications such as Excel and Access), and, most importantly, could communicate with others.
I would contend that Physics was the single most important factor in my getting this job. I'm not a physicist but what I learned earning my degree - mathematical savvy, sound scientific and analyitical principles, the interconnectedness of various disciplines - applies to every task that I do. People with degrees in Physics are considered quite valuable in my line of work.
I was already married with a young daughter when I graduated and, after a year of grad school, it became obvious that I needed to get a job that would support my family. I often wish that we could have stuck it out and that I might eventually have been a college professor somewhere but I have to say, short of that, I enjoy my job very much and that I suspect that most Physics majors would find what we do here intersting and challenging.
Corporate work is almost always associated with the the defense industry, partially if not wholly. Even semiconductors. The defense industry is a possibility depending on the state of the budget. A security clearance is a must, which can be obtained with your first job. Work varies from devices, instruments, and hardware to analysis, simulation, and software. Losing your position and clearance during cutbacks is a death knell though since they will only go through the process once. Government labs may pay less but are more stable, but you have to be satisfied to live around DC, if not at first then eventually. There is frequently a health physicist at medical centers dealing with radiation, perhaps nuclear plants as well. Other fields might use your background such as technical sales and finance. It isn't physics but they are much more plentiful and ubiquitious.
There's a real need in the library field for librarians with science backgrounds. (Example: I am a science librarian with no science background whatsoever, just an interest in the sciences and some experience working in an engineering library.)
This can mean working in academia, but not necessarily: a lot of corporations and governmental organizations, not to mention hospitals and medical research institutions, from local and state all the way up to federal also employ librarians and having some scientific knowledge is a real asset. So much so that some of these places will take a master's degree in a scientific discipline as a substitute for a master's degree in library science. (Though in academia, it really helps to have both.)
You won't be overpaid by any means, and job security varies (although my position comes with faculty status and tenure eligibility), but it's another option.
My father has a doctorate in physics and is a computer programmer (he refuses to use the term "software engineer") but since his experience is 30 years old I'm not sure about its applicability to present circumstances.
I have an M.Sc. in theoretical physics from McGill and I am now a writer and editor for the mothership, SEED. I had started working on my PhD, but after about a 1.5 years, I realized that I wanted to write (a longheld desire of mine) and also to be involved in outreach of some sort. I had heard about SEED when it started in Montreal, thought it was a great idea, and figured science writing would be the best combination of my goals and education. I applied, got an internship, moved to New York, and have been here ever since. I use my background in physics everyday and find the work just as difficult (though needless to say, in a very different way) and rewarding as graduate work (though sometimes, I'm here the same number of hours). I'm sure my experience is atypical, and I know of plenty of fellow grad students who took the more traditional exodus to finance or industry, but for me an advanced degree in physics has proven invaluable whereas a journalism of writing degree would probably not have gotten me nearly as far.
The American Astronomical Society has a networking page for non-academic astronomers. Looks much improved from when I was last on the job market (hopefully I won't need this, but one never knows...). http://www.aas.org/career/nonacademic/
From my limited experience in my first job search, it would seem that a PhD is a bit much - companies don't seem to know what to do with applicants who don't fit their normal parameters. So I gather the need for networking is even greater for PhDs leaving academia than for physics BSs looking for jobs.
I definitely agree that the career center at one's university can be quite helpful. Resume != CV, for one thing...
People with an MS, BS in physics or engineering often end up in high tech, energy, or biotech industries,just to mention a few. While defense companies might dominate in your area, that is by no means true. I know at certain schools in the Northeast, many people are hired into defense, but maybe they just tend to dominate the job fairs recently. Don't use temporary local economics as a gauge. The defense industry is booming right now but it was during the Reagan era too and it completely bottomed out in the 90's. There are tons of corporate computer jobs that respect the math background and the programming you pick up as an underground is rigorous enough for many postions. From there, some people stay on a technical track while others go the management route, which usually has more opportunity. No degree is *necessary*, after any amount of time at a job advancement is more dependent on people skills, politics, and savvy. Getting an MBA can be helpful but not necessary. I'm sorry to say this, but being in academia is less and less often an excuse for not knowing what's available in coorporate .environments. You have friends? Acquaintences, relatives?
I have a PhD in physics, and I fully agree that information on nonacademic careers for PhD physicists is dreadfully lacking in graduate physics departments.
I currently work at a company that was spun off of research done in my grad advisor's lab. (This is not my first post-grad-school employment, I spent 2.5 years as a postdoc.) I got my job through personal connections, so I guess the key to getting a job like mine is to keep in contact with all your school buddies.
What I do: it is a small company, so I do a little bit of a lot of stuff. Optics, product development, editing, writing, ensuring compliance with government regulations. It's pretty much the complete opposite of the academic work model, where you spend all your attention on investigating every thing you can about some particular physical system. If I don't like what I'm doing at work, I can just wait a week, and it'll change. This suits me fine, because I am easily bored, but it is very different from academic life.
I have a physics degree and math degree and now own a computer company and a gourmet (from the bean) chocolate company.
One non-academic Physics PhD, right here.
first, you do not have to be associated with defense to go into industry. Only 2 of the jobs I have ever applied for, including internships, were defense related. Granted, I got both those jobs, but that was only about 10% or less of my interviews (and an even smaller fraction of my applications). Only one of those jobs required a security clearance.
my job history:
internship at non-profit, silicon processing institution (Metrology)
full-time at a publicly held chip manufacturer with military and commercial applications (Product Engineer)
full-time at another publicly held chip manufacturer for automotive applications (Reliability)
full-time at a non-profit defense contractor (Quality)
(big hello to everyone who can now identify me)
it is very difficult to convince people to interview a physicist. for my internship, which I had during my graduate career, I talked up my skills in the lab - equipment design, programming, data analysis, etc. for my first permanant position, I talked up my internship. for the rest, I talked up my work experience.
at my graduate institution, career fairs were held by college. All the companies I was interested in held interviews through the college of engineering. being in the college of natural sciences, I could not sign up for interview slots. instead, I went to company nights and career fairs and talked my way into the interview schedule. I was pretty successful with this when I managed to talk to an actual engineer or hiring manager. When I talked to HR people, I was less successful. Really, you have to talk up what you can do, not what you are studying.
definately go the internship route. This can be tough for graduate students as advisors don't like to let you go. If you already know going into grad school that you want a job in industry, spend the summer in between undergrad and grad school interning. If you discover later in your career, well, how to fit in depends highly on your departmental requirements and your advisor's good will. Most internship programs are set up for the summer and expect you to be there fulltime. It's tough to find anything outside this mold.
Physics departments have no idea how to set you up with an internship. they don't even know that there is a world outside the university. this is why you have to join engineering societies. the Physics dept will be of no help when you interview, either.
a note about GPA's: they matter. do not believe anyone who tells you that employers do not look at GPA's for grad students. they do. if they don't see it on your resume, they will ask for it. if you are unlucky enough to attend a school which hands out C's, pad out that GPA with seminar courses and research credit. in fact, do that even if your school doesn't hand out C's. it is the sad truth that employers care more about the GPA than they do about the dissertation.
but don't list the pad-out courses on your resume. true story: someone I knew interviewed a candidate who had attended my graduate institution. he sent the resume on to me. the candidate had listed some coursework and the grades he got (all A's). I was able to tell my friend that those were all seminar courses with no homework or testing involved and not to be impressed with the A's.
I finished my BS in Physics at Stanford in 1990 when Physics jobs were beginning to become scarce (with the cancellation of the SSC and the fall of the Berlin Wall putting a lot of physicists into the job market). While an undergraduate I had started programming working on software to do my physics problem sets with, and have been working on it ever since. I've never been an actual employee so I can't offer the usual sort of career advice. My experience conracting with many companies is that the best of them are desperate to hire smart people who are quick to learn. They recognize a physics background as an indication of this. Experience with some particular technology or skills is less important than an ability to learn and do whatever is needed to solve the problems at hand. Physicists excel at this.
My company, Pacific Tech, (yes, named in homage to Real Genius), grew out of amusing circumstances. http://www.PacificT.com/Story I credit my undergraduate physics training with my ability to look at what most folks would view as insuperable obstacles and approach them calmly as just another problem to solve.
Clichéd as it is, the best advice I have is to tell students that if they are priveleged to find something they love doing, to embrace it whole-heartedly and follow it wherever it leads.
The difficulty of finding out about industrial jobs is exaggerated. Smart students can scan the web pages of potential employers. As suggested by someone else, looking at IEEE, SPIE, ACM or ACS journals will help. Not many potential employers advertise in _Physics Today_, so a scan of its pages gives an exaggeratedly gloomy picture. Many free sources of information like Silicon Beat or EE Times have useful articles about small businesses that are growing or hiring.
The best source of information is summer jobs. Students who want to work in industry should try to get positions with potential employers. Companies will take a risk on an inexperienced student for the summer whom they wouldn't consider hiring full-time. Most big companies and national labs continue to have summer openings.
I've worked in non-academic positions since 1989 at Naval Research Lab, Lawrence Livermore National Lab and Hewlett-Packard Labs. Some of what I've done is Phys.Rev. kind of research, and some has not been research at all but has been rewarding nonetheless. I still think that physics is great training for all kinds of work and discouraging undergraduate students from majoring in it is silly.
I work with 9 Physics PhDs (50:50 mix of experimentalists and theorists and broad range from partical, nuclear, astro) in CS. My team has focuses on software performance and this involves lots of measurements, investation, analysis, etc. Big picture folks do well here and also the work changes rapidly and requires and ability to adapt, etc.
Thanks to all who have commented-- this is really good stuff. I'll definitely pass some of this along (and also talk to the local engineering faculty, who probably deal with this more frequently). Keep 'em coming.
A couple of people have asked about the College's career center. My experience with them, and the anecdotal experience of my students, has been that they're really good at helping students get the sort of jobs that most of our students get-- entry-level positions in the business world, Wall Street jobs, etc. They don't have much experience with getting students jobs in more technical fields, though, and they don't have many useful contacts. Which isn't terribly surprising, as science majors are a small minority of the graduates looking for employment.
When students go talk to them, they tend to get extremely general advice, and pointers to fairly generic job resources. I'm looking for some more specific information.
I got my PhD in 1980 (so I guess I'm one of the older ones commenting). Even then, it was clear that, if I wanted to go into academia, I would have to do at least 3 separate 2-year post-docs. So, as I put it at the time, I sold out to industry.
One of the things I did do early to prepare was that I took one Computer Science course per semester. It wasn't too hard to fit them in.
At the Univ. of Ill. they had a good campus recruitment program, so we got a lot of companies coming on campus. I think I interviewed 9 companies and got 7 offers, from small consulting firms in DC (gov't related), to Johns Hopkins (again, gov't related), to JPL (satellite work). I ended up going to Bell Labs, based on both reputation and, quite frankly, the money they offered. I was hired as a systems engineer.
That really didn't work out too well, but back then Bell Labs allowed you to move around quite a bit, so I ended up writing software, which suited me just fine. Of course, eventually Bell Labs went to Lucent Technologies, which totally screwed the pooch. I took their special retirement package in 2001 (at age 47!). At that point, my wife and I swapped--she went back to work and I drove the kids everywhere. I've also done some substitute teaching in there.
The problem with things right now is that, due to the crap they had us doing at Lucent near the end, my computer skills are pretty dated. My physics skills are, shall we say, pretty rusty. So, I'm basically marking time (and reading way too many ScienceBlogs :-)).
I went from astrophysics to being a c++ programmer in petroleum engineering and from that into being a c++ programmer in logistics and dispatching. What's interesting is that I'm trying to move back into academia right now, and I'm doing academic research in the field of quantitative finance. I found QF very intellectually stimulating, but I still unsure about whether or not I want to move into Wall Street, and publishing papers (or trying to) on valuing Shanghai warrants is actually a good compromise.
The nice thing about having a career in "industry" is that I now have enough money saved up so that I can start traveling and networking (the plan is to travel from Austin to NYC/Cambridge one week each month). and starting to do academic type stuff. I'm also starting to work very heavily on Wikiversity.
I have some more thoughts:
everyone getting a degree in science should read _A PhD is not Enough_. It has career advice which anyone getting any level of degree going into academia, industry, or government labs can benefit from.
if you are doing a thesis or dissertation, sell that as a project which you concieved and implemented. even if you joined an ongoing project, sell your role as something you had to plan, budget (if you had to buy stuff), meet deadlines (did the grant committee need regular updates?), and show a finished product.
be prepared to answer questions about how you work in a team. this one is tough for physicists since so many of us work by the Lone Physicist model. in my case, I worked on my project alone. however, I had lab duties (eg, filling the SQUID with He) so I sold that as my teamwork experience.
also be prepared to answer dorky questions like "tell me about a time when you had to use data to convince someone of something."
don't assume that your interviewer has read your resume.
The other thing is that in my programming jobs, the employer really didn't care whether or not I had a Ph.D. or not. One thing that I *did* have was lots of experience programming C++ in open source projects and in a semi-commercial environment which meant that I wasn't completely lost.
Also, academic programming is very different from commericial programming. In commercial programming you are working with code that is basically team written, and things like project management come into play. I was also very lucky in that I got my Ph.D. right in the middle of the dot-com boom. I really don't know whether or not what I did would be viable today.
The other thing is that teaching experience is *VERY* useful in the corporate world. Being able to explain a technical difficult concept to undergraduates is a lot like explain a technical difficult concept to management.
Most physics research is on items that have defense applications whether high tech, energy, or biotech. This is not necessarily the defense industry proper, but is often funded by DOD, sometimes DOE, or NIH. The corporate world is often dependent on government funding for this research. Software has more industrial applications but it has faded since the tech wreck.