6 ms·

Don't become a scientist (1999)

48 points by plg 12y ago

MichaelCrawford 12y ago
This is one of the reasons I have not pursued my PhD in Physics - there are few professorships available. I don't want to spend years trying to get one of the very few postdoc jobs available.
acomjean 12y ago
I started working this year in University genetics a lab as a programmer. Lots of post docs, and its a hard life. Despite being a very prestigious University and working crazy amounts, some of the post-docs are having trouble finding academic jobs. Though from here due to reputation they can go into industry make more money, but then they don't get to work on what they want.
chrisamiller 12y ago
Sigh. This gets posted every few months and the title is still wrong. It's a great time to be a scientist, especially if you're into, say, computational biology. It's an awful time to shoot for a tenure track faculty position. There are lots of ways to do science, both in and out of academia, without the 'professor' title.
- mbreese 12y ago
  Sigh, it isn't a good time to be a scientist. Even if you are into computational biology (which I am). The "science" is amazing, and we can learn so much more with less than we could even when I started grad school a bit over ten years ago. However, there just aren't the jobs available for the number of people that are being trained. I'm somewhat lucky that I was a programmer first, molecular biologist second, so computational work was a no-brainer. However, it is still extremely difficult to find jobs past the post-doc stage, and that stage does last about 5 years longer than it used to. And post-docs get paid like crap for each of those years. There are lots of career options available, but really, academia is still the place where science gets done. I know lots of people work in industry, startups, biotechs, pharma, etc. But unless you're developing a drug, you're probably trying to sell to academia. There are some great projects and good work being done, but with the lull in Federal funding, the long-tail of grant funding isn't there to support existing labs, let alone new ones. Debating the reasons for all of this could go on for hours... and there are lots of reasons and enough blame to go around. It's a great time for science, but a bad time to be a scientist. It was never lucrative, but it just isn't a viable profession for many.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  Yes. Do be a scientist. Don't be an academic. Dropping out of academia was amongst the more difficult decisions I've made. Also amongst the best. There are huge opportunities for scientists today. I'm a physicist. I've worked in computer-assisted surgery, medical physics, image processing, computer vision, genomics, computational physics and a few other things besides. It has paid well and let me do all kinds of interesting research that I would never have been able to touch as an academic. Things to do as a student: study modern statistics hard. Being a card-carrying Bayesian is like the secret handshake to an unlimited world of really cool stuff these days. There's a childhood friend of mine who's (finally) finishing his PhD in psychology, and when we reconnected a few years ago we were amazed that we could meaningfully talk to each other about our work because we both spoke the same statistical language. It really is a universal grammar, and anyone in any field who speaks it fluently has a world of opportunity waiting for them, from finance to fisheries.
  - Xcelerate 12y ago
    > study modern statistics hard This is something I've been thinking about doing. My work is in computational materials science, and I often feel there is a complete lack of statistical rigor in analyzing the results. (Peter Gill joked at a conference that the only difference between applied mathematicians and quantum chemists is that the mathematicians calculate the error once they get their answers). I know basic statistics: distributions, standard error, correlations, etc. But I don't know anything about the terms Bayesian or Frequentist. In your opinion, what would studying these topics provide for me?
  - noobermin 12y ago
    I'm curious, how far into your academic career were you when you dropped out? Post-doc? Grad student?
  - wavegeek 12y ago
    > study modern statistics hard Would you recommend some texts that cover this? A friend suggested: * Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial by Devinderjit Sivia, John Skilling * Bayesian Data Analysis, by Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern * Introduction to Statistical Inference by Jack C. Kiefer, Gary Lorden Currently I am working my way through this. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning by Christopher M. Bishop These books are expensive and very time-consuming so it is important to pick the right ones.
HarryHirsch 12y ago
The guy is barking up the wrong tree. There is indeed a crisis in science, especially in pharmacology, but it isn't caused by an oversupply of biochemists, it's that since 2004, and especially since 2008, everything that isn't academia has stopped hiring. It's not that the source is too plentiful, it's that the sink has become plugged up. There may be a cautionary tale in there for computer science: once the VC carousel stops the situation in computer science will be quite as bad.
- jcampbell1 12y ago
  This was written in 1999.
  - HarryHirsch 12y ago
    I know. It's all bullshit what the guy writes, this essay and all the others on his site. This one here (http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/defense.html http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/defense.html) is really something fierce. That's why I said the unemployment crisis isn't caused by an oversupply of scientists - up to about 2004 most everyone with a PhD degree could find employment in industry. But this fellow Katz doesn't even mention industry. He is either ignorant or intentionally dishonest. There is no excuse for either.
    - rifung 12y ago
      While I don't know whether he's right or wrong, he definitely mentions the industry in the article. He first says, "computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D" and later, "there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences". Other professors and PhDs I've talked to have basically said the same things as he says here. There are definitely jobs for PhDs in CS in industry, but whether you would be considered a "scientist" for those jobs is debatable, as most of the time you don't have the same level of freedom you would have in academia (or at least that's what I've been told).
    - prewett 12y ago
      The author is a physicist; where would one find employment in the physics industry? The "physics industry" is pretty much academia, with the exception of a few DoD positions. Physics Ph.D.s frequently go into finance and software development, but since neither of those use physics (except limited amounts of software), I think they would fit into the "career change" that he did mention. I graduated with an B.S. in Physics about the time that he wrote, and his analysis pretty much matched what I saw in the lab I worked in. Of my physics classmates who I know what happened to them, all got jobs doing no physics (including the newly minted Ph.D. who was supervising me). I talked with the postdoc in our lab (her second postdoc position), looked at the number of Ph.D.s and postdocs at Ohio State (lots), looked at the number of open positions in the Physics Department at Ohio State (none), and decided I did not want to postdoc until a professor died and then hope that I get picked. So I said physics was a fun, stimulating, foundational undergraduate choice, felt like I understood the entire world, and promptly pursued software. (Fortunately, I was aided by being tired of school and not really enjoying physics research) One of my physics classmates did software for a while, then decided to do a Ph.D. in (rocket) propulsion, which is physics-related. "Industry" for him is pretty much limited to NASA (who else is going to employ someone looking into new forms of propulsion?) Turns out he doesn't want to work for NASA bureaucracy, so he switched back to software again. I think the author is right on, at least for his field of physics.
ohquu 12y ago
I began working as a student at a national lab two years ago after earning my bachelor's degree in physics. I was converted to staff nearly a year later. I'm now earning more than most of my professors back home and some of the postdocs here, although if the postdocs are converted (a difficult process), they're very likely to have a higher starting salary. I feel very lucky to be a well-paid staff researcher at such a young age, especially since I don't have a graduate degree. I'm surrounded by older people with PhDs; most of the time, I feel like there's really nothing that really differentiates us. However, and this might be my inferiority complex kicking in, sometimes I feel like I should go back to school and get my PhD. But then I read essays and articles like these, and I wonder if a choice like that would be stupid. Granted, I'd pursue some sort of computational physics in grad school, so I'd still leave with marketable skills. Anyway, I don't know what to do. Just thinking out loud. If anyone has any advice, I'd appreciate it.
- mbreese 12y ago
  The problem you'll have is that you have a lower career ceiling than a PhD. Staff do get paid significantly better than post-docs (especially when benefits are included, which postdocs don't get). However, if postdocs move on to independent researchers, they will have a much higher ceiling in terms of career progression, salary, and external funding opportunities (consulting, etc). You just have to ask yourself if the "prestige" is worth it to you. You'd be taking a salary hit for 3-5 years for the degree and 3-5 years after that for postdoc, and then after that, you'd probably not be able to find a job. From what I've heard, physics is a hard field to find work in, and you'd be over-qualified to do the job you currently have. It's a tough call. Going back, I probably would have still gone the PhD route, but I'd have been much more selective in projects, etc... and family is a big factor.
  - leoc 12y ago
    I'm speaking only from indirect experience here, but if one is in a staff position in a good research institution, has the aptitude for a PhD and stays in with the bosses, I think it should be possible over time to pick up a doctorate on the side while keeping the job. Maybe it's harder if the job is at a free-standing lab rather than a degree-granting institution, but I assume that's not an insurmountable problem. The upside is probably lower than going Hollywood-or-bust with a full-time PhD while young, but at least it means that a PhD requirement won't be a hard ceiling for future promotions and so on.
pspeter3 12y ago
I went to the school where he teaches and never had any student mention his name with a shred of respect or have anything positive to say about him. I would take his points with a huge grain of salt.
- nilkn 12y ago
  It's not like this guy is the only one who has observed the problem with academia. I don't really think it's relevant if students liked him as a teacher. The job problem in academia is very, very well-known at this point, and many professors would back him up now.
  - pspeter3 12y ago
    I agree and in light of your points, I feel like my comment is out of line.
kevinalexbrown 12y ago
>If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try to persuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. or, increase funding for science (academic and otherwise)
dang 12y ago
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=don%27t+become+a+scientist#!/story/forever/0/don't%20become%20a%20scientist https://hn.algolia.com/?q=don%27t+become+a+scientist#!/story...
billconan 12y ago
I think PhD should be viewed as a kind of job, rather than a degree. Being a professor shouldn't be the only way to go for a PhD. Industries should provide equal opportunities for PhDs (they often think PhDs are over qualified).
- billconan 12y ago
  Wait, just noticed that the article is from 1999! should have read this before I applied for PhD 7 years ago.

48 points by plg 12y ago

This is one of the reasons I have not pursued my PhD in Physics - there are few professorships available. I don't want to spend years trying to get one of the very few postdoc jobs available.

acomjean 12y ago

I started working this year in University genetics a lab as a programmer. Lots of post docs, and its a hard life. Despite being a very prestigious University and working crazy amounts, some of the post-docs are having trouble finding academic jobs. Though from here due to reputation they can go into industry make more money, but then they don't get to work on what they want.

chrisamiller 12y ago

Sigh. This gets posted every few months and the title is still wrong. It's a great time to be a scientist, especially if you're into, say, computational biology. It's an awful time to shoot for a tenure track faculty position. There are lots of ways to do science, both in and out of academia, without the 'professor' title.

mbreese 12y ago
Sigh, it isn't a good time to be a scientist. Even if you are into computational biology (which I am). The "science" is amazing, and we can learn so much more with less than we could even when I started grad school a bit over ten years ago. However, there just aren't the jobs available for the number of people that are being trained. I'm somewhat lucky that I was a programmer first, molecular biologist second, so computational work was a no-brainer. However, it is still extremely difficult to find jobs past the post-doc stage, and that stage does last about 5 years longer than it used to. And post-docs get paid like crap for each of those years. There are lots of career options available, but really, academia is still the place where science gets done. I know lots of people work in industry, startups, biotechs, pharma, etc. But unless you're developing a drug, you're probably trying to sell to academia. There are some great projects and good work being done, but with the lull in Federal funding, the long-tail of grant funding isn't there to support existing labs, let alone new ones. Debating the reasons for all of this could go on for hours... and there are lots of reasons and enough blame to go around. It's a great time for science, but a bad time to be a scientist. It was never lucrative, but it just isn't a viable profession for many.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
Yes. Do be a scientist. Don't be an academic. Dropping out of academia was amongst the more difficult decisions I've made. Also amongst the best. There are huge opportunities for scientists today. I'm a physicist. I've worked in computer-assisted surgery, medical physics, image processing, computer vision, genomics, computational physics and a few other things besides. It has paid well and let me do all kinds of interesting research that I would never have been able to touch as an academic. Things to do as a student: study modern statistics hard. Being a card-carrying Bayesian is like the secret handshake to an unlimited world of really cool stuff these days. There's a childhood friend of mine who's (finally) finishing his PhD in psychology, and when we reconnected a few years ago we were amazed that we could meaningfully talk to each other about our work because we both spoke the same statistical language. It really is a universal grammar, and anyone in any field who speaks it fluently has a world of opportunity waiting for them, from finance to fisheries.
- Xcelerate 12y ago
  > study modern statistics hard This is something I've been thinking about doing. My work is in computational materials science, and I often feel there is a complete lack of statistical rigor in analyzing the results. (Peter Gill joked at a conference that the only difference between applied mathematicians and quantum chemists is that the mathematicians calculate the error once they get their answers). I know basic statistics: distributions, standard error, correlations, etc. But I don't know anything about the terms Bayesian or Frequentist. In your opinion, what would studying these topics provide for me?
- noobermin 12y ago
  I'm curious, how far into your academic career were you when you dropped out? Post-doc? Grad student?
- wavegeek 12y ago
  > study modern statistics hard Would you recommend some texts that cover this? A friend suggested: * Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial by Devinderjit Sivia, John Skilling * Bayesian Data Analysis, by Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern * Introduction to Statistical Inference by Jack C. Kiefer, Gary Lorden Currently I am working my way through this. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning by Christopher M. Bishop These books are expensive and very time-consuming so it is important to pick the right ones.

HarryHirsch 12y ago

The guy is barking up the wrong tree. There is indeed a crisis in science, especially in pharmacology, but it isn't caused by an oversupply of biochemists, it's that since 2004, and especially since 2008, everything that isn't academia has stopped hiring. It's not that the source is too plentiful, it's that the sink has become plugged up. There may be a cautionary tale in there for computer science: once the VC carousel stops the situation in computer science will be quite as bad.

jcampbell1 12y ago
This was written in 1999.
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  I know. It's all bullshit what the guy writes, this essay and all the others on his site. This one here (http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/defense.html http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/defense.html) is really something fierce. That's why I said the unemployment crisis isn't caused by an oversupply of scientists - up to about 2004 most everyone with a PhD degree could find employment in industry. But this fellow Katz doesn't even mention industry. He is either ignorant or intentionally dishonest. There is no excuse for either.
  - rifung 12y ago
    While I don't know whether he's right or wrong, he definitely mentions the industry in the article. He first says, "computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D" and later, "there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences". Other professors and PhDs I've talked to have basically said the same things as he says here. There are definitely jobs for PhDs in CS in industry, but whether you would be considered a "scientist" for those jobs is debatable, as most of the time you don't have the same level of freedom you would have in academia (or at least that's what I've been told).
  - prewett 12y ago
    The author is a physicist; where would one find employment in the physics industry? The "physics industry" is pretty much academia, with the exception of a few DoD positions. Physics Ph.D.s frequently go into finance and software development, but since neither of those use physics (except limited amounts of software), I think they would fit into the "career change" that he did mention. I graduated with an B.S. in Physics about the time that he wrote, and his analysis pretty much matched what I saw in the lab I worked in. Of my physics classmates who I know what happened to them, all got jobs doing no physics (including the newly minted Ph.D. who was supervising me). I talked with the postdoc in our lab (her second postdoc position), looked at the number of Ph.D.s and postdocs at Ohio State (lots), looked at the number of open positions in the Physics Department at Ohio State (none), and decided I did not want to postdoc until a professor died and then hope that I get picked. So I said physics was a fun, stimulating, foundational undergraduate choice, felt like I understood the entire world, and promptly pursued software. (Fortunately, I was aided by being tired of school and not really enjoying physics research) One of my physics classmates did software for a while, then decided to do a Ph.D. in (rocket) propulsion, which is physics-related. "Industry" for him is pretty much limited to NASA (who else is going to employ someone looking into new forms of propulsion?) Turns out he doesn't want to work for NASA bureaucracy, so he switched back to software again. I think the author is right on, at least for his field of physics.

ohquu 12y ago

I began working as a student at a national lab two years ago after earning my bachelor's degree in physics. I was converted to staff nearly a year later. I'm now earning more than most of my professors back home and some of the postdocs here, although if the postdocs are converted (a difficult process), they're very likely to have a higher starting salary. I feel very lucky to be a well-paid staff researcher at such a young age, especially since I don't have a graduate degree. I'm surrounded by older people with PhDs; most of the time, I feel like there's really nothing that really differentiates us. However, and this might be my inferiority complex kicking in, sometimes I feel like I should go back to school and get my PhD. But then I read essays and articles like these, and I wonder if a choice like that would be stupid. Granted, I'd pursue some sort of computational physics in grad school, so I'd still leave with marketable skills. Anyway, I don't know what to do. Just thinking out loud. If anyone has any advice, I'd appreciate it.

mbreese 12y ago
The problem you'll have is that you have a lower career ceiling than a PhD. Staff do get paid significantly better than post-docs (especially when benefits are included, which postdocs don't get). However, if postdocs move on to independent researchers, they will have a much higher ceiling in terms of career progression, salary, and external funding opportunities (consulting, etc). You just have to ask yourself if the "prestige" is worth it to you. You'd be taking a salary hit for 3-5 years for the degree and 3-5 years after that for postdoc, and then after that, you'd probably not be able to find a job. From what I've heard, physics is a hard field to find work in, and you'd be over-qualified to do the job you currently have. It's a tough call. Going back, I probably would have still gone the PhD route, but I'd have been much more selective in projects, etc... and family is a big factor.
- leoc 12y ago
  I'm speaking only from indirect experience here, but if one is in a staff position in a good research institution, has the aptitude for a PhD and stays in with the bosses, I think it should be possible over time to pick up a doctorate on the side while keeping the job. Maybe it's harder if the job is at a free-standing lab rather than a degree-granting institution, but I assume that's not an insurmountable problem. The upside is probably lower than going Hollywood-or-bust with a full-time PhD while young, but at least it means that a PhD requirement won't be a hard ceiling for future promotions and so on.

pspeter3 12y ago

I went to the school where he teaches and never had any student mention his name with a shred of respect or have anything positive to say about him. I would take his points with a huge grain of salt.

nilkn 12y ago
It's not like this guy is the only one who has observed the problem with academia. I don't really think it's relevant if students liked him as a teacher. The job problem in academia is very, very well-known at this point, and many professors would back him up now.
- pspeter3 12y ago
  I agree and in light of your points, I feel like my comment is out of line.

kevinalexbrown 12y ago

>If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try to persuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. or, increase funding for science (academic and otherwise)

dang 12y ago

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=don%27t+become+a+scientist#!/story/forever/0/don't%20become%20a%20scientist https://hn.algolia.com/?q=don%27t+become+a+scientist#!/story...

billconan 12y ago

I think PhD should be viewed as a kind of job, rather than a degree. Being a professor shouldn't be the only way to go for a PhD. Industries should provide equal opportunities for PhDs (they often think PhDs are over qualified).

billconan 12y ago
Wait, just noticed that the article is from 1999! should have read this before I applied for PhD 7 years ago.