5 ms·

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 no

by 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.
  - mbreese 12y ago
    It really depends on the institution. You may be able to get into grad school at the same institution, even working in the same lab, but you wouldn't be able to keep the job and get a degree at the same time. I'm sure that in theory it's possible to do part-time PhD work, but I've never seen it. I've seen people work for a Pharma company and get a masters at the same time, but not a PhD. On the other hand, I've known good staff researchers who've been told that while they'd be perfectly capable of getting a PhD, they wouldn't be able to get into the grad school where they worked. Unless there was some kind of already established program, I couldn't seen how you'd be able to effectively do it part-time. Maybe you could get a Masters part-time, and then move to a PhD program, but it would take longer.
    - leoc 12y ago
      > I'm sure that in theory it's possible to do part-time PhD work, but I've never seen it. I've seen it done, though at a university, and in CS rather than physics. (And in the UK.)
- ohquu 12y ago
  You're absolutely correct with everything you've said (although postdocs do get benefits here). I do think I have a problem with the prestige aspect. I am always wavering between two different feelings: "I need to make the biggest difference I can," and, "My happiness should not depend on my work's importance." These feelings aren't mutually exclusive, but a lot of the time, I either feel one way, or I feel the other. It'd be more comfortable to just choose one and stick with it. Was it a tough call when you decided to go to graduate school? It seems like it's always such a huge decision, no matter your circumstances. Also, how would you have been more selective in projects? Did you get stuck on a particular project? Any tips on how to maneuver your way toward the good projects?
analog31 12y ago
I got a PhD in physics in 1993. I think the advice we received still rings true today. Don't attend grad school unless: 1. You are so in love with the subject matter, that you can't think of doing anything else. I'd give the same advice to someone thinking of going to music school (my Plan B when I was a kid). 2. Somebody else is paying for it. My spouse and I finished grad school with no debt. Without wanting to be too negative about it, I think that the inferiority complex thing, and expecting to receive marketable skills, aren't good enough reasons. Are computational physicists really more employable than common, or garden, computer programmers? A lot of programming can and is done by trial and error or looking up stuff online, and a lot of people doing it are basically self taught. (I'm looking in the mirror when I say those things). I went to grad school because my parents had science degrees, and seemed to have good careers and happy lives. And I was interested in learning more, in an academic environment. I already knew how to program, but saw it as a drudge job -- easy but ultimately boring if you were doing it for someone else. (My summer internships at a data processing center may have biased my perspective). During the time that I was in school, the people who seemed to be doing the coolest things with computers were the physicists. Note that I have to be careful what I say about programming, in a nest of programmers. ;-) I really have a lot of respect for what folks are doing, but am describing the limited environment that I was exposed to 20+ years ago.
- noobermin 12y ago
  >I already knew how to program, but saw it as a drudge job -- easy but ultimately boring if you were doing it for someone else. Hmm, that sounds like grad school, to be honest. The difference is it is _hard_ and ultimately boring because you're doing it for someone else. >During the time that I was in school, the people who seemed to be doing the coolest things with computers were the physicists. Hmmm. My experience with "computational physics" is 1) Run the simulation, probably in 2D a) because the codes suck and are written by subpar programmers b) your analysis scripts are dumb and only work if you output everything, so your simulation spends most of its time in IO 2) Plot the outputs in matlab. Bullshit your way through understanding as if you understand it, write papers,make presentations, enjoy your pizza parties because that's all you have in your life. May be I just have a bad choice of groups to choose from. This is my opinion, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

by ohquu 12y ago

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.
- mbreese 12y ago
  It really depends on the institution. You may be able to get into grad school at the same institution, even working in the same lab, but you wouldn't be able to keep the job and get a degree at the same time. I'm sure that in theory it's possible to do part-time PhD work, but I've never seen it. I've seen people work for a Pharma company and get a masters at the same time, but not a PhD. On the other hand, I've known good staff researchers who've been told that while they'd be perfectly capable of getting a PhD, they wouldn't be able to get into the grad school where they worked. Unless there was some kind of already established program, I couldn't seen how you'd be able to effectively do it part-time. Maybe you could get a Masters part-time, and then move to a PhD program, but it would take longer.
  - leoc 12y ago
    > I'm sure that in theory it's possible to do part-time PhD work, but I've never seen it. I've seen it done, though at a university, and in CS rather than physics. (And in the UK.)
ohquu 12y ago
You're absolutely correct with everything you've said (although postdocs do get benefits here). I do think I have a problem with the prestige aspect. I am always wavering between two different feelings: "I need to make the biggest difference I can," and, "My happiness should not depend on my work's importance." These feelings aren't mutually exclusive, but a lot of the time, I either feel one way, or I feel the other. It'd be more comfortable to just choose one and stick with it. Was it a tough call when you decided to go to graduate school? It seems like it's always such a huge decision, no matter your circumstances. Also, how would you have been more selective in projects? Did you get stuck on a particular project? Any tips on how to maneuver your way toward the good projects?

analog31 12y ago

I got a PhD in physics in 1993. I think the advice we received still rings true today. Don't attend grad school unless: 1. You are so in love with the subject matter, that you can't think of doing anything else. I'd give the same advice to someone thinking of going to music school (my Plan B when I was a kid). 2. Somebody else is paying for it. My spouse and I finished grad school with no debt. Without wanting to be too negative about it, I think that the inferiority complex thing, and expecting to receive marketable skills, aren't good enough reasons. Are computational physicists really more employable than common, or garden, computer programmers? A lot of programming can and is done by trial and error or looking up stuff online, and a lot of people doing it are basically self taught. (I'm looking in the mirror when I say those things). I went to grad school because my parents had science degrees, and seemed to have good careers and happy lives. And I was interested in learning more, in an academic environment. I already knew how to program, but saw it as a drudge job -- easy but ultimately boring if you were doing it for someone else. (My summer internships at a data processing center may have biased my perspective). During the time that I was in school, the people who seemed to be doing the coolest things with computers were the physicists. Note that I have to be careful what I say about programming, in a nest of programmers. ;-) I really have a lot of respect for what folks are doing, but am describing the limited environment that I was exposed to 20+ years ago.

noobermin 12y ago
>I already knew how to program, but saw it as a drudge job -- easy but ultimately boring if you were doing it for someone else. Hmm, that sounds like grad school, to be honest. The difference is it is _hard_ and ultimately boring because you're doing it for someone else. >During the time that I was in school, the people who seemed to be doing the coolest things with computers were the physicists. Hmmm. My experience with "computational physics" is 1) Run the simulation, probably in 2D a) because the codes suck and are written by subpar programmers b) your analysis scripts are dumb and only work if you output everything, so your simulation spends most of its time in IO 2) Plot the outputs in matlab. Bullshit your way through understanding as if you understand it, write papers,make presentations, enjoy your pizza parties because that's all you have in your life. May be I just have a bad choice of groups to choose from. This is my opinion, though, so take it with a grain of salt.