9 ms·
What industry? I've never seen anything close to these averages for hard science research.
by kayhi 12y ago
What industry? I've never seen anything close to these averages for hard science research.
- rm999 12y agoMore than 80% of the data scientists I've worked with who were born before 1978 have physics phds and went through that trajectory. Data scientists younger than that have a wider variety of degrees, often computer science and/or applied math. But I don't know if most people count data science as a real scientific field. I have friends in the bio/medical side (phds, not MDs) who are following that trajectory too.
- learc83 12y ago>But I don't know if most people count data science as a real scientific field. If you're using it in the big data, industry buzzword sense, then I doubt the OP would consider it "hard science research."
- timr 12y agoThose salary numbers are also arguably bubbly..."data science" is so new and hype-driven that we might be looking back in a few years at the ridiculous salad days where someone who knew a bit of statistics and a bit of programming could pull down $100k a year. It's starting to read like "webmaster" salaries in the late 90s...
- shanusmagnus 12y agoI think that is a perfect analogy. Anyone with marginal skills who wants to get a job as a 'data scientist' would be well-advised to do so before the music stops.
- dredmorbius 12y agoDon't think that "data science" is a solid career trajectory for the next 20-40 years. It's a fad, driven by "big data" and the presumption that a vast an invasive dossier on individuals translates to value through marketing. The (sorry) data on that is thin. And it would hardly be the first time that a hugely promising career field has gone bust. Over my lifetime, I've seen the technical "hot jobs" go from: ⚫ Highway and civil engineering (1960s - early 1970s) ⚫ Nuclear engineering (1970s to March 28, 1979). ⚫ Defense and aerospace engineering (1980s through 1992). ⚫ Doctor / medicine (through the mid 1980s and the rise of HMOs / "managed healthcare") ⚫ Petroleum engineering (1960s - 1980, 1999 - present, big empty hole 1980 - 1999) ⚫ Genetic engineering (mostly false starts: late 1970s / early 1980s, again early 1990s, again post dot-com bust -- but it's never really launched) ⚫ "Data Scientist" (2009 - present) ⚫ "Webmaster" (1997 - 2001) ⚫ "Mobile Apps Developer" (2007 - ~ nowish, starting to fade) Just because you're getting your time in the sun now doesn't mean the glow won't fade.
- dekhn 12y agoAnd throughout that time actuaries (the original data scientists) have had one of the best-paying and highest job satisfaction levels. Statisticians and data analysts have been in demand for a long time and likely will continue to be.
- eru 12y agoYes. Though keep in mind that actuaries are protected by big regulatory moats. An actuary is not someone who practices actuarial science, but someone who has a piece of paper saying that he can.
- aswanson 12y agoIt really is hilarious that you actually have to have a certification to practice statistics. Think about how absurd that is. People write code that controls airplanes, medical devices, emi emissions...which are of course certified/regulated on a product basis. But to just apply stats...you need a certification. Something is wrong here.
- dekhn 12y agoI practice statistics all the time without a certificate. What are you talking about?
- aswanson 12y agohttp://www.beanactuary.org/exams/ http://www.beanactuary.org/exams/
- dekhn 12y agoOK, so you just worded what you said above poorly. You implied that any practice of stats required certification. My comment covered both statisticians, and actuaries, but just used actuaries as an example. Why does it matter that actuaries are certified? It's a professional role which requires dealing with some pretty heavy concepts. Employers presumably want to be sure that candidates meet some level of capabilities.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- fredliu 12y agoMaybe computer science may not be considered "hard science"? but that level of salary for CS PhDs is not uncommon in tech firms.
- beeworker 12y agoOr even just CS bachelors.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago$250k without a degree? In what area of CS? Finance? What about for people outside of SF/NY/Finance?
- dsacco 12y agoI know engineers without a degree who pull $250k a year. Here's an example: you can become a principal consultant at the best and most well-known infosec firms in the world without a degree. By and large, they don't care. Even the ones that say CS degree on the job post - email a decisionmaker, tweet them, whatever - it's not true (some care, most don't). The salary band for a principal consultant would be around $200-$250k, sometimes before bonuses and incentives to develop tools or do research. Fully realizable goal. Now, that's my experience in that industry. But someone will also come along and tell you about software engineers who work at AmaGooBookSoft with no degree too. And if you're a top performer there - $250k is a fully realizable goal.
- sillysaurus3 12y agoI mean, you're in NYC. Are you referring to someone outside that area? I'm deeply interested in how someone outside of a hotspot like SF/NYC could achieve a $250k salary. I was under the impression that $120k was pretty good for someone joining an infosec firm. How would you go from an entry-level infosec position (an entry-level security consultant) to $250k/yr without switching companies? Also, what would be a reasonable salary for an experienced dev with no prior infosec experience who is joining an infosec firm? (Essentially someone who is switching fields to infosec, but who is still a very good programmer, and who rapidly picked up on the fundamentals of infosec and applies them in a valuable way.)
- kyrra 12y agoChemists can make a bit of money in industry depending on the specialization. Organic Chem can go into medical/pharma research. Then there is lots of research/work/money in materials (diamonds, carbon fiber, other composites, lots of stuff I don't know). I don't know the specific pay in these fields, but it is definitely higher than you would get staying in academics.
- dekhn 12y agoUS pharma hires few if any organic chemists any more. That work got offshored a decade ago.
- refurb 12y agoThis is true. It's not only outsourcing, but also the shift from small molecules to large molecules (proteins, antibodies). Pharma companies have shed thousands of chemists over the past 10 years. I know a few who have been able to hold onto their jobs, but it hasn't been pretty.
- refurb 12y agoJust to add more context, I used to work as a chemistry researcher and when I first started job hunting in the early 2000's pharma was desperate for organic chemists. You could apply to 5 openings and get 5 offers. Most of the folks I knew who were chemists have moved onto other roles/industries.
- DaveWalk 12y agoThis is a HUGE point. It was once thought that being a chemistry PhD was a shoe-in for industry work, and you could skip being a postdoc entirely. I met a very respected chemist at AACR last year who said all of his postdocs were scrambling for work, and that some were being realistic and considering moving to China for the opportunities.
- IndianAstronaut 12y agoI know lots of biochem phds from my grad program. The median jncome is around $50k. Many had to apply to hundreds of places to land a job.
- refurb 12y agoI was referring to the biotech/medical field.
- semi-extrinsic 12y agoIn petroleum-related industries in Northern and Western Europe you can be looking at $70k a year after your MSc and almost 100 after your PhD. My starting salary was $68k after my MSc, worked 6 months before being given an offer I couldn't refuse to go get a PhD (unpaid leave from the company, getting a $50k/year scholarship from the government and paying zero tuition), expecting to make around $95k when I'm finished and go back to the company. This is on par with statistics I've seen for my industry. Social democracies and all that...
- Scoundreller 12y agoNorway?
- semi-extrinsic 12y agoBingo. Though I have Danish friends (at DTU) who are not any worse off. Friends in the UK and France get less during their PhDs, but the engineering salaries before/after seem to be on par with what I said.
- dredmorbius 12y agoOh, absolute -- petroleum has skyrocketed in the past decade (though what happens as petro cos start running into capex conflicts is open, and the current price crash is likely not playing well). But there was a long dry spell from the late 1980s through the 1990s where those jobs, especially in the US, were very, very hard to come by. That said, I'd love to check my statements against historical salary data for the field.
- jleyank 12y agoThe ACS publishes salary information every year. Google for "ACS salary survey" if you want to check out what chemists make at each degree level vs. experience. In pharma, the take-home's pretty good although there's been a slow, steady loss of jobs over the years. Or, more correctly, both a loss and geographic shift of jobs.
- ImprovedSilence 12y agoI've seen it happen in Consulting/Defense Contracting it's pretty common to have well paid PHD's around as subject matter experts for certain topics. Not to mention having PHD resumes on proposals can mean a lot to prospective clients, so even than can be worth it for that industries to have well educated peeps on the payroll. Overall, in the DC area at least (what I know), having a PHD can pay. Hard sciences, engineering, even social sciences. They have to usually be socially competent too, not all PHDs' possess this trait...
- DaveWalk 12y agoIn the biotech / pharmaceutical sciences, a starting salary is always greater than GP's "professorial" range: easily $75-$125K. Though these jobs are very competitive. And, as the article states: > If Margaret had left science entirely…for, say, a consulting job…she’d have earned about $100,000 a year or more...but she stayed in science.