Academy

Anything to do with the traditional world of get a degree, get a job as well as its alternatives
Post Reply
frapa
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:31 am
Location: München, Germany

Academy

Post by frapa »

Hi, this is my first post in this forum. I'm a 23-years old physics student currently doing a master in TUM, Munuch, Germany (I'm Italian tough).

My question regards the career choice between academy and industry. I am now close to complete my master (only 1 year left), and I have to choose between doing a Ph.D at the Uni, like most people do, or get a job somewhere in the industry.

It is a couple of year that I have been thinking about this problem (I started with the idea of getting a Ph.D.) and I am now thinking that getting a job is the best option (financially speaking for sure, but also from the job satisfaction point of view). However I would like to get the opinion of more experienced people, and see if they agree with me. My reasoning include:
  • Ph.D. is a financial suicide (3-4 years with a pay that here is just enough to pay the rent and utilities)
  • Having had more experience with research at university, I can say that in many ways it looks pointless to me. People here are doing strange film on strange semiconductor surfaces for very vague goals. I do feel most physics research (and university research in general) is done by people that like playing with their research field for no reason other than they enjoy it. I do not feel like this. If I want to research something, I want to bring a contribution to the progress of humanity, an I feel I must have a goal and work toward it. I asked a professor what they do and he told me they do "spectroscopy just for fun". I cannot really get the mentality of this.
  • I am now working part time in a internet company and even tough I find the task sometimes boring (I think every job has some of those), I enjoy it much more than going at the university, since it is "getting things done" rather than only study books and read research paper. Moreover it is easier to handle mentally, because when I'm done with working and I go home, I don't have to think about it any more. I can concentrate on other things (consider I have been writing my report for the uni labs for the past 4 weekends).
I'm aware that working in a company has some drawbacks too, for example everything is finalized at earning money and things must be made on budget. Or, depending on the company, meaningless jobs are possible too. Less freedom in the task one accomplishes. I am especially worried about my long term goals.

I would like to go ERE because this opens up possibilities (founding my own business, refining my DIY skills, travel, get involved in organizations like WWF, moving to another country, change job without worrying, etc), but I do realize it is not easy (may need many years of work, here salaries are lower, and in Italy still lower, than in the US). In particular I am a bit worried that after ERE my life would be pointless. So the question is, on the long term perspective, it is more meaningful to go into academy or industry?

I need some opinions on the above!

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Academy

Post by jacob »

Hmmm where to begin ...

Going to grad school [in physics] was one of the most exciting/interesting eras of my life. I think that's because I was extremely interested in the subject and because I still suffered from the illusion that I was making a contribution to humanity and that I would eventually make it into the academic ranks simply if I worked hard enough.

In retrospect, I should have left for industry right after getting the PhD.

* Intellectually, speaking, there's about as much difference between the phd and the masters as there is between the masters and high school. It's just a different kind of animal. It's a degree in research. Not a degree in problem-fixing. However, these days schools crank out many a phd with no research skills. For them, their phd is just a piece of paper that only impresses people who are impressed by little pieces of papers. They are called glorified technicians. Nothing wrong with that, but it's an incredible waste of time working for minimum wagefor 4-6 years just to add a couple of letters after your name.

* Adding to humanity is a very vague process. Only a few people in history have had such a material and immediate impact that they are well-known for their contribution. Most academic scientists work mostly to preserve the methodology of science, that is, a living breathing repository of how one does science. They then teach this to the next generation. And so on. Along the way new discoveries are made. 99.99% of those discoveries are completely irrelevant ... or put in the typical way: "They are highly interesting to about 5 people in the world." If you want to become a professor, you better become one of these persons.

* Academia works very much based on the Peter Principle but with an "up or out" clause. Undergrads are tested for their intelligence. If you pass, then...in grad school you're tested for your persistence and creativity ... in postdoc you're tested for your stamina and salesmanship ... as an asst prof, you're tested for your ability to secure grant money ... and as assoc you're tested as a manager of people ... and a full prof, you spend all your day managing the lab, serving on committees, etc. Your actual time spent doing science yourself is between year 3 in grad school and year 1 as an asst prof if you make it that far.

* Nobody does this for the money. In terms of goals, very few people have other major goals and interests than whatever is interesting to them and 4 of their colleagues. I mean this to the level the whole population of people in general. Sure you can discuss music or politics with all of them but not to a greater depth that you can with some random person from The Office. You're not going to find many if any "classic" intellectuals in the modern halls of science. There's simply no time for them ... and the system do not reward them.

You should definitely read this: https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0310/0310368.pdf

I noticed you said solid state: Keep in mind that solid state is probably the closest you can get in science to engineering. As far as I understand, a lot of it is simply applying known processes in known ways to unknown materials and recording and publishing the results ... very mechanical. Also, solid state is some of the best compensated science out them. It will be easier to find a relevant position in industry coming from solid state.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Academy

Post by BRUTE »

fuck the phd. brute knows several physics phds, and it seems a lot like slave labor to brute. so much office politics and appeasing the phd leader guy (whatever he's called).

brute recommends going into industry. physics is an excellent point to jump off from to anything with math or IT. brute's physics friends end up being engineers, programmers, or management consultants.

JamesR
Posts: 947
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:08 pm

Re: Academy

Post by JamesR »

Richard Hamming's "You and Your Research" is a classic: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouA ... earch.html

If you can pick a problem that's important - then it could pay off. The biggest advantage of academia seems to be the access to resources & the environment & various cool opportunities.

You could either continue on with a PhD & find a way to make your contribution. Or you could take 5 years to go after ERE, work in industry, then go back into academia after 5 years.

frapa
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:31 am
Location: München, Germany

Re: Academy

Post by frapa »

@jacob Yes, I am currently focusing on semiconductor physics, therefore solid state. It has a lot to do with engineering, but as I understand it the mentality is rather different (I even feel physicist here have a certain distaste for industry...). It is much more exploration research than what they do in industry.

ah, by "adding to humanity" I do not mean I live in the illusion of doing something great, rather that I find most research not very interesting, because it seems without goal to me. If I have to do something I prefer if I can see an application where it can be useful (realistically and not as in every paper where they cite 100 random reasons to pursue the research being done). I do realize that it isn't easy to have always such a vision.

The paper was extremely interesting. I had been searching some document like this for some time. I have yet to discover some of these things, since I am just a student, but I got enough experience to see some of them: professors here are just like corporate managers, they do no research apart from suggesting things to others when asked. But mysteriously the signature is on every single paper that comes out (and maybe the one of the Ph.D. who actually did the work is not there)... I also heard some voices of the publishing problems (e.g. journals editors favour friends).

I also appreciate your experience, since it is in a very related field.

@JamesR Thanks, another interesting read! I am a bit scared the years will be 10 or more, tough.

So the thing to do seems to be going into industry. I am glad I am not the only one with this idea (which seems very strange for most people here... that is why I am asking).

Post Reply