Cal W. wrote:
Not many jobs for physics Ph.D. outside of acadamia. Good luck.
Do you mean academia? If so, literally wrong on so many fronts. For example, who do you think fills out the ranks of Wall Street trading desks? Who are all of these data scientists we hear about?
I'm pretty sure he meant Macadamia. It's a country in SE Europe near Greece. They have all the physics jobs there.
To the OP -- I did a PhD in physics. It seems a little bit crazy to me that you are going to do a PhD in physics and already know you don't want to stay in academia.
idk man, lenny susskind is a boss. don't you care about the unification of GR and quantum mechanics? that's what i ask him about when we're n line for coffee together. btw the free coffee in HEPL is not so good.
A good question wrote:
Stay away from nonsense like String Theory. Get a good grounding in solid state physics, chemical physics, materials etc. The jobs should follow.
A good question wrote:
Stay away from nonsense like String Theory. Get a good grounding in solid state physics, chemical physics, materials etc. The jobs should follow.
My friend got his PhD in string theory from cal. He then lectured and did research for a few years post graduation.
Then he got a job offer from a wall street firm to come up with algorithms to make tiny amounts of money on huge numbers of trades very rapidly.
He is a complete sellout and really contributing nothing to society, just helping skim some money off the top of the system, whereas before he was actually pushing research into a cutting edge field with promises of breakthroughs someday. But he makes a half million a year.
Stiffyback wrote:
He is a complete sellout and really contributing nothing to society, just helping skim some money off the top of the system, whereas before he was actually pushing research into a cutting edge field with promises of breakthroughs someday. But he makes a half million a year.
DEFINITELY producing money on Wall Street TODAY contributes way more than POSSIBLY having a breakthrough in string theory SOMEDAY.
ay i work there too wrote:
idk man, lenny susskind is a boss. don't you care about the unification of GR and quantum mechanics? that's what i ask him about when we're n line for coffee together. btw the free coffee in HEPL is not so good.
Hmm I'm at Stanford too. I'm kinda frightened that there is a letsrunner this close to me. Please tell me there aren't more.
dsfsadfs wrote:.....
To the OP -- I did a PhD in physics. It seems a little bit crazy to me that you are going to do a PhD in physics and already know you don't want to stay in academia.
Yeah, I was wondering this too. A phd is a huge commitment and not necessary for your stated goals. Just go get a masters somewhere and it doesn't really matter that much where. A friend got a physics masters at Utah and makes real good money. Also,some highly ranked phd programs don't look too fondly at wasting their time with people who aren't interested in academic careers. They aren't necessarily being elitist. Mentoring takes a lot of energy. You certainly don't want to advertise this or perhaps in two years you may be posting here asking why none of the decent profs will advise you.
Now if you are on the fence, and just not sure if you want a career in academia perhaps you can give it a try. It's possible that the academia/research bug will bite you. You will probably know in your first year.
Of course there are phd's in physics who go out into the work farce and do well but they usually at least started out thinking that they wanted to be in academia.
publish at least two CNS papers or consider your experience a failure.
I got a PhD in physics and now program for a financial company.
1. Learn how program. Take programming courses if possible. Most people I studied with are now working in tech jobs.
2. Don't take career advice from grad students, post docs, or professors. They have no experience outside academia.
3. Be prepared to waste lots of time in classes completely irrelevant to your research and future career.
4. Don't believe the lies about how an academic job is a good career path. If each PhD adviser supervises 20 students in his career, that means each student has approximately a 5% chance of being a professor.
5. Professors need PhD students do to research and universities need them to teach so don't feel that you are completely useless if you don't plan for a future in academia.
OP
It sounds like you are a very bright person, and will receive a post graduate degree in a subject most people can not understand. That being said, from the physics professors I have met, you should expect the following:
A) lower your expectations of the woman's looks. They really don't care about the phd, and most female phd's are s-fugly.
B) don't wear black dress socks while running, like most physics majors do.
C) Be unique. Why be like all the physics majors that came before you?
D) Consider coaching track or XC, it will help you get in the door at any academia employment.
curiosity made the cat faster wrote:
dsfsadfs wrote:.....To the OP -- I did a PhD in physics. It seems a little bit crazy to me that you are going to do a PhD in physics and already know you don't want to stay in academia.
Yeah, I was wondering this too. A phd is a huge commitment and not necessary for your stated goals. Just go get a masters somewhere and it doesn't really matter that much where. A friend got a physics masters at Utah and makes real good money. Also,some highly ranked phd programs don't look too fondly at wasting their time with people who aren't interested in academic careers. They aren't necessarily being elitist. Mentoring takes a lot of energy. You certainly don't want to advertise this or perhaps in two years you may be posting here asking why none of the decent profs will advise you.
Now if you are on the fence, and just not sure if you want a career in academia perhaps you can give it a try. It's possible that the academia/research bug will bite you. You will probably know in your first year.
Of course there are phd's in physics who go out into the work farce and do well but they usually at least started out thinking that they wanted to be in academia.
Actually I disagree with this... I disagree with the first paragraph because professors don't really care if you want to go into industry afterwards. They have you for 6 years, sure they'd like it if you stayed in academia but the work they're getting out of you is plenty. Students are cheap, most profs are always looking for more good students.
Regarding the last sentence I do know people who started PhDs knowing they didn't want to go into academia, but usually they had some idea of why they were getting the PhD in the first place. Maybe they wanted to start a company of some sort (common at Stanford) or they knew they wanted to work on photovoltaics. So it's a bit odd to me.
Boltzmann wrote:
Stiffyback wrote:He is a complete sellout and really contributing nothing to society, just helping skim some money off the top of the system, whereas before he was actually pushing research into a cutting edge field with promises of breakthroughs someday. But he makes a half million a year.
DEFINITELY producing money on Wall Street TODAY contributes way more than POSSIBLY having a breakthrough in string theory SOMEDAY.
The money HFTs skim is literally taking money from the average Joe's pocket. These average Joe's are trying to put their kids through college, take vacations, and just try to live happy in a world of horror. How does that contribute to society as a whole? I'm starting an econ PhD this Fall, so I don't have a background in String Theory, but I'd say researching String Theory is better than stealing money from the average Joe.
I'm at Stanford too... there are multiple Letsrunners here? Yikes. What departments are you all in?
Especially at the top schools, there are multiple people like this who know they are probably not going to do academia but still interested in research. There are also careers in some areas that are becoming viable options outside of academia. Someone else suggested materials here, that and biophysics have lots of options outside of academia.
sbeefyk1 wrote:
Boltzmann wrote:DEFINITELY producing money on Wall Street TODAY contributes way more than POSSIBLY having a breakthrough in string theory SOMEDAY.
The money HFTs skim is literally taking money from the average Joe's pocket. These average Joe's are trying to put their kids through college, take vacations, and just try to live happy in a world of horror. How does that contribute to society as a whole? I'm starting an econ PhD this Fall, so I don't have a background in String Theory, but I'd say researching String Theory is better than stealing money from the average Joe.
Boltzman has obviously drank the kool-aid regarding wall Street and what value this type of trading actually provides, it probably isn't worth arguing.
What offends me more is his lack of understanding of the importance of basic science research. Basic science today is setting the stage for meaningful advances decades from now that will never happen without that foundation of discovery that can only occur over decades, even over multiple lifetimes. My friend was specifically involved with the large hadron collider, which is setting up potentially very important discoveries.
sbeefyk1 wrote:
Boltzmann wrote:DEFINITELY producing money on Wall Street TODAY contributes way more than POSSIBLY having a breakthrough in string theory SOMEDAY.
The money HFTs skim is literally taking money from the average Joe's pocket. These average Joe's are trying to put their kids through college, take vacations, and just try to live happy in a world of horror. How does that contribute to society as a whole? I'm starting an econ PhD this Fall, so I don't have a background in String Theory, but I'd say researching String Theory is better than stealing money from the average Joe.
It contributes to society by moving money and creating value and employment for others. They also produce tax revenue. Over half of all income tax is paid by the upper class. The middle class isn't doing much in that regard.
Your kids are adults when they turn 18, and college is not expensive. Make them pay for it themselves. Vacations are not expensive either. String Theory has no direct immediate benefit for anyone other than curious physicists. This seems fairly obvious to me. Maybe I should get an Econ PhD too.
sbeefyk1 wrote:
Boltzmann wrote:DEFINITELY producing money on Wall Street TODAY contributes way more than POSSIBLY having a breakthrough in string theory SOMEDAY.
The money HFTs skim is literally taking money from the average Joe's pocket. These average Joe's are trying to put their kids through college, take vacations, and just try to live happy in a world of horror. How does that contribute to society as a whole? I'm starting an econ PhD this Fall, so I don't have a background in String Theory, but I'd say researching String Theory is better than stealing money from the average Joe.
How are they taking money from average Joe's pocket? For one, electronic trading has demonstrably decreased transaction costs for average Joe investors. Also remember that the clients of these hedge funds are often large pension funds, teachers unions, etc. I.e. funds that directly support average Joes.
Stiffyback wrote:
Boltzman has obviously drank the kool-aid regarding wall Street and what value this type of trading actually provides, it probably isn't worth arguing.
What offends me more is his lack of understanding of the importance of basic science research. Basic science today is setting the stage for meaningful advances decades from now that will never happen without that foundation of discovery that can only occur over decades, even over multiple lifetimes. My friend was specifically involved with the large hadron collider, which is setting up potentially very important discoveries.
I'm a researcher at Stanford so I understand the importance of basic science research. It is you who does not understand. String Theory is not basic science research.
Your last sentence makes no sense. You list your friend's experience with the large hadron collider then conclude that it has not actually done anything yet for the future. It just MIGHT. Important and interesting discoveries do not automatically mean they are useful and beneficial. You've been drinking the science worshipping Kool Aid.
The kinds of basic science research that are beneficial to the foundation of the future are things like materials science, electrical engineering, applied physics, and biophysics.
Your understanding of the benefits of Wall Street are also wrong. There is much value created by Wall Street. For example, where do you think most of everyone's retirement funds come from? For another example, these industries are taxed a lot. For another, where do you think many physicists are employed?
Boltzmann, what department are you in? Some are more applied than others.
I'm a postdoc, not in physics but I'm in the building sometimes. Letsrun Stanford Dish run next week? I'm kinda slow. Maybe we can get that Instagram guy who ran the 320 mile to join, he trains here too right?Also whomever mentioned Caltech as superior - there is the new LIGO detection just announced!
jq wrote:
I'm at Stanford too... there are multiple Letsrunners here? Yikes. What departments are you all in?