
Ask HN: What next after PhD in physics? - _mjk
Hi HN!
I am about to finish my PhD in experimental physics next year (Europe), and I am thinking about what to do next.
I would like to get into CS, but I have no formal education. However, I am used to work in terminals, only have linux machines around me, know my way around git, have done a lot of data analysis and modelling in julia &#x2F; python (setting up own packages, some testing included), and just started out with ruby &#x2F; rails to realize an project of my own.
Ideally the next job would be in an English-speaking country (anywhere is fine). Since I do not have any experience &#x2F; certificate to show off for CS, I thought doing a PostDoc might be a good idea. Well, is it? Should I rather look for an internship &#x2F; first position?
Happy to hear your thoughts! _mjk
======
PaulHoule
By CS do you mean being a practitioner or being a researcher?

As for practitioner, I think you could jump right into a "data science" kind
of role. Python is particularly good for that. Maybe also something with
embedded systems.

I am not so sure how to switch fields for research. I was discouraged from
doing that back in the day.

For background, I got a PhD in theoretical physics at Cornell in 1998. I did a
postdoc for 1 year in Dresden, Germany. In school I did as much as I could in
Java. I quit physics, went home and bought a farm close to Ithaca (my wife
grew up 40 miles away.) She teaches kids to ride horses and since then I have
done programming at Cornell, companies in the Ithaca area, remote, as a
consultant, etc. I became the black sheep of my research group and I have gone
through phases of intense soul-searching from time to time, but I am still
here.

~~~
_mjk
Hi, thanks for your comment. You are right, I wouldn't want to switch fields
in research in the long term. For a limited time and project however I might
be able pick up the knowledge on a particular set of skills (thus the question
if a postdoc would actually help).

------
T-A
For some reason, your question immediately reminded me of this:
[http://p.migdal.pl/2015/12/14/sci-to-data-
sci.html](http://p.migdal.pl/2015/12/14/sci-to-data-sci.html)

My guess is that a postdoc would be seen by prospective employers as a clear
declaration of intent to stay in academia. But if that is what you want, you
should use those few (hopefully!) years to build up a research portfolio which
will get you a permanent position. Starting from scratch on something which
you have no previous experience with is not the way to do that. I doubt
anybody sensible would be willing to let you try on their dime.

If you do not intend to stay in academia, it is time to start revising down
the value you assign to certificates of whatever. You are more likely to be
asked for an interesting GitHub repo. But if you insist, there is a plethora
of things like

[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/learning/certification-
overv...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/learning/certification-
overview.aspx)

[http://education.oracle.com/pls/web_prod-plq-
dad/db_pages.ge...](http://education.oracle.com/pls/web_prod-plq-
dad/db_pages.getpage?page_id=39)

[https://training.linuxfoundation.org/certification](https://training.linuxfoundation.org/certification)

------
sevensor
It's not at all unusual in the U.S. for physics Ph.D.s to get hired into
programming jobs. I can think of several people I've met fitting this
description. Consulting companies seem to like the physics degree for entry-
level programming work, although that observation is based on a pretty small
sample size. The physics Ph.D. signifies capacity for abstract thought,
problem-solving ability, a moderate level of technical experience, and above
all a willingness to put up with a lot of pain and suffering to complete a
project.

------
tmoot
Startup. :)

