
Don't become a scientist (1999) - plg
http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/scientist.html
======
chrisamiller
Sigh. This gets posted every few months and the title is still wrong. It's a
great time to be a scientist, especially if you're into, say, computational
biology. It's an awful time to shoot for a tenure track faculty position.
There are lots of ways to do science, both in and out of academia, without the
'professor' title.

~~~
tjradcliffe
Yes. _Do_ be a scientist. _Don 't_ be an academic.

Dropping out of academia was amongst the more difficult decisions I've made.
Also amongst the best.

There are _huge_ opportunities for scientists today. I'm a physicist. I've
worked in computer-assisted surgery, medical physics, image processing,
computer vision, genomics, computational physics and a few other things
besides. It has paid well and let me do all kinds of interesting research that
I would never have been able to touch as an academic.

Things to do as a student: study modern statistics hard. Being a card-carrying
Bayesian is like the secret handshake to an unlimited world of really cool
stuff these days. There's a childhood friend of mine who's (finally) finishing
his PhD in psychology, and when we reconnected a few years ago we were amazed
that we could meaningfully talk to each other about our work because we both
spoke the same statistical language. It really is a universal grammar, and
anyone in any field who speaks it fluently has a world of opportunity waiting
for them, from finance to fisheries.

~~~
wavegeek
> study modern statistics hard

Would you recommend some texts that cover this?

A friend suggested:

* Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial by Devinderjit Sivia, John Skilling

* Bayesian Data Analysis, by Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern

* Introduction to Statistical Inference by Jack C. Kiefer, Gary Lorden

Currently I am working my way through this.

Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning by Christopher M. Bishop

These books are expensive and very time-consuming so it is important to pick
the right ones.

------
ohquu
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.

~~~
analog31
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.

~~~
ohquu
Thank you for the great reply!

I hear statement (1) quite a lot, but it seems like a really subjective
criterion. When I hear this, I think, "If I'm not as passionate as Feynman, I
should not go to grad school." And so I haven't. Am I looking at this the
wrong way? When I compare the subjects I enjoy and the careers that allow
freedom and decent pay, physics seems to be the only thing that remains. Is
that not enough? I don't have the confidence to know whether I'll love the
subject in ten years. I also think anyone who has that confidence is either a
Feynman-type or has deluded themselves. Regarding (2), don't most hard science
grad programs pay the students?

I'm also not saying that computational physicists are more employable than
common programmers (or that they're better software developers!). I'm just
saying I enjoy working on problems similar to those encountered in
computational physics. I enjoy figuring out how things work and modelling
them. In case I ended up hating physics by the end of graduate school, at
least I'd have a strong background in mathematics and programming, and those
skills could be transferred to domains with similar problems.

If you don't mind me asking, are you still working in physics? Based on your
"about" section, you seem to be interested in a great many things, like
myself. Before entering graduate school, could you truly not think of doing
anything else, i.e., did you truly obey criterion (1)? I can think of many
things I'd still like to do while I'm young: start a business, write songs
professionally, act... but it's hard to take risks like that when you've got a
good (and more practical) thing going.

~~~
analog31
I suppose (1) is an exaggeration. But there are a number of risks inherent in
joining a grad program -- ways that students fall out and don't get their
degrees. At least I think you need to be aware of those risks and willing to
absorb them. And one of those risks is that you emerge with your PhD and folks
wonder how you're actually smarter than you were without one.

(2), yes, but it's just a reminder to set a bar for yourself, that you have to
get into a decent program with decent support in order for it to be
worthwhile. It might not be so much the principle of getting paid to work, but
having enough of a financial cushion so you don't have to deal with crises by
quitting grad school.

I obeyed criterion (1) but not Feynman level. That's too strong of a
criterion, like you suggest. Rather, the alternatives to grad school all
looked pretty blah. I've been _extremely_ lucky. My thesis project was very
much a hackathon in optics, electronics, software, etc. Today I work for a
company that makes scientific instruments, and I work on assimilating new
technologies on a 1 - 2 year time frame before we attempt to develop them into
the next generation of products. So I do a lot of experimenting, learning
theory, etc. I solve difficult problems that crop up with our products, in
production and in the field.

Truth be told, I also spend a reasonable amount of time on mainstream work,
e.g., project engineering. I've tried my hand at both project management and
people management. Those were OK. I don't have enough mental organization to
do the project management thing when I'm actually competing with other project
managers for resources.

Over the duration of grad school, I kinda lost interest in basic research.
It's cool, but I'm not a _great_ physicist, and I've simply never had an idea
for my own line of research, which would kinda put a damper on an academic
career. I prefer to work on shorter term projects where I can add value by
developing an understanding of how things work. I also feel that the industry
I'm in genuinely creates good solid jobs for people. I don't face the dilemma
of wondering if I have to exploit people in order for my own work to progress.

------
pspeter3
I went to the school where he teaches and never had any student mention his
name with a shred of respect or have anything positive to say about him. I
would take his points with a huge grain of salt.

~~~
nilkn
It's not like this guy is the only one who has observed the problem with
academia. I don't really think it's relevant if students liked him as a
teacher. The job problem in academia is very, very well-known at this point,
and many professors would back him up now.

~~~
pspeter3
I agree and in light of your points, I feel like my comment is out of line.

------
HarryHirsch
The guy is barking up the wrong tree. There is indeed a crisis in science,
especially in pharmacology, but it isn't caused by an oversupply of
biochemists, it's that since 2004, and especially since 2008, _everything that
isn 't academia has stopped hiring_. It's not that the source is too
plentiful, it's that the sink has become plugged up.

There may be a cautionary tale in there for computer science: once the VC
carousel stops the situation in computer science will be quite as bad.

~~~
jcampbell1
This was written in 1999.

~~~
HarryHirsch
I know. It's all bullshit what the guy writes, this essay and all the others
on his site. This one here
([http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/defense.html](http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/defense.html))
is really something fierce.

That's why I said the unemployment crisis isn't caused by an oversupply of
scientists - up to about 2004 most everyone with a PhD degree could find
employment in industry. But this fellow Katz doesn't even mention industry. He
is either ignorant or intentionally dishonest. There is no excuse for either.

~~~
prewett
The author is a physicist; where would one find employment in the physics
industry? The "physics industry" is pretty much academia, with the exception
of a few DoD positions. Physics Ph.D.s frequently go into finance and software
development, but since neither of those use physics (except limited amounts of
software), I think they would fit into the "career change" that he did
mention.

I graduated with an B.S. in Physics about the time that he wrote, and his
analysis pretty much matched what I saw in the lab I worked in. Of my physics
classmates who I know what happened to them, all got jobs doing no physics
(including the newly minted Ph.D. who was supervising me). I talked with the
postdoc in our lab (her second postdoc position), looked at the number of
Ph.D.s and postdocs at Ohio State (lots), looked at the number of open
positions in the Physics Department at Ohio State (none), and decided I did
not want to postdoc until a professor died and then hope that I get picked. So
I said physics was a fun, stimulating, foundational undergraduate choice, felt
like I understood the entire world, and promptly pursued software.
(Fortunately, I was aided by being tired of school and not really enjoying
physics research)

One of my physics classmates did software for a while, then decided to do a
Ph.D. in (rocket) propulsion, which is physics-related. "Industry" for him is
pretty much limited to NASA (who else is going to employ someone looking into
new forms of propulsion?) Turns out he doesn't want to work for NASA
bureaucracy, so he switched back to software again.

I think the author is right on, at least for his field of physics.

------
acomjean
I started working this year in University genetics a lab as a programmer. Lots
of post docs, and its a hard life. Despite being a very prestigious University
and working crazy amounts, some of the post-docs are having trouble finding
academic jobs. Though from here due to reputation they can go into industry
make more money, but then they don't get to work on what they want.

------
kevinalexbrown
>If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try to
persuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s.

or, increase funding for science (academic and otherwise)

------
billconan
I think PhD should be viewed as a kind of job, rather than a degree. Being a
professor shouldn't be the only way to go for a PhD. Industries should provide
equal opportunities for PhDs (they often think PhDs are over qualified).

~~~
billconan
Wait, just noticed that the article is from 1999! should have read this before
I applied for PhD 7 years ago.

------
dang
[https://hn.algolia.com/?q=don%27t+become+a+scientist#!/story...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=don%27t+become+a+scientist#!/story/forever/0/don't%20become%20a%20scientist)

------
MichaelCrawford
This is one of the reasons I have not pursued my PhD in Physics - there are
few professorships available. I don't want to spend years trying to get one of
the very few postdoc jobs available.

