vicente wrote:Let's say that you end up getting your Ph.D. at a top 50 but not top 20 school and the only job in academia you can find is one at a low-ranking department that does not have a Ph.D program.
I wonder what it's like to be a professor there.
I wonder if they spend their time twindling their thumbs waiting for research funding to come, or maybe they have to do all the dirty work because they have little or no grad students. I wonder if they get published at all. How do they even secure tenure?
vicente wrote:Kansas State is the top school for AMO, but are people really going to consider your Ph.D from there as valuable as one from Yale, even if your thesis was on AMO?
rooibos wrote:What about applied physics programs? Those are usually easier to get into, but what do they do for your job outlook? For example, would it be better to get a PhD in applied physics from a top university (like one ranked in the top 10 in physics) or a physics PhD from a lower ranked (30 and under) school?
Wow, that quote is surprisingly realistic... Most of the time the govt talks about scientists they're like "ZOMG, China/India/Lichtensetin be producing mo than us! We're all going to die!"
excel wrote:It does not seem to say anything about the prospect of applied physics Phds in academia, but does say that job prospects for applied physicists should be good. On the other hand, it does not seem optimistic about the job prospects of physics PhDs.
I definitely agree that applied physics is the way to go if industry is the goal from the outset. I'm just saying that there is still plenty of opportunity for those of us who can't get academic jobs, even if our degree is a more theoretical and less applied. You just have to sell yourself as somebody who can solve problems.
Users browsing this forum: arash-iran and 5 guests