This is just a numbers game. Every year the top universities in many departments grant more PhDs than they have tenured spots. Being a tenured prof at Harvard is 100x harder than getting accepted and completing a PhD there. If you walked down the hall of the top grad program in the country and offered students a tenured job at a top 50 school they would be foolish not to take it.

ah for some reason i thought you said a while ago that you did undergrad at harvard and grad at princeton, my mistake

I think this mindset isn't exclusive to your adviser. Many schools believe that their undergraduates should go to other schools for graduate school. There are some departments out there that love academic inbreeding, but I hear that only happens in some engineering departments like MIT EECS. I've also heard that Harvard can be that way as well with some disciplines.

Personally, I think it's exciting to have a change in scenery.

This seems especially true.

For chemistry, here's an article on getting tenure at a top 10 institution.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/education/81...ducation1.html

Essentially, in chemistry, you need to be at the top ~2-3% of your PhD class at an elite institution to have a shot at tenure at a top 10 institution. A top 50 offer is very enticing for most PhDs, and it is considered a huge success to get tenure at a top 20-40 institution.

I've seen this article before, and I really enjoyed it because it seems applicable to all the physical sciences as well. Although I think he was a little bit too harsh in the way he worded his article, I think it is a perfect document for furyshade.

i'm not sure if this is something that can only really well evaluated by talking to professors but does anyone know of a source that good third party analysis of specific departments? like for instance if i wanted find out what the top 10 information theory programs in the country are how would i go about doing that without just looking at websites and trying to parse what separates one program from another? i know i am a bit ahead of myself but i am just curious.

If you want to do information theory, look for top 10 CS programs, look for top information theory people (that do something you're interested in), and intersect.

I believe that US News and World Report does publish something by subfield, but I wouldn't swear to it, and I wouldn't think they'd get as specific as information theory; rather, they'd say "theoretical CS" (as opposed to architecture, software, networks, etc).

But really, when picking grad schools, I'd pick a place where you like the people you meet, both students and faculty, and a place that suits you geographically. There will be times in grad school where you hate your field and your advisor and your problem, and if you also hate your coworkers and your location, well, it's tough to get remotivated. It's 5+ years of your life you'll never get back, so you've got to enjoy them.

EDIT: And you're not sacrificing anything if you're going into academia. If you're at a decent school and have a strong thesis, you'll still get academic jobs.

Wyman -

Since you're in Math, what do you think about getting a job as a quant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_analyst

Are you dead-set on staying in academia?

that is sort of what i figured. i am not dead set on information theory, just using that as an example, i figured the only way to judge a department was to talk to professors in that area and see it for myself but figured i'd ask. i am pretty sure i want to go into some area of controls/information theory/robotics/signal processing but given how little i've done who the hell knows

This is the right attitude to have. You have much to learn, young Padawan.

My attitude toward academic work, industry, finance, and government changes based on what day it is.

I don't think that there's anything beautiful about the work a quant does, and it is high-stress the first time you write an algorithm and the company's like "ok, let's use it." ::GULP!:: And it's high-stress every subsequent time. But, you get paid an awful lot, and you get to live in some of my favorite places in the US, so it's definitely getting consideration. Plus I am very interested in algorithms and computation, so I'd actually be doing something somewhat interesting (note that this differs from "beautiful").

And as a poker player, I'm less averse to the idea of gambling for a living. Some will argue that that's all that hedge funds do, and I see their point (and don't really care).

It just depends on the lifestyle you want (day-to-day) and the amount of money you need to live comfortably.

To add to what Wyman said, basically everybody in grad school should think about what their options are if they leave academia. Certainly go for it if your dream is to get tenure at a major university but understand that this is incredibly challenging and may not fit in with other goals in your life.

Also as a sophmore do everything that you need to try to make yourself competitive for your "chosen" field but at the same keep your eyes open for all the various fields out there, we are still young so you never know what would catch your eye.

Take me for example: came into a top-10 ChemE undergrad, landed good internship after freshman year. As a freshman would have said I was 90% sure I was going to be working for Exxon/BP/Shell in 3 years.

But now as a rising Junior im volunteering in a childrens hospital and volunteering to help with doing psychiatric research while studying for the MCAT.

Things can change fast at this age : )

This good advice, research is generally a very particular thing and your interests can easily sit at the crossroads of a number of different disciplines. Just because you are getting a degree and doing research in EE that doesn't mean you have to go to a grad program in an EE department.

My example. I have an undergrad degree in physics, and was planning to do a Ph.D all through college, but backed out at the last minute to work for a year and reconsider. Now I'm doing a Ph.D thats technically in an Industrial Engineering department but my advisor has a Ph.D in physics and my research is on renewable energy economics.

The point is keep doing what you like doing, its great that you're thinking ahead but in all likelihood you still have plenty of time to figure out more specifically what you want to do with your future. Eventually the pieces will just fall into place.

This last part is extremely important. I can't speak to other fields, but if you're in the sciences you should expect to work 75-80 hour weeks for the first several years at an R1. This is a combination of research responsibilities, teaching responsibilities, departmental/service responsibilities, and the time you'll spend with the students in your lab.

My wife and I are weighing a lot of options at the moment. Both of our research programs would be a lot easier with postdocs, grad students, and all of the other things that go with big research institutions. On the other hand, we have a 1yo daughter, and it's not really acceptable for us not to get to spend a lot of time with her.

As a side note, it's worth mentioning that tenure doesn't really exist for a lot of sciences. In my case, if I take a job at a reasonably-sized research institution, it's very clear that I will be required to pull in decent grants. If I don't, tenure is a cute idea and all, but I won't last long.

Some very sobering points here. It's funny, none of my professors/mentors/advisors ever mentioned this to me. They just talk about getting into grad school, and I assumed that once you get in there, then you're golden. I think it would have been pretty useful for them to warn that the competition doesn't stop once you get in.

Based on this, it sounds like you're saying that even PhDs from top social psych programs are not even close to having a guaranteed job in academia. You still have to absolutely bust your ass. 120 candidates for one position? F that! This confuses me. Presumably, you have to be pretty intelligent to get into a top program. At the same time, you have to be pretty dumb to enter such a competitive field that rewards talent so poorly.

I'm pretty sure my high school psych teacher made about $50k. If entry level prof jobs only pay a little bit more than that, and you need to compete with 120 other applicants to even get the job, AND you're expected to work ~80 hours a week...yes it's nice to have status and be recognized in your field, but that still wouldn't make it worth it for most people.

I feel like this issue looks so one-sided that I must be overlooking several things. There must be a lot of other benefits of being a prof that I am missing? Otherwise, why would so many people enter PhD programs in social psych? Do they all really think they have a realistic shot at being that 1 percenter that gets hired? Maybe alternative jobs are better than you make them sound, Black Peter?

Also, why does academia reward talent so poorly? I would think that the skills and time necessary to acquire a PhD in a top program would translate into ~$200k salary in other positions. You have to be one of the best to get a PhD from a top institution. One of the best, let's say, interior designers, makes a ton of money. And which is more important to society? Is it just because there is so much competition in academia, and in social psychology specifically?

Actually, I might have been overstating it a little. It might be more like 65-70 hr weeks instead.

The competition just gets tougher. You're climbing the pyramid. Each step up is harder than the last with tougher competitors.

I do warn them when they come in, but most people don't listen. They "love" it, blah blah.

It's worse than that. Just getting a job doesn't mean you'll get tenure. Publish or perish. Lots of people get blown out of the water in their first 5 years.


They "love" it.

Not all fields pay sucky in academia. Social Psych folks don't make much compared to other Psych areas. Human Factors academics make the most in Psychology on average, because they land tons of grant money. The competition is also very light in that field because most HF folks go into industry or govt work. So it's only 8-10 people competing for an academic position. Computer Science faculty make significantly more. IE make more. History make less. It all depends on your value.

There are lots of bennies. It's a great job. Flexible hours. Tenure. No boss. Pension. Free health care (in some places). The pay may seem low, but it's a 9-month salary. You can pick up consulting jobs for outside money, and 3 months of pay in the summer. Furthermore, anyone in Psych who has half a brain (and grant money) can get tenure working less than 20 hrs/week if they work smart. Once you get tenure, you can work piddly hours if you want to be a loser. No one can stop you.

They don't think. If you ask a typical social psych grad student what they want after they graduate, most haven't thought about it. Common sense and book smarts don't always correlate.

You can look around at the job offerings for social psych to see for yourself.

People don't get PhDs for the money. It's just a different goal.

on the academics being paid so poorly i think you sort of already answered your question. there are 120 people fighting for 1 position, high supply and low demand means they can pay you crap because if you don't want to take it there are 119 people who will.

A lot of why the market is so difficult right now is because of the economy. When the economy sucks and people's 403(b)s are going down the crapper, tenured folks are sticking around, rather than retiring or taking their chances in the corporate world. Tenure is looking really good right now. And a lot of universities are freezing hiring right now. So obviously this means that slots are not opening up for new folks.

The good news is that since you are just going into grad school now, you don't need to worry about the current economy so much. If luck goes your way, the economy will turn around in a few years, and things will start moving again, and there will be a lot of people hiring just as you're getting out.

As furyshade indicated, if making money is an important thing for you, then going into academia might not be the right thing. I agree with Peter, being an academic is more about the lifestyle...having smart, interesting colleagues, having the freedom to follow your own interest and curiosities, not having a boss or a lot of external deadline, tons of vacation time, flexible hours, some prestige that comes along with the title 'Professor'. It's a great life if you are self-motivated. Unfortunately, I'm not, which is why I gave it up last year to enter the corporate world...I need external deadlines or I never get anything done.

I dont think you want people to answer that question.....

all you guys do is give fancy names to stuff thats common sense

It's not the money that is important to me. I knew when I chose psychology that I would never be rich. I could live comfortably off of like 60 or 70k. I would much rather do something I enjoy, and have the lifestyle that is mentioned above. No boss, freedom to pursue my own interests, etc.

What has me irked is finding out that the competition is so stiff and so much work is expected. It's not that I'm lazy. I don't mind putting effort into something I love. But if poincaraux's post is accurate, and I am going to have to put in 65 hours a week for my first few years, then I start to wonder if this is really the right thing. I'm willing to sacrifice a larger salary for a job I enjoy. But I don't think I could enjoy doing anything 65 hours a week.

On the other hand, BP mentions that it's possible to get tenure working only 20 hours a week. Is that just because psych is less intensive than other sciences, like the one poincaraux refers to? Before this thread, I was thinking it would take 30 or 40 hours and being a prof would be a great job.

Even if the job only requires 20 hours a week, though, that still leaves the fact that I'd have to beat out >100 other applicants. I got the feeling that that number was stable over time, but smudgie, you suggest that it is a result of the current economy. If the economy were better, would that number maybe be more around 60, or would it still be over 100? Another thing I'm wondering is, out of those 120, how many are coming from top 10 or top 15 programs? Assuming I make it into one, that would have to put me towards the top of the list, right?

Even now that I know how difficult the market is after grad school, I can't really think of any better opportunities. I picture it being difficult work and very busy, but I would get to live in a really nice place and I think I would enjoy the work for the most part. BP, you suggest that it is foolish for students to enter their programs without any real plan, just because they "love" it, because the paltry job opportunities are not worth the work you put into it. But my alternative, with just a BS Psych degree would be getting a job that requires much less work, but also has a much lower ceiling and is much less enjoyable.

I suppose most students that you see go in with that mindset. How is it flawed?

I'm on my way out the door right now, but one thing: you might want to ask people who have jobs more similar to the one you want. My time estimate was for a science position at a big research institution. That said, I know my friend who took a positions in Chemistry at a teaching-focused state school ended up working about that much for their first two years. He quit because he didn't want to spend that much time if he wasn't going to do lots of research. Black Peter's post makes me think it may be different in Psych. You might ask what size school he's at, what the teaching requirements are, how much research he does, etc., etc.

There were two other important qualifiers to my statement about 20 hrs/week. Very very few people understand what they mean and can do them. Most faculty spend 60-90 hrs/week trying to get tenure.

That number has been stable over the past 5 years, so i doubt the economy had much to do with it prior to this year. However, the economy does have a lot to do with the current lack of tenure-track openings altogether, which naturally would make it even more competitive this year.

What puts you at the top of the list are high-quality pubs. The social psych folks who get tenure-track jobs at research universities have many pubs, with lots of top 5 journals (PSPB, JPSP, JESP, BJSP, EJSP) sprinkled in there. Most candidates have had a postdoc before being able to compete for a tenure-track position. So count on having to do another 2-3 years after your PhD. Unless you are insanely productive as a grad student.

On the other hand, if you just want tenure at a teaching college, and want to make $40k a year, then you're odds are better (but still not great).

I would never advise any student to get a BA or BS in Psych unless they were going to get a grad degree. There are jobs, but they are not that great. Let's face it. Most students get a Psych degree because they are interested in Psych or are looking for an easy degree.

I am at a large 1A research university. I teach 2+2 classes, which is standard. I usually buy out of 1-2 classes a year with my grant money, so it's really 1+1 or 1+2. I do a lot of research and publish more than 95% of my colleagues at the same level.

Look, if it's fun, then it's easy. If it's hard, then it's probably not fun. If you find graduate school to be difficult, then you're probably not having a good time and it may not be for you. I wake up every morning and thank god that i have this life and i wouldn't trade it for anything. I never get the Monday blues. I never wish i could be somewhere else. But then, i'm a freak.

Wow.

So, I'm in Biophysics instead of Psych, but still ... I'll be applying for faculty jobs sometime in the next year or so. Any tips about applying/negotiating? Any tips for the first few years, or after that? After talking to a lot of people, I'd pretty much decided not to apply to large research universities, but it sounds like you think I should reconsider. FWIW, I do computational/theoretical work, not wet-lab work.