I've heard it is around 200 people competing for one tenured post so your chances of getting it is about as slim as you becoming the next Taylor Swift. Why would anyone want to do research then? Being in a publish-or-perish environment ain't fun. You will be flipping burgers if you have nothing published.
>>8061019
I want to research Taytay's body, alright.
>>8061019
>200 : 1
that's substantially better than my becoming the next Swift
>>8061023
Well I mean doing a PhD
>>8061025
Yeah, but 1/200 is still pretty improbable. Why would anyone gamble their life on that? It's not buying a lottery ticket where I only spent a couple of bucks on that.
>>8061026
A PhD on Tay?
Sounds great, where do I sign up?
It a honor
>>8061039
You don't even know proper English
Bump for interest
People have no better ideas, are afraid of change and are afraid of getting in a position where they'll do the same thing in the same place for the next 30 years.
Why do people start families in their 20s and work 40 hours in the first place?
>>8061192
So they do research just because they think it will be "fun"?
>>8061019
That's like asking why anyone would want to be a professional athlete, except that failed researchers still have plenty of skills that make them attractive hires in a lot of industries.
>>8061231
>failed researchers still have plenty of skills that make them attractive hires in a lot of industries
I think a library will prefer hiring a high school dropout as alibarian as he will be less likely to quit his job.
>>8061242
The failure mode for physics PhDs is often finance, which pays a hell of a lot better than academia; so it is at least a well compensated consolation prize.
>>8061346
>finance
That is a bit board. What exactly do they do? Isn't becoming a high school Physics teacher more relevant?
>>8061201
Maybe they like researching?
Maybe they want to research something in particular
>>8061019
you're back? some people enjoy doing research. they like the field they're in, they're probably good at it, and their experience almost certainly isn't the bleak environment you envision it to be.
>>8061347
You'd think that, but people who teach almost never have a doctorate.
>>8061575
Not OP, but what is being a Physics teacher like?
>>8061347
>can be a high school teacher where dumb kids and their parents will constantly bitch at you while you make next to no money
>alternatively, can fuck off to finance and make upwards of $200k starting in NYC
I think you can see where most physics PhDs would prefer to go after having their dreams ended.
>>8061616
Not everyone aims for a tenure track professorship, and STEM PhDs most certainly have transferable skills, which is why most of them are employed after getting a PhD. Either way, it seems that no one here is going to give you the answer that you want, so why don't you ask a bunch of adjuncts, tenured professors and PhDs outside of academia of their opinion.
>>8061695
>why most of them are employed after getting a PhD.
Flipping burgers doesn't count
Just look at this >>>/adv/17126309
>>8061019
Throughout all my schooling where a class has a vote on best paper/idea/project. My projects tend(majority) to win those votes.
When I get to grad school, competing in something similar but a little more serious sounds fun, and I'm confident after a few tries I will come out on top.
However, once Im there I wont do shit. I'm not very ambitious and tend to choose the easiest route once im in the clear.
I spend more time calulating grades I need to pass the course with minimal effort, than actually doing the assignments and projects. "hmm, if I leave out a page or two can I still get a c? yeah? alright i'm done then."
Im the best kind of american.
>>8061992
>I'm confident after a few tries I will come out on top
Have fun with being the top 0.5%
>>8061019
It's like anything else. If you're good, you'll make it.
You don't really have to be good to get a PhD, I mean you need some level of intelligence, but you can really get by working hard not really knowing what you are doing to graduate. Most people who get PhDs aren't that good, sure they are experts in their specific field and they are smart and can work hard but they aren't actually good at doing research.
Of course you need to publish to get by. If you're a construction worker you need to make houses, if you're a finance douchebag you need to make money, if you're a burger flipper you need to flip burgers. Every job has its requirements, publishing papers is the job requirement for researchers, you have to produce something.
>>8061019
Doctorate programs aren't trade schools. In other words, there are plenty of career tracks for PhDs besides post-doc --> tenure-track faculty.
>>8061026
You mean go further than anyone has before?
>>8061019
You don't need a PhD to work in research though.
It's an interesting environment to work in and it's a challenge.
>>8063339
>As in what? High school teacher?
Depends on the PhD. You could become everything from a scientist at a private company to working for the government at the NSA or FDA or something to working in finance. This is all provided that you're actually intelligent.
>>8063339
>Very unlikely you will be that 0.5%
It's unlikely if you're at the borderline. If you think that all of the 200 people competing for a tenured post have an equal chance of getting it then you must be very stupid. That's like saying that everyone who applies to UChicago has an 8% chance of getting accepted; good applicants have a higher chance, weak applicants have a lower chance. The same applies at higher levels of academia and pretty much any job with a selective/competitive application process.
You guys speak like getting a Prof position is only a matter of skill and value of work. It's just as much politics and self-promotion, and you need to character for this. If you're an introvert, it's all much harder.
