I’ve long toyed with a mid-life pivot into a different field. Mostly, I lean towards IT as the most practical for me, but I love the idea of finally studying a hard science, which I grew to love, but never really got a good formal education in.
I’ve heard/read, for example, that there aren’t necessarily tons of astrophysics jobs out there, so if you only have a bachelor’s degree, you might have a tough time. I don’t even know that this is true, but I use it as an example.
What are the hard science fields that would be the opposite of this? I could imagine there might be a lot of Chemistry-related jobs, for example, maybe? But I have a hard time imagining what you could do with a pure Physics degree (without also focusing on Engineering or something supplementary)? Would Biology get you anywhere by itself?
Or is it just the hard truth of all hard sciences that you’re pretty much worthless with just a four-year degree, from a job perspective?
I did what you’re describing and it worked out well for me, but YMMV. Here’s what I did:
I got an undergrad degree in physics, and was hired right out of school by a government contractor. My only hard skill from the degree was coding in LabVIEW, something I never have done in the workplace. Arguably my only real use in my first job was to be a person who submitted a timesheet that could be billed as a person with a STEM degree.
I changed jobs for a much better contractor where I did a lot of “system engineering” style analysis with MatLab, which I mostly learned on the job, and eventually moved into Python which I learned entirely on the job. Python really resonated with me, particularly using it for Data Science applications. I got a Masters degree in Applied Physics from a highly renowned school taking after hours courses that my job paid for. Most of the courses had no conceivable application to my day job.
I eventually was hired away from the contracting world and am a Data Engineer for a private company.
The thing a physics degree truly demonstrates is the ability to learn difficult concepts, think analytically, and have the math to back it up. If you go this route, you’ll kind of be a generalist right out of the gate and need to be open to trying a bunch of new things to figure out what works for you. A master’s degree certainly helps, and learning a useful programming language really helps. Be prepared to start somewhere as an analyst, and build from there.
Thanks for your perspective, it’s super helpful.
Was your physics degree a second degree or your first/primary?
It’s interesting to hear Python was so useful as I’ve wondered whether hiring managers snub their nose at Python (it’s the only language I have semi-real experience in, so far).
A BS in Physics was my primary degree (I double majored so I also had a BA in a language that has never been of any professional use to me).
Python is so ubiquitous that it’s a great tool to know for a multitude of applications, and it pairs well with a physics background since that increases your usefulness as a generalist.
It is important to make the distinction between a programmer with a hard science/math degree and one with a computer science degree. The former will likely struggle more with building up larger libraries, following best practices for modularity/extendability/backwards compatibility, and other computer science sort of stuff that the latter will ingrain much better. The flip side is that computer science tends to not have as much of an emphasis on a math background, so analysis and Data Science applications often benefit more from the science/math background than the comp sci one (please note that I’m making highly generalized statements here based on what I’ve observed).
To summarize, if you want to build an app to do something, you want comp sci, but if you want to build a statistical model and have the ability to rigorously validate it and explain what it’s doing, you’re going to need that math background.
For chemistry? No.
The most common job track for someone with a BS in chemistry is something on the analytical side. Think: contract lab that processes environmental or pharmaceutical samples. All you really need to know how to do is press some buttons and follow detailed instructions. So - the work is both exacting and boring. And to find this unfun job - you will be in direct competition with every biology major in your region. And there are hoards of them. And the hiring manager will be one of them. If you can score a job, be prepared for the low pay that goes along with a plentiful labor pool, along with the frustrations of working with people that don’t have the ideal frame of reference for talking through problems.
Other options?
In my area, microbiologists are in higher demand, so I think someone might get by with a BS. Standard bio majors seem to have had an idea of becoming naturalists or park rangers after graduation, so many didn’t specialize. They can count birds or frogs and are still acting weird about having to memorize the Krebs Cycle, but aren’t really up to speed on aseptic technique or all that other micro stuff.
Physics? I can’t even imagine.
Engineering is interesting. 30 years ago some people came to my highschool to talk to the “indoor kids.” They were pitching the idea that “the engineers of today are 30-40 something baby boomers who have high paying jobs that they absolutely love! In the next 5-10 years we will be facing a crisis as they all retire early, and GenX could easily be called the Baby Crunch.* There’s no one to replace these engineers who are living the dream! You’re looking at a great opportunity if you study engineering.” A good portion of my class took that advice. Bwah-hah-hah-haa! No one retired early. Great pay + great job = early retirement? No.
No engineering grads that I knew got a decent job because there were no openings and a high number of qualified applicants. Companies did find some cheap engineers, though. The ones I know now (GenX and Millennial) found other careers and swallowed the bitterness.
I’ve heard that something similar happened in the 2010s with law degrees. In the 2000s it seemed like every 30-yo with a crappy job was studying nursing. Point being - if someone is saying that there is a desperate need for workers with Skill X and that they make a great living, it means that companies don’t want to pay current market rate for Skill X. They want you to take out loans to train yourselves for the skill they want at the price they want.
*Demographics. In the US the birthrate fell dramatically in the '60s and '70s. Before Doug Coopland came up with a marketable name for it, GenX was being called a Baby Crunch. Reasons? Birth control. Oil crisis. Vietnam War. Boomers waiting a bit longer to start their families. Reasons.
For physics specifically, a bachelor’s degree probably won’t be enough to get a job in physics.
You might be able to get a job as a technician in a lab, but they typically will look for people with a master’s degree for those roles. With just a bachelor’s , you’d need to get your foot in the door by already having some relevant experience, which is a possibility if you get some research experience in college and pivot that into an internship or something. But it would definitely require effort and luck.
I’m going back for a degree. I’ll be over 40 when I graduate. I found that a lack of formal education was a filter for a lot of positions.
I wrecked my back a few years ago, and that made going back into heavy equipment or high access positions pretty dangerous. So I started looking outside my field and what I found was basically any bachelor’s degree open doors.
Several states have licensed geologists and environmental scientists.
You can also get a degree in biology and become a certified wetland delineator with some minor additional education.
It’s shitty, but employers tend to use an expensive degree as a form of prescreening. You can get an HR job or similar with a bachelors in literature.
Or is it just the hard truth of all hard sciences that you’re pretty much worthless with just a four-year degree, from a job perspective?
Where did you get that idea? Engineers generally only have a four-year degree, and they famously make good money.
I think it was a video or article on astrophysics that I encountered some time ago. But the idea that stuck with me was, “Don’t bother with astrophysics unless you have a Masters or, ideally, Ph.D.”
I’m not claiming it’s the case, I just have no exposure to that path. I don’t know what it looks like to study a hard science and then enter the job field from that angle. Engineering is a helpful example.
If you want to work in academics, you need Masters at the very least, and a PhD if you want to be more than someone’s grading monkey. That’s true of hard sciences and it’s really true of softer subjects.
Astrophysics has no commercial applications that I’m aware of, with space forecasting for the government being the closest thing. So, if you want to use an astrophysics degree for astrophysics, then yes, 4-year is nothing. However, you can probably convince some finance nepobaby you’re a genius and make money as a quant with just a bachelors in (astro-)physics.
Do you want to work in astrophysics, or just in a hard science job of some kind?
