Cognito - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2014-04-28T05:32:52Z

Jsinick:

Main Page

2014-04-28T05:32:40Z

Jsinick:

High school portal

2014-04-28T02:50:24Z

Jsinick: Undo revision 1893 by Jsinick (talk)

This is a portal page describing relevant content for high school students on our site and elsewhere. By high school, we mean grades 9-12 of school, also known as ''secondary school'' in some countries. In some educational systems, high school is defined as grades 10-12.

High school is the last leg of relatively regimented and mandatory education. Beyond this point, you have a wider array of educational choices. But good planning and foresight in high school can be important to availing of some of these choices.

==Getting started==

* [[High school: opening message]] is a good starting point. It's particularly useful for people in the early parts of high school, but it can also be helpful to people who have a few months to go.

==High school academics and testing==

* [[High school coursework]]: A broad overview of high school coursework. See also [[college statements on the importance of grades and coursework]], and [[good study habits]].
* [[High school mathematics]]: A broad overview of the high school mathematics curriculum and different tracks available within the curriculum. See also [[high school mathematics learning recommendations]].
* [[Standardized tests]]
* '''PENDING''': Taking Advanced Placement courses

==High school extracurricular activities==

* [[High school extracurricular activities: factors to consider]]
* [[High school extracurricular activities: suggestions]]

==College selection==

* [[College selection: factors to consider]]
* [[College selection: getting reliable information about colleges]]
* [[College selection: deciding based on your intended major]]

==College applications and admissions==

We're still working on this, but of particular interest may be [[college admissions for homeschooled students]].

==Your web presence==

High school is a good time to start becoming aware of your online presence and making sure that it is an asset rather than a liability. Some relevant pages are linked below:

* [[Maintaining your online presence]]
* [[Using Facebook effectively]]
* [[Join Quora]]

==Start thinking about careers==

You've got a long time to think about careers, but it's good to get a head start in exploring different careers by reading up about them and observing them in action. See our pages:

* [[Career selection: factors to consider]]
* [[:Category:Career options|The career options category]] lists pages discussing various career options.

==Productivity==

High school is the right period to form good life habits. See our [[personal productivity and life skills portal]] for more. Most relevant to the schooling experience is [[good study habits]].

==Unusual options==

===Unusual schooling options===

* [[Homeschooling]]
* [[School for gifted children]]
* [[Online school]]

===Unusual post-schooling options===

* [[Taking a gap year between high school and college]]
* [[Applying to college as an older student]]
* [[Alternatives to college]]

High school portal

2014-04-28T02:48:59Z

Jsinick: /* High school academics and testing */

This is a portal page describing relevant content for high school students on our site and elsewhere. By high school, we mean grades 9-12 of school, also known as ''secondary school'' in some countries. In some educational systems, high school is defined as grades 10-12.

High school is the last leg of relatively regimented and mandatory education. Beyond this point, you have a wider array of educational choices. But good planning and foresight in high school can be important to availing of some of these choices.

==Getting started==

* [[High school: opening message]] is a good starting point. It's particularly useful for people in the early parts of high school, but it can also be helpful to people who have a few months to go.

==High school academics and testing==

* [[High school coursework]]: A broad overview of high school coursework. See also [[college statements on the importance of grades and coursework]], and [[good study habits]].
* [[High school mathematics]]: A broad overview of the high school mathematics curriculum and different tracks available within the curriculum. See also [[high school mathematics learning recommendations]].
* [[Standardized tests]]
* Taking Advanced Placement courses (pending).

==High school extracurricular activities==

* [[High school extracurricular activities: factors to consider]]
* [[High school extracurricular activities: suggestions]]

==College selection==

* [[College selection: factors to consider]]
* [[College selection: getting reliable information about colleges]]
* [[College selection: deciding based on your intended major]]

==College applications and admissions==

We're still working on this, but of particular interest may be [[college admissions for homeschooled students]].

==Your web presence==

High school is a good time to start becoming aware of your online presence and making sure that it is an asset rather than a liability. Some relevant pages are linked below:

* [[Maintaining your online presence]]
* [[Using Facebook effectively]]
* [[Join Quora]]

==Start thinking about careers==

You've got a long time to think about careers, but it's good to get a head start in exploring different careers by reading up about them and observing them in action. See our pages:

* [[Career selection: factors to consider]]
* [[:Category:Career options|The career options category]] lists pages discussing various career options.

==Productivity==

High school is the right period to form good life habits. See our [[personal productivity and life skills portal]] for more. Most relevant to the schooling experience is [[good study habits]].

==Unusual options==

===Unusual schooling options===

* [[Homeschooling]]
* [[School for gifted children]]
* [[Online school]]

===Unusual post-schooling options===

* [[Taking a gap year between high school and college]]
* [[Applying to college as an older student]]
* [[Alternatives to college]]

High school portal

2014-04-28T02:37:13Z

Jsinick: /* Unusual post-schooling options */

School for gifted children

2014-04-28T02:34:51Z

Jsinick: /* Some general things to keep in mind */

A '''school for gifted children''' is a school that is explicitly targeted at students who are gifted and talented (typically intellectually). This page is about brick-and-mortar schools. For the online schools, see [[online school]].

==Some general things to keep in mind==

* The standards for admission and for staying in school can differ widely between different schools. Some schools labeled schools for gifted children may not be different from elite private schools not so labeled, in terms of either their student population or their teaching (the only difference may be that they have a slightly smaller proportion of wealthy low-ability students).
* Some schools for gifted children are focused on specific topic areas. This includes science-focused schools and mathematics-focused schools. The courses of these schools in other areas may be of relatively low quality.
* If your child is exceptionally gifted or profoundly gifted (this roughly corresponds to IQs 160-179 and 180+) then even a school for gifted children (generally aimed at students with IQ 130+, though IQ is not the only way a student can be gifted) may not be a good fit for him or her. Such a student may be out of place at a school for gifted children in the same way that an ordinary gifted student is out of place at a school for ordinary children.

==Resources==

* [http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/schools.htm List of schools on the Hoagies website]

High school portal

2014-04-28T02:29:01Z

Jsinick: /* College selection */

High school portal

2014-04-28T02:27:05Z

Jsinick: /* Getting started */

This is a portal page describing relevant content for high school students on our site and elsewhere. By high school, we mean grades 9-12 of school, also known as ''secondary school'' in some countries. In some educational systems, high school is defined as grades 10-12.

High school is the last leg of relatively regimented and mandatory education. Beyond this point, you have a wider array of educational choices. But good planning and foresight in high school can be important to availing of some of these choices.

==Getting started==

* [[High school: opening message]] is a good starting point. It's particularly useful for people in the early parts of high school, but it can also be helpful to people who have a few months to go.

==High school academics and testing==

* [[High school coursework]]: A broad overview of high school coursework. See also [[college statements on the importance of grades and coursework]], and [[good study habits]].
* [[High school mathematics]]: A broad overview of the high school mathematics curriculum and different tracks available within the curriculum. See also [[high school mathematics learning recommendations]].
* [[Standardized tests]]
* '''PENDING''': Taking Advanced Placement courses

==High school extracurricular activities==

* [[High school extracurricular activities: factors to consider]]
* [[High school extracurricular activities: suggestions]]

==College selection==

* [[College selection: factors to consider]]
* [[College selection: getting reliable information about colleges]]
* [[College selection: deciding based on your intended major]]
* [[College selection: how it relates to the college application process]] ('''still under construction''')

==College applications and admissions==

We're still working on this, but of particular interest may be [[college admissions for homeschooled students]].

==Your web presence==

High school is a good time to start becoming aware of your online presence and making sure that it is an asset rather than a liability. Some relevant pages are linked below:

* [[Maintaining your online presence]]
* [[Using Facebook effectively]]
* [[Join Quora]]

==Start thinking about careers==

You've got a long time to think about careers, but it's good to get a head start in exploring different careers by reading up about them and observing them in action. See our pages:

* [[Career selection: factors to consider]]
* [[:Category:Career options|The career options category]] lists pages discussing various career options.

==Productivity==

High school is the right period to form good life habits. See our [[personal productivity and life skills portal]] for more. Most relevant to the schooling experience is [[good study habits]].

==Unusual options==

===Unusual schooling options===

* [[Homeschooling]]
* [[School for gifted children]]
* [[Online school]]

===Unusual post-schooling options===

* [[Taking a gap year between high school and college]]
* [[Applying to college as an older student]]
* [[Alternatives to college]]
* [[Applying to college with weak academic credentials]]

About dot com pages

2014-04-27T01:30:11Z

Jsinick: Created page with "==College admissions== ===Extracurricular activities=== [http://collegeapps.about.com/od/theartofgettingaccepted/f/what-is-an-extracurricular-activity.htm What Counts as an..."

==College admissions==

===Extracurricular activities===

[http://collegeapps.about.com/od/theartofgettingaccepted/f/what-is-an-extracurricular-activity.htm What Counts as an Extracurricular Activity for College Admissions?]

[http://collegeapps.about.com/od/theartofgettingaccepted/a/best-extracurricular-activites.htm What Are the Best Extracurricular Activities?]

[http://collegeapps.about.com/od/theartofgettingaccepted/a/unusual-extracurricular-activities.htm Unusual Extracurricular Activities - Make Your Passions Count]

[http://collegeapps.about.com/u/ua/theartofgettingaccepted/unusual-extracurriculars.htm Readers Respond: Creative and Unusual Extracurricular Activities]

[http://collegeapps.about.com/od/theartofgettingaccepted/ Can Rubik's Cube and Other Quirky Passions Get Me Into College?]

===Standardized tests===

[http://collegeapps.about.com/b/2014/04/24/should-you-take-the-sat-or-act.htm Should You Take the SAT or ACT?]

Standardized tests

2014-04-25T23:04:32Z

Jsinick: /* How colleges assess standardized test scores */

Most colleges require that students take the SAT or the ACT, and some require that students take SAT Subject Tests as well.

==The significance of standardized tests in admissions==

Scores on these exams have a very significant impact on college admissions prospects. Princeton University's admissions department [http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/ reports] that students who score between 2300 and 2400 on the SAT (out of 2400 total points) are ''over twice as likely'' to be admitted as students who score between 2100 and 2290. The students who have higher SAT scores will, on average, also have more impressive applications in other respects, so the difference in admissions rates can't be entirely attributed to SAT scores. Still, it suggests that that doing well on the SAT and ACT are very important for college admissions.

==Preparing for the SAT and/or ACT==

You can raise your SAT and/or ACT scores through judicious preparation. For example, the SAT tests knowledge of vocabulary words that are repeated year to year, and by learning these vocabulary words, you can answer more SAT questions correctly.

Books such as

* [http://www.amazon.com/SAT-26th-Barrons-Book-Only-ebook/dp/B009VJ4HNM/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Barron's SAT preparation book]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B008C86ITY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381518027&sr=1-2&keywords=Cracking+the+SAT Cracking the SAT]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Official-SAT-Study-Guide/dp/0874478529/ref=pd_sim_b_2 The Official SAT Study Guide]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-Edition-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B00AXIZ55O/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Cracking the ACT]
*Barron's [http://www.amazon.com/ACT-36-2nd-Barrons-Act-ebook/dp/B007ZFIJPQ/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 ACT 36]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Edition-Prep-Guide/dp/0768934400/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381517905&sr=8-2&keywords=act+preparation+book The Real ACT Prep Guide]

have been very favorably reviewed on Amazon, and working through them plausibly boosts students' scores.

If you have difficulty staying motivated on your own, taking an SAT/ACT prep course or getting SAT/ACT tutoring may boost your scores. Aside from this consideration, it's unclear how much value taking SAT/ACT preparation courses add beyond working through the books above.

==Preparing for SAT Subject Tests==

Selective colleges often require that applicants take SAT Subject Tests. We give suggestions for how to prepare for these [[Thoughts_on_high_school_activities#Coursework_and_SAT_subject_tests|on our page on coursework]]. You can take an official practice test for a given subject by obtaining a copy of [http://www.amazon.com/Official-Study-Guide-Subject-Edition/dp/0874479754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381518916&sr=8-1&keywords=sat+subject+test The Official Study Guide for ALL SAT Subject Tests].

==SAT vs. ACT==

It's been said that the SAT is more of a test of short-term memory (relative to the ACT), and the ACT more of a test of long-term memory. If the colleges that you'll be applying to accept either one, you should take the test that plays to your strengths. You can also take both tests.

==How colleges assess standardized test scores==

We spoke with admissions officers at the majority of top 20 ranked colleges about how they assess standardized test scores. The general picture of what they said is:

*If an applicant has taken the SAT or the ACT multiple times, admissions officers consider only the applicant's highest scores.
* If an applicant takes both the SAT and the ACT, he or she will be assessed based on which he or she does better on.
* Admissions officers are generally indifferent as to ''which'' SAT Subject Tests an applicant takes, except that they prefer that the applicant not take an SAT Subject Test in his or her native language.
* If an applicant takes more than the required number of SAT Subject Tests, admissions officers only look at the highest scores.

Standardized tests

2014-04-25T23:04:02Z

Jsinick: /* SAT vs. ACT */

Most colleges require that students take the SAT or the ACT, and some require that students take SAT Subject Tests as well.

==The significance of standardized tests in admissions==

Scores on these exams have a very significant impact on college admissions prospects. Princeton University's admissions department [http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/ reports] that students who score between 2300 and 2400 on the SAT (out of 2400 total points) are ''over twice as likely'' to be admitted as students who score between 2100 and 2290. The students who have higher SAT scores will, on average, also have more impressive applications in other respects, so the difference in admissions rates can't be entirely attributed to SAT scores. Still, it suggests that that doing well on the SAT and ACT are very important for college admissions.

==Preparing for the SAT and/or ACT==

You can raise your SAT and/or ACT scores through judicious preparation. For example, the SAT tests knowledge of vocabulary words that are repeated year to year, and by learning these vocabulary words, you can answer more SAT questions correctly.

Books such as

* [http://www.amazon.com/SAT-26th-Barrons-Book-Only-ebook/dp/B009VJ4HNM/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Barron's SAT preparation book]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B008C86ITY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381518027&sr=1-2&keywords=Cracking+the+SAT Cracking the SAT]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Official-SAT-Study-Guide/dp/0874478529/ref=pd_sim_b_2 The Official SAT Study Guide]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-Edition-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B00AXIZ55O/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Cracking the ACT]
*Barron's [http://www.amazon.com/ACT-36-2nd-Barrons-Act-ebook/dp/B007ZFIJPQ/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 ACT 36]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Edition-Prep-Guide/dp/0768934400/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381517905&sr=8-2&keywords=act+preparation+book The Real ACT Prep Guide]

have been very favorably reviewed on Amazon, and working through them plausibly boosts students' scores.

If you have difficulty staying motivated on your own, taking an SAT/ACT prep course or getting SAT/ACT tutoring may boost your scores. Aside from this consideration, it's unclear how much value taking SAT/ACT preparation courses add beyond working through the books above.

==Preparing for SAT Subject Tests==

Selective colleges often require that applicants take SAT Subject Tests. We give suggestions for how to prepare for these [[Thoughts_on_high_school_activities#Coursework_and_SAT_subject_tests|on our page on coursework]]. You can take an official practice test for a given subject by obtaining a copy of [http://www.amazon.com/Official-Study-Guide-Subject-Edition/dp/0874479754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381518916&sr=8-1&keywords=sat+subject+test The Official Study Guide for ALL SAT Subject Tests].

==SAT vs. ACT==

It's been said that the SAT is more of a test of short-term memory (relative to the ACT), and the ACT more of a test of long-term memory. If the colleges that you'll be applying to accept either one, you should take the test that plays to your strengths. You can also take both tests.

==How colleges assess standardized test scores==

We spoke with admissions officers at the majority of top 20 ranked colleges about how they assess standardized test scores. The general picture of what they said is:

*If an applicant has taken the SAT or the ACT multiple times, admissions officers consider only the applicant's highest scores.
* If an applicant takes both the SAT and the ACT, he or she will be assessed based on which he or she does better on.
* Admissions officers are generally indifferent as to ''which'' SAT Subject Tests an applicant takes, except that they prefer that the applicant not take an SAT Subject Test in his or her native language
* If an applicant takes more than the required number of SAT Subject Tests, admissions officers only look at the highest scores.

Standardized tests

2014-04-25T23:03:12Z

Jsinick: /* Preparing for the SAT and/or ACT */

Most colleges require that students take the SAT or the ACT, and some require that students take SAT Subject Tests as well.

==The significance of standardized tests in admissions==

Scores on these exams have a very significant impact on college admissions prospects. Princeton University's admissions department [http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/ reports] that students who score between 2300 and 2400 on the SAT (out of 2400 total points) are ''over twice as likely'' to be admitted as students who score between 2100 and 2290. The students who have higher SAT scores will, on average, also have more impressive applications in other respects, so the difference in admissions rates can't be entirely attributed to SAT scores. Still, it suggests that that doing well on the SAT and ACT are very important for college admissions.

==Preparing for the SAT and/or ACT==

You can raise your SAT and/or ACT scores through judicious preparation. For example, the SAT tests knowledge of vocabulary words that are repeated year to year, and by learning these vocabulary words, you can answer more SAT questions correctly.

Books such as

* [http://www.amazon.com/SAT-26th-Barrons-Book-Only-ebook/dp/B009VJ4HNM/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Barron's SAT preparation book]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B008C86ITY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381518027&sr=1-2&keywords=Cracking+the+SAT Cracking the SAT]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Official-SAT-Study-Guide/dp/0874478529/ref=pd_sim_b_2 The Official SAT Study Guide]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-Edition-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B00AXIZ55O/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Cracking the ACT]
*Barron's [http://www.amazon.com/ACT-36-2nd-Barrons-Act-ebook/dp/B007ZFIJPQ/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 ACT 36]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Edition-Prep-Guide/dp/0768934400/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381517905&sr=8-2&keywords=act+preparation+book The Real ACT Prep Guide]

have been very favorably reviewed on Amazon, and working through them plausibly boosts students' scores.

If you have difficulty staying motivated on your own, taking an SAT/ACT prep course or getting SAT/ACT tutoring may boost your scores. Aside from this consideration, it's unclear how much value taking SAT/ACT preparation courses add beyond working through the books above.

==Preparing for SAT Subject Tests==

Selective colleges often require that applicants take SAT Subject Tests. We give suggestions for how to prepare for these [[Thoughts_on_high_school_activities#Coursework_and_SAT_subject_tests|on our page on coursework]]. You can take an official practice test for a given subject by obtaining a copy of [http://www.amazon.com/Official-Study-Guide-Subject-Edition/dp/0874479754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381518916&sr=8-1&keywords=sat+subject+test The Official Study Guide for ALL SAT Subject Tests].

==SAT vs. ACT==

It's been said that the SAT is more of a test of short-term memory (relative to the ACT), and the ACT more of a test of long-term memory (relative to the SAT). If the colleges that you'll be applying to accept either one, you should take the test that plays to your strengths. You can also take both tests.

==How colleges assess standardized test scores==

We spoke with admissions officers at the majority of top 20 ranked colleges about how they assess standardized test scores. The general picture of what they said is:

*If an applicant has taken the SAT or the ACT multiple times, admissions officers consider only the applicant's highest scores.
* If an applicant takes both the SAT and the ACT, he or she will be assessed based on which he or she does better on.
* Admissions officers are generally indifferent as to ''which'' SAT Subject Tests an applicant takes, except that they prefer that the applicant not take an SAT Subject Test in his or her native language
* If an applicant takes more than the required number of SAT Subject Tests, admissions officers only look at the highest scores.

Standardized tests

2014-04-25T23:02:36Z

Jsinick: /* The significance of standardized tests in admissions */

Most colleges require that students take the SAT or the ACT, and some require that students take SAT Subject Tests as well.

==The significance of standardized tests in admissions==

Scores on these exams have a very significant impact on college admissions prospects. Princeton University's admissions department [http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/ reports] that students who score between 2300 and 2400 on the SAT (out of 2400 total points) are ''over twice as likely'' to be admitted as students who score between 2100 and 2290. The students who have higher SAT scores will, on average, also have more impressive applications in other respects, so the difference in admissions rates can't be entirely attributed to SAT scores. Still, it suggests that that doing well on the SAT and ACT are very important for college admissions.

==Preparing for the SAT and/or ACT==

You can raise your SAT and/or ACT scores through judicious preparation. For example, the SAT tests knowledge of vocabulary words that are repeated year to year, and by learning these vocabulary words, you can answer more SAT questions correctly.

Books such as

* [http://www.amazon.com/SAT-26th-Barrons-Book-Only-ebook/dp/B009VJ4HNM/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Barron's SAT preparation book]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B008C86ITY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381518027&sr=1-2&keywords=Cracking+the+SAT Cracking the SAT]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Official-SAT-Study-Guide/dp/0874478529/ref=pd_sim_b_2 The Official SAT Study Guide]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-Edition-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B00AXIZ55O/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Cracking the ACT]
*Barron's [http://www.amazon.com/ACT-36-2nd-Barrons-Act-ebook/dp/B007ZFIJPQ/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 ACT 36]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Edition-Prep-Guide/dp/0768934400/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381517905&sr=8-2&keywords=act+preparation+book The Real ACT Prep Guide]

have been very favorably reviewed on Amazon, and working through them plausibly boosts your scores.

If you have difficulty staying motivated on your own, taking an SAT/ACT prep course or getting SAT/ACT tutoring may boost your scores. Aside from this consideration, it's unclear how much value taking SAT/ACT preparation courses add beyond working through the books above.

==Preparing for SAT Subject Tests==

Selective colleges often require that applicants take SAT Subject Tests. We give suggestions for how to prepare for these [[Thoughts_on_high_school_activities#Coursework_and_SAT_subject_tests|on our page on coursework]]. You can take an official practice test for a given subject by obtaining a copy of [http://www.amazon.com/Official-Study-Guide-Subject-Edition/dp/0874479754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381518916&sr=8-1&keywords=sat+subject+test The Official Study Guide for ALL SAT Subject Tests].

==SAT vs. ACT==

It's been said that the SAT is more of a test of short-term memory (relative to the ACT), and the ACT more of a test of long-term memory (relative to the SAT). If the colleges that you'll be applying to accept either one, you should take the test that plays to your strengths. You can also take both tests.

==How colleges assess standardized test scores==

We spoke with admissions officers at the majority of top 20 ranked colleges about how they assess standardized test scores. The general picture of what they said is:

*If an applicant has taken the SAT or the ACT multiple times, admissions officers consider only the applicant's highest scores.
* If an applicant takes both the SAT and the ACT, he or she will be assessed based on which he or she does better on.
* Admissions officers are generally indifferent as to ''which'' SAT Subject Tests an applicant takes, except that they prefer that the applicant not take an SAT Subject Test in his or her native language
* If an applicant takes more than the required number of SAT Subject Tests, admissions officers only look at the highest scores.

Standardized tests

2014-04-25T23:01:59Z

Jsinick:

Most colleges require that students take the SAT or the ACT, and some require that students take SAT Subject Tests as well.

==The significance of standardized tests in admissions==

Scores on these exams have a very significant impact on college admissions prospects. Princeton University's admissions department [http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/ reports] that students who score between 2300 and 2400 on the SAT (out of 2400 total points) are ''over twice as likely'' to be admitted as students who score between 2100 and 2290. The students who have higher SAT scores will, on average, also have more impressive applications in other respects, so the difference in admissions rates can't be entirely attributed to SAT scores. Still, it suggests that that doing well on the SAT and/or ACT is very important for college admissions.

==Preparing for the SAT and/or ACT==

You can raise your SAT and/or ACT scores through judicious preparation. For example, the SAT tests knowledge of vocabulary words that are repeated year to year, and by learning these vocabulary words, you can answer more SAT questions correctly.

Books such as

* [http://www.amazon.com/SAT-26th-Barrons-Book-Only-ebook/dp/B009VJ4HNM/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Barron's SAT preparation book]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B008C86ITY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381518027&sr=1-2&keywords=Cracking+the+SAT Cracking the SAT]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Official-SAT-Study-Guide/dp/0874478529/ref=pd_sim_b_2 The Official SAT Study Guide]
* The Princeton Review's [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-2013-Edition-College-Preparation-ebook/dp/B00AXIZ55O/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 Cracking the ACT]
*Barron's [http://www.amazon.com/ACT-36-2nd-Barrons-Act-ebook/dp/B007ZFIJPQ/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2 ACT 36]
* [http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Edition-Prep-Guide/dp/0768934400/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381517905&sr=8-2&keywords=act+preparation+book The Real ACT Prep Guide]

have been very favorably reviewed on Amazon, and working through them plausibly boosts your scores.

If you have difficulty staying motivated on your own, taking an SAT/ACT prep course or getting SAT/ACT tutoring may boost your scores. Aside from this consideration, it's unclear how much value taking SAT/ACT preparation courses add beyond working through the books above.

==Preparing for SAT Subject Tests==

Selective colleges often require that applicants take SAT Subject Tests. We give suggestions for how to prepare for these [[Thoughts_on_high_school_activities#Coursework_and_SAT_subject_tests|on our page on coursework]]. You can take an official practice test for a given subject by obtaining a copy of [http://www.amazon.com/Official-Study-Guide-Subject-Edition/dp/0874479754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381518916&sr=8-1&keywords=sat+subject+test The Official Study Guide for ALL SAT Subject Tests].

==SAT vs. ACT==

It's been said that the SAT is more of a test of short-term memory (relative to the ACT), and the ACT more of a test of long-term memory (relative to the SAT). If the colleges that you'll be applying to accept either one, you should take the test that plays to your strengths. You can also take both tests.

==How colleges assess standardized test scores==

We spoke with admissions officers at the majority of top 20 ranked colleges about how they assess standardized test scores. The general picture of what they said is:

*If an applicant has taken the SAT or the ACT multiple times, admissions officers consider only the applicant's highest scores.
* If an applicant takes both the SAT and the ACT, he or she will be assessed based on which he or she does better on.
* Admissions officers are generally indifferent as to ''which'' SAT Subject Tests an applicant takes, except that they prefer that the applicant not take an SAT Subject Test in his or her native language
* If an applicant takes more than the required number of SAT Subject Tests, admissions officers only look at the highest scores.

Applying to college as an older student

2014-04-25T04:16:32Z

Jsinick: /* How your situation differs */

This page is for people who are notably older (at least 2-3 years) than the typical college applicant, have finished high school (or obtained equivalent certification) but have been out of formal schooling environments for a few years.

==Should you go to college at all?==

In general, going to college is advised for smart and intellectually curious people because it is a mainstream option, and it's advisable to [[stay mainstream until you have demonstrated success doing unusual stuff]].

===Recall of generic reasons to go to college===

* Human capital (you learn valuable stuff).
* Signaling to potential employers and others that you have the relevant abilities or acquired the relevant knowledge.
* Consumption: The college experience is rewarding.
* Networking: You get to network with other people.

===How your situation differs===

* The very fact that you didn't go to college straight out of high school could be indicative of problems. The details depend on the ''reason'' you didn't go to college. If the constraints were purely financial or circumstantial, and the situation has changed since then, there is not much to worry about. On the other hand, if the constraints were based on behavioral problems or academic difficulties, you should consider whether things have changed since then.
* You've spent several years not studying, so you may be more out of touch with [[good study habits]].
* Since you are older and have a different profile and history compared to many of the other students in college, you will have a more difficult time connecting with other people.
* Your greater age and maturity, and the fact that you are more likely to be paying your own way than relying on parents, could make you take the college experience more seriously than most students do, and therefore derive more value.
* Your greater age may also make you less likely to accept the strictures of school. It's often been found that older people who return to college have trouble adjusting to the rigid behavioral norms of the classroom.
* If you've already started earning money, and have got on a career track, going to college has greater immediate opportunity cost.

{{further|[[school ethic versus work ethic]]}}

===How to determine if college is your cup of tea===

The following approaches might help you determine if college is appropriate:

* Start by watching opencourseware videos such as [http://ocw.mit.edu MIT Open Course Ware] or [[Khan Academy]] (or some of our [[online mathematics learning resources]]). Can you sit through the entire video? Can you understand the basic material? Can you answer questions after watching a lecture?
* Consider signing up for massive online open courses such as those at [[Coursera]]. See how far you can push yourself to learn, and the extent to which you enjoy it as well as learn from it. Try to take a few courses with certification.
* Consider [[sit in on classes|sitting in on college classes]] at a college in your geographical location. You may often be able to do so for free, and can use this to judge how well you would do in a college environment.

==Getting your application ready==

===Typical materials to get ready===

* It is probably advisable to retake [[standardized tests]] (the SAT and ACT) even if you took them earlier. Your scores may not be valid any more, you may be able to do better now, and colleges may consider your application more seriously if you show you've taken the tests more recently. Formally, colleges simply take the best of your test scores that are still valid, so you do not need to worry about doing poorer than last time.
* You probably need to get recommendations from your past high school teachers, and preferably also a recommendation from somebody that can explain the "gap" in your education.
* You need to get your transcripts and other materials ready.

===Activities to do to have more credentials===

* Consider taking MOOCs with [[Coursera]] that offer certification.
* Consider taking Advanced Placement tests. These tests can be taken only through a high school that offers Advanced Placement classes. However, some high schools allow you to take these tests without enrolling in their courses.
* Consider [[sit in on classes|sitting in on college classes]] and using the opportunity to interact with professors and students. This could give you potential sources for the additional recommendation that could explain your post-school gap.

Taking a gap year between high school and college

2014-04-24T17:12:35Z

Jsinick: /* Classification based on one's college admission status and college-going intent */

This page is about the option of taking a gap year between the completion of high school and starting college. The page goes over the different reasons one might take a gap year, the pros and cons of taking a gap year, how to decide if it's good for you, and what to do if you do take a gap year.

==Classification of gap years==

===Classification based on one's college admission status and college-going intent===

We have the following different types of gap years based on college admissions status:

* Gap year taken by people who already have been admitted to the college of their choice, and have been granted a deferral of admission for a year.
* Gap year taken by people who did not receive admission to the college they wanted to, and who intend to apply to colleges in the next application cycle.

In addition, gap years may be classified based on the extent to which one intends to go to college:

* Gap year taken with the full intent of returning to the academic world (i.e., going to college) after the completion of the year.
* Gap year taken with the intent of exploring possible options whereby one never has to go back to college.

===Classification based on activities done in the year===

People use the gap year for a wide range of activities. Note that the categories below are not mutually exclusive:

* Career-oriented work gap year: They just treat the year to do full-time work that is in roughly the sort of career direction that they eventually anticipate going into. For instance, somebody who is considering a programming career may take a programming job.
* Travel gap year: The gap year is spent traveling around the world, going to new places, meeting new people, etc.
* Passion pursuit gap year: The gap year is spent pursuing some passion, such as writing a book, or participating in drama.
* Volunteering gap year: The gap year is used to volunteer to do something one believes to be socially useful within a broader community or to the world.
* Academic study gap year: The gap year is spent studying material somewhat similar to mainstream academic contnet, but possibly tailored a bit to one's specific goals. Academic study gap years are common for people in countries where college entrance is determined by annual competitive examinations -- such people might spend a year in order to prepare better for the competitive examination. Academic study gap years may also be used to get a headstart on college learning in order to be able to finish college more quickly and efficiently.

==Short-run considerations for gap year logistics==

===Finances and parental support===

If you're not earning money yourself, and therefore you're relying on your parents to support you, you need to discuss with them whether they will support you financially through the gap year. In case you'll stay at home during the gap year, you should check whether they expect you to contribute to the family finances in some way. If they have such expectations, and your gap year is not career-oriented, you may need to factor in time needed for additional part-time work to make the required financial contribution.

Finances are less of an issue in career-oriented gap years, because you have a steady income stream. Some of these may involve staying far from home, in which case costs are also higher (for instance, if you have to take an internship at a different company in a different city). You should consider whether the income you get will suffice to cover living costs. To the extent it doesn't, you need to discuss with your parents whether they would be willing to cover the difference.

Finances can become more of an issue in travel, volunteering, and passion pursuit gap years, though the details can differ considerably. So a careful look at finances would be warranted in these circumstances.

===College admissions deferral for people who already got into college===

If you are deferring college admission at a college you already got into in order to spend the gap year, you need to make sure that you clearly communicate to the college that you wish to take a gap year, and they accept. The college admissions committee may require some description from you of what you intend to do during the gap year before they let you take it and/or after your gap year is over. Make sure you are clear of expectations on that front before you take the plunge.

===College admissions opportunities for people who do not yet have their desired college admission===

If you didn't get admitted into the college of your choice the first time around, then it's important that you use the gap year to improve your admissions prospects.

* In countries where college admissions are heavily governed by performance on annual competitive examinations, this may mean working hard in order to do better on that examination. Even if your gap year is not ''primarily'' an academic study gap year, this is an important aspect you should pay a lot of attention to.
* For the United States:
** If your performance on [[standardized tests]] wasn't good enough, consider preparing for and taking them again. Keep in mind that college admissions committees only consider the best of your scores.
** You may or may not be able to take more Advanced Placement courses or tests. Advanced Placement tests have to be taken through a school, but if you have a good relationship with your former school or some other school, you may be able to take the tests without formally enrolling in the relevant courses. However, the results of any Advanced Placement tests you take during the gap year won't come in by the time colleges have to decide whether to admit you.
** You can use the gap year to shore up your [[high school extracurricular activities: signaling quality to colleges|extracurricular activities]] list. This particularly applies if you are engaged in a passion pursuit gap year, but also applies to career-oriented, travel, and voluntering gap years. Think in advance about how you can leverage your gap year experience in this respect.
** Make sure you have recommendations from your high school teachers that you can use for your next application cycle. Teachers may leave the school and be difficult to contact, so you may try to arrange to have the school keep the letter on file for the eventuality that you are unable to contact the year. Also consider getting an additional recommendation from somebody who can vouch for how you productively spent the gap year.

==Long-run considerations==

===How you should think of opportunity costs when considering a gap year===

# The simplest model is one where you think of (gap year) + (your time spent in college) as the substitute for the more ordinary package of (your time spent in college) + (first year after college). If your taking the gap year does not really affect the value you get from your time spent in college (an unrealistic assumption, but a good first pass), then the gap year is essentially to be compared with the first year after college. Thus, for instance, if you expect that in the first year after college, you'll have a $60,000 job, ''that'' is the opportunity cost of the gap year.
# The gap year could affect whether or not you need to go to college at all. For instance, your startup may really start taking off, or you may get a full-time programming job comparable to what you would expect to get after getting through college. However, a decision to not go to college should not be taken lightly. See our suggestion to [[stay mainstream until you have demonstrated success doing unusual stuff]].
# The gap year could affect your college performance, the time you take to finish college, ability to use resources and networks in college for other purposes. The effect could go either way (a gap year could make you better or worse at getting the most out of your college experience). More is discussed below.

===Does the gap year improve your maturity and your ability to get the most out of your college years? Arguments for, and caveats===

Ways in which the gap year could improve your maturity:

* If living away from parents, you improve your maturity on the "managing your day-to-day life" front.
* If away from mindless high school where they micromanage your activities, you could become more self-directed. This allows you to better adjust to college and also to later life. But is it better preparation for college than just starting college and learning as you go? This is unclear. Also, the type of self-directedness needed differs by context, so the self-directedness needed to pursue your passion differs from the self-directedness needed to do well in colleges. And college courses and workplaces are often mindless in ways similar to high school.
* If you get lots of free time, can devote some of it to academic study, get huge head start on college. But this assumes your self-directed learning skills exceed your structured learning skills by a sufficient margin.
* Doing real work can teach you work ethic. This is not ''too'' useful for college, because [[school ethic versus work ethic|school ethic and work ethic differ]], but it may be useful for work you do on the side in college, summer internships, and life after college. Again, it is unclear whether the gap year is the most efficient learning opportunity for acquiring work ethic, as opposed to jobs or summer internships in high school and college.

Note that, to make a strong case for the gap year, it is not just enough to show that people who have taken a gap year come in somewhat more mature than people who enter college straight out of high school. A more compelling case would be based on a comparison of people who have taken a gap year and people who have finished a year of college (note that comparison of actual sets of people also suffers from selection effects).

===Gap year and getting out of the academic habit===

A gap year, away from academic work, may cause one to lose academic focus and forget academic knowledge, more time needed to get back on track in college. This is a potential hazard of a gap year, but easy to remedy if you consciously address it:

* It's worth noting that people have a few months' gap between the completion of high school and college. Since forgetting curves are exponential, most forgetting curve happens in the first few months. There is not that much of a difference between not having studied a subject for 3 months and not having studied a subject for 15 months.
* Anecdotal evidence suggests that people who have had long periods of time when they haven't studied a particular subject usually take no more than 2 weeks to get it back to the level they originally were. For instance, people who finish AP Calculus in their junior year (grade 11) may be a little more rusty at calculus when they begin college, but are usually able to recall the relevant material within a couple of weeks.
* The more general point is that if you don't do ''any'' academic work during the gap year, you get out of the academic habit. But most students don't learn [[good study habits]] in school anyway, and need to learn them properly in college. So the loss isn't huge.

That said, the academic habit and knowledge loss issue may be worth addressing:

* Even if you're not taking an academic study gap year, consider mixing some academic study type activities. These need not be on the specific subjects you learned in school or expect to learn in college, but they should be areas where you are using academic styles of thinking and working. If you can find such activities within your core projects, that is great.
* It may be worthwhile spending the few weeks (perhaps even a month or two months) at the end of your gap year reorienting yourself to academic life, perhaps by refreshing relevant material from school.

==External links==

* [http://www.quora.com/Gap-Years/What-is-it-like-to-take-a-gap-year What is it like to take a gap year? (Quora)]
* [http://www.quora.com/Higher-Education/Can-taking-a-gap-year-after-senior-year-of-high-school-to-work-on-impressive-personal-projects-help-me-when-sending-applications-to-high-ranked-colleges Can taking a gap year after senior year of high school to work on impressive personal projects help me when sending applications to high ranked colleges? (Quora)]
* [http://www.quora.com/Gap-Years Other Quora questions on gap years]
* [http://www.uncollege.org/gapyear/ The UnCollege Gap Year Program]
* Jean Fan's video presentations on taking gap years: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTzViNACCt4 TEDxBergen] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YzagU-sVcE TEDxGunnHigh]
* [http://www.gapyear.com/ Gap Year, Backpacking, and Travel Community] (designed for travel gap years, with more focus on the travel than the gap year part)

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-16T19:47:11Z

Jsinick:

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige/Selectivity''': There are pros and cons of attending a more selective college, and what's best may depend on the individual.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The selectivity of the college that you attend ==

We list some pros of attending more selective colleges and pros of attending less selective colleges below. As a general remark, it should be noted that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/k0w/how_much_does_where_you_go_to_college_affect/ a large study] found (in rough terms) that amongst students of comparable ability and ambition, there was no difference in earnings between those who attended more selective colleges and those who attended less selective colleges.

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

====Easier grading====

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iko/high_school_activities_and_medical_school/9pve Carl Shulman] suggested that going to a more selective colleges reduces one's expected GPA, because of higher grading standards, on account of students being grades based on how they compare with stronger students.

This may or may not be true: average grades at more selective colleges tend to have higher average GPAs than less selective colleges: for example, Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Grade_Inflation_at_the_Post_Secondary_Level reports] that average GPA at Harvard was 3.48 (as of 2004), in contrast with UC San Diego, which has average GPA of 3.05. So it could be that the grading standards at the two colleges are similar despite Harvard having a more competitive peer group, or even that grading is harder at UC San Diego.

This is a matter that warrants further investigation. But it seems more likely that grading is harder at more selective colleges than it is that grading is harder at less selective colleges, and this factor favors going to a less selective college. GPA is a major input into law and medical school admissions (reported to be much more significant than college attended), so going to a less selective college could increase one's prospects for gaining admission to professional school.

Relatedly, if one goes to a less selective college, one might have better prospects for being able to handle a more demanding major, and in a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], business leaders surveyed listed the subject that a student majored in as significantly more important than college attended, in the context of hiring decisions.

====Confidence====

Some people have suggested that being a "big fish in a small pond" increases a student's confidence relative to being a "small fish in a big pond." To the extent that this is true, attending a less selective college has psychological benefits, which could feed into later life success.

====Fostering independence====

Some people report to having a subjective sense that being in a less elite environment was helpful to them, because it forced them to be independent (on account of being different from their peers), whereas had they been in an elite environment, they would have "gone with the flow" and uncritically made their decisions based on what their peers were doing. Thus, going to a less selective college could be better for personal growth.

====More attention from professors====

If a student goes to a less selective college, the student has better prospects for standing out as an exceptionally strong student. This can lead to professors' willingness to and interest in mentoring the student, providing him or her with valuable educational opportunities that the student might not have if he or she was grouped with students of similar ability, where the student would be more likely to come across as "run of the mill" to professors.

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-16T19:06:01Z

Jsinick: /* The selectivity of the college that you attend */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The selectivity of the college that you attend ==

We list some pros of attending more selective colleges and pros of attending less selective colleges below. As a general remark, it should be noted that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/k0w/how_much_does_where_you_go_to_college_affect/ a large study] found (in rough terms) that amongst students of comparable ability and ambition, there was no difference in earnings between those who attended more selective colleges and those who attended less selective colleges.

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

====Easier grading====

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iko/high_school_activities_and_medical_school/9pve Carl Shulman] suggested that going to a more selective colleges reduces one's expected GPA, because of higher grading standards, on account of students being grades based on how they compare with stronger students.

This may or may not be true: average grades at more selective colleges tend to have higher average GPAs than less selective colleges: for example, Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Grade_Inflation_at_the_Post_Secondary_Level reports] that average GPA at Harvard was 3.48 (as of 2004), in contrast with UC San Diego, which has average GPA of 3.05. So it could be that the grading standards at the two colleges are similar despite Harvard having a more competitive peer group, or even that grading is harder at UC San Diego.

This is a matter that warrants further investigation. But it seems more likely that grading is harder at more selective colleges than it is that grading is harder at less selective colleges, and this factor favors going to a less selective college. GPA is a major input into law and medical school admissions (reported to be much more significant than college attended), so going to a less selective college could increase one's prospects for gaining admission to professional school.

Relatedly, if one goes to a less selective college, one might have better prospects for being able to handle a more demanding major, and in a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], business leaders surveyed listed the subject that a student majored in as significantly more important than college attended, in the context of hiring decisions.

====Confidence====

Some people have suggested that being a "big fish in a small pond" increases a student's confidence relative to being a "small fish in a big pond." To the extent that this is true, attending a less selective college has psychological benefits, which could feed into later life success.

====Fostering independence====

Some people report to having a subjective sense that being in a less elite environment was helpful to them, because it forced them to be independent (on account of being different from their peers), whereas had they been in an elite environment, they would have "gone with the flow" and uncritically made their decisions based on what their peers were doing. Thus, going to a less selective college could be better for personal growth.

====More attention from professors====

If a student goes to a less selective college, the student has better prospects for standing out as an exceptionally strong student. This can lead to professors' willingness to and interest in mentoring the student, providing him or her with valuable educational opportunities that the student might not have if he or she was grouped with students of similar ability, where the student would be more likely to come across as "run of the mill" to professors.

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-16T19:05:39Z

Jsinick: /* The prestige of the college that you attend */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The selectivity of the college that you attend ==

We list some pros of attending more selective colleges and pros of attending less selective colleges below. As a general remark, it should be noted that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/k0w/how_much_does_where_you_go_to_college_affect/ a large study] found (in rough terms) that amongst students of comparable ability and ambition, there was no difference in future earnings between those who attended more selective colleges and those who attended less selective colleges.

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

====Easier grading====

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iko/high_school_activities_and_medical_school/9pve Carl Shulman] suggested that going to a more selective colleges reduces one's expected GPA, because of higher grading standards, on account of students being grades based on how they compare with stronger students.

This may or may not be true: average grades at more selective colleges tend to have higher average GPAs than less selective colleges: for example, Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Grade_Inflation_at_the_Post_Secondary_Level reports] that average GPA at Harvard was 3.48 (as of 2004), in contrast with UC San Diego, which has average GPA of 3.05. So it could be that the grading standards at the two colleges are similar despite Harvard having a more competitive peer group, or even that grading is harder at UC San Diego.

This is a matter that warrants further investigation. But it seems more likely that grading is harder at more selective colleges than it is that grading is harder at less selective colleges, and this factor favors going to a less selective college. GPA is a major input into law and medical school admissions (reported to be much more significant than college attended), so going to a less selective college could increase one's prospects for gaining admission to professional school.

Relatedly, if one goes to a less selective college, one might have better prospects for being able to handle a more demanding major, and in a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], business leaders surveyed listed the subject that a student majored in as significantly more important than college attended, in the context of hiring decisions.

====Confidence====

Some people have suggested that being a "big fish in a small pond" increases a student's confidence relative to being a "small fish in a big pond." To the extent that this is true, attending a less selective college has psychological benefits, which could feed into later life success.

====Fostering independence====

Some people report to having a subjective sense that being in a less elite environment was helpful to them, because it forced them to be independent (on account of being different from their peers), whereas had they been in an elite environment, they would have "gone with the flow" and uncritically made their decisions based on what their peers were doing. Thus, going to a less selective college could be better for personal growth.

====More attention from professors====

If a student goes to a less selective college, the student has better prospects for standing out as an exceptionally strong student. This can lead to professors' willingness to and interest in mentoring the student, providing him or her with valuable educational opportunities that the student might not have if he or she was grouped with students of similar ability, where the student would be more likely to come across as "run of the mill" to professors.

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-16T18:50:03Z

Jsinick: /* The prestige of the college that you attend */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The prestige of the college that you attend ==

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

====Easier grading====

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iko/high_school_activities_and_medical_school/9pve Carl Shulman] suggested that going to a more selective colleges reduces one's expected GPA, because of higher grading standards, on account of students being grades based on how they compare with stronger students.

This may or may not be true: average grades at more selective colleges tend to have higher average GPAs than less selective colleges: for example, Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Grade_Inflation_at_the_Post_Secondary_Level reports] that average GPA at Harvard was 3.48 (as of 2004), in contrast with UC San Diego, which has average GPA of 3.05. So it could be that the grading standards at the two colleges are similar despite Harvard having a more competitive peer group, or even that grading is harder at UC San Diego.

This is a matter that warrants further investigation. But it seems more likely that grading is harder at more selective colleges than it is that grading is harder at less selective colleges, and this factor favors going to a less selective college. GPA is a major input into law and medical school admissions (reported to be much more significant than college attended), so going to a less selective college could increase one's prospects for gaining admission to professional school.

Relatedly, if one goes to a less selective college, one might have better prospects for being able to handle a more demanding major, and in a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], business leaders surveyed listed the subject that a student majored in as significantly more important than college attended, in the context of hiring decisions.

====Confidence====

Some people have suggested that being a "big fish in a small pond" increases a student's confidence relative to being a "small fish in a big pond." To the extent that this is true, attending a less selective college has psychological benefits, which could feed into later life success.

====Fostering independence====

Some people report to having a subjective sense that being in a less elite environment was helpful to them, because it forced them to be independent (on account of being different from their peers), whereas had they been in an elite environment, they would have "gone with the flow" and uncritically made their decisions based on what their peers were doing. Thus, going to a less selective college could be better for personal growth.

====More attention from professors====

If a student goes to a less selective college, the student has better prospects for standing out as an exceptionally strong student. This can lead to professors' willingness to and interest in mentoring the student, providing him or her with valuable educational opportunities that the student might not have if he or she was grouped with students of similar ability, where the student would be more likely to come across as "run of the mill" to professors.

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-16T18:48:48Z

Jsinick: /* Pros of attending a less selective college */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The prestige of the college that you attend ==

We discuss some of the pros and cons of going to a more prestigious college in [http://cognitomentoring.org/blog/how-much-does-where-you-go-to-college-affect-earnings/ How much does where you go to college affect earnings?]. To summarize:

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

====Easier grading====

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iko/high_school_activities_and_medical_school/9pve Carl Shulman] suggested that going to a more selective colleges reduces one's expected GPA, because of higher grading standards, on account of students being grades based on how they compare with stronger students.

This may or may not be true: average grades at more selective colleges tend to have higher average GPAs than less selective colleges: for example, Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Grade_Inflation_at_the_Post_Secondary_Level reports] that average GPA at Harvard was 3.48 (as of 2004), in contrast with UC San Diego, which has average GPA of 3.05. So it could be that the grading standards at the two colleges are similar despite Harvard having a more competitive peer group, or even that grading is harder at UC San Diego.

This is a matter that warrants further investigation. But it seems more likely that grading is harder at more selective colleges than it is that grading is harder at less selective colleges, and this factor favors going to a less selective college. GPA is a major input into law and medical school admissions (reported to be much more significant than college attended), so going to a less selective college could increase one's prospects for gaining admission to professional school.

Relatedly, if one goes to a less selective college, one might have better prospects for being able to handle a more demanding major, and in a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], business leaders surveyed listed the subject that a student majored in as significantly more important than college attended, in the context of hiring decisions.

====Confidence====

Some people have suggested that being a "big fish in a small pond" increases a student's confidence relative to being a "small fish in a big pond." To the extent that this is true, attending a less selective college has psychological benefits, which could feed into later life success.

====Fostering independence====

Some people report to having a subjective sense that being in a less elite environment was helpful to them, because it forced them to be independent (on account of being different from their peers), whereas had they been in an elite environment, they would have "gone with the flow" and uncritically made their decisions based on what their peers were doing. Thus, going to a less selective college could be better for personal growth.

====More attention from professors====

If a student goes to a less selective college, the student has better prospects for standing out as an exceptionally strong student. This can lead to professors' willingness to and interest in mentoring the student, providing him or her with valuable educational opportunities that the student might not have if he or she was grouped with students of similar ability, where the student would be more likely to come across as "run of the mill" to professors.

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-16T18:48:06Z

Jsinick: /* Pros of attending a less selective college */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The prestige of the college that you attend ==

We discuss some of the pros and cons of going to a more prestigious college in [http://cognitomentoring.org/blog/how-much-does-where-you-go-to-college-affect-earnings/ How much does where you go to college affect earnings?]. To summarize:

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

====Easier grading====

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iko/high_school_activities_and_medical_school/9pve Carl Shulman] suggested that going to a more selective colleges reduces one's expected GPA, because of higher grading standards, on account of students being grades based on how they compare with stronger students.

This may or may not be true: average grades at more selective colleges tend to have higher average GPAs than less selective colleges: for example, Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Grade_Inflation_at_the_Post_Secondary_Level reports] that average GPA at Harvard was 3.48 (as of 2004), in contrast with UC San Diego, which has average GPA 3.05. So it could be that the grading standards at the two colleges are similar despite Harvard having a more competitive peer group, or even that grading is harder at UC San Diego.

This is a matter that warrants further investigation. But it seems more likely that grading is harder at more selective colleges than it is that grading is harder at less selective colleges, and this factor favors going to a less selective college. GPA is a major input into law and medical school admissions (reported to be much more significant than college attended), so going to a less selective college could increase one's prospects for gaining admission to professional school.

Relatedly, if one goes to a less selective college, one might have better prospects for being able to handle a more demanding major, and in a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], business leaders surveyed listed the subject that a student majored in as significantly more important than college attended, in the context of hiring decisions.

====Confidence====

Some people have suggested that being a "big fish in a small pond" increases a student's confidence relative to being a "small fish in a big pond." To the extent that this is true, attending a less selective college has psychological benefits, which could feed into later life success.

====Fostering independence====

Some people report to having a subjective sense that being in a less elite environment was helpful to them, because it forced them to be independent (on account of being different from their peers), whereas had they been in an elite environment, they would have "gone with the flow" and uncritically made their decisions based on what their peers were doing. Thus, going to a less selective college could be better for personal growth.

====More attention from professors====

If a student goes to a less selective college, the student has better prospects for standing out as an exceptionally strong student. This can lead to professors' willingness to and interest in mentoring the student, providing him or her with valuable educational opportunities that the student might not have if he or she was grouped with students of similar ability, where the student would be more likely to come across as "run of the mill" to professors.

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-16T18:39:24Z

Jsinick: /* Pros of attending a less selective college */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The prestige of the college that you attend ==

We discuss some of the pros and cons of going to a more prestigious college in [http://cognitomentoring.org/blog/how-much-does-where-you-go-to-college-affect-earnings/ How much does where you go to college affect earnings?]. To summarize:

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

====Easier grading====

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iko/high_school_activities_and_medical_school/9pve Carl Shulman] suggested that going to a more selective colleges reduces one's expected GPA, because of higher grading standards, on account of students being grades based on how they compare with stronger students.

This may or may not be true: average grades at more selective colleges tend to have higher average GPAs than less selective colleges: for example, Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Grade_Inflation_at_the_Post_Secondary_Level reports] that average GPA at Harvard was 3.48 (as of 2004), in contrast with UC San Diego, which has average GPA 3.05. So it could be that the grading standards at the two colleges are similar despite Harvard having a more competitive peer group, or even that grading is harder at UC San Diego.

This is a matter that warrants further investigation. But it seems more likely that grading is harder at more selective colleges than it is that grading is harder at less selective colleges, and this factor favors going to a less selective college. GPA is a major input into law and medical school admissions (reported to be much more significant than college attended), so going to a less selective college could increase one's prospects for gaining admission to professional school.

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-16T18:38:42Z

Jsinick: /* Pros of attending a less selective college */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The prestige of the college that you attend ==

We discuss some of the pros and cons of going to a more prestigious college in [http://cognitomentoring.org/blog/how-much-does-where-you-go-to-college-affect-earnings/ How much does where you go to college affect earnings?]. To summarize:

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

====Easier grading====

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iko/high_school_activities_and_medical_school/9pve Carl Shulman] suggested that going to a more selective colleges reduces one's expected GPA, because of higher grading standards, on account of students being grades based on how they compare with stronger students.

This may or may not be true: average grades at more selective colleges tend to have higher average GPAs than less selective colleges: for example, Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Grade_Inflation_at_the_Post_Secondary_Level reports] that average GPA at Harvard was 3.48 (as of 2004) in contrast with UC San Diego, which has average GPA 3.05. So it could be that the grading standards at the two colleges are similar despite Harvard having a more competitive peer group, or even that grading is harder at UC San Diego.

This is a matter that warrants further investigation. But it seems more likely that grading is harder at more selective colleges than it is that grading is harder at less selective colleges, and this factor favors going to a less selective college. GPA is a major input into law and medical school admissions (reported to be much more significant than college attended), so going to a less selective college could increase one's prospects for gaining admission to professional school.

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-10T17:15:51Z

Jsinick: /* Pros of attending a more selective college */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The prestige of the college that you attend ==

We discuss some of the pros and cons of going to a more prestigious college in [http://cognitomentoring.org/blog/how-much-does-where-you-go-to-college-affect-earnings/ How much does where you go to college affect earnings?]. To summarize:

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

<blockquote>By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.</blockquote>

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

<blockquote>In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.</blockquote>

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

College selection: factors to consider

2014-04-10T17:14:01Z

Jsinick: /* The prestige of the college that you attend matters */

The following factors are worth taking into explicit consideration:

* '''Prestige''': In general, the more prestigious a college is, the better the opportunities you'll have in life if you go there.
* '''Flexibility for students''': Some colleges offer students more freedom to shape their experience. The more freedom a college offers you, the better prospects you have for getting a lot out of the experience.
* '''Strength in a given academic subject''': Colleges of a given prestige level vary substantially in how strong they are in a given academic subject. If you have a very strong and specific academic interest, you should do research to find out which colleges have the best departments in that field.
* '''Cost''': Colleges that offer very similar academic experiences can vary widely in cost for the student based on their prestige, location, and other factors. However, the apparent cost of a college can be very unrepresentative owing to the possibility of receiving financial aid, and colleges that are apparently much more expensive than others may cost the same amount for you.

See also [[choosing between a large state school and a private school]] for an application of these considerations.

== The prestige of the college that you attend ==

We discuss some of the pros and cons of going to a more prestigious college in [http://cognitomentoring.org/blog/how-much-does-where-you-go-to-college-affect-earnings/ How much does where you go to college affect earnings?]. To summarize:

=== Pros of attending a more selective college ===

====Signaling to employers====

Employers give weight to the prestige of college attended. However, the effect size is smaller than it might seem. In a [http://www.gallup.com/poll/167546/business-leaders-say-knowledge-trumps-college-pedigree.aspx 2013 Gallup Poll], 9% of business leaders said that the college a job applicant attended is “very important” to managers making hiring decisions, and 37% said that it’s “somewhat important.” Employers listed college attended as the least important of the 4 factors that they were asked about, behind major choice.

====More capable peer group====

Having a more capable peer group can lead to better learning opportunities. Harvard student Ben Kuhn wrote

[blockquote]By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.[/blockquote]

It can also give one access to better advice: Ben Kuhn also wrote:

[blockquote]By watching how more competent people work and think, you can often pick up useful study habits and better techniques for the subject you’re studying. I’ve found this especially true in CS classes, where I’ve had this experience from both sides, e.g. teaching classmates how to use Git and picking up C coding style and tricks from better programmers.[/blockquote]

These considerations generally favor more selective schools, but not as strongly as might meet the eye: less selective schools often have honors courses and honors programs, where one might be able to meet students as capable as those who one would be interacting with at less selective colleges (though the best students at more selective colleges will generally be stronger than the best students at less selective colleges).

==== Mentorship from higher quality professors ====

If you're pursuing a career in research and/or academia, having exposure to higher quality professors as an undergraduate can give you a head start. In particular, some professors do research with undergraduates, and if you can do research with higher quality professors, you can get to the cutting edge of the field faster, and learn more by observing how they think.

More accomplished professors are also better positioned to help you get into a good graduate school and network within their fields.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': You usually have to take initiative to get good research opportunities as an undergraduate, and talk with the professors whose research interests you. You shouldn't expect to get good research opportunities by default.}}

====Networking benefits====

Going to a more selective college will generally expose one to people who will be in higher places later on in life, and who will correspondingly be able to connect one with influential people in one’s professional field, who may get one a high paying job and so forth. Such people may also serve as professional collaborators, for example, if one wants to do a startup right out of college.

As above, the effect here is smaller than might initially meet the eye, because one might be able to get similar benefits by interacting with the most capable students at a less selective college.

====Confidence====

Venture capitalist Paul Graham [http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html wrote]

[blockquote]In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. [...] Having been to an elite college makes them more confident. [...] Since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.[/blockquote]

=== Pros of attending a less selective college ===

== Diverse colleges give you more options ==

Some colleges give you more flexibility with respect to the classes that you take, the classmates you spend time with, and the faculty who you interact with. The more flexibility you have, the more potential you have to make the most out of your college years. Of course, the effect that this will have on your experience depends on your ability to use the flexibility to your advantage.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': A major factor that influences life outcomes is resourcefulness: your ability to research, seek out, and discern between opportunities that are available to you. Many people don't consider potential opportunities other than immediately visible ones. A little bit of imagination can go a long way toward improving your life.}}

Some ways in which colleges differ in the flexibility that they offer are:

===Core requirements===

Some colleges have more required courses than others. For example, Brown University is known for its "open curriculum," and [http://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/curriculum has very few requirements]:

''In 1850, Brown's fourth president, Francis Wayland, argued that students should have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to "study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose." A century later, this vision became the basis for a new approach to general education at Brown: the open curriculum. Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.''

By way of contrast, University of Chicago is known for its "Core curriculum," and has [https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core.shtml many required courses]:

''This famed Core curriculum, a model for American general education, is the University of Chicago student’s introduction to the tools of inquiry used in every discipline—science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences. The goal is not just to transfer knowledge, but to raise fundamental questions and become familiar with the powerful ideas that shape our society. Not only does the curriculum provide the background for any major and for continuing study after graduation, it also provides a common experience for all students in the College. All students have taken the same sorts of classes and read the same kinds of texts, struggling and triumphing over the same sorts of ideas. This gives every student a common vocabulary of ideas and skills, no matter his or her background before coming to the College. [...] The Core takes about 1/3 of your time at the College, but could be less depending on AP/IB credit and placement testing.''

We believe that all else being equal, it's better for self-directed and strategic students to attend colleges with fewer required courses rather than more required courses, and that the benefits of a "common vocabulary" that University of Chicago cites are probably overstated.

Some colleges that require many courses are excellent choices for a given person: the "core requirements" consideration should be weighed against other considerations.

===College size===

Large colleges offer greater diversity than small colleges. See [[pros and cons of attending a large college]] for more information.

== Do detailed research if you have a very strong and specific interest ==

In a given academic subject, colleges of the same general prestige level can vary substantially in quality. For example, George Mason University's economics department is stronger than economics departments at most colleges of a similar level of prestige. See [http://lesswrong.com/lw/is6/choosing_universities_based_on_their/ this blog post] for more information.

If you're very passionate about a given field, to the point where you think that there's a very high probability of you studying it in college, you should do detailed research on which colleges are strongest in it. For example, you should ask several professors within the field about which colleges have the best departments.

{{quotation|'''KEEP IN MIND''': Even people who are strongly interested in a given subject often change interests, especially early in life. You should give weight to the possibility that your interests will change substantially.}}

== Cost ==

* College tuition varies enormously from college to college. For example, UC Berkeley charges $13k/year in tuition and Harvard charges $42k/year in tuition, so there's a $116k difference between the two over 4 years.

* Just because a college has higher tuition than another college doesn't mean that it'll be more expensive to attend, even when the difference in tuition is very large. For example, using the UC Berkeley and Harvard financial aid calculators [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/joi/effective_public_college_tuition_vs_private/ we found] that for somebody whose family makes less than $140k/year and that have $300k or less in savings, attending Harvard is cheaper than attending UC Berkeley. We strongly urge you to use the online financial aid calculators for the colleges that you might be interested in applying to to assess whether you'd be able to get enough financial aid to afford them before ruling them out as too expensive.

* Given two colleges of the same selectivity, with one more expensive than the other, we wouldn't expect there a difference in quality of instruction.

* There's [http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 a study] giving evidence that going to a more costly college increases your expected future earnings (independently of the prestige of the college), with the effect possibly coming from making connections with peers of higher socioeconomic status.

==External links==

From Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Does-it-really-matter-where-one-goes-to-college-Or-if-you-go-at-all Does it really matter where one goes to college? Or, if you go at all?]

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:43:59Z

Jsinick:

{{US specific}}

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?].

We discuss some of the career options open to physics majors, as well as earnings, below.

== Career prospects ==

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

<blockquote>It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.</blockquote>

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=569941 wrote]

<blockquote>If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).</blockquote>

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192012.htm reports] that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?], the answerer says

<blockquote>There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).</blockquote>

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?: The Economic Value of College Majors] reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics [http://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/graduate/trendsphds-p-12.2.pdf reports] that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on [[academia as a career option]]. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. [http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html Don't Become a Scientist!] by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop [http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2010/08/19/what-to-do-about-overproduction-of-phds/ writes]

<blockquote>My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.</blockquote>

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/Software-Engineering/Why-are-there-so-many-physics-majors-in-software-engineering Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering?] give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=519072 Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer?] at Physics Forums, fss writes

<blockquote>You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).</blockquote>

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=639143 Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer?] and [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620362 Engineering Job with a Physics Degree] at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, [http://www.quora.com/College-and-University-Majors/How-easy-is-it-for-a-physics-major-to-go-to-engineering-graduate-school Dan Recht].

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition [http://www.phystec.org/webdocs/shortage.cfm reports] that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

* Payscale [http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back reports] that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.
*The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.
* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.

The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and [http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ one source] reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

==See also==

We posted an [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jzy/career_prospects_for_physics_majors/ early draft] of this article to Less Wrong. The comments there may be of interest.

Template:US specific

2014-04-05T23:43:05Z

Jsinick:

{{quotation|Most of the data that we report on in this page is from the United States. We draw on sources such as the [http://www.bls.gov/ Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the [https://nces.ed.gov/ National Center for Educational Statistics]. The situation in other countries may or may not be similar.}}

Template:US specific

2014-04-05T23:42:41Z

Jsinick:

{{quotation|Most of the data that we report on in this page is based on data from the United States. We draw on sources such as the [http://www.bls.gov/ Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the [https://nces.ed.gov/ National Center for Educational Statistics]. The situation in other countries may or may not be similar.}}

Template:US specific

2014-04-05T23:39:36Z

Jsinick:

{{quotation|Most of the data that we report on in this page is based data from the United States. The situation in other countries may or may not be similar.}}

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:38:11Z

Jsinick:

{{US specific}}

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?].

We discuss some of the career options open to physics majors, as well as earnings, below.

== Career prospects ==

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

<blockquote>It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.</blockquote>

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=569941 wrote]

<blockquote>If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).</blockquote>

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192012.htm reports] that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?], the answerer says

<blockquote>There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).</blockquote>

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?: The Economic Value of College Majors] reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics [http://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/graduate/trendsphds-p-12.2.pdf reports] that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on [[academia as a career option]]. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. [http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html Don't Become a Scientist!] by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop [http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2010/08/19/what-to-do-about-overproduction-of-phds/ writes]

<blockquote>My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.</blockquote>

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/Software-Engineering/Why-are-there-so-many-physics-majors-in-software-engineering Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering?] give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=519072 Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer?] at Physics Forums, fss writes

<blockquote>You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).</blockquote>

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=639143 Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer?] and [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620362 Engineering Job with a Physics Degree] at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, [http://www.quora.com/College-and-University-Majors/How-easy-is-it-for-a-physics-major-to-go-to-engineering-graduate-school Dan Recht].

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition [http://www.phystec.org/webdocs/shortage.cfm reports] that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

* Payscale [http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back reports] that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.
*The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.
* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.

The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and [http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ one source] reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

==See also==

''We posted an [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jzy/career_prospects_for_physics_majors/ early draft] of this article to Less Wrong. The comments there may be of interest.''

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:37:49Z

Jsinick:

{{career option|US specific}}

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?].

We discuss some of the career options open to physics majors, as well as earnings, below.

== Career prospects ==

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

<blockquote>It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.</blockquote>

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=569941 wrote]

<blockquote>If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).</blockquote>

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192012.htm reports] that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?], the answerer says

<blockquote>There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).</blockquote>

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?: The Economic Value of College Majors] reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics [http://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/graduate/trendsphds-p-12.2.pdf reports] that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on [[academia as a career option]]. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. [http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html Don't Become a Scientist!] by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop [http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2010/08/19/what-to-do-about-overproduction-of-phds/ writes]

<blockquote>My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.</blockquote>

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/Software-Engineering/Why-are-there-so-many-physics-majors-in-software-engineering Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering?] give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=519072 Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer?] at Physics Forums, fss writes

<blockquote>You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).</blockquote>

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=639143 Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer?] and [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620362 Engineering Job with a Physics Degree] at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, [http://www.quora.com/College-and-University-Majors/How-easy-is-it-for-a-physics-major-to-go-to-engineering-graduate-school Dan Recht].

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition [http://www.phystec.org/webdocs/shortage.cfm reports] that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

* Payscale [http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back reports] that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.
*The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.
* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.

The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and [http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ one source] reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

==See also==

''We posted an [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jzy/career_prospects_for_physics_majors/ early draft] of this article to Less Wrong. The comments there may be of interest.''

Template:US specific

2014-04-05T23:36:28Z

Jsinick: Created page with "Most of the data that we report on in this page is based data from the United States. The situation in other countries may or may not be similar."

Most of the data that we report on in this page is based data from the United States. The situation in other countries may or may not be similar.

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:25:36Z

Jsinick:

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?].

We discuss some of the career options open to physics majors, as well as earnings, below.

''We posted an [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jzy/career_prospects_for_physics_majors/ early draft] of this article to Less Wrong. The comments there may be of interest.''

== Career prospects ==

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

<blockquote>It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.</blockquote>

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=569941 wrote]

<blockquote>If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).</blockquote>

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192012.htm reports] that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?], the answerer says

<blockquote>There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).</blockquote>

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?: The Economic Value of College Majors] reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics [http://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/graduate/trendsphds-p-12.2.pdf reports] that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on [[academia as a career option]]. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. [http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html Don't Become a Scientist!] by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop [http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2010/08/19/what-to-do-about-overproduction-of-phds/ writes]

<blockquote>My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.</blockquote>

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/Software-Engineering/Why-are-there-so-many-physics-majors-in-software-engineering Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering?] give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=519072 Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer?] at Physics Forums, fss writes

<blockquote>You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).</blockquote>

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=639143 Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer?] and [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620362 Engineering Job with a Physics Degree] at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, [http://www.quora.com/College-and-University-Majors/How-easy-is-it-for-a-physics-major-to-go-to-engineering-graduate-school Dan Recht].

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition [http://www.phystec.org/webdocs/shortage.cfm reports] that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

* Payscale [http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back reports] that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.
*The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.
* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.

The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and [http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ one source] reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:24:40Z

Jsinick:

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?].

We address career prospects below.

''We posted an [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jzy/career_prospects_for_physics_majors/ early draft] of this article to Less Wrong. The comments there may be of interest.''

== Career prospects ==

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

<blockquote>It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.</blockquote>

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=569941 wrote]

<blockquote>If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).</blockquote>

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192012.htm reports] that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?], the answerer says

<blockquote>There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).</blockquote>

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?: The Economic Value of College Majors] reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics [http://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/graduate/trendsphds-p-12.2.pdf reports] that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on [[academia as a career option]]. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. [http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html Don't Become a Scientist!] by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop [http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2010/08/19/what-to-do-about-overproduction-of-phds/ writes]

<blockquote>My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.</blockquote>

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/Software-Engineering/Why-are-there-so-many-physics-majors-in-software-engineering Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering?] give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=519072 Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer?] at Physics Forums, fss writes

<blockquote>You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).</blockquote>

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=639143 Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer?] and [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620362 Engineering Job with a Physics Degree] at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, [http://www.quora.com/College-and-University-Majors/How-easy-is-it-for-a-physics-major-to-go-to-engineering-graduate-school Dan Recht].

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition [http://www.phystec.org/webdocs/shortage.cfm reports] that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

* Payscale [http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back reports] that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.
*The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.
* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.

The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and [http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ one source] reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:23:25Z

Jsinick:

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?]

== Career prospects ==

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

<blockquote>It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.</blockquote>

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=569941 wrote]

<blockquote>If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).</blockquote>

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192012.htm reports] that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?], the answerer says

<blockquote>There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).</blockquote>

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?: The Economic Value of College Majors] reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics [http://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/graduate/trendsphds-p-12.2.pdf reports] that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on [[academia as a career option]]. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. [http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html Don't Become a Scientist!] by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop [http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2010/08/19/what-to-do-about-overproduction-of-phds/ writes]

<blockquote>My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.</blockquote>

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/Software-Engineering/Why-are-there-so-many-physics-majors-in-software-engineering Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering?] give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=519072 Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer?] at Physics Forums, fss writes

<blockquote>You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).</blockquote>

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society [http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm reports] that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=639143 Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer?] and [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620362 Engineering Job with a Physics Degree] at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, [http://www.quora.com/College-and-University-Majors/How-easy-is-it-for-a-physics-major-to-go-to-engineering-graduate-school Dan Recht].

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition [http://www.phystec.org/webdocs/shortage.cfm reports] that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

* Payscale [http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back reports] that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.
*The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.
* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf?utm_source=Brilliant%3A+The+New+Science+of+Smart+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3701f6787c-Brilliant_Report_16_1_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c734401c1-3701f6787c-300646505 What's It Worth?] (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.

The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and [http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ one source] reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T23:15:22Z

Jsinick:

{{career option|biomedical research}}

Summary:
* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

''We posted an early version of this post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jzb/biomedical_research_as_a_career to Less Wrong], and the comments there may be of interest.''

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes [https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/27/what-weve-learned-about-graduate-students/ 6 to 7 years], during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-wages-of-a-life-science-ph-d-not-high/#.U0CIhK1dXGd reported] that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year ([http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf pg. 141]), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

[http://www.ehow.com/about_5526772_average-salary-biomedical-researchers.html According] to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]:

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source [http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/special-report/top-20-research-institute-salaries/2012-09-26 reports] that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* '''Diminishing returns''' — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* '''Low replication rates''' — The fact that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/hie/problems_with_academia_and_the_rising_sea/ a large fraction of studies don't replicate] suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* '''Power law distribution of research contributions''' A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours [http://80000hours.org/blog/280-a-comparison-of-medical-research-and-earning-to-give plans] to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

[http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report] (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T23:14:49Z

Jsinick:

{{career option|biomedical research}}

''We posted an early version of this post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jzb/biomedical_research_as_a_career to Less Wrong], and the comments there may be of interest.''

* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes [https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/27/what-weve-learned-about-graduate-students/ 6 to 7 years], during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-wages-of-a-life-science-ph-d-not-high/#.U0CIhK1dXGd reported] that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year ([http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf pg. 141]), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

[http://www.ehow.com/about_5526772_average-salary-biomedical-researchers.html According] to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]:

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source [http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/special-report/top-20-research-institute-salaries/2012-09-26 reports] that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* '''Diminishing returns''' — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* '''Low replication rates''' — The fact that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/hie/problems_with_academia_and_the_rising_sea/ a large fraction of studies don't replicate] suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* '''Power law distribution of research contributions''' A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours [http://80000hours.org/blog/280-a-comparison-of-medical-research-and-earning-to-give plans] to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

[http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report] (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:13:22Z

Jsinick: /* Career prospects */

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?]

== Career prospects ==

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

<blockquote>It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.</blockquote>

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [wrote

<blockquote>If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).</blockquote>

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora quest What is it like to major in physics?, the answerer reports

<blockquote>There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).</blockquote>

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society reports that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. What's It Worth? reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics reports that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on Academia as a career option. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. Don't Become a Scientist! by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop writes

<blockquote>My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.</blockquote>

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

What's It Worth? (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering? give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer? at Physics Forums, fss writes

<blockquote>You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).</blockquote>

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society reports that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. What's It Worth? (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer? and Engineering Job with a Physics Degree at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, Dan Recht.

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition reports that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

Payscale reports that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.

The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.

What's It Worth? (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.

The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and one source reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:12:36Z

Jsinick:

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?]

== Career prospects ==

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

<blockquote>It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.</blockquote>

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [wrote

<blockquote>If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).</blockquote>

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora quest What is it like to major in physics?, the answerer reports

<blockquote>There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).</blockquote>

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society reports that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. What's It Worth? reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics reports that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on Academia as a career option. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. Don't Become a Scientist! by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop writes

<blockquote>My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.</blockquote>

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

What's It Worth? (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering? give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer? at Physics Forums, fss writes

<blockquote>You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).</blockquote>

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society reports that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. What's It Worth? (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer? and Engineering Job with a Physics Degree at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, Dan Recht.

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition reports that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

Payscale reports that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.

The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.

What's It Worth? (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.

The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and one source reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

Physics as a college major

2014-04-05T23:10:47Z

Jsinick: Created page with "Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because * Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement * It's intellectually stimulating..."

Physics is attractive to many highly intellectually capable students, because

* Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement
* It's intellectually stimulating
* It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

See the comments on the post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/jur/what_attracts_smart_and_curious_young_people_to/ What attracts smart and curious young people to physics?]

== Career prospects ==

In an answer to the Quora question [http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-major-in-physics What is it like to major in physics?] PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

[blockquote]It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.[/blockquote]

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl [wrote

[blockquote]If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).[/blockquote]

Some high level points:

* The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
* Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
* Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields.

We describe specific career options below.

===Physics===

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 17k people work as physicists, so about 20% of physics majors.

Majoring in physics is a step toward becoming a physicist, but it's usually not sufficient. In an anonymous answer to the Quora quest What is it like to major in physics?, the answerer reports

There are no jobs in physics as the BS level. You need a PhD to do work related to physics, and even work at the Masters level is not that great (so I've heard).

This may not literally be true: the American Physical Society reports that 5% of physics majors who enter the workforce right after college work in physics or astronomy. But broadly, a physics PhD seems to be a prerequisite to becoming a physicist.

Graduate school is a common path for physics majors. What's It Worth? reports (pg. 27) that 67% of physics majors go on to earn a graduate degree (without giving a breakdown of what kinds of graduate degrees they get). The American Institute of Physics reports that there are about 900 US citizens who earn physics PhDs a year, suggesting that a large fraction (30+%) of the ~2k physics majors who graduate in a given year go on to earn PhDs in physics.

The default career path for a PhD physicist is academia. We give some general considerations on our page on Academia as a career option. There seems to be a general consensus that the job market in physics academia is extremely competitive. Don't Become a Scientist! by Jonathan Katz describes the scarcity of jobs relative to PhDs and its implications. Physicist rknop writes

My own field is physics, and the problem of physicists being trained for and expected to get tenure-track faculty positions, without enough of these positions being out there, has been a sore topic for two decades (at least). [...] There is absolutely no guarantee that the PhD will allow them to spend the rest of their lives in physics research.

Putting the number of physicists together with the number of physics PhDs, it appears as though roughly 50% of physics PhDs are physicists (whether in academia or industry).

Success in physics seems to be driven in large part by intelligence, so exceptionally intelligent people may have an easy time getting a job, but they have to be sufficiently intelligent to stand out amongst a population that's already strongly selected for intelligence.

===Computer programming / software engineering===

What's It Worth? (pg. 165) reports that 19% of physics majors end up in "computer services." This is vague, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's mostly software engineering. Answers to the Quora question Why are there so many physics majors in software engineering? give some reasons for this.

Physics majors' coursework and research can involve computer programming, but this tends to be limited. Broadly, if one wants to be a software engineer as a physics major, one has to minor in or double major in computer science, or spend a significant amount of time programming on one's own. In general, one can get a job as a software engineer without a computer science degree, so majoring in physics exclusively doesn't bar one from the career path, but it also seems strictly inferior to majoring in computer science from a professional point of view, for future software engineers.

In an answer to Can a physics major get hired as a software engineer? at Physics Forums, fss writes

You will start out at a disadvantage compared to computer science people who have demonstrated programming ability, and it will be up to you to decide how best to show that you can bring something to the table that would make up for this deficiency (real or perceived).

===Engineering===

The American Physical Society reports that 32% of physics majors who enter the workforce directly go into engineering. What's It Worth? (pg. 165) reports that 17% of physics majors are engineers.

The answers to Can a Physics major get a job as an engineer? and Engineering Job with a Physics Degree at Physics Forum suggest that physics majors can get jobs as engineers, but that they're at a disadvantage relative to engineering majors, and that those who plan to be engineers should major in engineering.

Physics majors are sometimes able to go to engineering graduate school, for example, Dan Recht.

===High school teaching===

The Physics Teacher Education Coalition reports that there are 27k high school physics teachers, 35% of whom have degrees in physics or physics education, suggesting that up to 10% of physics majors become high school physics teachers. We have not yet done a writeup on high school teaching as a career, but hope to do so.

==Earnings==

Payscale reports that median midcareer salary for physics majors is $101k/year, which ranks 9th in median midcareer salary amongst majors, after computer science, actuarial mathematics, and some engineering specialties.
The median starting salary for physics majors of $53k/year is lower than the median starting salary for engineers, which is more like $60k-$65k/year.
What's It Worth? (pgs. 23-24) reports that the 25th percentile of physics majors' income is $38k/year, compared with $85k/year for engineering specialties.
The relatively low median starting salary and 25th percentile salary may be dragged down substantially by the fact that physics majors attend graduate school and do postdocs with higher frequency than engineering majors do, during which they have low earnings.

After controlling for years of education and intelligence, physics majors make less than engineers, even mid-career. As above, physics majors complete PhDs more frequently than engineering majors do, and one source reports that physics majors' average SAT scores are about 100 points higher than engineering and computer science majors' on a 1600 point scale (equating to about 0.5 SD in IQ). So it's plausible that they make less money than their counterparts of similar intelligence who majored in engineering or computer science. This doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't get jobs where they made more money – it could be that they prefer lower paying academic jobs over higher paying jobs outside of physics.

Main Page

2014-04-05T22:57:09Z

Jsinick: /* Choosing a college major */

Greetings!

This wiki maintains background information for [http://www.cognitomentoring.org Cognito Mentoring], a service with advice and resources for students seeking intellectual stimulation and enrichment. The wiki is not open to public editing, and everything you find here has been written or approved of by people at Cognito Mentoring. Cognito Mentoring is run by [http://www.jonahsinick.com Jonah Sinick] and [http://www.vipulnaik.com Vipul Naik].

The wiki is very much in beta, so you're likely to find many broken links and incomplete pages. Please be patient with us as we continue to improve our offerings.

Please [http://www.cognitomentoring.org/connect connect with us] to receive personalized advising or to offer feedback on the wiki content.

If you're new here, start with [[What we offer and why]]. We've indexed a subset of our main articles below by topic. You can also access the list of all our pages [[Special:AllPages|here]], or use the search bar to find what you're looking for.

==Learning==

[[Recommendations for building general analytical skills]]

===Benefits of learning particular subjects===

[[Learning a new language: benefits]]

[[Learning programming: benefits]] & [[Learn programming]]

[[Learning mathematics: benefits]] & [[Learn mathematics well]]

[[Verbal skills: benefits]]

[[Physics learning benefits]]

===Resource recommendations===

[[Core reading recommendations]]

[[Reading recommendations for books with a contested thesis]]

[[Learning mathematics: resources]]

[[Development economics reading recommendations]]

[[Economics learning recommendations]]

[[Effective altruism learning resources]]

[[Entrepreneurship learning recommendations]]

[[Statistics learning recommendations]]

[[Programming learning resources]]

==For Elementary and Middle School Students==

[[Elementary and middle school mathematics recommendations]]

[[Recommendation use for accelerated students]]

[[Online communities for gifted children]]

==For High School Students==

[[High school: opening message]]

[[Course selection]]

[[High school coursework]]

[[High school mathematics recommendations]]

[[High school extracurricular activities]]

[[Preparing for your career during high school]]

===Extracurricular activities===

[[High school extracurricular activities]]

[[High school extracurricular activities: factors to consider]]

[[High school extracurricular activities: signaling quality to colleges]]

[[High school extracurricular activities: suggestions]]

===College admissions===

[[Standardized tests]]

[[College admissions for home-schooled students]]

===College selection===

[[College selection]]

[[College selection: factors to consider]]

[[College selection: getting reliable information about colleges]]

[[College selection: deciding based on your intended major]]

[[Choosing between a public college and a private college]]

==College==

===Choosing a college major===

[[Choosing a college major: factors to consider]]

[[Quora answers about college majors]]

[[Physics as a college major]]

===Coursework===

[[College lecture class formats]]

[[Course selection]]

[[Upper division undergraduate mathematics course structure]]

===Post-college plans===

[[Graduate school: deciding whether to go]]

==Career==

===General Considerations===

[[Earnings]]

[[Job satisfaction]]

[[Social value of work: income as a proxy]]

===Career Options===

[[Academia as a career option]]

[[Biomedical research as a career option]]

[[Entrepreneurship as a career option]]

[[Finance as a career option]]

[[Law as a career option]]

[[Leaving academia after graduate school]]

[[Management consulting as a career option]]

[[Medicine as a career option]]

[[Social value of computer science research]]

==Personal Efficacy and Well-being==

[[Good study habits]]

[[Improving your productivity]]

[[Learning about your cognitive profile]]

[[Managing your time]]

[[Overcoming depression]]

[[Perfectionism and readjustment of expectations]]

[[Books for children and teens about obsessive-compulsive disorder]]

[[Books for children and teens about perfectionism]]

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T22:54:27Z

Jsinick:

{{career option|biomedical research}}

* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes [https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/27/what-weve-learned-about-graduate-students/ 6 to 7 years], during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-wages-of-a-life-science-ph-d-not-high/#.U0CIhK1dXGd reported] that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year ([http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf pg. 141]), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

[http://www.ehow.com/about_5526772_average-salary-biomedical-researchers.html According] to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]:

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source [http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/special-report/top-20-research-institute-salaries/2012-09-26 reports] that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* '''Diminishing returns''' — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* '''Low replication rates''' — The fact that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/hie/problems_with_academia_and_the_rising_sea/ a large fraction of studies don't replicate] suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* '''Power law distribution of research contributions''' A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours [http://80000hours.org/blog/280-a-comparison-of-medical-research-and-earning-to-give plans] to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

[http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report] (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T22:54:10Z

Jsinick: /* Summary */

{{career option|biomedical research}}

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes [https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/27/what-weve-learned-about-graduate-students/ 6 to 7 years], during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-wages-of-a-life-science-ph-d-not-high/#.U0CIhK1dXGd reported] that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year ([http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf pg. 141]), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

[http://www.ehow.com/about_5526772_average-salary-biomedical-researchers.html According] to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]:

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source [http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/special-report/top-20-research-institute-salaries/2012-09-26 reports] that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* '''Diminishing returns''' — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* '''Low replication rates''' — The fact that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/hie/problems_with_academia_and_the_rising_sea/ a large fraction of studies don't replicate] suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* '''Power law distribution of research contributions''' A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours [http://80000hours.org/blog/280-a-comparison-of-medical-research-and-earning-to-give plans] to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

[http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report] (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T22:53:41Z

Jsinick: /* See also */

{{career option|biomedical research}}

== Summary ==

* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes [https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/27/what-weve-learned-about-graduate-students/ 6 to 7 years], during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-wages-of-a-life-science-ph-d-not-high/#.U0CIhK1dXGd reported] that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year ([http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf pg. 141]), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

[http://www.ehow.com/about_5526772_average-salary-biomedical-researchers.html According] to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]:

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source [http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/special-report/top-20-research-institute-salaries/2012-09-26 reports] that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* '''Diminishing returns''' — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* '''Low replication rates''' — The fact that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/hie/problems_with_academia_and_the_rising_sea/ a large fraction of studies don't replicate] suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* '''Power law distribution of research contributions''' A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours [http://80000hours.org/blog/280-a-comparison-of-medical-research-and-earning-to-give plans] to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

[http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report] (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T22:53:06Z

Jsinick: /* Social Value */

{{career option|biomedical research}}

== Summary ==

* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes [https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/27/what-weve-learned-about-graduate-students/ 6 to 7 years], during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-wages-of-a-life-science-ph-d-not-high/#.U0CIhK1dXGd reported] that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year ([http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf pg. 141]), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

[http://www.ehow.com/about_5526772_average-salary-biomedical-researchers.html According] to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]:

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source [http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/special-report/top-20-research-institute-salaries/2012-09-26 reports] that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* '''Diminishing returns''' — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* '''Low replication rates''' — The fact that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/hie/problems_with_academia_and_the_rising_sea/ a large fraction of studies don't replicate] suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* '''Power law distribution of research contributions''' A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours [http://80000hours.org/blog/280-a-comparison-of-medical-research-and-earning-to-give plans] to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T22:52:46Z

Jsinick: /* Social Value */

{{career option|biomedical research}}

== Summary ==

* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes [https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/27/what-weve-learned-about-graduate-students/ 6 to 7 years], during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-wages-of-a-life-science-ph-d-not-high/#.U0CIhK1dXGd reported] that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year ([http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf pg. 141]), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

[http://www.ehow.com/about_5526772_average-salary-biomedical-researchers.html According] to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]:

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source [http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/special-report/top-20-research-institute-salaries/2012-09-26 reports] that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* '''Diminishing returns''' — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* '''Low replication rates''' — The fact that [http://lesswrong.com/lw/hie/problems_with_academia_and_the_rising_sea/ a large fraction of studies don't replicate] suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* '''Power law distribution of research contributions''' A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours plans to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T22:51:38Z

Jsinick: /* Earnings */

{{career option|biomedical research}}

== Summary ==

* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes [https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/27/what-weve-learned-about-graduate-students/ 6 to 7 years], during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-wages-of-a-life-science-ph-d-not-high/#.U0CIhK1dXGd reported] that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year ([http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf pg. 141]), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

[http://www.ehow.com/about_5526772_average-salary-biomedical-researchers.html According] to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]:

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source [http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/special-report/top-20-research-institute-salaries/2012-09-26 reports] that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* Diminishing returns — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* Low replication rates — The fact that large fraction of studies don't replicate suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* Power law distribution of research contributions A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours plans to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T22:49:15Z

Jsinick: /* Work-life balance */

{{career option|biomedical research}}

== Summary ==

* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who [http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2007/12/19/overrated-career-medical-scientist wrote]

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our section on job location options for academics in [[academia as a career option]].

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes 6 to 7 years, during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been reported that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year (pg. 141), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko wrote

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source reports that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* Diminishing returns — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* Low replication rates — The fact that large fraction of studies don't replicate suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* Power law distribution of research contributions A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours plans to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.

Biomedical research as a career option

2014-04-05T22:47:41Z

Jsinick: /* Job security */

{{career option|biomedical research}}

== Summary ==

* Some people find biomedical research very rewarding, but the job involves a lot of grant writing, not only research.
* Job security for biomedical researchers in academia is extremely poor before tenure. We still have to research exit options for those who leave academia.
* Biomedical researchers make substantially less money over a life time than they could in other fields.
* The job involves ~60 hours of work per week
* While biomedical research has historically produced a great deal of value, the situation today is more ambiguous, and it appears that the average biomedical researcher does little to advance the field.

== The nature of the work ==

According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685175/ How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge] by Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>for individuals with a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about how things work, science offers a constant challenge and, best of all, the intense thrill of discovery. What can match being the first person who has ever lived to know something new about nature? And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-making (or breaking) discoveries, but the small, incremental discoveries that occur on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t give you goosebumps and if you are not in a rush to get to the laboratory in the morning to find the results of yesterday’s experiment, then you should seriously consider a non-laboratory career.</blockquote>

However, research is not the only part of the job: Yewdell writes:

<blockquote>For your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants</blockquote>

This is in consonance with GiveWell's post [http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/ Exploring Life Science Funding] which says:

<blockquote>The existing system focuses on time-consuming, paperwork-heavy grant applications for individual investigators.</blockquote>

GiveWell's post also hints at researchers being constrained with respect to the research that they're able to get funding for:

<blockquote>The existing system favors a particular brand of research – generally incremental testing of particular hypotheses – and is less suited to supporting research that doesn’t fit into this mold. Research that doesn’t fit into this mold may include: (i) Very high-risk research representing a small chance of a big breakthrough. (ii) Research that focuses on developing improved tools and techniques (for example, better microscopy or better genome sequencing), rather than on directly investigating particular hypotheses. (iii) “Translational research” aiming to improve the transition between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, and not focused on traditionally “academic” topics (for example, research focusing on predicting drug toxicity).</blockquote>

== Job security ==

Our section on job security in [[academia as a career option]] gives some general considerations.

Concerning biomedical research specifically, [http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=757 The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?] reports that

<blockquote>During the period from 1993-2003, the probability that a postdoc in the U.S. was in a tenure-track PI position 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD ranged from 15-23% (Garrison and McGuire, 2007).</blockquote>

This [http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BMW-framework-2.jpg graphic] says that after finishing graduate school / postdoc, of biomedical research PhDs, 18% go into non-research science jobs, 6% go into government research, 43% go into academia or teaching, 18% go into industrial research, 13% do work outside of science and 2% are unemployed. Roughly 50% of those who complete a postdoc and go into academia get tenure, and the career outcomes for those who don't get tenure are unreported.

Some of the jobs that biomedical researchers get outside of academia are jobs that they could have gotten without doing a PhD or postdoc.

An important question is that of how correlated research ability is with job security. If luck plays a sufficiently large role then high ability doesn't guarantee a job, whereas if skill can overcome luck, then those who are skilled can be confident that they'll be able to get jobs. An [http://80000hours.org/blog/306-interview-with-leading-hiv-vaccine-researcher-prof-sir-andrew-mcmichael interview] with Prof. Andrew McMichael at the 80K blog seems to suggest that sufficiently high quality researchers can get jobs and funding. However, going into graduate school, one's ability level may not be clear.

It's unclear how job security is changing over time. In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://web.archive.org/web/20130201002315/http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs was expected to grow 36% over 10 years (much faster than average). But in 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/medical-scientists.htm reported] that the number of jobs is expected to grow 13% over 10 years, and in the intervening time the number of jobs had grown only 3%. So there appears to have been a substantial change in outlook in only two years. The job growth rate forecasts have to be viewed in juxtaposition with the expected change in number of new PhDs. According to [http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=49374 one source], the National Institutes of Health found that the number of new PhDs increased by 50% between 2002 and 2009. If this rate were to be sustained, the ratio of jobs to job candidates would decrease even more.

== Work-life balance ==

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>As a graduate student, you should be spending a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experiments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending seminars and journal club, talking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common laboratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associated activities.</blockquote>

This is corroborated by career coach Marty Nemko, who wrote

<blockquote>You spend most of your 60-to-70-hour workweek alone in a lab or at your desk, with little people contact.</blockquote>

Biomedical researchers who stay in academia are often constrained with respect to the geographic location where they can get jobs. See our writeup on job location options for academics.

== Earnings ==

Getting a PhD in a biomedical research field takes 6 to 7 years, during which one makes substantially less money than one could otherwise make. It's been reported that the average biology PhD had $45k in debt as of 2004.

Salaries rise afterward, but not rapidly: as of 2009, the starting salary for a postdoc was ~$37k/year (pg. 141), and postdoctoral appointments last 4 years.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

<blockquote>Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools are next in employment, and pay a mean wage of $61,320 per year. Completing the five areas with the most employment are Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing ($92,130), General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ($80,090) and Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ($93,090).</blockquote>

The "Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools" category includes postdocs: if one considers professors only, the figure will be more like $80k/year.

According to Yewdell (2009)

<blockquote>If you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far worse off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who chose other careers.</blockquote>

Career coach Marty Nemko wrote

<blockquote>According to MIT faculty member Philip Greenspun, Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States....</blockquote>

A small number of biomedical researchers command high salaries: for example, one source reports that there are 20 in the country with earnings at the $240k+ level.

Some sources report that biomedical researchers can become very wealthy if as early employees of successful biotech startups, but this is very rare.

== Social Value ==

Historically, a large fraction of increase in lifespan and quality of life has been due to biomedical research (e.g. vaccines). Yewdell (2009) wrote

<blockquote>Society desperately needs your talents [...] For rationally thinking people with an altruistic bent, life can be no more rewarding than when practising the scientific method for the benefit of all of the denizens of this fragile planet.</blockquote>

Some points to keep in mind in assessing the social value of biomedical research are

* Diminishing returns — Much of the increase in lifespan between 1950 and now was due to cardiovascular disease research, with the gains mostly halting by 1990. There have been significant advances in recent years, such as AIDS treatment drugs, statins, psychiatric drugs. But one should expect the increase in quality of life and lifespan per researcher to go down over time, because of low hanging fruit being plucked, barring radical advances coming from anti-aging research and unexpected sources.
* Low replication rates — The fact that large fraction of studies don't replicate suggesting that much research doesn't move science forward.
* Power law distribution of research contributions A small fraction of researchers produce 100x+ as much value as the average researcher. To the extent that success is driven by skill rather than luck, prospects for impact depend heavily on your ability.
80,000 Hours plans to publish an overview of biomedical research that will address the social value of going into biomedical research in more detail.

== See also ==

Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report (2012) by the National Institutes of Health.

How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge (2009) by Jonathan Yewdell.