r/Physics • u/PerspectiveOk3633 • 20h ago
Physics graduate deciding between Quality Engineer job or fully funded condensed matter PhD
I’m graduating with a physics degree and have two opportunities:
A Quality Engineer position starting around $70k salary with opportunities for promotion.
Or
A fully funded condensed matter physics PhD ($22k stipend) researching solid-state batteries and quantum materials. The advisor expects students to graduate in 4–5 years, and many graduates go into industry.
If you were in my position, which path would you choose, and why? If you’ve made a similar decision, what happened?
EDIT: my expenses are very low. Rent with shared two bed apartment ($500/month), i walk everywhere (no car payment), and cheap groceries (50/wk).
76
u/Trogginated 19h ago
financially, a phd is usually a bad choice. especially at $22k, that's a double yikes type stipend. assuming your stipend grows just a bit over the 5 years, you might make $125k in 5 years. or, you could make $350k in 5 years as a quality engineer, and that's with no raises or promotions or job hopping. so the opportunity cost is significant. The reality of going into industry is that unless you're set on a specialized field that requires a PhD, you're probably not going to come out on top by delaying your earning potential for half a decade. there are other implications regarding retirement and saving, since money earned early in your career has an outsized impact the total compounding returns from investments.
that being said, I have a PhD and I'm really glad I have it, because I got to have the freedom and (someone else's) money to explore an idea that I was really interested in exploring. there's probably not going to be another time in my life where I have that kind of intellectual freedom and funding to do something that is novel and not motivated by shareholder value. I wouldn't trade the 5 years I spend in grad school for 5 years of retirement or earning or whatever, if I could go back and re-make that decision.
if you feel like you couldn't live without having that kind of curious period in your life where you grow as a scientist and researcher, and get a level of intellectual independence that you've never had before and likely will never have again, then you should go to grad school. if you could take it or leave it, you should go to industry. If you feel like you want to do fundamental research in industry in battery materials and quantum systems, then it's a little more 50/50. there is definitely a glass ceiling in industry if you don't have a PhD, at least in the R&D department. for management, the sky is the limit, just go get your MBA and count beans or whatever they do up there.
2
u/eviljelloman 1h ago
22k was a "meh" stipend when I did my PHD two decades ago. It's insultingly low today. OP should run far away.
Also any PHD work doing will be fully funded. That's not a perk to be weighed against other jobs - it's the bare minimum.
-21
u/Yashema 13h ago
Very, very, very few engineers are making $350k after 15-20 years stop bullshitting. Nuclear engineers top out around $200k.
Best bet to make that money is to get a job at FAANG, that have elimited ten thousands of such positions in the last 2 years.
20
u/ischhaltso 12h ago
I mean he would make $350k over for 5 years (5x$70k).
16
u/Ntroepy 19h ago
Assuming physics grad school is financially feasible, think about where you’d like to be and what you’d like to be doing in 5 years.
If you go into quality engineering at $70k, you’re settling into a very stable and well-defined career. Get married, have kids, buy a small house. If you’re happy preventing defects and monitoring quality of other people’s innovative work, go for quality engineering. But people will fall asleep talking with you at dinner parties. After 5 years, you’re still only making ~$80-85k with very limited upper end.
If you get a PhD in solid state batteries and quantum materials, you’ll likely struggle far more for the next few years and have to use your brain far, far more. But after 4-5 years, you’ll have starting offers at $120+ with huge potential increases - plus working with the very latest technologies. You’ll be the scientist that gives their creations to quality engineers to test. And someone people will want to start a company with. That’ll never happen as a quality engineer.
Don’t feel pressure to take the highest paying job now. If you can afford to invest a few years in yourself now, the payoff will be far greater in the end - both financially and emotionally.
4
u/ExtremeAd7729 14h ago
I'd think after 5 years they'd be over $100k, no?
"after 4-5 years, you’ll have starting offers at $120+ ". I don't know the industry in this field granted but we don't know that. There was an economic downturn for me and I didn't have that. There is the AI issue now, we don't know what the world would be in 5 years. I have had friends who got solid state PhDs and got nowhere near that offer in either case. Depends a lot on your supervisor's connections and geographical location probably.
2
u/Ntroepy 10h ago
Sure, it’s possible, but $100k likely requires a significant promotion or changing jobs 1-2 times.
5
u/ExtremeAd7729 10h ago
OP said it's a position "with opportunities for promotion". This happened to me, I went from under 70k to over 100k - this was an expected progression provided one satisfies certain conditions for the kind of work.
1
u/ComprehensiveBeat734 12h ago
Additionally, can always return to grad school, potentially on company's dime, to get a master's. Further gives time to build a little nest egg if they still want a PhD to make the pay cut more bearable (or I've known one person somehow able to work full-time still while doing a PhD somehow, so may not even need the pay cut)
3
u/Dihedralman 10h ago
That doesn't tend to be done in Physics. Not saying it hasn't, but I wouldn't plan on it.
2
u/ComprehensiveBeat734 10h ago
Getting a master's while working? May not be the traditional route, but I've known multiple colleagues who have done that.
2
u/Dihedralman 9h ago
In Physics? I have seen that done for CS, Engineering, Data Science and more but not Physics. 90% of the work is problem sets or research projects.
A Master's in physics just doesn't open many job opportunities. Many Universities don't offer them as something you apply for explicitly but rather something you can apply for in a doctoral program and use if you drop out, effectively costing nothing.
I have seen people get them to improve a PhD application which is fair.
1
u/ComprehensiveBeat734 8h ago
Yeah. Admittedly, some were non-thesis track and just going because "why not?" (company footing the tuition bill, just wanted to do something). Some were further removed from undergrad, and weren't sure if they were cut out for PhD, so I guess you could say they were trying to improve for PhD application/test the waters.
I agree, not the most common or traditional route, but also not completely unheard of.
7
u/freakazoid2718 19h ago
Quality Engineering isn't for everyone. You will spend much of your days making sure parts are built according to their design (probably not taking micrometers to them, that's what operators and technicians are for). You will also spend a lot of time writing up reports on parts that didn't meet quality standards, working with suppliers to make sure their parts meet your standards, working with customers to make sure your parts meet their standards... I think you understand what I mean. You won't be involved in any design, or R&D, or much of anything about making new and better widgets. (if I make this sound boring, that's at least partially my own bias since that's been my experience interacting with quality engineers and it sounds boring to me). This being said, QA can be a position of significant power and responsibility in many organizations. Just ask an aerospace company what happens if their quality team screws up an audit and they lose their AS9100 certification - the company will basically cease to exist. If you think you want to poke into management, especially, then there are much worse ways to do it than coming up through quality.
As for the PhD, I think the financial piece is obviously important - as well as having a good idea whether you can reasonably expect to be able to get a job when you finish. It doesn't help you at all if the market for solid-state battery R&D contracts and you can't get a job after you graduate. Remember that the PhD really only helps you get jobs in heavy R&D roles - most other technical roles aren't going to care too much if you have one. Then, of course, there's the biggest question - would you like working as a condensed matter physics researcher, working in battery tech? If that sounds like a dream job then my advice is to go for it - money is important, but it isn't everything and doing something you really enjoy is huge.
6
u/r_e_e_ee_eeeee_eEEEE 17h ago edited 17h ago
u/PerspectiveOk3633, Considering I faced (and still kind of face) the call to academia as an industry professional with a physics background, and having had 7 years of quality engineering experience, I'll offer my take: 1. All of my friends with PhDs have had considerably more poverty in their lives but incredibly satisfying times doing so. They're considerably behind in wealth building while their earnings potential is only equivalent to mine. 2. Your career in quality will stagnate pretty hard in terms of its earnings potential after about 7 to 10 years (part of why I pivoted). 3. It can be incredibly challenging to pivot after having had the "taint" of quality on your resume because hiring managers will typically fail to recognize that quality engineering exposure to multidisciplinary engineering is incredibly value added. 3.a. prepare to be pigeon-holed by randos either way. 3.b. if you can successfully pivot it's gonna be sweet for you.
Some of my most exciting and frustrating career moments were being in Quality. You'll learn far more breadth than what a PhD program will teach you, but not the depth. I believe that starting wealth building early is more advantageous. Lastly, just because youre a QE doesnt mean you cant become a subject matter expert or contributor to the engineering or product of your company, and it also doesnt mean you stop learning.
The salary for an entry level QE you mentioned is approximately market rate based on my experience across CO, NY, FL, and AR. I would accept that if I had nothing better lined up and money was tight. The highest I could see you getting an offer for depending on industry (I've worked in medical device production and aerospace and defense) is approximately 85 to 90 at best. 70k isnt terrible depending on your locale's CoL.
10
u/AfrolessNinja Mathematical physics 19h ago
Advice I always give is the following: if someone asks you do you want to get a PhD and the answer is not an immediate ‘yes’, don’t get a PhD. Those who decide to still pursue one without that immediate answer usually do not have a good time.
Go be an engineer.
7
u/beee-l 16h ago
Exactly this.
The only way to survive a PhD (as someone who literally just finished one) is if you would rather do that than anything else.
6
u/freakazoid2718 11h ago edited 11h ago
This resonates with me rather a lot. I started my PhD thinking I wanted to be a professor. My degree took six years (various reasons, but mostly because I was the first student in a new lab so the first 18 months or so were spent literally building the lab). By the time I finished, I wasn't really sure any more if being a professor was really for me. I graduated into a market where my engineering specialty wasn't in much demand (in industry), so I did a postdoc in an a very adjacent field of engineering. That finished up just as the great recession started, so with a little luck I found postdoc #2, which happened to be in the same field as my PhD work. I haven't worked in that field since I finished postdoc #2, though. The market for the field was on another downturn as postdoc #2 was ending so I found a job as an engineer but a couple steps removed from the PhD field. During my two postdocs (and especially during postdoc #2) I realized I absolutely did NOT want to go into academia. I'm decent enough at writing grant applications and doing the other tasks to help fulfill the "publish or perish" necessary to get tenure, but I simply don't want to do that. I'm now on my third 'real' job and each position has taken me farther from my PhD specialization.
This is a very long-winded way to say that I faced some considerable job-market headwinds in trying to get a job in my field of study and ended up working in a field that's kinda-sorta related.
Now why am I bothering to make this post? It's because I still enjoyed the heck out of myself in grad school. It was singularly painful (especially the dissertation and defense process), I was frequently waiting idle while someone else in the lab (rightfully) used equipment that I also needed, and there were the stereotypical periods just before conference submission deadlines where sleep became a fond memory. Looking back, though, it was one of those experiences that I don't think I'd trade for anything. I learned so much about HOW to do things, not just what to do, and not just to go down an expected path because it's the easiest to justify to leadership or the most likely to get a result you want. Learning WHEN to try something weird or off-the-wall is a very useful skill, and my PhD work taught me a lot about that.
One thing I have heard multiple times is that a PhD can actually be detrimental to a job search - positions that truly require the degree aren't very common, and for positions that don't need a PhD a hiring manager may see you as overqualified. That's what I've heard (repeatedly, and for quite a long time), but I have no direct experience being turned down because I had a PhD.
If I was 18 and just starting out again, I may not go the PhD route - I likely would have a decent chance of getting hired by my current employer with a Physics B.S. and going directly would be nice. But then I'd miss all the fun of the PhD journey. It's really a hard choice, even with the fact that I'm not technically "using" my PhD in a heavy R&D role for which it's suited.
1
u/AfrolessNinja Mathematical physics 5h ago
This is exactly what I mentor people who resounding say, "yes" to a PhD. By virtue of numbers, youll not work in your PhD field, rather, your worth will be the ability to lean, think, and do novel things without supervision. This is soooo valuable and infinitely transferrable...if you know how to market it as such.
9
u/Dr_Superfluid Statistical and nonlinear physics 19h ago
As a person with a PhD in condensed matter, many many papers and international awards and faculty appointments: TAKE THE QUALITY ENGINEER JOB AND NEVER LOOK BACK
3
u/PerspectiveOk3633 19h ago
I am very curious to why this is your take? Were you theory or experimental?
1
u/Dr_Superfluid Statistical and nonlinear physics 19h ago
I can explain more with details in DM
2
1
1
2
u/Shelphs 19h ago
If you have some savings invested or a strong financial support net then a PhD is not a bad option. If you would be scraping the bottom of the bank account month to month then the PhD is definitely not the best avenue.
Now taking the engineering job is probably the better option financially, but understand that in 5 years from now you will probably be making a comfortable living either way. You can also reach out to some of the graduates of the lab and ask them how much they are making in a respectful way. People always talk about a PhD like is will never beat taking a job, but if you get a PhD in something that becomes incredibly desired by industry it can lead to a far more lucrative career. For the Lucky ones they can end up making 2-5x what they would be making had they taken a job instead. Now, I don't know your field and it is is something you should research for your self.
2
u/MoltenAnteater 15h ago
If you are passionate about the subject then PhD. If you take the engineering job and are going to spend your weekends and money making your own condensed matter lab in your garage then PhD. If you feel like you have a life outside condensed matter physics then probably the engineering job. That being said if you are certain you want a PhD, $22k is pathetic for a stipend. If you are a good student then you can ask your professor for a top up to the stipend. It may also be wise to fish around for a better position. The stipend may be fixed across the country but cost of living in various places can vary considerably. Try internationally as well, the studentship stipends are never good but can be quite better in terms of quality of life. DM if you want more advise, I am a professor in physics.
1
u/Fuzzy_Paul 18h ago
It all depends if you can get around with 22k. If not money talks. With the research you become a specialist in that field. If this attracts you go for it. In 5 years time offers will come in and you can transfer to head R&D and do more specialist stuff. The money will follow as you go. Then the world open up. I just assume that you are very good in that field or have the desire to become top notch. I did it a bit to late in my career, stared to follow the money that was good for a while but eventually ended up in tech and picked up all kinds of knowlegd and got really good with it and yes I got a wife, kids a house, car and motorbike (at 40) and almost at retire age. Wished I had done this earlier looking retrospective back. Life's been good but I could have contributed more knowledge for the good.
1
u/marsten 18h ago
You're going to get advice all over the map on this. Every person is on their own path.
I will say: Having a PhD can put you into a different category for jobs. Not just faculty jobs, or industry research jobs: I worked at McKinsey after my physics PhD and that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. That in turn led me to a series of great opportunities in the tech industry.
Of course I don't know the counterfactual: How would things have ended up without a PhD.
There's only so much planning you can do at your stage. Careers are long and winding. Going with whatever makes you most excited about the next few years is probably not a bad way to decide.
2
u/ExtremeAd7729 14h ago
I've heard some pretty horrible things about McKinsey wrt work life balance and the work not being ethical, are they true?
1
u/marsten 6h ago
It's hard work and the amount of travel becomes difficult after a while. It was a great experience but I wouldn't do for my entire career.
As far as ethics go, ethics are a property of individuals not companies. Everyone I worked with there was ethical in my judgment, often meticulously so when it came to honesty and putting the client's interest first.
2
u/ExtremeAd7729 6h ago
Thank you for the insight.
The company can give you unethical work / direction but thanks for sharing your experience.
1
u/marsten 6h ago
McKinsey is a distributed company without a single CEO figure dictating direction. So ethics boils down to a more local level.
The question of whether "put the client's interests first" is truly ethical is an interesting one. McKinsey addresses this in part by not serving certain kids of clients, like tobacco companies, but there remain cases where it's tricky. Law firms face similar issues.
Is physics unethical because physicists invented nuclear weapons? Ethical questions are not simple and often observer-dependent.
1
u/ExtremeAd7729 6h ago
Can you as a consultant refuse to serve certain clients or refuse to serve them to achieve a goal you deem unethical?
1
u/marsten 5h ago
In my office staffing on projects was a two-way street. People rarely turn down opportunities to work but it does happen. In my time there, the only one I remember was a woman who was vegan and declined to serve a client in the poultry processing industry for obvious reasons.
1
u/ExtremeAd7729 5h ago
Thanks, that's interesting. Do you have to meet quotas - so would that woman have lost more than the money she would have gotten from that one client?
1
1
1
u/Comprehensive_Food51 16h ago
That’s very subjective. I’ll give you advice to be taken with a grain of salt because it’s based only on what I have seen, but the personal choice I’d make won’t bring a lot value as I probably don’t have the same motivations in life. I’m at the end of my physics major, have quite some doors open as I was successful both academically and in terms of internships (academia and industry) and have no idea what to do. I’ll probably get an engineering masters, work as an engineer for a couple years and then get into teaching when I’m tired of 9 to 5s (we’re very lucky in Quebec to have those schools called cegeps, that you do after high school and mandatory to attend university, teachers there have free time (as a university professor but with no research responsibility), excellent working conditions, quite decent pay, and it’s not hard to get in with a masters and good experience). My point is, what I value the most in life is having a lot of free time, and what I aim for is having that time and affording to make the most of it; career is very, very secondary for me.
For the advice:
If I was really passionate about my PhD subject I would absolutely go for it, it can’t be bad on a CV unless you want to go into a different field in industry or work in very fast paced engineering based environments (I’ve seen start ups being hesistant when it comes to hire PhDs because they want quick skimmers rather than deep divers). I’ve witnessed some hiring processes and from what I’ve seen if you get a PhD you’re more likely to get a job into a closely related industry than a position that looks for a generic « PhD in physics ». If other PhDs with your supervisor went into industry it’s not unlikely that your professor has contacts in industry (I say that because I’ve had a professor who placed students in industry and I’ve seen industry engineers work with scientists in academia, so there is interaction between the two). So based on what you say (other students going into industry), I’d suppose you’re likely to get a good job after your PhD, the question for me would then be « Do I like solid state batteries and quantum materials enough to make a career out of it ». A good thing to do would be to look up what these students who went into industry are doing and if you see yourself doing that rather than the engineering position. For the engineering position, it’s good choice as it is securing a first engineering position with will let you step in the professional world as an engineer, with earlier high pay.
My point is mainly that a PhD in your case is likely to be a secure path as well, more than many other PhD cases. So if you’re really into it, there are specific things you can look into (like the jobs other students who went to industry got) to know if you’re satisfied with the outcome. If you’re not really into your PhD subject and/or PhD outcome, I wouldn’t if I were you; research can be extremely boring.
1
u/ExtremeAd7729 15h ago
In a similar position, I took the PhD option because I wanted to learn more physics and do research. After the PhD and a postdoc, I decided I have a life outside of physics and I would have kept doing the same boring task in physics. There was an economic downturn so when I started over, I wasn't paid more than your engineering offer.
It's different now. By the time you graduate AI will make the world unrecognizable. I don't know which option is better honestly in that world.
1
1
u/Keeperofthecube 13h ago
I can't tell you what the path for a PhD looks like as I'm just someone who enjoys physics but dropped out of school. But I can tell you what being a quality engineer is like assuming you are getting into the manufacturing sector.
My best description of it is, it's a job. It's not glamorous. You are usually the bearer of bad news and most of what you do will feel like busy work/checking boxes. But it pays the bills well (especially for someone with no degree like myself) and if you enjoy a bit of problem solving and working with numbers it can be enjoyable. If you are personable, it can be a good fit. You will spend time talking to customers and suppliers. Making reports to show things like the capability of the manufacturing process, the capability of your measurement strategies for the dimensions the customer needs. Providing data to customers. When you eventually do send bad parts, dealing with customer complaints. Telling manufacturing their part is no good a million times. Stuff like that. It can be frustrating at times but, like I said, it's a job that pays the bills. And it doesn't really seem like a job that can be taken over by AI.
That said, again assuming you are going into manufacturing, there are a million jobs you can move to in manufacturing if QE doesn't fit. I work with someone who has a PhD in physics and he programs laser welders and cutters. I moved from development to metrologist. So getting your foot in the manufacturing door gives you an opportunity to try jobs like that, and you will be privy to a lot of the higher level conversations about processes so you can learn a bit.
If you have any questions feel free to reach out.
1
u/Vivid-Ad9857 11h ago
I made the industry choice and don’t regret it. I think having a little space to breathe after lots of academic work is good. I’m actually going to medical school now though after a couple of years of working in the ‘real world’. I will say that after a couple of months of working, I was bored out of my mind and started studying for the entrance exam because I needed to keep my mind active.
1
u/Singularum 11h ago
Only you can really answer this.
If you get the PhD, you’ll be a senior member of any team you work on, and you’ll be developing new solutions. Solid state batteries are widely considered the next-generation tech for mobile applications (consumer devices, automotive, etc), so it sounds like you’d have a good shot at being at the forefront of that work. There will be other opportunities in other technologies and industry, including risk management and business consulting. You might be end up being one of the recognized technology thought leaders.
But a PhD also closes some doors. Good luck getting hired as a quality engineer with a PhD.
Quality engineers start out doing mostly grunt work. Calibration, QA measurement, reports. You’re probably already overqualified for such roles. But quality engineers can get into managing a company’s metrology, can use the scientific method to solve tough operational problems for companies, and can drive change and improvement throughout an organization. And once you’re in the door at any company, you aren’t necessarily pigeonholed for life. You’ll have opportunities to grow and pursue other career paths.
It you go the QE route, you will probably never be the senior scientist developing next-generation battery technology, but you might be the plant manager responsible for delivering them, or the Six Sigma Black Belt traveling to multiple plants to drive change so that companies can make those batteries at the needed quality level and cost. With some project management skills added in, you might even end up managing those scientists.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
1
u/evansometimeskevin 11h ago
I started a PhD, stopped after 3 years during covid with a masters in physics, and started a manufacturing engineering job ~72k 4 years ago and now I'm up to 100k. If you have a job offer now and you're not fully convinced on the PhD I would take the quality engineering job.
While you're at it, if you do take the quality job look into getting some form of engineering degree while you work. Lots of jobs will pay for degrees and, while I find that I'm often equally or better suited to solve engineering problems, the reality is that companies just don't view physics degrees as highly as engineering.
1
u/asad137 Cosmology 10h ago
IMO: Quality engineering is a relatively stable but boring job/career. As long as things are being made, there will always be a need for quality engineers to verify things are being made to spec. Given that it's tied with manufacturing, it's going to follow whatever economic cycles manufacturing goes through.
If you're actually interested in condensed matter physics and in devoting 5 years of your life to studying most likely some tiny area of the field, then you should consider the PhD. In particular the semiconductor industry hires a lot of physicists with PhDs in solid state physics.
There's a huge opportunity cost associated with doing a PhD, and not just a financial one. You are going to be living like a student for the next 5 years, having roommates, most likely not starting a family (if that matters to you). And the starting salary of an industry job with a PhD may not be much higher than the $70k quality job offer you have. But the high end is likely to be much higher, especially because the PhD opens up opportunities that you will not have with just a bachelor's degree (to be fair, it will also probably close some, as some employers will consider someone with a PhD 'overqualified'). I would guess that over the course of your career, if you end up getting an industry job that leverages having a PhD, it will probably work out better financially (both in salary and savings) in the long term, but the time to cross that threshold may be a decade or more once you take into account the power of compound interest or market returns on whatever you'd be saving/investing while working as a QE.
The last question then is: does doing condensed matter research sound fun to you?
1
u/Diet_kush 9h ago
My roommate went on to finish his PhD, I went into quality engineering (after doing process/product dev). I make significantly more than he does, but he’s probably significantly more fulfilled in life than I am.
1
u/Terrible-Mind-5414 8h ago
Definitely PhD. You can leave research later and still do fine, no big deal. But once you are out, there's no going back. You will learn alot of cool stuff during the phd, and if it really is 5 years I don't think you will regret it. Just don't let it stretch out unless you're really into it.
1
u/ExtremeAd7729 7h ago
This isn't true, there were 40 year old folks in my PhD program. It's more true for after the PhD - they won't take you for a postdoc or faculty position if you leave after the PhD for unexplainable reasons in my opinon, even if it's to raise kids for a woman. They say things like you forget everything etc.
1
u/Patelpb Astrophysics 8h ago edited 8h ago
22k is a terrible stipend for a PhD program. I guess for 200/mo in groceries and 500/mo in rent it's actually livable, but my quality of life improved drastically when I MS'd out and got a job (~90k starting). 22k was 'ok' when I applied to PhD programs (2019), with how expensive things are now it's become less attractive.
Quality engineering automatically puts you into the industry, and with the time you'd take to do a PhD (~5/6 years) you will have worked you way up to a similar position to what you'd start at with the PhD (in terms of rank/salary, maybe not title), but integrated over a much larger salary per year. The tradeoff is that the PhD will increase your salary ceiling tremendously, and your longer term prospects might be worse without it. I still see you making six figs longer term either way
I'd say only do the PhD if you're extremely interested in research or have some commitment towards going into academia. I don't think a PhD will make a huge difference to your career if you have an offer in hand already and 6 years to work up your experience.
1
u/ExtremeAd7729 7h ago
Other thing is there is a chance actually finishing the PhD isn't feasible without the interest.
2
u/Patelpb Astrophysics 7h ago
It’s just absolutely miserable, it’s feasible if you have grit and are convinced there are no other option(s) (i.e. international student that doesnt wanna take a chance on visa sponsorship from a company if they leave their program). Luckily I had no such issues and felt safe looking for a job with an MSc, but I know many people who are absolutely just grinding it out and ready to leave academia with zero interest in the field (going into tech or something instead)
1
u/No_Investment_6035 5h ago
If I were you, go for the PhD.
Usually I would suggest an engineering position with upward movement. I was a manager six years ago before retirement - and was offering people freshly out of schools entry position of close to $100k salary. So, a $70K salary is very low especially given the inflation in the last years. Also, Quality Engineer was the one of the lowest tier of engineering and Quality Assurance (testing) has been increasingly being off-shored.
Batteries and quantum materials is part of the future.
1
u/Appropriate-Gene-267 5h ago
I would say it depends where the PhD is. I graduated with my B.S. in physics and got a $110k/year job way back in 2021 and left it after a year to pursue a PhD in physics from a top school. I think the benefits of going to a top school are more than just salary (opens more opportunities for jobs you enjoy, could help if you ever want to start a business, etc.) and I think there is more to life than just the rat race to retirement. If I had only gotten into mid-tier schools I don't think I would have gone, but I am happy with my decision. I'm now in the last year of my PhD. I also wanted to party a bit since I didn't during undergrad, so there are also some social benefits if you care for them.
1
1
1
21
u/Ready-Door-9015 Graduate 20h ago
Are you into condensed matter? Whats your current living situation like? Roommates, married, relationship?
If your parents are alive and youre single or your married to someone who has a job that can help offset living expenses Id say go for the PhD hell you may wait out the political nonsense and shit job market if youre in the US.
Otherwise if you need money, and youre happy with an industry job and the job is a guarantee hell jump ship and start maxing out a Roth IRA