Comments on: It’s All About the Benjamins

By: Maca

Maca — Thu, 03 May 2007 18:43:24 +0000

I’m curious as to why you said white straight men. Is there a demonstrable sexuality gap in the sciences?

By: GebÃ¤udereinigung

GebÃ¤udereinigung — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:55:26 +0000

Excuse me for being a nitpicker, but shouldn’t “an avocation” be “a vocation”?

By: Autoversicherung

Autoversicherung — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:25:28 +0000

I’m curious as to why you said white straight men. Is there a demonstrable sexuality gap in the sciences?

By: mollishka

mollishka — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:28:24 +0000

I'm sure you've seen it, Julianne, but this graph reminds me of this recent article on CNN.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:19:55 +0000

As a freshly minted physics Ph.D. working in the private sector for a large company I can say that in the short term my degree has not helped me from a financial perspective but in the long term it most definitely will, based on the experience of my colleagues. At my company, individuals who have a Ph.D. are typically promoted at a faster rate and to a higher level than workers who have a M.S. or B.S. as their ultimate degree. Therefore, if you average over the course of an entire career, the Ph.D. does net non-trivial financial gain. That being said, the main reason I took this job was because of the notorious two-body problem (Scientist Husband + Scientist Wife) and would gladly have gone to a post-doc if there was a university or research center in the vicinity that had adequate facilities and was compatible with my research interests.

By: The AstroDyke

The AstroDyke — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:12:45 +0000

… given the more generally more tolerant environment. Any of the better informed queer CV readership want to weigh in? It’s not a topic that’s gotten as much discussion as the more obvious women/minorities issues.

Is academia really more tolerant than corporatia?

A figure of merit for “tolerance” is policy, e.g: Is the same health coverage offered to domestic partners as to spouses? For the top institutions, the answer’s yes: 80% of the Fortune 50 companies have DP coverage, and 92% of the US News top 25 colleges. More broadly, only 51% of the Fortune 500, and only 64% of the US News 100 colleges offer DP benefits. Larger lists drop the percentages more. In addition, US government labs and observatories do not offer DP benefits. So from this measure, academia doesn’t clearly lead the corporate world.

(People often assume their institution has more progressive policies than it actually does. Readers can check & compare their institution’s equality policies here: tinyurl.com/3tda3)

DP benefits are just equal-pay-for-equal-work. If my straight colleague gets health coverage for his wife, and I can’t for my wife, then I’m getting paid less for the same work. Not to mention the financial & health insecurity of not having coverage. The lack of DP coverage makes it significantly harder for queer scientists to balance work & family.

Aside from policy, there’s “environment”. Personally, I’ve had a very positive experience as an out astrophysicist. Most of my colleagues have been swell. We talk about our families at morning coffee. They’ve written letters to city & university leaders, arguing for DP benefits. Aside from some faggot jokes, the environment has been great. What’s been difficult has been institutional policy.

(Numbers from the 2005 HRC State of the Workplace.)

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:01 +0000

As a math major, I’d like to point out a big point in that data – it lumps math, physics, CS and engineering degree holders in the same pool.

By: astro

astro — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:03:43 +0000

Yes, people with jobs in STEM fields may be paid better than average in the US. But that’s not a fair comparison group. And yes, there are huge opportunity costs to pursueing a PhD, postdocs, etc.

I am very much convinced that becoming a physicist (at least in academia) is not a wise choise from a purely financial perspecive. I did a brief stint in a computer science related internship and then consulting (back in the early 90s before the internet boom) before I had any degrees. Thireteen years later (including prestigous PhD and postdocs), I still am not compensated as well as I was back then. If your primary goal is to do well financially, then I would not becoming a physist in academia.

If you want to help females/minorities/WASP males to make lots of money, I think that there are much better suggestions you can give than studying physics!

I’d be interested to see a proper economic analysis (that considers costs, opportunity costs, inflation, income taxes, overtime, realistic vacation time, etc) of two career paths: 1) teaching high school straight out of undergrad (assume that you get a masters within a few years of teaching and do some paid work during most summers you’re not working towards a masters) versus 2) spending 6 or 7 year to get a physics/astronomy PhD, doing one or two postdocs, and then going into either a) academia or b) industry. Which career path comes out ahead (financially) by retirement age? Has anyone done such an exercise?

By: assman

assman — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:18:31 +0000

“if you major in physics and land a job in a technical field”

That is a pretty big ‘and’. What about the people who don’t land a job in a technical field?

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:20:10 +0000

“Any of the better informed queer CV readership want to weigh in?”

Equally, it would be good to hear from all those oppressed physicists who, like this gentleman, enjoy sexual intercourse with cars:

http://jalopnik.com/cars/weird-news/sex-with-wheels-british-mechanic-shags-cars-243094.php