Proffessional astronomers?

[badgers]

Pure science careers are not for the faint hearted. I'm a biologist but work with physicists, chemists and mathematicians.

Only 20% of my graduating class in Biology (Genetics) stayed in science.

Of those 20%, about 90% completed a Ph.D.

Of the remaining people about half stayed to do post-doctoral research after their Ph.D.

Of the ones that went to post-doctoral research only around 20% end up running a laboratory.

This is biology of course, which is well funded by medical agencies and charities. The situation is perhaps tougher in the physical and chemical sciences.

The attrition rate from Bachelors degree to Professor/Lecturer is about 100 bachelors producing 3-4 lecturers/professors.

There is also academic discrimination, if you've not had your big scientific breakthrough as a postdoc by the age of 35 or so, it gets harder and harder to secure an independent research post and you can get stuck in a 'post-doc trap'.

On the other hand the higher up the academic ladder you get, usually the better job you can get outside research science when you exit.

For a while, we had head-hunters from the City poaching our most promising students for Analyst positions. Our postdocs tend to get great jobs in Industry after a few years experience. And as others have said, Science communication and outreach is very important these days and these can be really rewarding jobs, explaining science to the community.

Even given all the problems and the fact that the lower part of the ladder is pretty poorly paid considering people's education, I still love having a career in research science.

Every day I am happy to come into the lab and discuss ideas, theories and results with other interested people who love what they do.

It's very true that 'professional research astronomers' will likely not go near telescopes very often. These are the means for acquiring the data they need and there are need to be run by competent engineers and technical staff. It's the same in Biology now, all the data for Genome Projects is coming off very expensive machines and robots loaded and prepped by technicians, we're not allowed anywhere near the machines that produce our data.

My wife works with Theoretical Physicists and Cosmologists doing outreach and she loves it. But I can promise you, I'd never let any of those guys near my telescope.

Some of the more brilliant ones seem to live in a world of pure mathematics and the real world around them seems to confuse them

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have an MSc in Astronomy (indeed mostly maths and physics). I got hooked on image processing, and did a PhD in Computer Science. I am now senior lecturer in computer science, and work with professional astronomers on large image processing and visualisation problems (apart from all sorts of other cool stuff;)). In any field of science, very few graduates end up in academia (like I did) and fewer still end up where they thought they would (I for one didn't). The only thing you can do is follow your own heart. If you are commited to astronomy at this point in time, and enjoy physics and maths, by all means go for it! Even if you do not end up in astronomy, the training you will get will allow you to learn many other skills. This is the most important thing you learn at university: learning skills, the ability to teach yourself new things, and to grapple with very tough (and abstract) problems. There are many places where such skills are needed. I have not regretted studying astronomy, and enjoy my current work very much.

[Folkert]

This question has opened up a great thread, very interesting reading! I would like to add still something. I read from many of you that astronomy is all about mathematics. This could be related to the fact that most of you are in the UK, which has a very strong theoretical tradition, especially in Cambridge. I have several friends who are professional astronomers, and they do astronomy. They lived on Gran Canaria, Chili, North Italy, and now in the Netherlands, where they work at Westerbork radio observatory. Yes, a lot of software work, developing models, realising them in code with programmers, implementing, testing, trying out on the big equipment. So very much a combination of theory, implementation and actual observations.

Also here at the University of Turku, Department of Astronomy, I see a lot of work that is not pure higher mathematics a la Penrose.

Michael, as you work in Groningen you can probably confirm my observations.

Then lastly: I would support the remark above that you should follow your heart. Study what thrills you, no matter if the job prospects are good in that particular area. And then: if you really want to work in the area, just stick around, and don't go for one of the better paying jobs in industry (which I did, and sometimes regret).

* Folkert/

[KevUU]

Later this year I have my first launch, which will be scary and exciting at the same time.

Good luck with that. I'll await my invite to the launch :-)

Hah - I wish. It's somewhere in Russia but I'll be watching from a conference room in our offices on a trading estate in Bristol. ESA do live web broadcasts of these things (I'll post a link nearer the time - which incidentally may be into next year by the sounds of it...). I suppose if I'm lucky I may end up at ESOC (European Space Operations Centre) I guess but actually on balance I think I'd prefer to be with my team anyway. So no launch tickets to give away I'm afraid!

[Peter Drew]

Well, this is all very "heady" stuff. In support of us "lesser" mortals, I was always very interested in astronomy as a youngster but having scraped through 5 "O" levels any ambition to be a professional astronomer was light years away. I did however, do an engineering apprenticeship and eventually became a professional telescope maker for 35 years during which I designed, built and field tested hundreds of telescopes of most types up to 30" aperture. I'm now retired but am responsibe for the running of a large observatory complex. So although I've never been a professional astronomer I've certainly been professionally involved, proving that avenues are open to making a living from an astronomical interest.

[George Jones]

I am not a professional astronomer, but I have worked with professional astronomers. All of the professional astronomers with whom I have worked are/were professors of physics, but there may be other paths into professional astronomy.

Pure science careers are not for the faint hearted.

Most people that get jobs in physics end up in jobs in which physics is not directly used. IT and finance are two of the big areas.

Many years ago, I got Ph.D. in theoretical physics. When I wrote the above, I was starting to feel somel stress, as I had only a week left in contract as an assistant professor (I was a replacement for a prof who took a sabbatical), and I am an old guy with a young daughter. I have taught lecture courses (around 30 different courses) and labs in physics, engineering, and maths at five universities in Canada and two universities in the U.S.

In the winter, spring and summer of 2012, I applied for physics and maths jobs all across Canada, and I got three interviews for physics university positions.

Interview 1) June 4th; a 12-month position, with good possibility for at least a 3-year renewal, assistant professor position at a very small university. Received a nice, sympathetic rejection email on June 14th.

Interview 2) July 6th; a 3-year lecturer position at a top Canadian research university with the possibility of renewal. I was one of three people that were interviewed. I didn't get the position, but didn't get any notification telling me this.

At this point, I was extremely stressed.

Interview 3) July 31st; a permanent position as senior lab instructor with the small university at which I had just finished the assistant professor position. Even though I was already at this university, the job advert called for "an experimental physicist", my background is in theoretical relativity, and six people were interviewed. More stress.

About a month ago, I found out that I got the this last position. It has been an interesting, but stressful, journey of many years and much relocation from my Ph.D. to where I am now.

[badgers]

I think this thread is getting a but hung up on classifications, I'd certainly call anyone making a living from Astronomy a 'Professional Astronomer' whether they be theoreticians, technicians, engineers, software engineers etc. etc. etc.

It also seems clear that it's not easy to get into this field and whatever route you take, you'd face challenges... But it's worth it right to do something you love ?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I think this thread is getting a but hung up on classifications, I'd certainly call anyone making a living from Astronomy a 'Professional Astronomer' whether they be theoreticians, technicians, engineers, software engineers etc. etc. etc.

It also seems clear that it's not easy to get into this field and whatever route you take, you'd face challenges... But it's worth it right to do something you love ?

It's all a matter of definition. I like simply calling myself a scientist, as my publications range from theoretical biology, through image analysed microscopy and microbiology, through a large dose of computer vision to astronomy. Being a scientist has a lot of uncertainty in the beginning. I spent far too many years on temporary contracts before getting any real job security. To me, it is worth it doing something you love

[KevUU]

I think this thread is getting a but hung up on classifications, I'd certainly call anyone making a living from Astronomy a 'Professional Astronomer' whether they be theoreticians, technicians, engineers, software engineers etc. etc. etc.

It also seems clear that it's not easy to get into this field and whatever route you take, you'd face challenges... But it's worth it right to do something you love ?

Yes indeed. I also think there's a lot of pressure to decide "what are you going to do with your life?" especially as you leave school. Certainly you should consider the options, and recognise if something isn't going to get you anywhere. But it's not like the decision you make now will determine the rest of your life once and for all. What do you want to do now? Right now, what is the most interesting or attractive or fun option? Obviously there're limitations and considerations, but I don't think it's right to pressure people the way that seems to happen now. Go do what you want to do. It may lead nowhere, or it may open up other doors and lead onto better things.

I realise it's not that simple, and I do count myself lucky that I was able to do what I found interesting at uni, work through a few jobs following one thing to another, and now here I am working in the space industry without any conscious intent or plan on my part.

My point is, if I had set out to do this I don't know what would have happened but I'm sure the route and the destination would have been rather different. I'm not saying better or worse because how could I know, but very different. As it was I made my choices as and when they arose and happened across something I'd always been interested in but had never considered as a career.

I think I worry that having a specific endpoint in mind would prevent you from enjoying the journey, and put on artificial pressure to achieve certain things, possibly to the detriment of the experiences you have along the way.

(Sorry, that made more sense in my head...)

[ollypenrice]

A propos astronomers in observatoiries, there's a great line in a book I read about the working life of the Palomar; '...so tonight the man in charge of the most powerful telescope on Earth used to be a barber in San Antonio, Texas - because no one in their right mind would leave an astronomer in charge of a telescope...'

It still makes me chuckle out loud.

Olly

[nytecam]

I am not a professional astronomer, but I have worked with professional astronomers. All of the professional astronomers with whom I have worked are/were professors of physics, but there may be other paths into professional astronomy. For a year, I had an office across the hall from a professional astronomer with whom I was very friendly. His advice: "Get a B.Sc. in physics, and then do a Ph.D. in Astronomy/Astrophysics." He had professional observing sessions at telescopes in various parts of the world. My experience is in North America and strictly within the academic world. Others here may have advice on other paths.

That sounds spot-on for pro requirements - however the total number of pro astronomers worldwide actually working in research is quite small with many going into media to satisfy public interest which is not the same thing

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

A propos astronomers in observatoiries, there's a great line in a book I read about the working life of the Palomar; '...so tonight the man in charge of the most powerful telescope on Earth used to be a barber in San Antonio, Texas - because no one in their right mind would leave an astronomer in charge of a telescope...'

It still makes me chuckle out loud.

Olly

Mostly this is true. Most professional astronomers could not point out any constellation more obscure than Ursa Major (Orion is already a stretch). Sad, but true