The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Melthusa
Physics, Oxford.


You say you'll be starting at 40k, according to these it's closer to 25 / 28

https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/study-here/undergraduates/applications/international-students

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjects/Overview/10007774-F300/ReturnTo/Search

What is your source? What reason do you have to think it will go up to 120k in 10 years? Seems pretty optimistic for a scientist
Right now I'm in a job earning just under £16,000 a year, however it's not a job I actually need qualifications for and it's fine for now, I get by. But when I get my graduate job, I'd be really happy with £30,000 a year.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 122
Original post by Tuerin
You say you'll be starting at 40k, according to these it's closer to 25 / 28

https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/study-here/undergraduates/applications/international-students

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjects/Overview/10007774-F300/ReturnTo/Search

What is your source? What reason do you have to think it will go up to 120k in 10 years? Seems pretty optimistic for a scientist


I'm not doing the 3 year course, I'm on the 4 year course. The Cherwell (oxford newspaper) did a page on it, and showed that male undergraduates earned alot more than their female counterparts. I think the top earning degree there was matsci, who started around 45k.
Original post by Melthusa
I'm not doing the 3 year course, I'm on the 4 year course. The Cherwell (oxford newspaper) did a page on it, and showed that male undergraduates earned alot more than their female counterparts. I think the top earning degree there was matsci, who started around 45k.


The 4 year course is 1k difference to the 3 year one (bad investment much?), according to Unistats, the independent and comphrenesive undergraduate course statistics profiling.

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjects/Overview/10007774-F303/ReturnTo/Search

Do you actually have any source you can direct us to? A link, please. I am extremely sceptical that a physics graduate can expect to earn an average of 120k after 10 years.
Reply 124
Original post by Tuerin
The 4 year course is 1k difference to the 3 year one (bad investment much?), according to Unistats, the independent and comphrenesive undergraduate course statistics profiling.

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjects/Overview/10007774-F303/ReturnTo/Search

Do you actually have any source you can direct us to? A link, please. I am extremely sceptical that a physics graduate can expect to earn an average of 120k after 10 years.


What degrees would you say would lead to 120k then?
Reply 125
Original post by peaspod
If you are hard working and have a masters then it is not impossible to achieve a lab managers position, which I would intend on doing.
I'm a microbiologist, I work part time in clinical micro and part time in the clinical research lab. After more experience I could even apply to complete my FRCPath and then apply for consultancy positions or go down the PhD, whilst working. There are lots of options but the band system of the NHS means it takes a long time to progress, salary wise.

You say I know more about it than you do.....what do you do?


What do I do? Lol, I'm just an a-level student with a saturday job :smile:

If my next set of exams go to plan, I'll begin a degree in medicine. That's why I was saying that you must know more about these things than I do, I've only read around.
Reply 126
Original post by Melthusa
What degrees would you say would lead to 120k then?


Well degrees themselves don't really lead to 120k salaries. You progress through your chosen field, and then you might get there. Careers in investment banking/finance/law might do, or of course you could be self-employed and own a successful business?
Reply 127
Original post by Hazwaz7


Teachers don't do it for the money, they do it for the love :wink:


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I'm sure 13 weeks holiday helps.
Reply 128
I'd quite like a £200k+ charity gig in NY like David Miliband.
Original post by Melthusa
What degrees would you say would lead to 120k then?


Any degree can potentially lead to 120k+. Many people don't even have degrees and are billionaires. No degree, excepting perhaps the medicines, but definitely not physics, arms graduates with the concrete prospect of earning an average of 120k 10 years after graduation. Among the better paid degrees are probably law, economics, engineering, medicine, maths and related subjects. Arts degrees like English can ultimately be applied to lucrative careers in law, PR, politics etc. The point is, resist making up facts and figures.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 130
25k to start with. in a few years 40k to 60k
Reply 131
Enough to get me through life and support anyone who is dependent on me in the future :smile:
I'm not really bothered about my wage, More bothered about being successful in my career, as long as I'm 'comfortable' after working up in my career, I think I would be very comfortable at 50-60K (I've been brought up with minimum wage single parent so this seems a lot to me) I'm interested in fashion as a career


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RtGOAT
I'm sure 13 weeks holiday helps.


Oh yeah, that helps too!
(Although, I suppose marking/planning/preparing/etc means that even when teachers are on holiday from work, they still have work to do!)
:smile:
Reply 134
Human greed would always leave you wanting more...
And also my answer to your question depends a lot on current economical conditions, living costs, etc. £50,000 is my answer for now.
Reply 135
I suppose it depends where I am in life. As a young person/graduate I'd be happy with 18-23k (ish) to start off my career, I'd be very happy if this rose to 25-30k after a few years and I'd feel it was a great achievement if I even managed a few k more than that. Around the time I hope to start a family, things might have changed. I have children to think about and a dual income. I might not be able to work full time anymore, so my salary would naturally be a lot lower. However, assuming I didn't have children until late, or my husband was a stay-at-home one, I'd like to earn 40-50k at least in the peak of my career. I think I'd feel happiness and a sense of achievement with that, not to mention be able to live fairly comfortably. Although, with a baby and husband to possibly support, more than that would probably relieve some worries and budgeting!
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 136
Original post by Type 052D
OMG you're so lucky. I want to become an Clinical Scientist as-well But I heard the application stage is so tiring and competitive e.g. Medical Physicist compete for 4 spaces at an hospital/radiography centre etc. But I'd rather become an CS earning 40K than an businessman/Financial advisory earning 80K+ because I like biology/Chemistry and you would have better job security.


I'm not a clinical scientist, yet! I work as a microbiological research scientist and also an AP in micro. I have applied for the STP in-service route and waiting to hear about interviews. If this fails I will just stick to research and do my PhD.

In regards to the STP, new name for clinical scientist, it is a grad scheme so you don't need a MSc or PhD but from my experience I think this does help your application. Every trainee I know has either a MSc or PhD already but the scheme is designed to put you through a MSc anyway.
Reply 137
Original post by Tuerin
Any degree can potentially lead to 120k+. Many people don't even have degrees and are billionaires. No degree, excepting perhaps the medicines, but definitely not physics, arms graduates with the concrete prospect of earning an average of 120k 10 years after graduation. Among the better paid degrees are probably law, economics, engineering, medicine, maths and related subjects. Arts degrees like English can ultimately be applied to lucrative careers in law, PR, politics etc. The point is, resist making up facts and figures.


Oh the irony.
Original post by Melthusa
Oh the irony.


You said that your degree gives graduates an average of 120k 10 years after graduation. There is nothing ironic about this, it is just plainly untrue, which would be fine if you hadn't represented it as a categorical fact.
At the peak of my career I would not be happy if I was not earning at least £100k per annum.
(edited 11 years ago)

Latest

Trending

Trending