By industrial physicist I am referring to the tens of thousands of physicists in the USA who work for private companies.  These range from the very large, such as Lockheed Martin, GE, and IBM among so many others, down to the one man start-up company.  Industrial physicists are distinct from their academic and government counterparts both in their professional activities and in the roles they play in their organizations.  In a research institute a physicist is called a physicist.  In a company, a physicist will find him/herself being defined by the needs of the corporation, and might bear such titles as engineer, analyst, programmer, or manager, and only sometimes physicist.

 

I spent some time in academia, working toward my degree.  In that time I taught and performed research, both at the university and in government labs.  I then moved into industry and had 10 very fulfilling years doing work I never expected.  Out of a lifelong desire to teach, I decided my next station in life should be spent back in the academy teaching the future industrial physicists.  I have been where they are going, and their training would benefit from continuous adjustment.  I perceive, correctly I say, the need to close the feedback loop by bringing industrial physicists back into the classroom.

 

I initially encountered the lack of enthusiasm for this concept of “closing the feedback loop” with a certain amount of disappointment.  A contribution that, having been in industry, I understand to be unique and valuable isn’t nearly so valued in academia.  I later realized that there is a mutually supported schism between academic and industrial physics that alienates the two communities of physicists, preventing a beneficial exchange between two sides of the same scientific enterprise.  This came to me when a professor expressed his frustration to me with finding opportunities in industry, after which I recalled the industrial bias against “too much time in academia”.

 

I have spent two years attempting to penetrate the divide and take my experience back to the classroom.  I’m about to begin my third, and final, year offering something unique and substantial to physics departments.  In case I don’t succeed, at least the comments below will hopefully give somebody insight into the varied demands the industrial world has placed on me as a physicist.  The interesting thing about physics as a profession is the broad assortment of careers we physicists find, making each physicist’s experience a unique career story.

 

While still students, some people have some non-classroom experiences that help make them better prepared for work as industrial physicists.  Participation in faculty research is one of the most valuable rudiments of a physics education.  By the student’s second or third year, he/she should be involved in a research group.  The level of the student’s contribution to research should grow continuously from there.  Not all industry-bound students have access to good undergraduate research experiences, and for them, the academy has failed.  Experiences can be poor for many reasons.  Some faculties don’t do much research and are simply unable to direct student research.  Many faculties don’t see the importance of teamwork.  Some faculties even shun collaboration outside of physics.  And if the only research facility available in the physics department is a dirty room stocked with stone knives and bear skins, then that department isn’t able to prepare students well for industry. 

 

Undergraduate research is one pillar of an industrial physics education.  Other pillars are classroom instruction, laboratory instruction and computer literacy.  I like the pillar metaphor because it indicates equal worth for each aspect.  If I had the opportunity to close the feedback loop, I would make these specific recommendations about these other pillars:

            1. Expect more science courses: chemistry, biology, geology, engineering, materials science.  Physics majors simply don’t take enough science.

            2. Teach circuits.  While teaching college physics recently I found that the interests of physics students have drifted away from electronics.  However, a significant part of the past two or three generations of physicists have made their careers in electronics: circuits, devices, materials, signal processing, among other favorite areas.

            3. Teach students how to use computers.  Not the pedestrian stuff often confused for computer literacy.  Data acquisition, instrumentation control, numerical methods are key elements of computer literacy where I find myself regretfully lacking.  

            4. Teach how fundamental physics applies to today’s technology.  An example of this is information theory.  I worked in the telecommunication equipment industry, and it was a physicist who introduced the group to Shannon’s theorem.  Who better understands entropy than a physicist?

            5. Teach statistics.  Teach statistical Design of Experiments (DOE), or future employers will have to send your students back to class, like they did with me.

            6. Create a minor course of study for physics majors in a field where an industrial physicist on your faculty has thrived.  This could be, for example, optical engineering, thin film materials, nanotechnology, or vacuum science and technology.

 

In summary, an academic program that prepares young people for physics careers in industry doesn’t compromise on these four pillars: classroom instruction, laboratory instruction, computer literacy, and undergraduate research.  Perhaps few if any of us can be strong in each area, but the combined faculty should be.  I want to emphasize that year-round research experiences for undergraduates is just as important as quality classroom instruction.  Now more than ever, physics professors seem to be aware that their first job is to teach.  That's the right perspective for a teacher to have.  But, according to the bean counters who determine the size of your department, your first job is to graduate as many majors as possible.  Physics departments with inadequate research opportunities will suffer recruitment shortages.  One private college academic dean I spoke to recently attributed a sudden growth in physics majors to new additions in the faculty, which brought in exciting new research experiences for the students.  Don’t use a narrow view of the teaching enterprise as a crutch to excuse an absence of scholarship in your department.  Your students learn as much from you as a practicing physicist as they learn from you as a lecturer. 

 

Prospective industrial physicists will benefit from doing their research in teams because that is how they will function in their careers.  Don’t train them early to be loners and heroes.  For various practical reasons, some departments shy away from research groups.  But the point of groups isn’t necessarily to promote big science.  It can be to promote teamwork.  In addition to teams, I strongly recommend crossing disciplinary boundaries.  In industry one works on a team which involves different science and engineering backgrounds, with even non-technical contributors such as marketing.  Now that I have had that rich experience, I can’t imagine working only with physicists. 

 

Finally, take an active interest in closing the feedback loop by recognizing the value of the industrial physicist’s experience and consider that as an asset and a positive attribute when hiring.  If no one on your physics faculty has substantive industrial experience, then please make that a priority in your next hire.

 

(Speaking of feedback, see my essay on Departmental Web Sites.  So many of them are just awful!)