The Should I Become a Physicist? Thread

ZapperZ

That, I don't have the number for.

Zz.

Mépris

Say one is interested, or rather they think they are, in fields areas related to physics such as oceanographic physics and complex systems (neurological networks, mushroom clouds, supernovae). Would it be sensible to do an undergraduate degree in physics or one in mathematics with a focus on those computational and mathematical techniques (I'm guessing lots of PDEs, probability) required for those fields, and then some physics courses?

chazza74

First day and first reply/question here.
Really robust and well researched/answered thread here.
I love physics and have had a life long interest but, unfortunately my almost mathematically dyslexic mind steered me away from it during high school into other pastures where I qualified in chemistry and biology before going into pharmacy.
I have long since left this behind for a career in the emergency services but have never lost interest in science and have researched many of my hypotheses with a view to what unifies all that we know.

Probably sounds a bit self inflated and pretentious from someone without a professional qualification in the field but:

My basic question is this:

Are we losing good ideas by training our students how to think?

I firmly believe that we are. I spend a great deal of time discussing various subjects with a geologist and my lack of training in his field has often lead me to have insights which have escaped him because he was given knowledge which was taken to be concrete as it formed part of the course.

I realise that the skill and tools must be given to all students to allow them to communicate and work together but I think that more time and effort should be spent in exercises of lateral thought and information sharing and argument between students in different disciplines.

In this way the true unification threads (no pun intended) will have more chance of being picked up as diversity in ideas will be maintained without so much isolation and compartmentalisation resulting.

I would be interested to know if any professional physicists here have exercises which encourage free thinking and challenging of core ideas and, if so, what they are.

moonman239

Interesting insight. The fact that public schools are teaching our kids how to think is why I hate the system. It needs to be completely revamped. No more of this "conveyor-belt education." The children should be reading classics, not those crappy textbooks. They should be taught by people who know the subject they're teaching at least well enough to teach it to their students.

ZapperZ

I'm not sure if this is a suitable topic for this thread, or if it should have been in a separate thread.

1. You can't use one example and make wholesale deduction of our educational system. Just because you could offer an insight into something a professional in one field couldn't come up with says nothing about (i) the knowledge of that person (ii) your own knowledge (iii) the educational process in that particular field (iv) the educational process in general. That is just extrapolating WAAAAY too much based on ONE data point!

2. Advanced in knowledge is made EVERY SINGLE DAY! These are made predominantly by scientists trained in the educational system from the last 20-40 years. Unless you are claiming that the current system is different than it was back then, then I would say that the system has, indeed, produced scientists able to solve many of the problems in science, and continue to produce very good work!

3. Teaching kids to think is a bad thing? Since when? In fact, I would say that the most IMPORTANT aspect of an educational system is to train the skill to think! I would even say that rote memorization and dumb repetition dulls one's ability to think. Being able to think things through is THE most important skill that one can have.

Zz.

Alex1

What's up everyone,
I was wondering how difficult it is to get a B.S. in physics at an average college. I've always been interested in science and in the past years I've been very interested in physics, specifically black holes. I have not had the best work ethic in high school. I consider myself of average intelligence seeing that my sat score was a 1600/2400 (without studying). My question is if I develop an above average work ethic, do I have the mental capacity do be a successful physicist and move on to get my Phd in physics?

seaofghosts

One thing that I've heard over and over in the past several years while planning my physics degree is that physics is a skill, like most things. While you definitely need a certain level of "talent" in math and science (though that "talent" has to be cultivated and nurtured), I think the #1 thing the average person needs to succeed well in math and physics is to genuinely love it and want to succeed. Even be stubborn about it. :p Be willing to put in the time and effort, because there will be a lot of that.

Short answer is that yes, a physics BS anywhere is going to be difficult. But to me, at least, and probably to most people who chose physics, the difficulty is part of the appeal. I love physics and math, but my first degree was in history. I graduated with honors with almost no effort, and I discovered that I learned more in my personal reading than I ever did in my history classes. So now I'm switching to my original love for a challenge and because I know that I won't be able to reach the same level of understanding by myself as I would taking all the classes, doing REUs and eventually working in the field.

My opinion is that your work ethic in high school isn't always a good indication of what your work ethic will be in college and beyond. I didn't do well in high school because I learned more on wikipedia and reading science books. I also didn't do well on the SAT (my math score was a 590/800, though I had barely taken algebra by that time, so it's no surprise--my HS experience was weird). Around ages 18-25, I think, is when you REALLY start growing into who you are, because you've reached a certain level of independence.

Anyway, the really short answer is: I think if you really want to do physics and are serious about it, you'll do great. :) Just remember that you're not in school because you know everything, you're there to learn it, and you can't let yourself give up.

There's also a thread in this section where someone asked if they'd have to be a prodigy to do well in physics. Check that out for some extra tips and opinions. :)

ZapperZ

This is a reminder (since someone asked me about it again recently) that the full essay can be found at the link below.

So You Want To Be A Physicist

I'm hoping to add a new chapter some time soon.

Zz.

chazza74

1 - No wholesale deduction but a culmination of many experiences of which the one here is only a small part of.

2 - Advancement in knowledge being made every day is not quantifiable here, and, as it is a culmination of the work of many individuals, neither is the proportion of that advancement which is due to lateral and different thinkers compared to that which is achieved by those using standard methods.

3 - At no point was it ever stated that teaching young people how to think was a bad thing or that it was unimportant. It is the methods of thinking that are in question and have been for some time. Edward De Bono, for instance, has wrote extensively on the subject.

Apart from the wrong conclusions, and the unnecessary capitals, it was still a well worded reply.

NeptuniumBOMB

it would be just AMAZING if you could make a sequel to this talking about what people can expect while working in physics jobs from particle research to industrial work.

ZapperZ

I did a quick count earlier on the number of experimentalist-specific, theorist-specific, and either-field job advertisements in a couple of issues of Physics Today. I've now included two more issues of Physics Today, so the statistics now covers from April to July 2012.

Here is the latest job distribution:

1. Number of jobs looking only for experimentalist = 34
2. Number of jobs looking only for theorist = 9
3. Number of jobs looking for either or both = 22

So the ratio of experimentalists-specific job opening to the theorists-specific job openings is almost 4:1.

The job openings that I've lumped as "both" typically involves upper-level management types, or temporary, non-tenured teaching positions.

As another reminder, the So You Want To Be A Physicist essay can be found at the link in this sentence.

Zz.

ThinkToday

Add up the number of physics graduates each year and compare to the available slots in Physics Today, and it looks like fast food staff will be over-qualified for the time being.

On the serious side, perhaps you would consider starting a moderator locked or moderated thread like this one that gives the myriad of physics specialties and subspecialties that includes a brief description of their work, links to their professional societies, links to recruiters known to specialize in that area, etc. This may help answer a lot of peoples questions about a line of work (what is it and where they work), degree programs, minimum recommended degree, and employment prospects. i.e. geared towards informative with little to no opinion.

ZapperZ

That is an over-simplification. The number of job openings advertized in the magazine is WAY smaller than that advertized online at the AIP site. So using that to somehow indicate the number of jobs is extremely misleading.

Furthermore, this does not reflect world-wide job openings. The IoP have their own job advertisements section, and industries often send recruits to campuses without having to advertize.

So no. While I'm using it to do a quick head count to get an idea on the differences in the number of job openings between experimentalists and theorists, I am not using this to make any absolute reflection on the total number of jobs. There's only so much one can draw out of such statistics before it becomes ridiculous.

Zz.

ThinkToday

I know That's why I started the second part with "On the serious side..."

McLaren Rulez

A quick question for ZapperZ or any others here. How do/did you choose a grad school?

Do you go by the school's ranking in your field of interest or do you look for professors in that school who publish a lot or is it something else? That is, what would be the general criteria to choose a grad school?

Thank you!

Dr Transport

When I went back to get my PhD, I looked for schools that were doing things I was interested in. At the time, I was considering working in Plasma physics, but I was also interested in Optics and materials. I ultimately ended up at Alabama Huntsville because they had some expertise in both. I changed advisors and ended up taking a degree in solid state physics specializing in optical properties of semiconductors.

The best advice I can give is to look for a school that has strengths in what you want but is also broad enough for you to change research thrusts without changing universities if your interests change.

Schrodu

I first came across this essay many years ago in high school, and I'm now in a big-name grad school in the US (at Parts X, XI of the essay). I've been coming back to the essay every couple of years or so, and each time I've found some meaningful advice there. I just wanted to thank ZapperZ for writing and maintaining this, and I expect to come back to it for many more years