How difficult was your path towards becoming a Mathematican or Physicists?

[gretun]

I know that every once in a while, people get upset over just about anything. For us Math and Physics majors, this may be even more serious since our goals (and I know I am being biased here) are greater than other professions say, medical students, even if our stress level are relatively comparable. How many times did you break down feeling that you cannot accomplish anything and you will probably never even come close to Newton or Euclid?

How bad do you feel when you get a poor exam grade, or get a stuck on a very difficult question, or just that your life prospects are limited. Now I know many people do not have those problems occasionally because they got supporters from family and friends and all, but how do people who to college with no one they know deal with this type of stress? Like if you are ill on an exam day, you can't really depend on anyone to maybe buy you some food after the exam etc...

I know I am getting off-topic, but I really want to hear some stories.

EDIT: I also love to hear stories where families do not support you and such.

 

[ahsanxr]

Very good question. I'd like to know about this too since I'm going to be starting college myself (away from my home country) in a couple of weeks. Some anecdotes/advice would be really great.

 

[DukeofDuke]

Well, when you are trying to understand some phenomenon, there's no space in your brain for ego. You learn to look at the problem objectively, and fairly, and try to evaluate it...

Eventually I found that this state of mind can be applied to a lot of other things. Even, say, one's place in the world. If you think about it...the natural "skill" of all people creates a distribution, a talent distribution. You are somewhere on that distribution. That's it. There's no need to link your spot on that distribution to your worth.

Nowadays I get upset if I don't understand something. I don't get upset if I have a bad grade. There is a difference. One mourns something personal, the other mourns a spot on a distribution.

As far as a support network in college, that's what friends are for ;-) get some, they're more valuable than half the textbooks.

 

[hitmeoff]

Ive had a tough road. Mainly my fault though. I pretty much cruised through Calc I and II with no problems whatsoever, it was real easy for me (actually all math was). I had a bit of a hiccupp in Calc III but was back to cruisin to A's for lower division Lin Alg/Diff Eq. I guess I needed a wake up call, because when I hit upper div math I was completely lost, but I approached it with the same arrogance that I did my first two years of college math. Hardly took notes, certainly didn't study daily or even weekly. Paid for it after my first quarter.

Now you'd figure I woulda learned my lesson after the first time, but I didn't and I messed up again my second quarter and I still didn't learn after that one and put my academic career at my school in jeopardy. Now I'm playing catch up.

Granted I had some serious health and family issues going on during the entire school year last year, and I was having a hard time concentrating and feeling motivated to work hard, but I also think that I milked my health issues and personal issues as much as I could and should have been able to pull myself together sooner.

In any case, this is the second time I'm in school for the sciences. First time I was just not mature enough to be in college on my own, got thrown out then I didn't bother to come back for 3 years and when I did come back I majored in a social science just to graduate quickly. After I was done, I went off to work for a few years and realized that I threw away my chance before and wanted to go back and finish what I began so long ago. So after ALMOST messing it all up a SECOND TIME, I am not making anymore excuses and I'm not going to rely on my natural talent alone. I've finally realized that to do well in math and physics, even if talent, require a **** load of work.

Thankfully, my wife is awesome and has been supporting me these past 3 years. Hopefully after I'm done with my second bachelors, I can go on to grad school. Tough road, but made much much tougher by my immaturity and arrogance. I advise anyone one who faltering in their studies to step back and stop blaming the professors, the textbook or your classmates and focus on doing things differently than whatever it is you are doing now.

 

[sEsposito]

This is a great topic and sort of captures the idea of this forum, in my opinion.

For me, things have been very out of the ordinary. I won't go into it because it's a long story but the jist of it is that I never expected to go to college at all let alone study Mathematics.

I've ran into some hard times in some classes, but I try to always enjoy what I'm learning and doing. I "practice" math every day for a few hours. I say practice somewhat in jest because for me doing math is something that I enjoy and need to be a part of my day. It really helps me to keep focused and keep a certain light-headedness during a semester.

Also, because you brought up the topic of medical students -- my girlfriend is a pre-med student just starting her senior year... She is way more uptight about everything than I am. She has 3.9 GPA and her course load per semester is always way heavier than mine. I may take two courses a semester that require a lot of attention while she generally takes three to four, and of course she has labs, which I don't.

I'm privileged to be able to study a subject that I absolutely love, all the time and from early on in my academic career. For my girlfriend, her undergrad studies are simply a vehicle to get her somewhere else -- she's studying these biological sciences not because she loves them, but because she has to to get to studying the thing that intrigues her most: medicine.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I haven't yet finished my path, it's some sort of a never ending story which has an ending.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

How many times did you break down feeling that you cannot accomplish anything and you will probably never even come close to Newton or Euclid?

I have never thought about it like this. I would never compare myself to anyone like that - and anyone that does is doomed to failure. Everyone thinks differently.

How bad do you feel when you get a poor exam grade, or get a stuck on a very difficult question, or just that your life prospects are limited.

I had one bad exam grade when I was at undergraduate - and I wasn't happy about it. I sat back, did my best to figure the reasons why and promised to myself that I would sort it for the next course. Sometimes it happens, it happens to the best of students - difficult courses can even catch the lecturers off-guard - we are people.

Now I know many people do not have those problems occasionally because they got supporters from family and friends and all, but how do people who to college with no one they know deal with this type of stress? Like if you are ill on an exam day, you can't really depend on anyone to maybe buy you some food after the exam etc...

I lived away from my family for my undergraduate, and I never really spoke much with them about my PhD. I supported myself financially throughout, working 20-25 hours per week during undergraduate. It was difficult, but meant that moving on to a PhD type work load actually felt like a blessing. Sure, I was probably more busy - but it was doing things I actually enjoy.

My family were always available to talk to if I had a difficult time or something, but I preferred not to involve them too much with my studies. It's difficult to convey to someone that hasn't been to university before just what it's like.


Also, re: your remark about medical students - it's never a good idea to compare your course to anyone elses. Often it's a real 'grass-is-greener' scenario - and the only result is that you'll get more stressed

 

[erok81]

Nowadays I get upset if I don't understand something. I don't get upset if I have a bad grade. There is a difference. One mourns something personal, the other mourns a spot on a distribution.

This is about how I feel as well. Understanding is the most important thing for me. If you can understand it the test scores should reflect that. Homework I get mad at, feel incredibly stupid, want to give up, etc. I never feel that way with a test score...unless it's something really stupid that I realize the moment I step out of the door. :rofl:

As for being the next Newton or Euclid. I gave that up a long time ago. What did it for me was reading all of the incredible things some people did in their teens and I never even thought about that stuff when I was a kid.

 

[Leptos]

As for being the next Newton or Euclid. I gave that up a long time ago. What did it for me was reading all of the incredible things some people did in their teens and I never even thought about that stuff when I was a kid.

The population of the world is far greater now than in the days of Newton and education is available to just about everyone. Chances are, we have many scientists and mathematicians far greater than the "old giants", they're just hard to recognize because of the ever increasing expectations of society.

There was a time when a high school diploma was considered respectable. There was also a time when a bachelors degree was considered respectable. Today, only a graduate degree is considered respectable.

 

[gretun]

Ive had a tough road. Mainly my fault though. I pretty much cruised through Calc I and II with no problems whatsoever, it was real easy for me (actually all math was). I had a bit of a hiccupp in Calc III but was back to cruisin to A's for lower division Lin Alg/Diff Eq. I guess I needed a wake up call, because when I hit upper div math I was completely lost, but I approached it with the same arrogance that I did my first two years of college math. Hardly took notes, certainly didn't study daily or even weekly. Paid for it after my first quarter.

I apologize for being rude in advance, but if you were able to cruise that many As without so much work, I don't think you can complain because you were "slacking off". I am speaking for people who truly tried their bests, but there are just so many obstacles in his or her way that prevents him or her from reaching their goal. But I thank you for your story.

I had one bad exam grade when I was at undergraduate - and I wasn't happy about it. I sat back, did my best to figure the reasons why and promised to myself that I would sort it for the next course. Sometimes it happens, it happens to the best of students - difficult courses can even catch the lecturers off-guard - we are people.

But when you ask for letters of rec, applyin to grad school, getting a position, etc, no one cares. We are papers to them. One of my teachers told me when I was in high school, learning is pointless in modern education, instead learn how to score well on exams, welcome to the real world.

I lived away from my family for my undergraduate, and I never really spoke much with them about my PhD. I supported myself financially throughout, working 20-25 hours per week during undergraduate. It was difficult, but meant that moving on to a PhD type work load actually felt like a blessing. Sure, I was probably more busy - but it was doing things I actually enjoy.

My family were always available to talk to if I had a difficult time or something, but I preferred not to involve them too much with my studies. It's difficult to convey to someone that hasn't been to university before just what it's like.


Also, re: your remark about medical students - it's never a good idea to compare your course to anyone elses. Often it's a real 'grass-is-greener' scenario - and the only result is that you'll get more stressed

No the comparison was to show that even though we put with the same amount of effort, it seems like medical students have more opportunities in the real world. As in just $$$. Academia fields like Physics and Mathematics have a more hopeless future because not all of us are Euler and Maxwell here, and I feel like the only gain from pursuing this field is just to become as great as them, if not just even getting to graduate school.

For the family part, I wanted to hear more stories where the student has no family support, basically schooling and feeding himself at the same time while family discourages him or her from pursuing this field. I feel like this is stressed especially hard on Asian families, either go to medical school, finance, or engineering. Otherwise, don't even use the family's surname anymore.

The population of the world is far greater now than in the days of Newton and education is available to just about everyone. Chances are, we have many scientists and mathematicians far greater than the "old giants", they're just hard to recognize because of the ever increasing expectations of society.

There was a time when a high school diploma was considered respectable. There was also a time when a bachelors degree was considered respectable. Today, only a graduate degree is considered respectable.

I know, ability will never keep up with demand.

 

[Choppy]

But when you ask for letters of rec, applyin to grad school, getting a position, etc, no one cares. We are papers to them. One of my teachers told me when I was in high school, learning is pointless in modern education, instead learn how to score well on exams, welcome to the real world.

This advice is best ignored and forgotten.

Scoring well on exams is what helps you look good for applications, but it ends there. What you learn is the most important part of your education. Once you get into the real world, no one cares what your GPA was or how well you scored on any individual exam.

 

[gretun]

This advice is best ignored and forgotten.

Scoring well on exams is what helps you look good for applications, but it ends there. What you learn is the most important part of your education. Once you get into the real world, no one cares what your GPA was or how well you scored on any individual exam.

Real world as in university world, real world as in learning is pointless unless you can reflect it well on the exams.

 

[Choppy]

The point is that life doesn't end once you get into grad school - even if it's a big name, prestigious top 10, ivy league school with a nobel prize winning supervisor. Once you finish, you have to apply what you've learned in order to accomplish anything, whether it be in academia or business or even in your basement.

In general, understanding and marks go hand-in-hand, so there's no real issue. If you really understand a subject - yes there may be times when you don't score as well as you might like on exams, but you just have to move on from this.

The habit of learning what you need to know for the exam and then dispencing with it is best left inside the walls of your high school.

 

[Choppy]

No the comparison was to show that even though we put with the same amount of effort, it seems like medical students have more opportunities in the real world. As in just $$$. Academia fields like Physics and Mathematics have a more hopeless future because not all of us are Euler and Maxwell here, and I feel like the only gain from pursuing this field is just to become as great as them, if not just even getting to graduate school.

You're comparing apples with oranges here. Medicine is a long-established profession. Mathematics and physics are academic disciplines. And there are all sorts of examples of physicists who've parlayed their PhD or other work into private industrial ventures that have earned them far more than any physician can earn.

 

[turbo]

Years back, I was an amateur astronomer interested in exploring galactic gravitational interactions. Not long after, I was a published author on that subject. Today, I have no lack of related subject matter, and all kinds of material and feedback that is related to the original paper. Don't give up!

 

[dmatador]

Real world as in university world, real world as in learning is pointless unless you can reflect it well on the exams.

I have to disagree with you here. You teacher was probably an idiot, or bitter (perhaps both). First of all, if you learn (really learn and practice what you lean), you will do well on the exams. Just learning to do well on exams is effective only so far (certainly not with higher level math and physics as the material is very deep and ecclectic) and offers you no help when it is time to do research and your own work.

 

[deRham]

"Just learning to do well on exams is effective only so far"

You are not offering the remotest argument against what gretun has written there. I don't think (s)he states that learning is itself not needed at any stage, just that learning well in many university settings is good for your future only if it shows up in the exam results.

Depending on one's background, the school may not be so exam-centric, but in an exam-centric school, gretun's words do hold true.

Now *just* doing well on exams is not enough, either, I agree with that too.

 

[deRham]

No the comparison was to show that even though we put with the same amount of effort, it seems like medical students have more opportunities in the real world. As in just $$$. Academia fields like Physics and Mathematics have a more hopeless future because not all of us are Euler and Maxwell here, and I feel like the only gain from pursuing this field is just to become as great as them, if not just even getting to graduate school.

Well, academia is academia - I don't think the fields of physics and mathematics are exactly at fault. I'm sure someone with the skills in physics and mathematics, if inclined, can learn to do well at another lucrative career. Medical students spend years and years in school, then take on residency, where they get paid very little, and finally get paid quite well once they get their final positions, hopefully. Even then, doctors can run into trouble.

Admittedly academia is a very hard path even *after* one gets one's first few postdocs, since getting a tenure position is hard.

 

[dmatador]

"Just learning to do well on exams is effective only so far"

You are not offering the remotest argument against what gretun has written there. I don't think (s)he states that learning is itself not needed at any stage, just that learning well in many university settings is good for your future only if it shows up in the exam results.

Depending on one's background, the school may not be so exam-centric, but in an exam-centric school, gretun's words do hold true.

Now *just* doing well on exams is not enough, either, I agree with that too.

My brain is pretty slow today, but I think that you don't really have a point. Mine was, of course, that learning only enough to do well on exams is not effective after a certain point. This was in response to gretun's high school teacher telling him to just do well on exams because that is all anyone cares about in the real world. I don't have much of an argument, but I believe it holds water. I am not sure how a school's regard for the importance of exams is dependent upon one's background, but I think I follow you... Of course doing well on exams at an "exam-centric" school is will make you successful, on paper and for only a little while. But this is not enough to be successful. The whole point of my post was that at a certain stage of learning math (in my experience), one cannot simply rely on exam grades. Learning, in itself, is beneficial in math because the more knowledge one has the better. One cannot prepare only for an exam once at a certain level. It is important to truly understand the material in upper level math courses. But, after all, you wrote that you agree that just doing well on exams is not enough, which was my whole point. So I am still unsure of what your reason is for replying to my comment.

 

[deRham]

My brain is pretty slow today, but I think that you don't really have a point. Mine was, of course, that learning only enough to do well on exams is not effective after a certain point. This was in response to gretun's high school teacher telling him to just do well on exams because that is all anyone cares about in the real world. I don't have much of an argument, but I believe it holds water.

I was making what I would call an obvious (and far from insightful) remark, which is nonetheless important and filled with truth. It was that your remark was not responding to gretun's high school teacher truly, I think. I think the high school teacher was addressing what matters truly while you're in the university - that was the 'real world' being discussed.

To get into grad school, or to get employment, especially in math and physics, typically a good GPA is very crucial, and correlates with almost all that matters. After all, even letters of recommendation may need to come from people you take classes with, more than in the most lab/project-based fields (if we're talking about theory here at least).

Basically, I was clarifying what was meant by "real world" and under that (albeit confusing) definition, I think the high school teacher's words had a lot of truth to them. I think focusing on emphasizing "learning" over things like exams sends the wrong message to the college student, because you're judged on what you present.

Now if one can present what one "learns" in top quality publications, sure that works out. But I've seen that someone who gets straight A's and A+'s at a top institution of learning, has good (but no stellar) relations with faculty, aces standardized testing, gets favored over a vast majority of applicants. It's only those with truly exceptionally developed research interests while in college who can compete with those applications with less focus on test scores and things like that...specifically for theoretical fields. I wanted to distinguish this from other fields, where one can show one's enthusiasm for "learning" much more outside of exams and classes, and package it in top quality labwork and research and publication. These seem to be efforts harder to package into something that can actually be seen by schools in the more theoretical fields.

I realize this is a strangely spun post, but hopefully it makes sense, and if not, just take from it what you will.

 

[deRham]

To help clarify - here's what gretun wrote:

Real world as in university world, real world as in learning is pointless unless you can reflect it well on the exams.

I think the message conveyed is good, in that you have to be able to actually present something in the application. I think "university world" was meant to mean pre-grad school, not including grad school, postdocs, etc.



I've found, however, that among the most difficult to get into schools and most sophisticated employers, things like acing exams matter less, and a highly over-analytical mind which has something special to offer is more what they're looking for. They may even forgive lower scores in favor of a more generic high-scoring applicant.


But if you're a typical physics/math major who took a good number of classes for your major and are just looking to do grad school as the next step without ultra-developed maturity, I think you really need to focus on acing exams more than anything else.


Basically, I agree with all your words dmatador, but don't think they contradict gretun's teacher. Perhaps you'll expand if you think otherwise.

 

[Klockan3]

I think the point is that if you focus mainly on doing well on the tests you will learn many things really poorly, while if you focus mainly on learning and sees the test as a side thing you will learn much better and also get a much better reation with your faculty since they like people who wants to learn.
Of course it takes more time to get the same test scores that way but it pays off and is also much more fun.

 

[deRham]

That may or may not be possible Klockan, don't get me wrong, I take the approach you've prescribed, but I've had more time to develop my interests and think things through early because I got interested in math and physics early enough in high school, and started working hard.

One can learn both about class topics and outside class topics, one can choose to be independent-minded or spend almost all the time fiddling with one's understanding of class topics to maximize chances of acing the exams. For most people, I think this latter approach needs to be taken, if they want to safely have a chance at doing well and securing their futures. A lot of them become more relaxed towards the end of college and the beginning of grad school...when both classes and general responsibilities are less exam-centric.

 

[dmatador]

This discussion (that I am involved with) is getting pretty thin. I don't think I really have the strength to elaborate or to dissect one sentence said by some high school teacher anymore. It is what it is.

 

[deRham]

^ Yah, the actual sentence is less important than how one should view it and its implications.

Like I said, I agreed with all the advice you gave anyway.

 

[twofish-quant]

How many times did you break down feeling that you cannot accomplish anything and you will probably never even come close to Newton or Euclid?

For me, it's easy. I just give up hope of coming close to Newton or Euclid. I'm just not that smart. But what's important is what I can do, rather than what I can't. I just learned something really wacky about gamma functions, this morning, and that makes me happy.

How bad do you feel when you get a poor exam grade, or get a stuck on a very difficult question, or just that your life prospects are limited.

I'm an intellectual masochist. When I get a poor exam grade, get stuck on a very difficult question, or think that my life prospects are limited, that makes me feel good, because it gives me a challenge that gets me up in the morning.

When I pass all of the tests, come up with all of the answers, and everything is going fine, that makes me miserable. No more worlds to conquer.

 

[twofish-quant]

Real world as in university world, real world as in learning is pointless unless you can reflect it well on the exams.

What about learning because you think it's fun and interesting, it makes you a better person, and you want to help the world.

One thing I don't understand is why *do* you want to be a physicist? What's your motivation? What's your passion? If you want to be another Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, then you just have the face the reality that you probably won't be.

But why does that matter?

 

[twofish-quant]

But when you ask for letters of rec, applyin to grad school, getting a position, etc, no one cares. We are papers to them. One of my teachers told me when I was in high school, learning is pointless in modern education, instead learn how to score well on exams, welcome to the real world.

One thing that you'll find once you get into graduate school is that the rules change, and scoring high on exams really isn't that useful for getting the Ph.D. It's often a huge shock for people that have gotten good at high exams. And then the "real world" is even less about scoring well in exams.

Academia fields like Physics and Mathematics have a more hopeless future because not all of us are Euler and Maxwell here, and I feel like the only gain from pursuing this field is just to become as great as them, if not just even getting to graduate school.

Non-sense. If you have a decent undergraduate education, then it's not hard to get into some graduate school somewhere, at which point if you get your Ph.D., you won't find it hard to get a pretty good job that will allow you make reasonable sums of money.

For the family part, I wanted to hear more stories where the student has no family support, basically schooling and feeding himself at the same time while family discourages him or her from pursuing this field.

If you don't like physics, you aren't going to survive graduate school. One thing that you learn in graduate school is how incredibly dumb and stupid you are in the grand scheme of things and how much smarter other people are. If you love physics and what to learn new things, it won't matter.

If you want to learn something new about the universe and make yourself a better person, then physics is a really cool field. If you want to be the next Einstein, or you can't stand being number #50 and going to a *decent* school rather than a *tip-top* you have to rethink whether you want to go into the field since you are more likely than not going to burn out.

Physics is a highly stressful field. You have to learn to *enjoy* the stress, otherwise it's not going to work.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't think (s)he states that learning is itself not needed at any stage, just that learning well in many university settings is good for your future only if it shows up in the exam results.

I think that's non-sense. Most of the stuff that I've learned that's been useful for my career have been things that I never learned in class. The fact that I got a less than stellar GPA probably *did* keep me out of the top universities, but having looked at where my life went and where the lives of most of the people I went to school with went, I don't think that's a major loss.

College is the time when you can think about big questions like "what do I want to do with my life?" If you are only thinking about the next 2 years rather than the next sixty years of your life, I think you are setting yourself up for big problems.

 

[twofish-quant]

But if you're a typical physics/math major who took a good number of classes for your major and are just looking to do grad school as the next step without ultra-developed maturity, I think you really need to focus on acing exams more than anything else.

The problem is that if you approach learning in this way, you are just going to totally fall apart in grad school. The first thing that you need to seriously ask yourself is why you want to go to grad school in the first place. Part of the problem is that after the first two years, no one tells you what to do and you sort of have to figure it out on your own.

I've seen it happen that people that just ace tests get into grad school, and after the first year or two, they totally fall apart. Getting your Ph.D. is probably one of the most intense and brutal intellectual experiences that you have to go through, and unless you really *love* I mean *love* your research, you are just not going to survive the process.

If you don't have ultra-developed maturity, then you just shouldn't go out for a Ph.D.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Two fish, I wonder how do you define ultra-maturity?
Being responsible, taking care of every detail in your thesis, have good interaction with your advisor and others in the faculty, what else?

 

[deRham]

The problem is that if you approach learning in this way, you are just going to totally fall apart in grad school. The first thing that you need to seriously ask yourself is why you want to go to grad school in the first place. Part of the problem is that after the first two years, no one tells you what to do and you sort of have to figure it out on your own.

I've seen it happen that people that just ace tests get into grad school, and after the first year or two, they totally fall apart. Getting your Ph.D. is probably one of the most intense and brutal intellectual experiences that you have to go through,

It actually depends. Many successful profiles among mathematicians spent a lot of time acing classes as undergraduates, along with some time afterwards learning independently about topics of interest, and the primary thing they did was enter into more advanced coursework, where the nature of thinking is much more akin to what you do in the PhD. I made the distinction between theoretical and less theoretical fields for a reason.

These mathematicians also tended to think deeply about what kind of material they enjoy. But realize that even upon entering grad school, in some fields it is typical to spend a year or two once actually in grad school figuring out what one wants to do.

Acing (advanced) classes combined with a penchant for being thoughtful about what you want to do is ultimately the combo often needed in theoretical fields.

Remember, acing advanced classes isn't the same thing as playing a game, typically they can make these courses ones designed to give one the tools to start being a researcher in a field. It depends on your field and how much there is a discrepancy between classes and research -- I know many computer science students who hardly care about classes at all, because classes simply don't matter to them.

If you don't have ultra-developed maturity, then you just shouldn't go out for a Ph.D.

I'm inclined to completely agree, but the reality is that most people are incredibly stubborn. However, these people often end up in graduate programs that let them spend a lot of time figuring things out, and may be less demanding. I discourage these types from even pursuing the PhD myself, but reality says that they won't listen. As many of these people also exit college with limited, very theoretical skills, it's in their interests to at least ace their basic classes, as that tends to get them somewhere so they can figure things out, or they tend to really mess themselves up.

Reality also says a lot of people reading this forum probably belong to this category. A lot of people just set themselves up thinking they're going to graduate school. At the very least, I'd hope they get into a master's program (especially since people with poor planning should not, in my opinion, pursue a PhD). Then they end school with no internships (because their field is theoretical), a somewhat bad GPA because they did what interested them without working the system enough, and fewer opportunities than people who're intellectually a lot less curious and a lot less smart.

I think as long as one has a plan in mind, and is very smart about things, you don't have to listen to words like "the real world just cares about exams".

 

[deRham]

Most of the stuff that I've learned that's been useful for my career have been things that I never learned in class.

And that's how it always will be - whether one is pursuing a PhD or immediate employment, or employment after a PhD.

Nevertheless, the good message in that teacher's words is that one has to get used to the short-sightedness of the people holding the keys. A less than high GPA can keep you out of a ton of programs (indeed, some people don't make it into any). A high GPA does actually tend to do with lots of selective employers to get considered, this is a rough fact of life.

Now your case was a little different - you made into grad school and were smart about how you spent your time, and at that point nobody cares about your GPA. They see a physics PhD with marketable skills, and so you're of course doing interesting work.

Reality says that for people in the university though, a high GPA really does open doors ... because lots of employers are too dumb to know or care what deep thinking is, professional schools like law school really only care about GPA and test scores, and PhD programs in theoretical fields tend to be adamant about grades, because it's hard to show off in any other sense in those fields.


Now if you're in graduate school, not undergraduate, then exams and classes (except to make sure you don't fail quals) don't matter one bit except for one's own health and training, and one should forget about them and think about bigger things.

 

[mal4mac]

I failed to stay in the field, I no longer feel bad about it. You need to learn how to not get upset about anything. Why do you want to accomplish anything? You will probably never even come close to Newton or Euclid. Therefore why set yourself such high *must do* goals? Family and friends are not much help. Try Epicurus.

 

[mal4mac]

Nowadays I get upset if I don't understand something.

Why do you get upset if you don't understand something? The happy girl in the cafeteria doesn't understand 1% of the physics you know. She's not upset about it. Look and learn. Unless you like being upset...