- #176
gigermaster
- 1
- 0
Do you think it would be wise to go for a PhD directly after acquiring one's bachelors degree?
gigermaster said:Do you think it would be wise to go for a PhD directly after acquiring one's bachelors degree?
JayJohn85 said:I believe that effort and work can ofset natural ability. Knowledge can ofset IQ etc. I'd like to go against the grain and pursue this dream. My question to you is should I pack this in before I even start? Though to be honest I probably won't listen anyway I am quite stubborn. If I found it easy I would not want to do it.
JJ McKenna
Kumo said:Hi Everybody,
I currently live in South Africa and aspire to go to WITS next year, as I am in my final year of high school at the moment; however, I have a bit of an issue. You see, as my three Bsc courses I would like to take Physics, Computer Science and Math, but from my understanding applied math is needed in order to complete a physics course, or at the very least to follow it as a career. Is this true? If so, that would mean that I wouldn't be able to do computer science as I had wished correct? This may seem like a rather mundane issue, but I am unable to get proper advise from the university at this stage. Any and all assistance would be very much appreciated.
This seemed like the most appropriate thread to post this kind of thing, but I apologize if I have posted in the wrong one. Thank you for your time.
Many admissions tutors look for two things in a personal statement: genuine enthusiasm for physics and signs of maturity.
Some statements border almost on the philosophical, which is absolutely fine, says Barker. "I like to think that there's a person out there who lies awake at night worrying about these things."
Demonstrating engagement with the subject is not difficult but do remember that some admissions tutors are looking for a richer knowledge of the subject than you get on prime-time TV.
"By all means mention what hooked you in the beginning, but do also mention what you are doing now to deepen your understanding," says Anton Machacek, a physics teacher who graduated from Trinity College, Oxford.
"Popular science programmes rarely develop your thinking skills in the way universities will want. In this sense, I would say that the influence of Nina and her Nefarious Neurons on you as a toddler might count more in your favour than Prof Brian Cox at age 16."
Today's mega-experiments rely on armies of graduate students and postdocs to do the nuts and bolts work, Asaadi says. That's fine, he says, so long as everybody understands the situation from the beginning. "When you're starting graduate school, is your advisor telling you, 'Look, you get this great skill set that will be transferable to other things outside of academic physics'?" Asaadi says. "Or are you being told, 'Just work hard and there will be something or other [in physics] in the end'? It seems like it's more of the latter." He adds, "This is where we got some pushback from advisors—it was seen as whining."
Others question whether such straight-talk will do any good. Young particle physicists are driven by a passion for the science, so such admonitions may fall on deaf ears, says Elizabeth Worcester, 37, a postdoc at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York. "Suppose that one in 10 postdocs will get a tenure-track job," she says. "You'll still think you're going to be that one—or else you wouldn't be here." Elliot Lipeles, 40, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) says his graduate advisor had such a talk with him, "but I didn't take it seriously."
ModestyKing said:I'm excited to go into Physics! Whether it be at CERN or working for SAIC, I'm definitely wanting to be a Physicist.
ZapperZ said:This is a very useful article. It is full of guidelines and suggestions on how to make your personal statements more relevant when applying for admission into grad school.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2014_10_08/caredit.a1400252
We get questions on writing such statements frequently on here, so this article should be a must-read for a lot of people, especially if you are in the process of applying to grad school.
Zz.
ZapperZ said:SHOULD I DO PHYSICS OR ENGINEERING?
I decided to write something on this topic because I see this question being asked on here multiple times. I've responded in several threads, but I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing each time this question is asked. So I'm going to put my thoughts and response in this post.
The issue here is that students who are either still in high school, or starting their undergraduate years are asking which area of study should they pursue. In fact, I've seen cases where students ask whether they should do "theoretical physics" or "engineering", as if there is nothing in between those two extremes!
My response has always been consistent. I ask them why can't they have their cake and eat it too?
This question often arises out of ignorance of what physics really encompasses. Many people, especially high school students, still think of physics as being this esoteric subject matter, dealing with elementary particles, cosmology, wave-particle duality, etc.. etc., things that they don't see involving everyday stuff. On the other hand, engineering involves things that they use and deal with everyday, where the product are often found around them. So obviously, with such an impression, those two areas of study are very different and very separate.
I try to tackle such a question by correcting their misleading understanding of what physics is and what a lot of physicists do. I tell them that physics isn't just the LHC or the Big Bang. It is also your iPhone, your medical x-ray, your MRI, your hard drive, your silicon chips, etc. In fact, the largest percentage of practicing physicists are in the field of condensed matter physics/material science, an area of physics that study the basic properties of materials, the same ones that are used in modern electronics. I point to them many of the Nobel Prize in physics that were awarded to condensed matter physicists or for invention of practical items (graphene, lasers, LEDs, etc.). So already, the idea of having to choose between doing physics, and doing something "practical and useful" may not be mutually exclusive.
Secondly, I point to different areas of physics in which physics and engineering smoothly intermingle. I've mentioned earlier about the field of accelerator physics, in which you see both physics and engineering come into play. In fact, in this field, you have both physicists and electrical engineers, and they often do the same thing. The same can be said about those in instrumentation/device physics. In fact, I have also seen many high energy physics graduate students who work on detectors for particle colliders who looked more like electronics engineers than physicists! So for those working in this field, the line between doing physics and doing engineering is sufficiently blurred. You can do exactly what you want, leaning as heavily towards the physics side or engineering side as much as you want, or straddle exactly in the middle. And you can approach these fields either from a physics major or an electrical engineering major. The point here is that there are areas of study in which you can do BOTH physics and engineering!
Finally, the reason why you don't have to choose to major in either physics or engineering is because there are many schools that offer a major in BOTH! My alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Go Badgers!) has a major called AMEP - Applied Mathematics, Engineering, and Physics - where with your advisor, you can tailor a major that straddles two of more of the areas in math, physics, and engineering. There are other schools that offer majors in Engineering Physics or something similar. In other words, you don't have to choose between physics or engineering. You can just do BOTH!
Zz.
StatGuy2000 said:ZapperZ, you make an important point about how practical and varied a physics degree can be, and to clarifying that the distinction between physics and engineering programs may not be as vast as is commonly believed. However, you ignore a key issue -- that is, out of those physics graduates, including those who specialized in condensed matter physics/materials science (where, as you say, the majority of current practicing physicists now work in), what is the realistic likelihood that the graduate will find a job that is related to his/her area of study, whether in academia or in industry?
The link you pointed to with respect to unemployment of STEM PhDs, combined with numerous posts here at PF, at least suggest that the likelihood of finding such employment is actually quite low, compared to engineering (even though unemployment among engineering PhDs are also quite high). Furthermore, an engineering major can conceivably find employment after earning just a bachelor's degree or a masters degree, whereas a physics major will need to pursue all the way up to a PhD level to find similar such employment.
LithaNova said:Currently, I'm a Physics and Computer Science major. Programming has been my passion since I was 14, and can't imagine having a better job than programming. But I want to learn about more subjects in physics. I'm not looking for the popular science explanations of the subject matter. I'd like to understand it and not just know it. Knowing something is different from understanding to me. Physics didn't rear it's head into my interest pool until about the semester I started college. I can't necessarily tell you why it is I want to study Physics, other than I just want to know more of it. The problem solving aspect of it is very rewarding to me, yet frustrating. It's almost like I'm debugging a program, it's frustrating as hell, but once I finally solve it... it feels amazing. I'm definitely committed to receiving my Bachelor's in both CS and Physics, but I don't know if I should be going farther than that. I definitely want to knowledge, and I have the drive. The issue is that whether or not it's be a good choice financially. By no means do I come from a wealthy family, but I'm not on the streets. If anyone can just sort of give some insight that'd be great.
I suggest to prepare in self-studying some math at your own pace, then to do a B Engineering in Physics, on campus in any university of any country _choose the lowest costs_. Jobs as a physicist are very rare; it is much worst outside the USA. Don't do a B Sc in math unless there is a professionnal order of mathematicians in your province/state/department/prefecture, e.g. in the province Alberta. The best choice, if you have no mentor /referee/ human connection to obtain a job, is to get a university degree in mechanical engineering, or physical engineering. Afterwards, as time permits, you could do with the university of Lehigh, at distance learning, a MSc in Math, possibly rather called a M Eng mechanics (depending on your choice of elective courses)- very expensive _.Mépris said: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?
tionis said:Hi Zapper,
I just finished reading your excellent series ''So you want to be a physicist,'' and I have a few question for you if you wouldn't mind. I'm very interested in studying physics, but your entries on the topic left me somewhat horrified of the process of becoming one. I mean just the thought of public speaking and such is enough to send me into a panic attack lol.
What I have envisioned for myself is to go as far as I can in the study of physics without having to worry about teaching or enduring years of servitude in some grad program. Is that even possible? I mean, once you have passed the required exams to be accepted into grad school, couldn't you just study what you wish without having to do anything else? My understanding, based on your article, is that you have to do all those thing because the university is funding your education. But what if you can pay for grad school yourself? Couldn't you just go to class, pass your exams, defend your thesis, get your degree, and be done with it?
I really don't have any interest in becoming part of academia or anything, nor do I wish to work in a lab. My goal is to learn as much as I can, and in the process, hopefully stumble into something interesting that would add to the general body of knowledge, but that is it. So, is there a way to circumvent the system?
Thanks. I look forward to your reply.
-t
ZapperZ said:If all you care about is to learn about physics, rather than being a physicist, then you don't really have to go through the academic process.
Note that you can't just "... go to class, pass your exams, defend your thesis, get your degree, and be done with it..." "Defend thesis" means standing in front of an audience, something you said that you'd rather not do. It is not sitting at a desk and writing your defense. Secondly, to be able to defend a thesis means that you had done research work. This requires interactions with at people, including your advisor, other students who may be doing the same topic, and hopefully, other researchers so that you are up-to-date on the current state of knowledge of the topic. You no longer learn just from books at this stage. You have to learn from others.
And finally, there is a difference between learning physics, and being a physicist. You can learn physics all you want, but it doesn't turn you into a physicist. A physicist is a person who practices the OCCUPATION of being a physicist. This means that this person not only has to know physics, but also all the responsibilities of being a scientist in the organization that he/she works in. You appear to not want to shoulder such responsibility.
This is why I said that you should just pick up a book and learn physics, rather than pursing a PhD in it. After all, what would you do with such a degree if you really do not want to be a physicist?
Zz.
tionis said:Well, the thought of teaching myself physics outside of school is not very appealing. I will probably end-up with huge gaps in my learning, and if I ever discover something worth publishing, it will probably never see the light of day. I think that is where the degree comes in handy. I could be wrong, but they probably check the educational background of people who send in papers to journals, and if you don't have letters after your name, then you're just another crackpot. I don't want to be another crackpot, so I'm fully committed and funded to study physics formally to the best of my abilities, my social anxiety notwithstanding.
As far as not being a physicist outside of an institution, I don't quite agree. I mean there are a lot of retired physicists that don't stop being one simply because they are no longer part of an institution, Kip Thorne comes to mind, or even you, if you are already retired -- but that is beside the scope of this discussion. Thanks for your wonderful article and for your reply, Zapper. The best I've read so far about the whole process.