A post doc in an area that differs from my PhD?

[binbagsss]

Does this happen?
How much can it vary by? for example, I have a PhD offer in a pretty boring application of fluid dynamics, in the future woild I be able to take my research into a direction perhaps applying this to astrophysics or something? Also I very much enjoyed general relativity at UG level, but I guess a switch into gravitation or something would be a lot less likely?

Many thanks

 

[ZapperZ]

I have a PhD in condensed matter physics. Then I did my first postdoc in condensed matter, and a second postdoc in Accelerator physics, where they then hired me as a staff physicist.

It isn't that uncommon. So when I tell students to have as broad of a background and expertise as possible, I'm not just talking about some hypothetical situation without any first-hand knowledge.

Zz.

 

[binbagsss]

I have a PhD in condensed matter physics. Then I did my first postdoc in condensed matter, and a second postdoc in Accelerator physics, where they then hired me as a staff physicist.

It isn't that uncommon. So when I tell students to have as broad of a background and expertise as possible, I'm not just talking about some hypothetical situation without any first-hand knowledge.

Zz.

That's a very useful reply, thanks alot. Can i ask in general do you think it is hard to do such a switch? I.e how do you go about demonstrating that, after your condensed matter post doc you were suited for a post doc in condensed matter? Eg vs. perhaps someone who already has Accelerator physics PhD?

I think background reading on what ever this other interest may be, and attending seminars etc is a good place to start. Anything else?

Thanks

 

[ZapperZ]

That's a very useful reply, thanks alot. Can i ask in general do you think it is hard to do such a switch? I.e how do you go about demonstrating that, after your condensed matter post doc you were suited for a post doc in condensed matter? Eg vs. perhaps someone who already has Accelerator physics PhD?

I think background reading on what ever this other interest may be, and attending seminars etc is a good place to start. Anything else?

Thanks

The thing about finding an opportunity, or finding a job, is a matter of being the right fit at the right time. After all, you need to have something that someone who was hiring is looking for, which is why having a wider "net" gives you a better chance of you having just the right qualification.

I got into Accelerator physics because the group was looking for someone with a background in (i) photoemission and (ii) thin film fabrication. I did my postdoc in photoemission spectroscopy, and before I started my PhD research, I actually made thin films of NbN and was in the process of constructing a deposition chamber to produce GaN films when I got a RA to go into superconductivity. So something that wasn't even part of my PhD research was the skill that helped me to get hired.

A student once asked me what was the most valuable and important thing that I learned as a student all through the end of my graduate school. She thought it might have been quantum mechanics, or relativity, etc. My reply was that the most important thing that I learned is how to learn. By the time I finished school, I understand how *I* learn things, what is needed for me to learn new things, and my technique in how I approach and solve a problem. To me, THAT is the most important thing that I learned, because even with a PhD, you will STILL need to learn a lot of new things, especially if you make a hard-turn in your area of specialty. It is the skill that enable you to learn new things that is important when you finished your PhD. It is not unusual at all for someone to change fields, to go into new fields, or to discover new connections with something he/she already know.

There is very seldom a linear trajectory in anyone's career, or life for that matter. To survive and even thrive, one must have the capability to adapt and to learn.

Zz.

 

[binbagsss]

The thing about finding an opportunity, or finding a job, is a matter of being the right fit at the right time. After all, you need to have something that someone who was hiring is looking for, which is why having a wider "net" gives you a better chance of you having just the right qualification.

I got into Accelerator physics because the group was looking for someone with a background in (i) photoemission and (ii) thin film fabrication. I did my postdoc in photoemission spectroscopy, and before I started my PhD research, I actually made thin films of NbN and was in the process of constructing a deposition chamber to produce GaN films when I got a RA to go into superconductivity. So something that wasn't even part of my PhD research was the skill that helped me to get hired.

A student once asked me what was the most valuable and important thing that I learned as a student all through the end of my graduate school. She thought it might have been quantum mechanics, or relativity, etc. My reply was that the most important thing that I learned is how to learn. By the time I finished school, I understand how *I* learn things, what is needed for me to learn new things, and my technique in how I approach and solve a problem. To me, THAT is the most important thing that I learned, because even with a PhD, you will STILL need to learn a lot of new things, especially if you make a hard-turn in your area of specialty. It is the skill that enable you to learn new things that is important when you finished your PhD. It is not unusual at all for someone to change fields, to go into new fields, or to discover new connections with something he/she already know.

There is very seldom a linear trajectory in anyone's career, or life for that matter. To survive and even thrive, one must have the capability to adapt and to learn.

Zz.

Thank you so much :)

 

[PAllen]

Weinberg may be a special case, but all his early work was in QFT and particle physics. But then he learned what he needed (per @ZapperZ comment) to end up writing “Gravitation and Cosmology”, a work which is still considered a classic 45+ years later.

 

[FactChecker]

One of the main things that a Ph.D. shows is the ability to do independent learning and research. Your professional career may be decades-long and the chances are that you will work in more than one specialty.

 

[binbagsss]

Weinberg may be a special case, but all his early work was in QFT and particle physics. But then he learned what he needed (per @ZapperZ comment) to end up writing “Gravitation and Cosmology”, a work which is still considered a classic 45+ years later.

Amazing <3

 

[Jason Bennett]

Weinberg may be a special case, but all his early work was in QFT and particle physics. But then he learned what he needed (per @ZapperZ comment) to end up writing “Gravitation and Cosmology”, a work which is still considered a classic 45+ years later.

Based on your comment, do you recall reading an essay of Weinberg's regarding "what a scientist should work on?" A friend of mine mentioned this essay being very good but I forgot to ask for the title! Cheers

 

[klotza]

I did a postdoc that was quite similar to my PhD (same sub-field, maybe even same sub-sub-field?) and I feel like there would have been some better opportunities to expand my knowledge and skillset. I don't regret it, but if you're applying for faculty positions it might be better to be an expert in two more different things, than to have extreme focus.

 

[binbagsss]

okay, sorry to re-bump an old thread but otherwise I get trouble... so in the case of accelerator physics and condensed, as per the first post, it was largely about there being specific connections between the two that were desired at the times, I've read around other cases, e.g one in biology where the areas did not relate in such a way (or so that's the impression that comes across on a first read of the story), and where in this case the student mentions how she read a lot more of this other subject she ended up going to do a post-doc in, than her current PhD topic. But my question is, despite everyone in this forum saying otherwise, that mathematical physics programmes are harder to get into than applied maths, and, if one wasn't considered a good enough candidate to be offered a position in mathematical physics to start with- for a PhD- why would they then be for the case of a post-doc? I mean with the biology story above, I do not know about the fields enough to guess whether the situation would have been this - her grades were strong enough in the first place. I mean having a PhD in a different area is definitely not going to make you a stronger candidate, would be my guess, would that be correct? In which case, would I be better of dropping out and going for a Mres in mathematical physics, hope to get a publication or two, which would make me a significantly stronger candidate I guess, and I would also guess with publications prior degrees would not matter as much or? Many thanks for your help