Grad school in particle physics for a mediocre applicant

[Zarathustra0]

I'm an American undergrad in physics and math between my junior and senior years, and I'm planning on applying to a physics Ph.D. program in the coming year. Frankly I'm not a great-looking applicant. My GPA is a 3.465 (at a top-twenty university at least) although most of my poorer grades have not been in physics or math, so since I plan to only take physics and math classes for my senior year, I can maybe get my GPA up above a 3.5 before applying. Specifically my GPAs in physics and math are 3.564 and 3.6 respectively. I have a year of research experience and will continue doing research for at least the rest of this summer, but I haven't published anything. I want to pursue particle physics, probably theory but maybe experiment. My research experience so far is in the latter. Could anybody offer any advice on some institutions I might apply to for grad school? I'm already aware of the top ten or so schools for particle-physics graduate study, but with my GPA I don't expect I could get into them, so what are some of the stronger universities for this area of study among those that someone with my record could actually get into?

 

[Vanadium 50]

You need to talk to your faculty. Grades, recommendations and GRE are what drives the decisions, and we have only 1/3 of the picture.

That said, I think you need to be aware that the number of people who get permanent jobs as theorists in North America is approximately 10 per year. "Maybe" bringing your grade from 3.465 to 3.5 in two terms is not very ambitious: that means going to a 3.6. You need to be thinking now about how you are going to become one of the ten best graduates in the country. Getting a 4.0 from here on in would be a good start.

 

[Mororvia]

I'm already aware of the top ten or so schools for particle-physics graduate study, but with my GPA I don't expect I could get into them, so what are some of the stronger universities for this area of study among those that someone with my record could actually get into?

I'm not sure what the top ten schools are for particle physics, but I hope you at least apply to a few of them. Your grades aren't exactly bad either.

Just to throw a name out there I'll go with what I know, Michigan State University.

 

[Geezer]

You need to be thinking now about how you are going to become one of the ten best graduates in the country.

So those of us in a Top 11-20 program should abandon all hope of having a good physics career?

 

[Zarathustra0]

Geezer, I think you may be misunderstanding Vanadium 50's post. Assuming I'm taking his words correctly, he's saying that in order to someday attain a permanent (i.e. tenure-track) position in specifically theoretical physics, one will have to be one of the ten most desirable applicants to such a position at that time because there are only about ten such hires made annually. You wouldn't necessarily have to come from a top-ten program, but you would have to be one of the top ten people in that job market.

Vanadium 50 and Mororvia, I thank you both for your advice and will take it very much to heart in my pursuits.

 

[ZapperZ]

You may want to read this, which roughly matches what Vanadium is trying to tell you:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2010/02/the-high-energy.html

Zz.

 

[Zarathustra0]

I took the link within that article to http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~poppitz/Jobs94-08.pdf" , and I'm surprised there are even as many string-theory hires as there are. Anyway, what I glean from these statistics are that on average a new Ph.D. in particle theory will have to be a postdoc at a couple of different places before attaining a faculty position and that my best bet is probably to shoot for one of the few top grad schools in the field in order to maximize my chances of getting hired.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Anyway, what I glean from these statistics are that on average a new Ph.D. in particle theory will have to be a postdoc at a couple of different places before attaining a faculty position and that my best bet is probably to shoot for one of the few top grad schools in the field in order to maximize my chances of getting hired.

What you should glean from this is that the average particle theory phd will never get to be a faculty member anywhere. This bears repeating- the average particle theory phd will never find permanent work related to particle theory.

Its very important to cultivate backup plans. Even at one of the top schools, most students don't become faculty, and a lot of the factors that determine your ability to get hired are outside your control. If you did great work in particle cosmology and no one wants particle cosmologists when you come into the faculty market, you aren't getting a job.

 

[Zarathustra0]

I'm aware of the dismal nature of the Ph.D. job market (especially in this field), and I'm by all means willing to not work in academia if I simply can't support myself by doing so, but I'm also willing to work as a postdoc for a long time if necessary. Basically what I'm saying is that I'm willing to do **** work for a salary I can barely scrape by on if that's what it takes to get involved in physics research. That said, even that might not be enough, and I have no illusions about that, but I have to at least give it the best effort I can before throwing in the towel.

 

[twofish-quant]

So those of us in a Top 11-20 program should abandon all hope of having a good physics career?

Those of you in a Top 1-100 program should assume that you will not get an academic research position and start thinking about how you can get a "good physics career" outside of academia.

 

[twofish-quant]

Its very important to cultivate backup plans. Even at one of the top schools, most students don't become faculty, and a lot of the factors that determine your ability to get hired are outside your control. If you did great work in particle cosmology and no one wants particle cosmologists when you come into the faculty market, you aren't getting a job.

The other thing that is that sometimes you may find that your plans and goals come into conflict, and you have to make some decisions.

One decision that I made as an undergraduate was not to focus too much on getting A's, so I ended up with decent but not spectacular GPA, and I went to a decent but not spectacular graduate school. However, once I got my physics Ph.D., the fact that I spent time studying C++, economics, educational theory, and Marxist philosophy really was handy.

You have a limited amount of time and energy, and you are going to have to make some decisions about how to allocate that.

 

[twofish-quant]

Basically what I'm saying is that I'm willing to do **** work for a salary I can barely scrape by on if that's what it takes to get involved in physics research. That said, even that might not be enough, and I have no illusions about that, but I have to at least give it the best effort I can before throwing in the towel.

If you think of academia as the only place that you can do physics research, you've already put major handicaps in your way.

One other thing, if you are willing to be treated like dirt, then people will treat you like dirt.

 

[Geezer]

I'm aware of the dismal nature of the Ph.D. job market (especially in this field), and I'm by all means willing to not work in academia if I simply can't support myself by doing so, but I'm also willing to work as a postdoc for a long time if necessary.

Good luck with that back-up plan, too. So many PhDs are doing the serial post doc thing that now many post doc search committees won't consider your application unless you've graduated with your PhD NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS from the date of the application. If every post doc position went to an otherwise unemployed PhD, then there wouldn't be any post docs left for the newly-minted PhDs.

 

[ych22]

If you think of academia as the only place that you can do physics research, you've already put major handicaps in your way.

One other thing, if you are willing to be treated like dirt, then people will treat you like dirt.

twofish-quant, ever so inspiring!

but seriously speaking, your perspective is always refreshing

 

[Zarathustra0]

One other thing, if you are willing to be treated like dirt, then people will treat you like dirt.

I didn't say I'm willing to be treated like dirt. It's my understanding that the pay associated with a postdoctoral position is poor. What I'm saying is that I am willing to go through a period in my life when I'm not earning nearly as much as I would by applying my skills elsewhere. This is a period that any post-doc must go through. Unless it's your opinion that taking a postdoctoral position is per se equivalent to letting oneself be treated like dirt, I don't see how the above could be your sincere interpretation of what I wrote.

 

[ych22]

I didn't say I'm willing to be treated like dirt. It's my understanding that the pay associated with a postdoctoral position is poor. What I'm saying is that I am willing to go through a period in my life when I'm not earning nearly as much as I would by applying my skills elsewhere. This is a period that any post-doc must go through. Unless it's your opinion that taking a postdoctoral position is per se equivalent to letting oneself be treated like dirt, I don't see how the above could be your sincere interpretation of what I wrote.

I can't speak for two-quant but, myself, I inferred your statement "I'm also willing to work as a postdoc for a long time if necessary. Basically what I'm saying is that I'm willing to do **** work for a salary I can barely scrape by on if that's what it takes to get involved in physics research." as being willing to be treated like dirt.

Maybe...you could have phrased it better...

 

[Geezer]

What I'm saying is that I am willing to go through a period in my life when I'm not earning nearly as much as I would by applying my skills elsewhere.

But what if you have a wife/husband/partner who isn't nearly as gung ho about you earning a lower salary? Or what if you have a kid by then?

 

[twofish-quant]

I didn't say I'm willing to be treated like dirt. It's my understanding that the pay associated with a postdoctoral position is poor. What I'm saying is that I am willing to go through a period in my life when I'm not earning nearly as much as I would by applying my skills elsewhere.

A few problems:

1) we are talking about over a decade of sub-par earnings. That's one tenth of your life.

2) we are talking about a particularly critical period of your life. The age 25-35 is the time that you start a family, and that involves having enough money to support not only yourself but also your kids.

3) I think that it's fine to sacrifice now for something in the future. But you have to realize that the *LIKELY* result is that after going through all of what you are going through, you'll end up with nothing but fond memories.

Now if you enjoy being a post-doc for the sake of being a post-doc, that's fine. If you are under the impression that being a post-doc is merely a stepping stone to grander things, then you just have to realize that the *LIKELY* result is that this just won't happen.

Unless it's your opinion that taking a postdoctoral position is per se equivalent to letting oneself be treated like dirt, I don't see how the above could be your sincere interpretation of what I wrote.

Well it is. You are going to be an academic serf. Nothing fundamentally wrong with being an academic serf, but you just have to realize that this is what is going on.

Also the thing that is bothersome is not just the pay. It's the lack of job security and respect that goes with the position. Part of the lack of job security and respect comes with the fact that you can't leave.

In industry, you have a bidding contest that often keeps the worst abuse from happening. If your employer beats you every day, you have the option of leaving and finding someone else that will beat you only every other day. In academia, you don't really have the option of saying "I'm fed up with this, I'm leaving."

 

[matt91a]

I'm reminded of what my adviser said to me,

"If you want to go into academia you need 3 things: you need to be lucky, you need to be persistent, and you need to know how to take rejection"

 

[Zarathustra0]

OK, point taken--to paraphrase what I'm hearing, a Ph.D. in physics is without use unless you want to go into industry or finance because anyone who pursues a postdoctoral position is a sap with no job prospects. I'll take your collective word for this. What then are some (potentially) appealing or at least attainable jobs one could pursue in (or somehow tangentially related to) physics, and what sort of education do they require? In other words, what field could I have told you I wanted to apply my physics knowledge to that wouldn't have warranted the accusation of wanting to be treated like dirt?

 

[Geezer]

OK, point taken--to paraphrase what I'm hearing, a Ph.D. in physics is without use unless you want to go into industry or finance because anyone who pursues a postdoctoral position is a sap with no job prospects.

I don't think that's what anyone is saying. What we're saying is that post docs are the lowest of the low on the academic totem pole; however, you can't advance to a tenure-track position without going through that [possibly degrading] phase of your career. However, there are far fewer tenure-track positions than there are post docs, so you either do serial post docs until you give up, finally (if ever) get an academic position, or change fields.

What we're also saying is that most post docs do NOT go on to have long-lived academic careers--as post post docs or better--for myriad reasons; one being that there just aren't enough academic jobs for everyone, and another being that sometimes other life events occur that suddenly render post-docking far less attractive.

 

[Zarathustra0]

OK, point taken--to paraphrase what I'm hearing, a Ph.D. in physics is without use unless you want to go into industry or finance because anyone who pursues a postdoctoral position is a sap with no job prospects.

I don't think that's what anyone is saying.

Distinguishing between a sap and a person who spends six years earning a degree that only leads to serf-level work seems like quibbling to me. I'm using more pejorative language to describe it than you are, but frankly I don't see any concrete distinction.

 

[hadsed]

OK, point taken--to paraphrase what I'm hearing, a Ph.D. in physics is without use unless you want to go into industry or finance because anyone who pursues a postdoctoral position is a sap with no job prospects. I'll take your collective word for this. What then are some (potentially) appealing or at least attainable jobs one could pursue in (or somehow tangentially related to) physics, and what sort of education do they require? In other words, what field could I have told you I wanted to apply my physics knowledge to that wouldn't have warranted the accusation of wanting to be treated like dirt?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=491468"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=200916"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=354287"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=376191"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=463770"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=470846"

 

[Zarathustra0]

Looks like I'd better work on my programming skills--thanks for the help!

 

[twofish-quant]

OK, point taken--to paraphrase what I'm hearing, a Ph.D. in physics is without use unless you want to go into industry or finance because anyone who pursues a postdoctoral position is a sap with no job prospects.

A Ph.D. in physics is useful for the sake of getting a Ph.D. in physics. If you want to do the post-doc for the sake of doing the post-doc then more power to you. The trouble is that I don't think that most people do.

Also it depends on what you want to do with your life. One thing that I've wanted to do is to live the "life of the mind" but I've found that the university is a bad place to do that, since the jobs aren't there.

One very useful site here is

http://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/CWB.html

One particularly useful page on that page

Kaiser, "The postwar suburbanization of American physics," American Quarterly 56 (December 2004): 851-888.

Reading that article, I get the "Oh, so *that* is who brainwashed me" feeling. At a very young age I got brainwashed into wanting to be the people in that article. Trouble is that it became obvious around age 23, that I wasn't going to get that from the standard route, and if I wanted to get what I wanted, I'd have to do something original and different.

As a note, one thing that I find interesting is that in the 1950's, it seems that the people getting physics Ph.D.'s *weren't* expecting become university faculty. So one thing that I wonder is at what point in history did the "the ideal/only position for a physics Ph.D. is a physics professor" come into being. 1960's? 1970's? 1980's?

My guess (and I'd be happen to hear people with different views) is that it happened in the mid-1980's when large corporations started shutting down basic research, because of changes in the US corporate/financial system. Once companies started shutting down basic research, then everything went to the universities.

What then are some (potentially) appealing or at least attainable jobs one could pursue in (or somehow tangentially related to) physics, and what sort of education do they require?

I haven't the foggiest clue. :-) :-)

I can tell you want some attractive jobs in physics are in 2011. If you ask me what the jobs are going to be in 2015 or 2020, I haven't any clue. I've switched jobs every few years, and so I don't have much of an idea of what *I'll* be doing in 2020. I have only vague ideas of what I'll be doing in 2015.

But I think that's sort of interesting. I got into this because I wanted to figure stuff out, and trying to figure out my life is as interesting as figuring out the big bang.

In other words, what field could I have told you I wanted to apply my physics knowledge to that wouldn't have warranted the accusation of wanting to be treated like dirt?

It's not an accusation. It's just a reality. If you want the life of a post-doc, that's wonderful, as long as you understand what you are going in for.

 

[twofish-quant]

Distinguishing between a sap and a person who spends six years earning a degree that only leads to serf-level work seems like quibbling to me. I'm using more pejorative language to describe it than you are, but frankly I don't see any concrete distinction.

People are different. I remember once telling someone that my job involves solving math problems for 12 hours/day, and they looked at me and said "I feel so sorry for you!"

One person's heaven is another person's hell, and there are people that either like or are willing to endure being a serf, for various reasons. If you look at physics graduate schools, a lot of people are from other countries, and being an academic serf is the only way they can get into the United States, and working insane hours in a lab is better than delivering Chinese food.

If you enjoy being a post-doc for the sake of being a post-doc they more power to you, but most people don't, and they see it as merely something to be endured for something better. Trouble is that "something better" is pretty unlikely to happen.

Also, if your main interest is getting a decent paying career in the US, and you don't care much how you go about it, physics is probably one of the last things that you'd want to consider. Get an MBA or learn to repair air conditioners. For me, I ended up studying physics because in my weird social circle, physics is cool.

 

[Zarathustra0]

My guess (and I'd be happen to hear people with different views) is that it happened in the mid-1980's when large corporations started shutting down basic research, because of changes in the US corporate/financial system. Once companies started shutting down basic research, then everything went to the universities.

I think that view is supported by the article as well. I guess to be honest about it, I had always looked at a career in academia as something absurdly difficult to get into but still something I wanted to try (with a backup plan or, to be accurate, a likely to be invoked fallback) because of the now taken for granted association between universities and research. I mean money is no priority to me at all, but at some point in this thread I got the feeling I was giving the impression of a naïf for that approach, so I got curious about what a more respected one might be, i.e., something that pays well.

Really the best approach for me is probably to go to grad school, get my Ph.D., try to work in academia, fail miserably (I can afford to provided I'm willing to move on to something else when I see I'm thoroughly beaten), see I'm thoroughly beaten, move on to something else, and do theory on the weekends. Theory doesn't really have any operational costs excepting a willingness (and the time devotion) to keep up with current trends and papers. Hell, I spent last Saturday night reading gauge-theory stuff (which I, as a third-year undergrad, have been hitherto deprived of). What I want are a living that I can, well, live on and enough education to be able to properly ponder the nagging questions about the universe in my head, neither of which requires working for a university.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Please note that this is my first post on Physics Forums, and I would like to make the disclaimer that I am not a physics major, as you can tell from my user name (undergraduate degree in mathematics, graduate degree in statistics).

From posts that I have read so far in this thread, there seems to be a consensus that prospects for tenure-track academic positions in physics are quite poor, and this may indeed be the case (at least based on the blog posts from Peter Woit and Erich Poppitz). However, isn't this consensus based on those seeking positions specifically to theoretical physics, and not necessarily to those who pursued a graduate degree in physics, but then decided to pursue academic research in another, cognate field, such as computer science, applied mathematics or statistics?

After all, there is considerable overlap in research between physics and these other fields (e.g. scientific computing/numerical analysis for computer science and physics). Furthermore, I am quite aware that my field relies on many of the same mathematical foundations as physics (e.g. probability theory, real analysis, algebra) and I am aware of physicists who have transitioned into highly regarded statisticians (e.g. Jerry Friedman at Stanford).

Hence couldn't one argue that the academic job market may be less dire if one seeks beyond direct physics research?

 

[hadsed]

That's interesting. I always wondered what the job prospects were for computer scientists who wanted to stay in academia. I guess it's not as much of an issue with them because computer science is so heavily applied in many industries, except for the highly theoretical (almost mathematical really) disciplines. In physics I guess there's this feeling that string theories, grand unified theories, etc. all happen in the academic setting in an old gothic-style architecture building, or something. It's true mostly, since there isn't any work done on that stuff outside of academia (but then, the same can be said about mathematics and theoretical computer science).

Still, I'm interested in the career outlooks of computer scientists who want to become professors.