How can one combine different areas of specialization in a PhD program?

[Diracula]

It is well known on these forums that it is extremely difficult to get a tenured faculty job in a university physics department. Therefore, a lot of people recommend that you don't go to graduate school with that as your only goal; that you have a very solid backup plan. Many people recommend that you pick up other employable skills as you go. My question is: how does one do this?

I have a fairly wide range of interests, including particle/high energy theory, biophysics/neurophysics, neuroscience and neural engineerings, etc. But, if I ask myself, "What do you want to get your PhD in? What do you want your PhD level training to be in? What is MOST interesting to you?" the answer I come away with for all of these questions is theoretical particle physics. The problem is, the chances of me getting a job doing particle physics upon completion of my PhD is way too small for me to invest ~5 years of my life. And, I have no idea where particle theorists are employed outside of academia. Honestly, the only things I've heard is them working on wall street. Which may be an okay result, but given the current situation in the finance industry who knows if particle theorists will be able to get a job on wall street 5 years from now. And if I invest 5 years of my time into completing a degree, I'd prefer to have a much wider range of options than academia or wall street.

So what does one do? Is it way better to take into consideration economic/market demand for what you specialize in? Should I do biophysics instead since biotech companies may want me? Is it possible to double major in your PhD... like could I say specialize in particle theory but also do enough work in condensed matter physics or AMO or biophysics such that I'd be able to choose jobs from a wide range of companies?

How does one pick up additional skills such that they are employable outside of academia should that not work out? It seems like choosing a speciality based solely on what you find the most interesting is the path to failure unless you really luck out in liking the right area (plenty of funding or industry demand)... unless I'm completely wrong and particle theorists are in demand in a lot of places I'm not aware of.

Thoughts?

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Is it possible to double major in your PhD... like could I say specialize in particle theory but also do enough work in condensed matter physics or AMO or biophysics such that I'd be able to choose jobs from a wide range of companies?

No. It takes the full length of a PhD to reach sufficient standard in one field, never mind two. You could take a project that's cross-disciplinary, but not in the way you're thinking with theoretical particle physics.

 

[G01]

There really isn't such a thing as "double majoring" in a PhD program.

The point of a PhD is to specialize in one specific field and become an expert in that chosen field.

 

[eri]

Your dissertation will be in one specific area. However, that doesn't stop you from working with people in other fields as well. It might take a bit longer to graduate that way, but you can get experience in some of the other areas of physics within your own physics department. I did my PhD specializing in astrophysics, but I spent a semester working with the biophysics group as well, as a side project relating to a class I was taking. You can take any of those classes as well.

 

[axiomatic7777]

I know 2 people who have doctorates in two completely different field (I think they started one degree after the other was finished), and 1 who is currently pursuing some sort of dual-doctorate at this moment.

So yes, it is not impossible, but very, very, very rare. The logistics, however, almost never work out, and you better be prepared to either handle A LOTS of work or spend MUCH LONGER to obtain your (dual-)doctorates. And you better do it out of love for both degrees, not for the employment possibilities; you'd be burned out pretty soon if not.

 

[Diracula]

Thanks guys. Exactly the kind of responses I was looking for.

So then, what happens to all these physics PhDs that specialize in particle theory yet don't get tenured academic jobs? Do they work at McDonald's? Is it easy to transition into an industry job? Like can they easily get an engineering job or a job doing condensed matter physics at a technical company? A job doing biophysics research at a biotech or pharm company? (If no hard data is available on what particle theorists do after graduating yet don't remain in academia then anecdotal evidence is fine). I am aware of the finance/wall street route. But that certainly seems more uncertain as of late. Is anything else available for particle theorists or is it (generally) just academia or finance?

I don't know anywhere that publishes data on this stuff. Is there any way to find out to a good approximation what you're in store for if you don't land that tenure track job?

 

[elduderino]

You will join the hordes of people that spend a decade of their life as postdocs. So the motivation should be this: if you're good, and in theoretical particle physics which is a field composed entirely of outliers, being good means beyond exceptional, then you can land a job straight after your phd as well. Your graduate institution (first) reputation of your advisor (close second, almost same priority as first) publication and citation records count a lot towards your employability.

Anyone who has a tenured job in a leading research university or lab is probably already a rockstar in his (her?) field. Jobs for theorists are even more rare. I know someone who did a Postdoc for 18 years before getting tenure. There is an example of R Sundrum of the Randall-Sundrum fame who I think was in the 9th year of his postdoc and thinking of shifting to Wall Street when he was contacted by Randall. That paper is the most cited in the decade ("An alternative to compactification") and Sundrum got 9 job offers, and is currently tenured at John Hopkins.

So its about luck, and being an outlier in a field of outliers. Or else, its a life of dire poverty and second-rate living as a postdoc for years and years.

If you are not so sure then I would ask you to rethink. Forget about double Phd... if you decide to invest an equivalent amount of time and effort on anything else (yes, non-academic world seems easy from this perspective) then you'll be way better off.

 

[DBTS]

You will join the hordes of people

"Hordes" as in about 100 people.

I honestly could not go into theoretical physics. It takes more than just hard-work, rather, intelligence and creativity to even be successful or a bit good at it. Not that I do not have the intelligence to comprehend it, I do comprehend most concepts, rather, I am not that much of a hard-worker... Anyway, you also have to publish papers and do research, etc..., so you will be fighting tooth and nail with other people just as smart or a bit better than you are in the field.

Do not let that be a discouragement as it is not intended that way. Theoretical physics is a great field and if you want a job, the best thing you could possibly do is, "network", the more friendlier you are with those in power, the better chances you have at landing a job in that field. Even if you do not work as hard or are as intelligent, you could always rely on social skills to land you a job. Then work hard after to keep the job, lol.

 

[twofish-quant]

But, if I ask myself, "What do you want to get your PhD in? What do you want your PhD level training to be in? What is MOST interesting to you?" the answer I come away with for all of these questions is theoretical particle physics. The problem is, the chances of me getting a job doing particle physics upon completion of my PhD is way too small for me to invest ~5 years of my life.

Then you really shouldn't to theoretical particle physics and find something else that you want to spend the rest of your life studying. If you can't figure that out, then you really shouldn't be doing a Ph.D.

And if I invest 5 years of my time into completing a degree, I'd prefer to have a much wider range of options than academia or wall street.

Don't do a Ph.D. Do a masters in something. It will take you two years, and you'll get some marketable skills.

So what does one do? Is it way better to take into consideration economic/market demand for what you specialize in?

For a Ph.D. you really can't. First of all, you have no idea what the market demand for anything is going to be in five years. Second, the point of the Ph.D. is to change the world, so what you discover may very well change market demand.

How does one pick up additional skills such that they are employable outside of academia should that not work out?

Read stuff (seriously). If you want to learn how to fix an engine, go and buy books on fixing engines.

It seems like choosing a speciality based solely on what you find the most interesting is the path to failure unless you really luck out in liking the right area (plenty of funding or industry demand)... unless I'm completely wrong and particle theorists are in demand in a lot of places I'm not aware of.

The purpose of work is to let you live a life, rather than the other way around. My main interest is astrophysics, and so as long as I'm doing something like astrophysics, I'm happy. It turns out that I can figure out how to turn astrophysics into $$$, but part of that is because I'm naturally curious about stuff.

 

[twofish-quant]

So then, what happens to all these physics PhDs that specialize in particle theory yet don't get tenured academic jobs?

Lots of different things. Computer programming and project management are rather popular. Now you might point out that you can get a job as a computer programmer or a project manager with a two years masters degree and not a five to seven year physics Ph.D. You would be correct.

Also if you have a physics Ph.D., you can do pretty much anything you would with just a bachelor's degree.

Is it easy to transition into an industry job?

Yes and no. It's easy from a technical point of view, but there is a different cultural mindset.

Is anything else available for particle theorists or is it (generally) just academia or finance?

Again, pretty much anything you can do with a bachelors is open to you. If you want to you can drive trucks or become a plumber.

 

[Diracula]

Then you really shouldn't to theoretical particle physics and find something else that you want to spend the rest of your life studying. If you can't figure that out, then you really shouldn't be doing a Ph.D.

That's the thing. I like quite a few areas, and I'd be happy to spend the rest of my life studying one of those areas. Particle theory is the most interesting. Another reason why I would choose my PhD in particle theory is that I feel like it would be the best preparation for the widest range of fields. I believe that a particle theorist could quickly transition into biophysics work, but a biophycist would probably take longer to learn the required math and physics to do particle theory. My hope was that I could double major as a PhD student such that I could both do the thing that was most interesting to me and gives me the broadest base to work from (particle theory), but also work in an area with a higher chance of industry demand in ~5 years (biophysics, for instance) since I probably couldn't get my foot in the door at many companies with particle theory. Unfortunately I see "double majoring" is probably impossible and dual-doctorates take way too long to complete.

Don't do a Ph.D. Do a masters in something. It will take you two years, and you'll get some marketable skills.

I have an MS in biology actually. It's not particularly useful in this economy however, and it's not an area I really want to work in long term. I want something more quantitative. Something in physics. I'm strongly considering medical physics, because I do find it interesting and it has good career prospects and great salary. But I'm only going to do medical physics if I can convince myself that particle physics will not offer anything close to the same career opportunities.

For a Ph.D. you really can't. First of all, you have no idea what the market demand for anything is going to be in five years. Second, the point of the Ph.D. is to change the world, so what you discover may very well change market demand.

I agree with this to an extent... but surely we can approximate. For instance, the demand for condensed matter physicists is almost certainly going to be far higher than particle theorists in 5 years. Same for biophysicsts or medical physicists.

Read stuff (seriously). If you want to learn how to fix an engine, go and buy books on fixing engines.

Right, but there are opportunity costs involved if I want to work in an area that is less interesting than particle theory but still requires a degree. I don't want to be a mechanic, but I DO want to be a radiation physicist IF I can't get a reasonable job that I like specializing in particle theory. And it is my understanding that I can't be a radiation physicist without an MS, PhD, or DMP in medical physics. So if I want to try the particle theory route yet fail to get a job I like, I'd have to add another degree. And I'm already old for a new graduate student.

The purpose of work is to let you live a life, rather than the other way around. My main interest is astrophysics, and so as long as I'm doing something like astrophysics, I'm happy. It turns out that I can figure out how to turn astrophysics into $$$, but part of that is because I'm naturally curious about stuff.

I agree with this. Unfortunately I really know no way to turn particle theory into money. And I don't want to risk spending 5-10 years of my life on the postdoc treadmill hoping to get an assistant prof job. If I went down that route, I'd be unhappy with my life. I'd have to get really luck and be incredibly good at particle physics to avoid this.

I'm leaning heavily towards medical physics... What I MAY do is apply to several medical physics programs, a few biophysics programs, and perhaps some particle physics PhDs... Then I can base my choice on the schools I get into rather than a specific field since I am honestly interested in all of them. If by chance I get into a top particle physics program I can think harder about it, but if not I can go with biophysics or medical physics assuming I get into a reasonable program. The latter 2 fields seem like safer bets since there is a lot more funding right now.

 

[Diracula]

Is it easy to transition into an industry job?

Yes and no. It's easy from a technical point of view, but there is a different cultural mindset.

Could you expand on this? Do you mean it's difficult from the cultural mindset of the graduate student? As in, it's ingrained into him by the academic culture that he can't or shouldn't leave academia for industry? Or it is difficult because industry has a cultural mindset that particle theory is only for academics so they won't hire particle theory PhDs?

Because honestly I would be going to graduate school with the goal and expectation of leaving academia for industry (unless by some miracle I got offered a tenure track job or possibly a top-end postdoc after graduating). Is it easy to transition to industry with this mindset? Because I have heard from plenty of other places that it is not easy (posts in this thread being one).

 

[twofish-quant]

Another reason why I would choose my PhD in particle theory is that I feel like it would be the best preparation for the widest range of fields.

I don't think that is true. Also I don't think you can figure out industry applicability based on the field of physics. For example, if you have exposure to high performance computing, that is extremely useful, and there are particle physics areas which are very heavily computation (lattice gauge theory for example) and those that aren't.

I believe that a particle theorist could quickly transition into biophysics work, but a biophycist would probably take longer to learn the required math and physics to do particle theory.

I don't think that's true at all. There is this idea that if you can learn string theory you can learn anything. The trouble is that some of the skills that are essential to be a biophysicist may have nothing to do with string theory.

My hope was that I could double major as a PhD student such that I could both do the thing that was most interesting to me and gives me the broadest base to work

There's no such thing as a "major" in Ph.D.'s. You really create your own degree. If you are interested in particle physics and biophysics, you could possibly do something that mixes the two (i.e. use math techniques in one to solve problems in the other), but that's creating a different beast that's different.

Also work in an area with a higher chance of industry demand in ~5 years (biophysics, for instance) since I probably couldn't get my foot in the door at many companies with particle theory

If you have a Ph.D. in particle physics, you are pretty much guaranteed a screening interview at a big bank. What happens next depends on a lot of factors but what you studied as your Ph.D. isn't a huge issue.

One other thing to remember is that the US graduates only about 1000 physics Ph.D's each year. There are more people employed at your local shopping mall.

I have an MS in biology actually. It's not particularly useful in this economy however, and it's not an area I really want to work in long term.

You do have to realize that a lot of out of your control. If the people that matter make stupid economic decisions, then you are stuffed whatever you do. One reason that I suggest that people shouldn't make their career the center of their life is that you are building a house on sand.

The global economy came very close to total collapse, and one image that I had of myself was selling apples and living in a cardboard box. If it turned out that the economy had collapsed and I was totally stuffed, then at least I could think about neutrino physics while I was shivering in the cold.

But I'm only going to do medical physics if I can convince myself that particle physics will not offer anything close to the same career opportunities.

It won't.

I agree with this to an extent... but surely we can approximate. For instance, the demand for condensed matter physicists is almost certainly going to be far higher than particle theorists in 5 years. Same for biophysicsts or medical physicists.

Very unwise. I'm not that old, but I've lived through enough revolutions that I think it's a bad idea to make these sorts of predictions. One problem is that people get in at the wrong time. If you are the first biophysicist, you win. Unfortunately, you'll probably be going into biophysics (or Nevada real estate) at exactly the same time that everyone else thinks that's it's a good idea.

I agree with this. Unfortunately I really know no way to turn particle theory into money.

I do, and if I could go back in time to 2005, I could tell someone then how to turn a particle physics Ph.D. into massive amounts of $$$$$. Unfortunately, that's 2005. It's 2011, and what worked in 2005 may or may not work.

But personally, that's part of the challenge. One of my useful traits is that I really don't need that much money to make me happy. I can honestly say that I have every material possession that I want right now. For me, making money is just a game.

One thing that helps me a lot was when I was a graduate student, I wrote down a number, and I promised myself that if I ever made that number, I'd declare myself rich. I also wrote down a list of everything that I wanted to buy, and promised myself that I was able to buy those things, I'd declare victory.

And I don't want to risk spending 5-10 years of my life on the postdoc treadmill hoping to get an assistant prof job. If I went down that route, I'd be unhappy with my life. I'd have to get really luck and be incredibly good at particle physics to avoid this.

Putting too much focus on career is a sure way of ending up unhappy and that's true whatever you do.

The latter 2 fields seem like safer bets since there is a lot more funding right now.

There are no safe bets.

One thing that I think you need to ask yourself is why you want a good career? What do you *really* want?

 

[twofish-quant]

Could you expand on this? Do you mean it's difficult from the cultural mindset of the graduate student?

Or a professor or anyone else in academia. There are a million things that are different from industry and academia, that it's hard to list them all. One difference is that in academia it's generally believed that the smartest person "ought" to have more power and respect, whereas in industry that's not usually true. One other difference is that academia is a lot about "follow rule X and get reward Y" whereas in industry the connection between following the rules and getting rewards is less clear.

Or it is difficult because industry has a cultural mindset that particle theory is only for academics so they won't hire particle theory PhDs?

No it's just that some physics Ph.D.'s find it difficult to move into industry. Some don't. Different people are different.

For example, one thing that you have to learn in industry is to take orders from someone that is clearly and obviously less smart than you are. Also there are other skills that are important in industry that aren't in academia. For example, one thing that I *really* had problems with is talking to people on the telephone. I get extremely nervous talking to people on the phone, and that's a skill that I had to pick up.

Because honestly I would be going to graduate school with the goal and expectation of leaving academia for industry (unless by some miracle I got offered a tenure track job or possibly a top-end postdoc after graduating). Is it easy to transition to industry with this mindset? Because I have heard from plenty of other places that it is not easy (posts in this thread being one).

Easy or difficult, for a lot of people it has to be done.

 

[Diracula]

I don't think that's true at all. There is this idea that if you can learn string theory you can learn anything. The trouble is that some of the skills that are essential to be a biophysicist may have nothing to do with string theory.

Probably. But I come from both a physics and biology background. My biology education came first, and I went back to school for physics. The physics was far more difficult to really understand, and after I got through some real physics courses the biology became pretty much intuitive. Membrane potential for a biologist is kinda abstract and tough. Once you've had an intermediate EM course? It's extremely basic. Granted a physicist still has to learn all that biology, but that's just volume. I don't think someone who understands QFT is going to have trouble with statistical mechanics applied to biological systems, they just need to take the time to learn it. But a biophysicist trying to pick up group theory at a level to understand particle physics? I think it would be way harder for me if I took that route.

There's no such thing as a "major" in Ph.D.'s. You really create your own degree. If you are interested in particle physics and biophysics, you could possibly do something that mixes the two (i.e. use math techniques in one to solve problems in the other), but that's creating a different beast that's different.

That's actually close to what I REALLY want to do... Pick up the physics/math from a particle physics phd and apply it all to problems in neuroscience and cognitive science. I have quite a few ideas that I would like to explore. Eventually go into neural engineering if it works out. But I doubt I could get a company to pay for this type of speculative research. And academia doesn't even give you a ton of freedom anymore. And I don't want to spend 5-10 years doing postdocts anyway, like I said. Not worth the tradeoff for me.

I think I'm like 65% medical physics, 30% biophysics, 5% particle physics. I could see myself doing particle theory if by some miracle I got into a school like MIT or Caltech, but unless I get into a very top school I think I'd stick with medical physics. I may explore my neurophysics/biophysics ideas in my spare time. Heck, one of my ideas would require advances in medical imaging, which is medical physics, so I'm not too far away from my main interests.

It may sound silly but I'd really like myself to be "capable" of doing cutting edge particle physics research, even if that wasn't my focus after I was done with the PhD.

Very unwise. I'm not that old, but I've lived through enough revolutions that I think it's a bad idea to make these sorts of predictions. One problem is that people get in at the wrong time. If you are the first biophysicist, you win. Unfortunately, you'll probably be going into biophysics (or Nevada real estate) at exactly the same time that everyone else thinks that's it's a good idea.

Surely you can observe trends though? And even if you choose to specialize in biophysics but it happens to trend downwards heavily over the next 5 years you could use your knowledge to transition into a related field that has some demand. Physics and biology isn't going to completely implode in 5 years unless there is an economic collapse. Then we're screwed either way.

But particle theory, there's zero economic demand for that outside of academia or (maybe) finance in a few years when things recover. Unless you get lucky and specialize in doing something that requires high performance computing, for example. That requires a lot of luck, imo. As you mention markets can change quickly. And I don't find computational work, by itself, super interesting unless it's working on a problem that I find super interesting. But the chances of radiation physics becoming obsolete in 5 years? Much lower. And I find radiation physics or imaging physics really interesting on its own.

There are no safe bets.

One thing that I think you need to ask yourself is why you want a good career? What do you *really* want?

A stable income, which implies a job with reasonable job security and pay. It sucks terribly to not have an in demand skill set when the economy tanks (learned that over the past 1-2 years). I also want an interesting job. Medical physics, in my opinion, is less interesting than particle theory, but it's still interesting and it pays a lot more over the course of a career and has a lot better job opportunities. I'll take that tradeoff...

Unless I could easily transition from a particle theory PhD to doing biophysics work at a pharmaceutical or biotech company. I think I might like this better than medical physics. That's why I came here... was curious if I could specialize in two areas during my phd to make such a transition easier. To get my foot in the door after my phd. But I definitely get the impression that it is difficult, and it's impossible to "double major".

So perhaps my best bet is to do my PhD in medical physics and branch out from there.

 

[bcrowell]

Diracula, when you laid out the options for a particle physicist as academia or Wall Street, you seemed to be equating academia to research. How interested are you in teaching? For example, I did my PhD in low-energy nuclear physics, and now I teach at a community college. If you'd asked me 20 years ago whether I would like community college teaching as a career, I would have said no way. But I gradually realized as a grad student and postdoc that I wasn't enjoying research, and I'm now very happy spending 100% of my work life on teaching.

 

[Diracula]

I think that, like you 20 years ago, I'd say that I'm not very interested in community college teaching as a career. The purpose for me to do a PhD would be for research training, and if my job didn't have a heavy problem solving and research component to it I don't think I'd like it too much. Another big negative for me with regards to academia is that I would like to have quite a few options on where to live. If i was forced to live in an area because that was the only place I had to work I don't think I'd be happy.

That being said I do have some teaching experience with undergraduate courses and the teaching itself I found enjoyable. Right now, I would just prefer that it would be something I did in addition to research rather than the primary goal of my job.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't think someone who understands QFT is going to have trouble with statistical mechanics applied to biological systems, they just need to take the time to learn it. But a biophysicist trying to pick up group theory at a level to understand particle physics? I think it would be way harder for me if I took that route.

On the other hand, every electron is the same, whereas every person is different, and people that are good at particle physics may have problems thinking "statistically." (i.e. realizing that results on one group of people are just different from other groups of people).

Also someone that is great at QFT may just totally stink at programming a simulation in C++. Different skills.

Pick up the physics/math from a particle physics phd and apply it all to problems in neuroscience and cognitive science.

But you'll likely find that

1) the math doesn't work. What tends to happen with complex systems is that individual variation gets rid of subtle math effects.

2) even when the math does work, its useless. Suppose that you are able to apply Banach spaces to cognitive science. What you'll find is that if you are the only one in the world that understands Banach spaces that no one will find your model usable.

3) focusing on the math makes you miss the big picture. Around 2005 there were a ton of papers that tried to apply the math of quantum field theory to sub-prime mortgages. Interesting, but ultimately useless, because people got caught up with the math, and missed the fact that it's a dumb idea to lend money to people that can't pay it back.

But I doubt I could get a company to pay for this type of speculative research. And academia doesn't even give you a ton of freedom anymore.

Some people are good at selling stuff. Something that I find a huge amount of time doing is selling ideas. I'm interested in X, how do I convince Y to let me study X.

It may sound silly but I'd really like myself to be "capable" of doing cutting edge particle physics research, even if that wasn't my focus after I was done with the PhD.

I think you've accepted some very dubious philosophy.

Surely you can observe trends though?

Sure. But what will happen is that things go up, and then they crash. Personally, if everyone is trying to get into X, that's a sign for my to get into something else.

Physics and biology isn't going to completely implode in 5 years unless there is an economic collapse. Then we're screwed either way.

Looking at funding patterns, I think that there is a very good chance that US science is going to implode in the next decade. But sometimes you really are screwed. In that case, you have to ask yourself what you do when the unthinkable happens. If you spend ten years doing what you enjoy and then the bottom falls out, then at least you had those ten years.

A stable income, which implies a job with reasonable job security and pay.

Everyone that I know with a Ph.D. has a stable income with reasonable job security and pay. A lot of them are doing things that have nothing to do with their Ph.D. but that's something different. Just because you have a Ph.D. doesn't disqualify you from working as a truck driver or a plumber.

That's why I came here... was curious if I could specialize in two areas during my phd to make such a transition easier.

The transition from academia to business is less of topic than of mindset. One thing that you really do have to learn is instead of thinking "this topic is useless" you need to think "let me convince you that the topic is useful."

 

[twofish-quant]

I think that, like you 20 years ago, I'd say that I'm not very interested in community college teaching as a career.

One thing that will help you a *huge* amount in industry is to have undergraduate teaching experience. Once you are in industry you will find yourself constantly teaching a class called "This is why you should keep paying me."

 

[Diracula]

Resurrecting the idea of "double majoring" in a PhD. Here is a good approximation of what I am talking about:

http://www.princeton.edu/neuroscience/education/Graduate%20joint-degree-program/"

I realize this isn't exactly what I was talking about, but it's pretty close. Basically, what I'd like to do is choose my area of specialization in physics out of pure unadalturated interest, while picking up a second area of specialization with a mindfulness towards economic demand. Something like particle theory + medical physics, physics + neuroscience, physics + electrical engineering. You get the idea.

Thoughts on this program? Is this the only program that let's you do such a thing and is it exclusive to neuroscience?

 

[Diracula]

It may sound silly but I'd really like myself to be "capable" of doing cutting edge particle physics research, even if that wasn't my focus after I was done with the PhD.

I think you've accepted some very dubious philosophy.

Also, this reply surprised me a lot. I thought you specialized in astrophysics and you did so because you primarily wanted to do research in the field? And you are happy with your decision despite no longer doing astrophysics research?

What is different about me wanting to achieve a high level of education in particle physics, do research in particle physics, yet not wanting to go into academia after I'm done?

 

[twofish-quant]

The dubious philosophy is the idea that particle physics is somehow harder or deeper than other types of physics, or that abstract esoteric math is somehow "better." For example, particle physicists tend to be horrible at dealing with statistics or even to design experiments that give you good statistics, but somehow being able to the the math that particle physicist can do is somehow more *MACHO*.

Also, this reply surprised me a lot. I thought you specialized in astrophysics and you did so because you primarily wanted to do research in the field? And you are happy with your decision despite no longer doing astrophysics research?

Sure but one thing that makes me happy is that my day job happens to be more or less exactly what I was doing in graduate school, with more money. I'm not studying supernova, but I'm using pretty much the exact same math and doing exactly the same things.

What is different about me wanting to achieve a high level of education in particle physics, do research in particle physics, yet not wanting to go into academia after I'm done?

Nothing. What I was questioning was the idea that if you understand particle physics that you'd find something else like biophysics trivial.

 

[twofish-quant]

I realize this isn't exactly what I was talking about, but it's pretty close. Basically, what I'd like to do is choose my area of specialization in physics out of pure unadalturated interest, while picking up a second area of specialization with a mindfulness towards economic demand. Something like particle theory + medical physics, physics + neuroscience, physics + electrical engineering.

One problem is that economic demand will shift and then you may be out of luck. It so happens that my astrophysics Ph.D. gave me just precisely the right skills to do my current job. The odd thing is that my job didn't exist in 1998, and had I done what was economically useful for 1998, I would have not gotten the skills that I need for the job in 2011.

How much of this was dumb luck, I do not know. But one thing that happens in economics is that people see a demand for something, everyone does it, and then after a few years you end up with a glut. This is why you are sometimes better off just doing something random, because that means that you prepare yourself for something that no one else sees. If you pick a topic at random, you have a random chance of being right, but if you think about it, your thought processes are going to match other people's thought process, so your odds of getting it right are *less than random*.

 

[Choppy]

I realize this isn't exactly what I was talking about, but it's pretty close. Basically, what I'd like to do is choose my area of specialization in physics out of pure unadalturated interest, while picking up a second area of specialization with a mindfulness towards economic demand. Something like particle theory + medical physics, physics + neuroscience, physics + electrical engineering. You get the idea.

Thoughts on this program? Is this the only program that let's you do such a thing and is it exclusive to neuroscience?

I think the idea even in this program is that you still only have one project. Neurosceince is a very interdisciplinary field. People that get into it tend to come from other academic disciplines and it looks (just by a cursory glance) like this program is promoting that.

So translate this to physics. You could be a graduate student in physics and take on a project that tackles a neuroscience question, or an electrical engineering question, or a sociology question, etc. Therein you would have more of a hybrid specialization.

It sounds to me like what your'e after is a "best of both worlds" scenario.

If you wanted to combine medical physics with particle physics, I'm sure there is a possible way of doing it, but medical physics tends to be very much an applied physics field. So there wouldn't be too many projects that would involve new particle theory applied for medical purposes. More probably though, you could take on a project relating to the more practical development of something like heavy ion therapy.