How do you ask a professor for possibility of publication

[j93]

Actually, it is an undergraduate that should be more concerned about gaining such skills. An undergraduate physics degree has a more limited employability than a graduate degree. Without such experimental skills, one is limiting oneself to even less of a range of jobs IF one either chooses to not pursue graduate school, or if one cannot gain admission. These are all possibilities that one must consider, and therefore, one must cast as wide of a net as possible. So gaining research experience, more so that publishing, has unforeseen benefits for an undergraduate.

Zz.

We are giving advice for different people. I am giving advice for someone who wants to go to grad school and is seriously pursuing it by getting good grades and preparing for GRE's and wants to have the validated research experience that will make the difference between going to UCLA and Harvard not the difference between getting in and not. If you haven't decided to pursue graduate school and are considering joining the job market I would suggest gathering skills marketable for the job market. It is up to the OP to decide which of those groups he fits into.

 

[will.c]

I think that doing research that you aren't really interested in is exceedingly obvious - both from the fact that it will not prepare you for grad school (unless you plan to write your dissertation on things that don't interest you)... And just imagine your personal statement: "I've worked for a year in the lab of Prof. Solidstate and have my name loosely associated with two high profile publications. My intended focus at your program will be in cosmology."

That said, it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about getting a publication - so long as that is not your only objective. But you should follow physics girl phd's advice and consider whether the professor's publication record lines up with what you're comfortable with, and not whether there's a guaranteed paper.

If you're more interested in being a competitive applicant to Harvard than learning something valuable, well you've got a rough road ahead of you. Ph.D. completion rates are quite less than 100%, and plenty of people drop out at Harvard, too.

 

[will.c]

In any case, even in the most shrewd, cynical sense - the letter of recommendation is much more important than the publication. What kind of letter will you end up with for an outstanding amount of unpublishable effort versus half-assedly running some computer simulations?

 

[j93]

"I've worked for a year in the lab of Prof. Solidstate and have my name loosely associated with two high profile publications. My intended focus at your program will be in cosmology."

From the viewpoint of an admissions committee they would view as as regular undergrad behavior. How many sophomore undergrads have decided on the area of physics they are going to complete there physics PhD in. I wouldn't expect an undergrad to that point to be exposed to research experience in all areas of physics to realize they will do condensed matter or whatever for the next 7 years of their life. I don't think physics department expect you to be that partial to a specific subfield your sophomore and junior year of undergrad.

In any case, even in the most shrewd, cynical sense - the letter of recommendation is much more important than the publication. What kind of letter will you end up with for an outstanding amount of unpublishable effort versus half-assedly running some computer simulations?

Whats with the assumption that if you work in a group that doesn't publish often you are working harder?

If you're more interested in being a competitive applicant to Harvard than learning something valuable, well you've got a rough road ahead of you. Ph.D. completion rates are quite less than 100%, and plenty of people drop out at Harvard, too.

If he gets into Harvard and doesn't graduate than oh well. I still don't think if he dropped out of Harvard it would have anything to do with the choice he makes in research opportunities as an undergrad but rather his determination to graduate. Are qualifiers/exams at Harvard really that much harder than UCLA or a school one tier below? I also doubt passing rates for qualifiers depend on the performance of others in his graduate class.

 

[will.c]

My point is simply that publication isn't nearly as important as doing quality undergraduate research even from the utility of getting into a good graduate school. If a student is published in a field where they don't intend to actually do graduate work, the admissions committee will certainly like that more than a student who did no research at all, but significantly less than a student who has experience in the field they plan to write a dissertation in.

So no, a student doesn't need to be expected to have settled on a subfield as an undergrad, but to work on something you already know doesn't interest you solely for publication potential is a disservice.

There was no assumption that someone who doesn't publish will work harder, just that someone only interested in publishing will be much more transparent than someone only interested in doing physics. And the letter of recommendation will carry much more weight than a second (or fourth) authored publication.

Now, if you're gunning to get a first authored publication, you don't really even have to ask the professor if he does publishable work - that's the kind of publication that matters to top-tier schools.

 

[Choppy]

If a student is published in a field where they don't intend to actually do graduate work, the admissions committee will certainly like that more than a student who did no research at all, but significantly less than a student who has experience in the field they plan to write a dissertation in.

Perhaps this is a semantics argument, but I disagree with "significantly less" and later with "disservice."

I would agree that it can look better if you have exerience in the field you plan to go into, but you also have to keep in mind that incoming grad students don't always know which field they want to pursue. I sure didn't. And I don't think it's realistic to expect an admissions committee to place a lot of weight on that as a factor for entrance (although I'm sure the exact weight varies from school to school).

Undergraduate students work for professors for lots of reasons. It could be that they like a particular professor or feel that they can learn more in one lab over another. Maybe they know grad students in a particular lab. Maybe they win a scholarship that requires they work in a particular field. Maybe at first, the choice is random. Maybe there aren't any jobs available in the field they dearly want to pursue and so they chose the next best thing. And yes, the possibility of getting credit for the work is also a factor.

The assumtion that students are penalized for not doing work as an undergraduate in the field they plan to pursue graduate work in is inconsistent with my experience.

 

[j93]

There was no assumption that someone who doesn't publish will work harder, just that someone only interested in publishing will be much more transparent than someone only interested in doing physics. And the letter of recommendation will carry much more weight than a second (or fourth) authored publication.

Youre still making the same assumption because a letter of recommendation is written about your work for a supervisor and the quality of that work and any future work. This is orthogonal to whether one is published or not. There is no reason to believe that if you work hard for a professor that is likely to publish you won't get as good a letter as working hard for a professor that doesn't not publish as often.
Im assuming youre dropping the he will drop out argument.

I also agree with Choppy's points.