- #1
ScipioAustrianus
- 1
- 3
I am about to finish my physics Bachelor’s degree at 19 years old, and I am looking for master’s programs in mathematical physics / theoretical physics (not sure which exactly yet).
A bit of personal context.
I feel that it would be premature for me to specialize at this stage given that I haven't even seen all fields of physics yet (I didn't really do rigid-body physics in the bachelor's and haven't done thermodynamics / statistical mechanics yet). I don't want to choose a research path yet for the same reason. I am unsure of what kind of job I want so I am not planning on including that in my considerations either. Choosing a PhD isn't a consideration either. The only thing that I am really adamant about is that I want the best general formation. I don't really care about having specific subjects (I definitely don't want an experimental focus in the master though), I care about the way those subjects are taught and approached. I am all about rigor, clarity and striving for real understanding. The main metric I am interested in is “teaching quality.” I think my notion of “teaching quality” is best described through examples, so I have added two appendices, one short and one long, of positive and negative aspects of my own program.
My idea is to collect first-hand reports from similarly-minded students / alumni of master’s programs in mathematical / theoretical physics about how the core courses were / are taught (rigor, clarity, breadth) in their program. This way I can accumulate some kind of information for a wide range of different universities.
If you’ve studied or are studying a Master’s in any physics program, I would greatly appreciate your first-hand insights on how the core courses were taught, especially regarding rigor, clarity, and depth. Information like course name and language would also be welcomed. Even if your focus wasn’t purely theoretical or mathematical, your perspective on teaching quality and approach is valuable to me. Replies from any country are welcome.
Appendices:
A short evaluation of my own program is available in Appendix A. For more detailed examples and discussion, see Appendix B. Both are optional reading.
A bit of personal context.
I feel that it would be premature for me to specialize at this stage given that I haven't even seen all fields of physics yet (I didn't really do rigid-body physics in the bachelor's and haven't done thermodynamics / statistical mechanics yet). I don't want to choose a research path yet for the same reason. I am unsure of what kind of job I want so I am not planning on including that in my considerations either. Choosing a PhD isn't a consideration either. The only thing that I am really adamant about is that I want the best general formation. I don't really care about having specific subjects (I definitely don't want an experimental focus in the master though), I care about the way those subjects are taught and approached. I am all about rigor, clarity and striving for real understanding. The main metric I am interested in is “teaching quality.” I think my notion of “teaching quality” is best described through examples, so I have added two appendices, one short and one long, of positive and negative aspects of my own program.
My idea is to collect first-hand reports from similarly-minded students / alumni of master’s programs in mathematical / theoretical physics about how the core courses were / are taught (rigor, clarity, breadth) in their program. This way I can accumulate some kind of information for a wide range of different universities.
If you’ve studied or are studying a Master’s in any physics program, I would greatly appreciate your first-hand insights on how the core courses were taught, especially regarding rigor, clarity, and depth. Information like course name and language would also be welcomed. Even if your focus wasn’t purely theoretical or mathematical, your perspective on teaching quality and approach is valuable to me. Replies from any country are welcome.
Appendices:
A short evaluation of my own program is available in Appendix A. For more detailed examples and discussion, see Appendix B. Both are optional reading.
