MS Physics Engineering or straight to PhD?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the decision-making process regarding pursuing a Master's degree in Engineering Physics versus directly entering a PhD program in particle physics or cosmology. It includes considerations of career paths, particularly in relation to opportunities at CERN and national laboratories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if the goal is a Ph.D., it is typical in the U.S. to enter a Ph.D. program directly after completing a B.S.
  • Another participant mentions that many Ph.D. holders work as engineers at national labs, implying that an M.S. may not be necessary for engineering roles.
  • Perry expresses concerns about the focus of national labs on weapons systems and inquires about the availability of non-weapons-related projects.
  • There is a discussion about the varying focuses of different national labs, with some being dedicated to non-classified research.
  • Perry acknowledges the information provided and expresses appreciation for the insights shared.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present differing views on whether pursuing an M.S. is beneficial for a career at CERN or if direct entry into a Ph.D. program is preferable. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best path forward for Perry.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of national lab affiliations and the potential limitations based on citizenship for job opportunities at CERN.

perry.randall
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I didn't see a place to post introductions, so I suppose I'll jump right in.

I'm currently going back to school after a six year stint in the finance industry (protip: not a fun or fulfilling field). The way that Colorado's Department of Higher Education has the university system structured, it makes the most sense to go to a CC to get an associate's degree before transferring to a four-year, as CU is required to admit anyone with an AS from a Colorado two-year as a junior.

My question, then: understanding that my goal is to get a PhD in particle physics/cosmology in the long term, would it make sense to try and head straight into a PhD program after my BS, or to spend an extra year to get an MS in Engineering Physics? I would be inclined to try and get into the doctoral program were it not for the fact that my wife's work will have us relocating to Geneva in a few years, and CERN appears to always be looking for engineers. My logic is, if I get a job there as an engineer and later leave to get my PhD at ETH or somesuch, I will already have both contacts and standing if I choose to go back as a researcher.

I would greatly appreciate the input of the community.

Kind regards,

Perry
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are certain that you want a Ph.D., you should enter a Ph.D. program after you have completed your B.S. That is the usual path in the U.S.

Also, I can't speak for CERN, but at the national lab where I work, there are *many* Ph.D.'s in physics working as engineers. So 1) you probably don't need an M.S. in Engineering Physics if being an engineer at CERN is your goal, and 2) you probably don't want to present yourself as an engineer if your goal is to do research.
 
Hello TMFKAN64,

Thank you for your perspective. It's interesting that you mention that you work at a national lab--I've been looking at possibly interning for one at some point, but everything that I've seen appears to be devoted to coming up with new and fancy weapons systems, which is something that I have a few qualms about. In your opinion, is this the case? Or would there be opportunity to do work that has a more pacifistic focus?

Regards,

Perry
 
perry.randall said:
... everything that I've seen appears to be devoted to coming up with new and fancy weapons systems, which is something that I have a few qualms about. In your opinion, is this the case?

There are many national labs and they each have a slightly different focus. As you say, many of them, unsurprisingly, are focused on weapons research. However, even at these labs, there are usually projects that are not weapons-related. And on the other extreme, there are some national labs where no classified research is done at all.
 
TMFKAN64 said:
There are many national labs and they each have a slightly different focus. As you say, many of them, unsurprisingly, are focused on weapons research. However, even at these labs, there are usually projects that are not weapons-related. And on the other extreme, there are some national labs where no classified research is done at all.

Hello TMFKAN64,

Thank you for the information. I really appreciate it.

Regards,

Perry
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K