Should I Fret About Playing the CV Game for a Theoretical Physicist Career?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ice109
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Aspiring theorists in physics face significant competition, particularly from a growing number of highly qualified candidates emerging from China. The demand for theorists is currently outstripped by supply, leading to a cliquish environment in academia. Theoretical physics is not a monolithic field; different areas, such as condensed matter and high energy physics, present unique challenges and require distinct skill sets. It is advisable for those pursuing a PhD in theoretical physics to have a backup plan, as the academic landscape can be uncertain. Exploring interdisciplinary approaches, such as combining theoretical physics with optics, may provide more opportunities and a smoother transition into research roles, especially for undergraduates seeking research assistant positions.
ice109
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
6
if i want to be a theorist, and not the phenomenologist kind either, but the other kind ( my advisor said modeling theorist, someone who invents the models ). should i be playing the whole bolstering my CV game that everyone played in high school, in an attempt to get into ivys? if i just do well in all of my classes and do research with someone in the field is that enough? in zapper's writeup about what it takes to be a physicist he says that in theory success partly comes from pedigree and this makes me fret.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given the huge number of very good theorists coming out of China that you'll be directly competing with, I'd be fretting in your shoes. It has been my experience that the supply for theorists outstrips demand - and I mean by more than the average supply already outstrips demand in the academic world. This could definitely promote the cliquishness you are worried about.

However, there is something that deserves clarification. Everyone talks about theory as if it were one area. It isn't - the predicaments of theorists in condensed matter and high energy physics are different, as are many of the skills they use. This goes for theorists in other areas of physics as well.

What do you actually plan on studying?
 
Locrian said:
Given the huge number of very good theorists coming out of China that you'll be directly competing with, I'd be fretting in your shoes. It has been my experience that the supply for theorists outstrips demand - and I mean by more than the average supply already outstrips demand in the academic world. This could definitely promote the cliquishness you are worried about.

However, there is something that deserves clarification. Everyone talks about theory as if it were one area. It isn't - the predicaments of theorists in condensed matter and high energy physics are different, as are many of the skills they use. This goes for theorists in other areas of physics as well.

What do you actually plan on studying?

what every other aspiring theorists plans on studying :-p GUTs
 
Locrian said:
It has been my experience that the supply for theorists outstrips demand - and I mean by more than the average supply already outstrips demand in the academic world.

And this is a long-standing situation. It was definitely like this when I was in grad school about 25 years ago. Anyone planning to do a PhD in theoretical physics should have a "Plan B."
 
Or do what I am doing and attempt to approach fundamental physics through optics. There is plenty of work available for an arbitrary mix of theory and application at any given skill level. It is easy to get an experimental RA position in optics even as an undergrad, and you can smoothly transition to theoretical physics from there. This may not be the quickest way to get money thrown at you to try unifying physics, but it is certainly more doable.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Back
Top