Top schools in North America in strings and quantum gravity

[spaghetti3451]

Hi, the question is obvious from the title.

I am looking for the names of the top 30 schools in North America for research work in string theory and quantum gravity.

Any feedback will be very helpful.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here we go again.

 

[spaghetti3451]

Hi, I guess this is quite a common question on Physicsforums.

For the record, though, I am doing my Masters in astroparticle physics in a top 3 school in Canada and am considering the possibility of applying to US schools for PhD in strings and/or quantum gravity.

 

[Dr Transport]

Here we go again.

I agree, probably not 30 schools in the US have faculty members who work in this area competently.

 

[spaghetti3451]

I agree, probably not 30 schools in the US have faculty members who work in this area competently.

Would you say that the top 15 do?

 

[micromass]

Come on. This is not so difficult to find out on your own. First you find the top 30 schools. Then you visit the page of the physics department of each school and read their research interests.

 

[jtbell]

Have you looked at Gradschoolshopper.com?

 

[Dr Transport]

Hi, I guess this is quite a common question on Physicsforums.

For the record, though, I am doing my Masters in astroparticle physics in a top 3 school in Canada and am considering the possibility of applying to US schools for PhD in strings and/or quantum gravity.

Have you read all the other threads on this forum that pertain to the "I want to study X and become a professor/researcher..." pretty much all of them say the same thing and that the chances of getting a faculty position is slim at best. Bottom line, go get your degree in whatever you want, but you'll end up in industry not doing what you did for your research and dissertation but because you're able to break down a problem and make headway on it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Have you read all the other threads on this forum that pertain to the "I want to study X and become a professor/researcher..." pretty much all of them say the same thing and that the chances of getting a faculty position is slim at best. Bottom line, go get your degree in whatever you want, but you'll end up in industry not doing what you did for your research and dissertation but because you're able to break down a problem and make headway on it.

Dr Transport, failexam is asking about what PhD physics programs to apply to, not about getting a faculty position. I'm sure he/she is already aware of the odds regarding a faculty position.

 

[micromass]

Dr Transport, failexam is asking about what PhD physics programs to apply to, not about getting a faculty position. I'm sure he/she is already aware of the odds regarding a faculty position.

Sure, but the question is what good a PhD is if you don't want a faculty position. Especially a PhD in string theory which is pretty useless outside of academia.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Sure, but the question is what good a PhD is if you don't want a faculty position. Especially a PhD in string theory which is pretty useless outside of academia.

That's a fair point, but one could extend that argument to many other PhD fields, including various areas of pure mathematics. For example, couldn't one make the argument that a PhD in say, homotopy theory or category theory (which, if I may recall from our discussions, is your PhD area) is pretty much useless outside of academia as well?

 

[micromass]

That's a fair point, but one could extend that argument to many other PhD fields, including various areas of pure mathematics. For example, couldn't one make the argument that a PhD in say, homotopy theory or category theory (which, if I may recall from our discussions, is your PhD area) is pretty much useless outside of academia as well?

Yes, you could make that argument and you would be correct.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yes, you could make that argument and you would be correct.

OK, so we agree that we could make the argument. In which case, are you arguing that the OP should not pursue a PhD in string theory? And that people should not pursue a PhD in pure math? This goes back to the numerous discussions here on PF about whether PhD programs should be thought of as vocational degrees or not.

 

[micromass]

OK, so we agree that we could make the argument. In which case, are you arguing that the OP should not pursue a PhD in string theory? And that people should not pursue a PhD in pure math? This goes back to the numerous discussions here on PF about whether PhD programs should be thought of as vocational degrees or not.

I'm not arguing for anything. I think the OP should be made aware that his degree is likely to be completely useless outside of academia, and that getting into academia is very very hard. If he's aware of that, I'm happy since all I want to prevent is people going into a PhD with false expectations. If he decides to go into PhD because it's fun or enriching for him, or because he wants the shot on a faculty position, fine by me. But at least he's not having any wrong information.

 

[Dr Transport]

I'm not arguing for anything. I think the OP should be made aware that his degree is likely to be completely useless outside of academia, and that getting into academia is very very hard. If he's aware of that, I'm happy since all I want to prevent is people going into a PhD with false expectations. If he decides to go into PhD because it's fun or enriching for him, or because he wants the shot on a faculty position, fine by me. But at least he's not having any wrong information.

Well written...Perfect point, get the degree if you want it, but don't expect to make a living off of an esoteric area of physics unless you are lucky enough to get a coveted faculty position.

 

[spaghetti3451]

I'm not arguing for anything. I think the OP should be made aware that his degree is likely to be completely useless outside of academia, and that getting into academia is very very hard. If he's aware of that, I'm happy since all I want to prevent is people going into a PhD with false expectations. If he decides to go into PhD because it's fun or enriching for him, or because he wants the shot on a faculty position, fine by me. But at least he's not having any wrong information.

I've known for a long time that it's extremely hard to get a faculty position, but I want to do a PhD in string theory because it's fun. I am not worried about future job prospects, because with a degree in theoretical physics, there are plenty of jobs in industry that I am qualified for.

If, in case I do get postdoc positions, let alone a faculty position, then that is an added bonus. I am just passionate about string theory and geometry and would like to pursue that passion to the fullest extent possible.

 

[micromass]

there are plenty of jobs in industry that I am qualified for.

Maybe. Have you investigated this thoroughly? You shouldn't just believe it without evidence.
Again, your plan is nice and I encourage you. But make sure you go in with the correct beliefs.

 

[spaghetti3451]

Maybe. Have you investigated this thoroughly? You shouldn't just believe it without evidence.

Hmm.. will have to research career destinations of PhD string theorists again.

 

[radium]

Lots of PhDs in math and physics (especially high energy theory) go work for hedge funds and many find the work very interesting.

 

[Dr Transport]

20+ years in aerospace with my PhD in semiconductors and have been out of work since February... can never say your qualified for jobs in industry and will be employable. I personally do not know anyone who has a PhD in esoteric areas like relativity, QFT, QCD etc who is employed in industry.

 

[Student100]

There aren't very many faculty positions for string theory or QG because there also isn't a whole lot of money being allocated to these topics. Even doing something else considered "esoteric" like relativity has a better employment outlook post degree.

You need to consider the worst case scenario and be happy with that. The worst case is you'll probably end up teaching at junior college as an adjunct lecturer/professor(US meaning), assuming you don't find something in industry or government - in which the difficulty depends somewhat on research area. That probably isn't all that bad, but in no way will the pay reflect your education. (You could probably make quite a bit more quitting, pretending you never had any degree and going to vocational school. )

The website linked above should point you to what schools actually have some kind of string/QG program.

 

[StatGuy2000]

20+ years in aerospace with my PhD in semiconductors and have been out of work since February... can never say your qualified for jobs in industry and will be employable. I personally do not know anyone who has a PhD in esoteric areas like relativity, QFT, QCD etc who is employed in industry.

As an aside, if you've been out of work with February, how have you been able to support yourself? And how has the job search being going?

 

[StatGuy2000]

There aren't very many faculty positions for string theory or QG because there also isn't a whole lot of money being allocated to these topics. Even doing something else considered "esoteric" like relativity has a better employment outlook post degree.

You need to consider the worst case scenario and be happy with that. The worst case is you'll probably end up teaching at junior college as an adjunct lecturer/professor(US meaning), assuming you don't find something in industry or government - in which the difficulty depends somewhat on research area. That probably isn't all that bad, but in no way will the pay reflect your education. (You could probably make quite a bit more quitting, pretending you never had any degree and going to vocational school. )

The website linked above should point you to what schools actually have some kind of string/QG program.

I would have thought that the worst case scenario would be either being unemployed, or being under-employed (i.e. working minimum wage at Starbucks, McDonalds, or Walmart).

 

[Student100]

I would have thought that the worst case scenario would be either being unemployed, or being under-employed (i.e. working minimum wage at Starbucks, McDonalds, or Walmart).

You'd probably not get a job at any of the above due to being over qualified. Unless you omitted the degree. :p

Junior college lecturers are underemployed. Long term unemployment is a choice, not a fact of life.

 

[StatGuy2000]

You'd probably not get a job at any of the above due to being over qualified. Unless you omitted the degree. :p

Junior college lecturers are underemployed. Long term unemployment is a choice, not a fact of life.

Point #1: On this very forum, we've had 2 members (ModusPwnd, ParticleGrl) who had worked respectively, as a pizza deliverer and a bartender, after each had finished their graduate degrees (MS for ModusPwnd, PhD for ParticleGrl), before each ultimately found a more lucrative career.

Point #2: I disagree with you that long term unemployment is a choice -- tell that to those living in Greece today, or those living in the dying industrial towns in northeastern England (let alone those who live in Third World countries), where you have unemployment rates in the double digits (in the case of Greece or the Third World, even well-educated people have great difficulties either finding work or avoiding poverty).

Point #3: It has always been my understanding that many (if not most) lecturers at junior college/community colleges are part-time instructors, who often are already employed full-time elsewhere.

 

[Student100]

Point #1: On this very forum, we've had 2 members (ModusPwnd, ParticleGrl) who had worked respectively, as a pizza deliverer and a bartender, after each had finished their graduate degrees (MS for ModusPwnd, PhD for ParticleGrl), before each ultimately found a more lucrative career.

Point #2: I disagree with you that long term unemployment is a choice -- tell that to those living in Greece today, or those living in the dying industrial towns in northeastern England (let alone those who live in Third World countries), where you have unemployment rates in the double digits (in the case of Greece or the Third World, even well-educated people have great difficulties either finding work or avoiding poverty).

Point #3: It has always been my understanding that many (if not most) lecturers at junior college/community colleges are part-time instructors, who often are already employed full-time elsewhere.

And your point 1 is why those jobs don't like to hire people with advanced degrees, because they know you're only temporary until those people find something better. Why would many employers hire someone who might leave within a few months, when they can hire a teenager or an adult with no formal education who would probably stick around longer. I have a real life case of a friend who studied at the University of Tokyo, left with a doctorate in computational mechanics, who couldn't get any of the above jobs (although he tried), or even simple entry level programming jobs because he was told he's over qualified.

2. I wasn't talking about other countries, I'm speaking mainly of North America. The friend above is now a math and physics professor at a junior college, after being passed up on at Rice University for a tenure track position. He lost the position to a minority, even though he was also one. Just not the right kind of minority. Now he's under the poverty line in California, and certainly underemployed, although he teaches at several different junior colleges. At any rate, he took what was avaliable, and junior colleges are always looking for more lecturers in the sciences or mathematics. Unless you're absolutely garbage here in the US, long term unemployment is more of a choice than an external circumstance.

3. Maybe many are, there are also many who're full time staff, and still more who're just lecturers who bounce between schools trying to earn enough to live.

 

[StatGuy2000]

And your point 1 is why those jobs don't like to hire people with advanced degrees, because they know you're only temporary until those people find something better. Why would many employers hire someone who might leave within a few months, when they can hire a teenager or an adult with no formal education who would probably stick around longer. I have a real life case of a friend who studied at the University of Tokyo, left with a doctorate in computational mechanics, who couldn't get any of the above jobs (although he tried), or even simple entry level programming jobs because he was told he's over qualified.

2. I wasn't talking about other countries, I'm speaking mainly of North America. The friend above is now a math and physics professor at a junior college, after being passed up on at Rice University for a tenure track position. He lost the position to a minority, even though he was also one. Just not the right kind of minority. Now he's under the poverty line in California, and certainly underemployed, although he teaches at several different junior colleges. At any rate, he took what was avaliable, and junior colleges are always looking for more lecturers in the sciences or mathematics. Unless you're absolutely garbage here in the US, long term unemployment is more of a choice than an external circumstance.

3. Maybe many are, there are also many who're full time staff, and still more who're just lecturers who bounce between schools trying to earn enough to live.

1. The fact that your friend who had completed a doctorate and was unable to find an entry level programming job due to being overqualified indicates to me that he didn't tailor his resume appropriately, or failed to apply to positions that could use his skills appropriately. There are positions in industry (e.g. financial firms, market research firms, biotech firms, etc.) where people with a background similar to your friend could have landed. So I'm surprised why he tried to apply for those low-skill jobs to begin with.

2. If your friend is under the poverty line in California, then it's quite clear to me that he's made the wrong choice in choosing that job, and should do whatever he can to leave that job. Again, with retooling/retraining, he would certainly qualify many other positions (e.g. data science). Consider ParticleGrl's example, where she had finished her PhD in particle physics, worked as a bartender for a year while retraining/retooling in data science, and at least in her last set of posts was working as a data scientist.

 

[Student100]

1. The fact that your friend who had completed a doctorate and was unable to find an entry level programming job due to being overqualified indicates to me that he didn't tailor his resume appropriately, or failed to apply to positions that could use his skills appropriately. There are positions in industry (e.g. financial firms, market research firms, biotech firms, etc.) where people with a background similar to your friend could have landed. So I'm surprised why he tried to apply for those low-skill jobs to begin with.

Entry level programming jobs were in line with his skill set gained through education. He was over qualified because of the degree, not under. It's also hard to find mid-range level work where he wouldn't be overqualifed due to a lack of experince. It's a catch 22.

He wasn't in the right state of mind anyway after not getting picked up at Rice. That's also why he also was applying to Starbucks and Costco at the same time. Just to find something as his wife was leaving him.

2. If your friend is under the poverty line in California, then it's quite clear to me that he's made the wrong choice in choosing that job, and should do whatever he can to leave that job. Again, with retooling/retraining, he would certainly qualify many other positions (e.g. data science). Consider ParticleGrl's example, where she had finished her PhD in particle physics, worked as a bartender for a year while retraining/retooling in data science, and at least in her last set of posts was working as a data scientist.

He's quite content with where he is now, even though his pay in no way reflects his education. Which was the point of the post. The OP needs to know there's a good chance the same will happen to him and accept that early on.

Even more so because his research is far more esoteric than a doctorate basically in mechanical engineering computational methods.

 

[Dr Transport]

As an aside, if you've been out of work with February, how have you been able to support yourself? And how has the job search being going?

Wife works, big severance package, huge cut in expenses ($30-45 in gas a week) took a position substitute teaching and spent some time doing somer landscaping for a friend of mine, that is how you cover the expenses.

The job hunt is slow, now the head hunters are calling, hopefully by the end of the year.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Entry level programming jobs were in line with his skill set gained through education. He was over qualified because of the degree, not under. It's also hard to find mid-range level work where he wouldn't be overqualifed due to a lack of experince. It's a catch 22.

He wasn't in the right state of mind anyway after not getting picked up at Rice. That's also why he also was applying to Starbucks and Costco at the same time. Just to find something as his wife was leaving him.

I'm sorry, but I find it incredibly difficult to believe that someone who has earned a doctorate in computational mechanics would have skill sets commensurate with entry level programming jobs (many of which don't even require someone with a college degree). And frankly, the research experience your friend would have engaged can be counted as work experience. I've known people with similar backgrounds to your friend who were able to land positions well above that of entry level programmers.

That being said, I am sorry to read about his marital troubles, as well as his state of mind after being rejected by Rice.

He's quite content with where he is now, even though his pay in no way reflects his education. Which was the point of the post. The OP needs to know there's a good chance the same will happen to him and accept that early on.

Even more so because his research is far more esoteric than a doctorate basically in mechanical engineering computational methods.

Well, if your friend is content, then who are we to suggest otherwise? Perhaps my feeling is that given his education, he really ought to be able to secure employment which grants him better pay, job security, and overall more material well-being. But I digress.

Back to the thread subject, I am aware that the OP needs to be realistic about the possibilities that exist out there once he/she has completed his/her doctorate in string theory/quantum gravity, as these fields are inherently less "applicable" than other fields.

Part of my reasons for my responses in this thread are that when it comes to STEM fields, it isn't always obvious what field or research area is necessarily more "applicable" or "lucrative", and I wonder at times if we're doing students a disservice by trying to steer them in the direction of "practical" fields which may not actually be that practical by the time these students enter the workforce.

 

[ZapperZ]

Back to the thread subject, I am aware that the OP needs to be realistic about the possibilities that exist out there once he/she has completed his/her doctorate in string theory/quantum gravity, as these fields are inherently less "applicable" than other fields.

Part of my reasons for my responses in this thread are that when it comes to STEM fields, it isn't always obvious what field or research area is necessarily more "applicable" or "lucrative", and I wonder at times if we're doing students a disservice by trying to steer them in the direction of "practical" fields which may not actually be that practical by the time these students enter the workforce.

But that is all one can do ONCE a student has decided on a particular path. Once he or she has decided to major in something, a responsible advisor will not only give advice on what the student should do to accomplish his/her goals, but also to open his/her eyes to the possibility that (i) employment is not guaranteed and (ii) the student should consider doing this-and-this just in case..., to increase his/her chance of getting employment elsewhere and in other fields.

My philosophy in all of this is that a student need so go into a field of study with his/her eyes wide open. This means that he/she should not only be aware of the requirements of that field, but also the chances of employment IN that field. If this is known, and if the student still want to take the chance, then at least the student is making a decision based on the available information and not based on ignorance. At least, this student will be more open to expanding his/her horizon on the possibility that he/she might not get an easy employment in the chosen field.

Every decision that we make along the way in life is a calculated risk, and nothing is ever guaranteed.

Edit: BTW, this coincide with the 10th anniversary of Peter Woit's devasting criticism of String Theory in his book "Not Even Wrong". Anyone enamored and wanting to go into this field should read this book first.

Zz.

 

[atyy]

Edit: BTW, this coincide with the 10th anniversary of Peter Woit's devasting criticism of String Theory in his book "Not Even Wrong". Anyone enamored and wanting to go into this field should read this book first.

I can't agree that any of Woit's criticism is accurate. One certainly should know that getting employed in theoretical physics is very hard, but Woit's criticism of string theory as failed science is way off the mark. String theory has made contributions to physics that will endure.

 

[StatGuy2000]

But that is all one can do ONCE a student has decided on a particular path. Once he or she has decided to major in something, a responsible advisor will not only give advice on what the student should do to accomplish his/her goals, but also to open his/her eyes to the possibility that (i) employment is not guaranteed and (ii) the student should consider doing this-and-this just in case..., to increase his/her chance of getting employment elsewhere and in other fields.

My philosophy in all of this is that a student need so go into a field of study with his/her eyes wide open. This means that he/she should not only be aware of the requirements of that field, but also the chances of employment IN that field. If this is known, and if the student still want to take the chance, then at least the student is making a decision based on the available information and not based on ignorance. At least, this student will be more open to expanding his/her horizon on the possibility that he/she might not get an easy employment in the chosen field.

Every decision that we make along the way in life is a calculated risk, and nothing is ever guaranteed.

Edit: BTW, this coincide with the 10th anniversary of Peter Woit's devasting criticism of String Theory in his book "Not Even Wrong". Anyone enamored and wanting to go into this field should read this book first.

Zz.

The problem is that many advisors may not have a good understanding of the prospects for employment in his/her field (he/she may have a good idea of prospects within academia given the numbers and the amount of funding available, but unless the advisor's research field involves many interactions with industry, he/she will have no clue as to the employability of his/her field in a non-academic setting). So how could such an advisor give meaningful advice to his/her students? How could a student in that position can do anything as a back-up, if the back-up plan itself may lead to lack of opportunities?

Of course, every decision is a calculated risk, but the issue is in being able to estimate that risk and to minimize the risk wherever possible.

As far as Woit's criticism of string theory -- I do not have anything meaningful to say about this, although I did communicate to him through the comments section of his website about prospects for mathematicians.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

I think the examples on the forums who had a rough time did not properly prepare themselves for an industrial position during graduate school though. I have numerous friends with industry jobs that are unrelated to their graduate training who started preparing for it during graduate school or shortly after. For instance, one just got hired as a staff scientist working in applying data science to city management with a PhD in theoretical condensed matter physics. To get there, he worked his way into a summer workshop on data science with a high employment rate. The key is that while he was there, he met the right people. Graduate school networking only prepares you for academic work.

I also do not agree with the assessment that a PhD in physics is highly unlikely to become a professor due to the existence of numerous faculty I've encountered most of whose students have become professors. The reason is because these faculty started work in an area of theory which was undergoing financial expansion rather than contraction. A faculty member at my undergraduate institution has sent all of his students except one onto professorships and works in cosmology, a field which is expanding rather than contracting or static (hehehe. Please don't kill me). The actionable advice for the OP is to examine which theoretical disciplines are growing when applying for graduate school. Somebody with more experience should jump in, but if I had to guess, something like topological materials would be much more likely to expand right now than string theory/QG. Of course if you are fixated on a very particular field irrespective of whether or not it's being well supported I can't really help you, and frankly no one else can.

Heck, the academic track is in a lot of ways a matter of playing a cynical game until you hit tenure, as far as I can tell. Think about topological insulators long enough and you can become Kitaev or Sachdev and start thinking big thoughts about black holes or AdS/CFT "applied" to slabs of mercury telluride or whatever crazy stuff they do these days.