Schools Top schools in North America in strings and quantum gravity

[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.