Yet another "Guide me " thread.

[Alquimista91]

Greetings to all !

I am 23 years old and I have just graduated this summer with a 8.52/10 ( Greek system - Equivalent to First class according to wikipedia ) and out of fear of getting rusty through searching for a MSc program ( while taking a break after the intensive courses and the TOEFL iBT preparation ), I enrolled to a University in France which has disappointed me a lot.
I find the structure and the organization inadequate and the general mentality of the system lacking, at least in comparison with my Bachelor University.

In effort to find something more suitable to my interests , I sent my application to both Glasgow and Edinburgh University for their Theoretical Physics Master ( the scientific domain which interests me ) and I have been admitted to both.
Taking into consideration :
a) The age ( am I still young enough to rush for an academic career , starting a MSc at 24-next year ? )
b) The financial status : The family is wealthy enough to either fund a 1 year course and its (high) tuition fees in the U.K OR fund a two year course in Europe ( where , under Bologna the tuition fees are cheaper ).
c) The person : Strong drive from high-school years , participation in seminars, focusing bachelor studies in theoretical physics ( Cosmology and Gravitation-Ta Pei Cheng , Particle Physics - Griffiths,Cottingham , Complex Calculus, etc )

Which master's course would you advice me to choose ( from the aforementioned ) or apply to ( please provided reasons why the aforementioned are considered inadquate).Thank you very much and forgive me for the long post.

 

[Pythagorean]

Have you looked at what research is availabke and contacted a potential supervisor from each university? I think who your superviser is and what research they do (and how it fits into your expectations) should be a primary factor.

 

[Alquimista91]

Shouldnt the primary factor be the teaching structure, methods, organization etc ? Since the masters I am looking at are taught courses, supposed to provide me with knowledge useful for my Phd , what I think that is of importance is the will of the professors to teach in an explanatory,well structured way (using particular books as guidelines, solving exercises and stimulating students to try for more. My point is that good researcher can be a terrible professor, and although the former might be useful for when they are someone's co-worker, the latter is terrible when the time to teach,explain and stimulate comes.