SymmetryOfImperfection
-
Posts
263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SymmetryOfImperfection
-
-
I'm like, still in college, but from what I've researched, most private sector applied science (engineering, geology) and finance jobs only REQUIRE a Master's, so an employer might think a PhD on your side is a bit of a waste of time. That said, that depends on what you intend to do. Higher-level private sector science jobs, for one (and sometimes management jobs in the science sector) require a PhD, but that's usually after you've been in the sector for a while and a company decides to sponsor you to get the PhD.
why would they need to sponsor you? all science and engineering PHDs are paid for already in most countries.
-
How much does school prestige actually matter for:
1.) industrial research jobs
2.) non-postdoc academic research jobs
in the physical sciences and engineering, especially things like biomedical and materials, at the PhD level?
-
Do you HAVE to do a MA in physics, or would something like....Astronomy be okay? One of the reasons I chose to be an Physics+Astronomy undergrad instead of just Physics is like you, I prefer conceptual ideas over intense calculus! Not to say that there isn't calculus in Astro, but it's mostly stuff you learn in first year (integrals, some differential equations) and a little bit of 2nd year vector calculus for some things. Nothing at the level of E&M or QM on a regular basis though (some of these ideas are needed to understand some stuff but it's more like you need to understand/follow the derivation/calculation, not do it yourself on an exam or something).
But if Astro is not possible or not your cup of tea, then to answer your actual questions...
1. I think the material covered in the Physics GRE is about the level you need to know. At many schools, the PhD program will require at least one graduate QM course and maybe one graduate EM course (the infamous Jackson). I don't know if you will have to do them as well for Masters level. But if you do, you should review your most recent courses in these topics, I think! If you are looking for books, Griffiths gives a very nice conceptual-turned-mathematical treatment of both these topics. In addition, the book is for undergrads so the first half is usually a 2nd or 3rd year level course while the 2nd half is generally a 4th year course. This is good because it will allow you to start from basics!
I think this is the most advanced material that you would absolutely need before starting. In addition though (maybe before doing the above), a review of freshman physics (especially some mechanics questions) and single- and multi-variable calculus would be good. If I was doing this, I would find my first year books and start doing the problems at the end of the chapter, then review in depth whatever I couldn't do. You might find that once you start getting back into it, you will remember more than you think though!
2. I really like to collaborate on problem sets, and both places I've studied at also had people who thought the same way, so I would be willing/happy to work with anyone in my classes on problem sets! It might be harder for someone who isn't in our cohort because of issues like potentially not having an office in the same area/building or not being on the same mailing lists or not being in the same social group. If I'm working on a problem, and get stuck, I like to just turn to my office mate, or walk down the hall and find someone else who is working on the same thing. If enough people are doing this, we might end up finding an empty room and puzzling it out together. So not being in the same area might make you miss out on these impromptu type study groups!
If you weren't in my cohort, I might not know you as well so there might be some inertia of me just asking to set up a time to work together. Especially if there were others in the class that I already worked with before, I might end up more likely to work with them than a "new" person! As an "outsider" to the cohort, it is probably better if you took the initiative and ask if anyone else has started problem set X and if they wanted to work together etc. If I was a student already in the cohort, I wouldn't have any worries about working with someone outside of the cohort, I just wouldn't be sure if the "outsider" actually wanted to work with us or not!
Sometimes cliques form, but from my experiences (which may not be representative, I guess), these groups form just out of comfort (instead of being selective) and most physics students are pretty friendly and are happy to accept newcomers, it's just that we might be too shy to ask (but we are glad when we get newcomers, usually!).
Good luck
Hi, I think I disagree with using Griffith to solve many problems. The answer is, there's no easy to go to solution manual (have to look online so can't do it alone away from the computer). It also leaves partial explanations sometimes. Sometimes I feel like the book simply does not give you enough information to solve a problem and it has literally taken me 5 hours to solve a single problem before, simply because the book didn't have a formula I needed. I'd recommend Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications by Zettili. The book is graduate level, but it has hundreds of solved problems and answers. If that's too much. Quantum Mechanics by Townsend is also OK (though also graduate level; they use it as such at John Hopkins), and it has a very innovative style that starts you off with hard concepts but the easiest math (1/2 spin systems, just 2 states), then moves you onto easier concepts but harder math (1-D wave mechanics, hydrogen atom, etc)
Also, my question is, is there really less math in astro than in areas of physics such as condensed matter? I've always been under the impression that astro was the most intense mathematically due to general relativity.
-
here's what im doing over the summer to review:
just do tens of comprehensive exams, but as open-book problems and with Mathematica assistance. if the comprehensive exams are too hard, do book problems. try to do at least 2 problems per day, distributed as mechanics/EM, then next day do quantum/stat-thermo, but personally I'd want to do 6-8 problems per day though that might be too time consuming. I'd also just read the textbooks for fun, and see if there's anything interesting you missed the first time.
it seems easy at first (only 2-8 problems...) but the idea is to consistently learn a bit by bit and most of all, do it without a teacher, so when it comes time for class, you'll be repeating the same material, and this time, there'd be a professor to help you, and it should go alot easier.
-
no they're not the same. for one, organic has very little math and physics in it and materials has a great deal of math and physics. in fact it has so much math and physics, i decided that it might as well be a physics degree (which pays much higher than chemistry) so i switched to physics.
-
I thought about this too, and what I believe is, research fit may be most important, especially in physical sciences and engineering because an uninteresting project could seriously be very hard to handle, even for a few months, much less 1 year. i know because i was in this situation before. turns out that even thinking about the uninteresting project is unpleasant.
Rutgers is actually pretty nice. In my field they're top 20, so if you decide you don't want to go, could you get them to trade out your spot for mine? =)
-
I find that when I do that consistently enough, I get more done, PLUS I get to relax some weeknights.
Really, consistency is key. Even if you get super frustrated at the difficulty and volume of work you get, and you end up taking a break or something, it's really important to just keep working. Any work you can do every day is useful, even if it doesn't seem that way initially.
For my degree you did all your course work the first year, and then you began your comprehensives. Once you pass your comprehensives, then you go onto your dissertation. However, I still read a lot of work related to my research during my courses, and also directed any course assignment towards my dissertation project.
Time spent will depend on the course and program. During my first year, I would say I worked 9-5 M-F doing course work and research reading.
Time spent is really going to depend on a bunch of individual and situational factors. Just be prepared for a lot of work, and you'll be fine!
Thank you two so much for the advice. I guess the problem is mental strength to not get frustrated at problems that seem too difficult. What keeps you motivated though? It seems really hard to focus at times, when you only think you are motivated, and not really.
-
Be prepared to work. Set up study groups. Get a tutor from a previous year. And just read, practice, read, listen, read, practice. If you apply yourself, you'll be fine. Grad school isn't easy, but many of us doubt our abilities and intelligence every day...one thing I have learned about grad school is often the successful students aren't the most brilliant students- their the hardest working students.
How many hours do you work per day at classes? Class+research? Should I time myself with a stopwatch?
-
I am attending a partially funded MS in Applied Physics in the fall 2012 at a large research university. My BS was in Chemistry, emphasis in Chemical Physics, with research experience in materials science, though no publications, and industry experience at an pharmaceutical lab. The undergrad institution was also a large research university with a moderate-strong reputation in chemistry and physics. Sorry if this goes long, I just need advice, or maybe just to vent.
Originally, I was very confident about my ability to finish this MS with a high GPA and some publications, and move onto my PhD after gaining some experience. However, I am really starting to doubt myself now. Here's the thing: my GPA is very very weak with some terrible grades in important classes. That's because originally, I was a much less quantitative, much less rigorous major that found out that it just wasn't for me, and transferred late in the program so I had to cram classes. No excuses, I took some classes that were too hard for me at the time, too much pressure, habits not good enough, and just couldn't make it in some classes. Learned my lesson or so I thought. I'm just so thankful that I got into a MS program.
This year, I've been clawing my way back up slowly, with a 3.9 GPA in the first half in all upper division chemistry and physics classes taking a full load of classes while doing research. However, just a few weeks ago, I got shaken up badly by a terrible, terrible Quantum Mechanics test (the last of several midterms given before a comprehensive final). Previously, I had always scored a standard deviation above the mean, but on that exam, I suffered a total mental meltdown. If my score exceeded 20% for that one I'd be amazed. That shook me up going into the final, and though I'm much more confident in the final since I could answer every question and I checked my work to make sure it was reasonable for as many problems as possible, I'm scared, especially because the teacher gives very little partial credit.
In the fall I will be having all difficult core graduate classes, like math methods, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. What do I do? The price for failure is much higher than in undergrad now, if I flunk out of this MS I will probably never have a chance like this again. I feel like a fake scientist that can't think quantitatively.
Is there anything I should be doing to increase my preparation? My current plan is to study like I was still in school over the summer and teach myself next year's classes in advance through doing hundreds of problems, but is that realistic? Has anyone tried that before? If so, what were your experiences? I don't think I'm mentally prepared either and don't know what to do really.
A study on "kisses of death" in grad school applications
in Applications
Posted · Edited by SymmetryOfImperfection
One interesting kiss of death applicable for only physics: never ever ever say you have an interest in theoretical particle physics or theoretical astrophysics. It gets your application tossed because there's usually not many professors in physics departments who do this, the funding is extremely low especially for these non-applied theoretical fields (even in astrophysics, apparently the money is mostly in observation and experiment), they take very few students, so it ends up that even at low tier schools, the competition for this field is immense due to large amounts of applicants for nearly nonexistent seats. Turns out that most people in physics actually like that stuff, and shun the applications.
For those curious, the easiest admissions is to have interest in biophysics since they get NIH funding as well as NSF, and most physics guys don't know enough bio, and most bio guys don't know enough physical experimental methods or computational tools. These guys graduate immensely fast, 4-5 years for biophysics, with 3+ publications usually, but employment isn't that hot but still better than theoretical particle physics, right?