SymmetryOfImperfection

You'd think that. But to become professor they have to go through a long painful ritual that the other grad students tell me is "mental weightlifting", "building character" and other patronizing BS. The professor making inappropriate jokes was a minority himself.

Even one of my professors (quantum mechanics) started saying a joke about my ethnicity right in class, and then suddenly remembered that this class has a Asian guy in it, and stopped mid sentence. There's only 3 Asian grad students of any sort in my entire physics department.

It depends on cohort. I've been very active trying to promote collaboration but the others have little interest, maybe its because I'm like you, a minority in a majority department, with a totally different culture than I know. If your cohort doesn't want to do anything, then there's no point. I wouldn't be so paranoid though. Everyone's research is different. I don't know how it works in education though.

My comment is this: don't refuse collaboration, even if it is totally useless to you academically, because you'll get to make friends with people, and one day, you might actually need them. I had no problems collaborating with people who seemed to be leeches during undergrad because hey, one day I might need a ride, or a meal ticket, or they know something I don't, etc. At the very least, explaining things to others is a great check to see if you actually understand it yourself. You might think 'oh I know this', you might even be able to solve problems, but if you cannot explain it to someone else, then do you really know it?

There's some schools with very low requirements, but not very low rankings. Here's UCSD BME: http://be.ucsd.edu/graduate_prospective_students_admissions_requirements Applicants are required to have completed a B.S. and/or M.S. degree by time of admission in a branch of engineering, natural sciences, mathematics, or quantitative life sciences. Here's UCI: http://www.eng.uci.edu/bme/admissions 1. 6 quarters of calculus through linear algebra and ordinary differential equations, 2. 3 quarters of calculus based physics, 3. 3 quarters of chemistry, and 4. 2 quarters of biology Some non-West Coast schools: University of Toledo: http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/coe/phd_biomedical The PhD in Biomedical Engineering at the University of Toledo is a joint program between The College of Engineering and The College of Medicine. The program is open to qualified students with either degrees in engineering or in science fields such as biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, or computer science. Since prospective students have a variety of backgrounds, the requirements for admission vary. University of Arizona: http://www.bme.arizona.edu/application_info.php An original official transcript. Applicants are required to have a bachelor’s degree in enginering, mathematics, physical sciences, or quantitative life sciences for admission into the Program, with a minimum GPA of 3.0.

I have a few disagreements.. I searched toxicology PHD in careerbuilder and got 28 jobs. I searched materials chemistry PHD and got 128 jobs. I searched analytical chemistry PHD and got 113 jobs. Now careerbuilder may not be accurate, but in general, more jobs generated on careerbuilder, the more in demand they are. petroleum engineering is its own major. has nothing to do with physics. Petroleum engineering is about finding oil and getting it out of the ground. Its more closely related to geology and mechanical engineering. nanotech is not really marketable. the news about nanotech > the real industrial applications of nanotech. I did my BS thesis in this, it was advertised as "highly marketable"... The reality is that industrially no one is hiring. Why? The life cycle of fabrication technologies is decades. So companies hire a consultant, possibly an older tenured professor, to do this as a one-time project instead of have staff scientists. You can imagine how much I loved hearing my advisor tell me that. And I saw it in action. My advisor had a phone call right during a lab meeting about a consulting offer. Also, the starting degree in this industry is graduate level. Now here's my recommendation: Find a field protected by regulations or involves finance. If your field competes on the free market, your job is not secure. That's why doctors are making money. By all means they shouldn't be. British doctors all only have a bachelors degree in medicine and make far less money. You can't practice medicine here without a MD. That's why you can't ship British doctors here to compete with native doctors and outcompete them. The recommendation of industrial hygiene is a great one. They are protected by regulation. Don't worry about applied vs. theoretical. Lots of applied fields have trouble finding jobs, lots of theoretical fields have plenty of jobs because they can move into finance positions. This is why I disagree with toxicology and pharmacology. Toxicology is not a regulated field. Neither is pharmacology. Pharmacy is regulated but you have to pay to play. Nothing prevents a biochemist or straight up biologist from taking a toxicology or pharmacology jobs and all the jobs I've seen posted on careerbuilder show "biochemistry or toxicology/pharmacology" as the requirement. There's also no "soft" barrier in terms of a highly quantitative degree that most people can't take. Why are jobs in analytical/physical/materials chemistry doing better than bio/organic, even in the traditional areas of bio/organic dominance like pharmaceuticals? The only explanation: they are more quantitative. Not everyone can pass classes in things like quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics, molecular spectroscopy, etc. and also produce research in these areas. Hell, I remember taking molecular spectroscopy and no one understanding group theory. If you can't pass molecular spectroscopy, at least at a general physical chemistry level, at my alma mater you simply do not get a BS in Chemistry; if you don't pass graduate level molecular spectroscopy, you simply don't get a MS/PhD in analytical or physical chemistry, and its not easy to pass. Just look up the book my alma mater uses for graduate level molecular spectroscopy class: "Principles of Nonlinear Optical Spectroscopy". What a book that is. Really nasty stuff like complex integration and Green functions come up. That's stuff not everyone can do. Hell, that's stuff most people, even chemistry grad students, can't do. Now you may ask, so what. What's the point of doing all this crazy hard math? Well the point is so that you can prove you're quantitative and therefore fit for finance. If things don't work out, go to finance. My alma mater sent not a few chemists to investment banks because they did their research in highly quantitative fields like computational biochemistry (stuff like protein folding or gene networks) or computational physical chemistry (stuff like predicting solid-state spectra or X-ray crystallography software). I like my field now that I've found a highly applied project to work on. However I'm not giving myself any illusions about "applied = job" and I'm trying to break down my mental barrier to working in finance (as opposed to working in a technical position in industry or academia).

The programs I'm looking at require the chemistry GRE, but also accept biochemistry or physics. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to continue in physics after my MS. But should I risk taking the Chem GRE, even though I didn't see organic in several years, or should I play it safe and take physics and risk limiting the range of schools I can apply to?

this is true for traditional engineering. however at schools that I know (UCLA for instance) engineering fields like... BME, or Materials Science, require a degree in *a engineering or physical sciences field." They really want to see whether you can have quantitative and physical/chemical knowledge. actually I think the absolute strictest on enforcing prerequisites is physics, EE and CS. Other degrees let you jump around a bit more I think. The head of the chemical engineering department at my alma mater doesn't have a PHD in chemical engineering.

post this in the math forum, this is for those who are actually applying/are in/interested in physical sciences.

I asked about that. The advisor looked at me like I was crazy and said "No." As you see, physics is very unique from even other physical sciences and engineering disciplines (in a bad way) at both the MS and PHD levels: There's a highly rigid sequence of courses that must be taken with no deviation whatsoever. In physics, there's a whopping 7 required courses: math methods, classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism I, electricity and magnetism II, quantum mechanics I, statistical mechanics and advanced lab techniques. All except the lab involve alot of tedious math (as in stuff like recognizing to complete the square or you won't solve the problem) and it feels less like learning the most advanced technologies at the forefront of knowledge than "recognize highly specific algebra trick or you'll be stuck for hours!" In the other science/engineering fields I'm familiar with, there's usually only 3-4 required courses and from what I see, they don't try to trick you with tedious algebra tricks. I downloaded and self studied a materials science grad course to help with my undergrad research and it was really alot less stressful than my current grad courses. They didn't try to trick you and the problems were straightforward, "did you understand the concepts?" type of things rather than "better spot this algebra trick" type of problems.

thanks that made my decision much easier.

Question: Are sausages safe to eat? Are they healthy to eat? I want to incorporate sausages into my cooking because I'm too lazy to chop meat, and turkey ham is too bland. However, I'm concerned about food sanitation. Is there a reason to be?

Thank you. there's many publications related to this in Arxiv, but they're mostly theoretical/computational, not too many experiments. I think I can publish *something* though.

I narrowed my advisor search down to 2 people. 1 is a good advisor (nice, patient, talks with students, doesn't breathe down their necks). Also said that probably can graduate on time if I work hard, and has a track record of getting students out; one guy works in industry, only does 4 hours per day at night, yet still got out with a MS in 3 years. But the topic itself has low funding so I have to TA. Also, the subject is hard to understand and I need a month to read up on it. Other has a good topic but has a tough reputation and seems to not really like me during the interview and I have no idea why. He specifically said though that he has funding for me to do research. Also said that I might not graduate on time if I worked for him. I already know much about the subject and it is pretty easy to understand for me. How important is advisor temperment?

I'm in a MS program too, but it won't be "just for 2 years" since at orientation, it was made clear that the average time was 3 years and I was informed otherwise at my interview (they said its 2 years). Thats *with* a BS physics degree... I just met the bare minimum number of classes to get in so how long would this take? 4 years? I made a 2 year schedule that involved 3 classes + research each semester. Now I don't know how realistic it is. If students with actual degrees in physics, who only have to take 1-2 grad classes a semester, need 3 years, how long do I need? Since I'm going for a final PhD, the quality of my research and GPA both need to be very high to be competitive. I doubt I'll get to publish in the physics department since I'll have to learn new instruments, new theories, even new journal formats that I wouldn't need to if I did chemistry. Also, you're right, I should think carefully, but I do not have the ability to distinguish what is a "good topic" in physics and what is a "bad topic" the way I can in chemistry, simply because I lack experience. I know whats an applied and theoretical project in chemistry, how far from deployment things are, etc. I cannot distinguish applied and fundamental physics because I have no idea how far away from practical deployment their projects really are. For example, ferroelectric memory. How far away are we from commercializing this? No idea. I don't understand ferroelectricity or information storage too well but this is a core research topic in materials physics while chemistry doesn't care; chemistry cares more about stuff like polymers, sensors and surface engineering. But you are also right that switching now would severely influence my funding and also lower my reputation at the physics department. This is important because I'll still have to take some courses in the physics department. So this is my big worry. Then again, if I do not switch now, it'll be too late to attend the chemistry classes.

Thanks for the advice. I'm seeing him today and will be following your recommendations.

I eat 2 meals a day. Thankfully I know how to cook since high school. The first meal is noodles + eggs + boiled cabbage + chopped hot dogs, every day. The second is a full meal I cook myself with rice. I think I will stop the noodles, sick of it, and switch to rice porridge instead... healthier and better to eat. This costs approximately 60 per week, in groceries. Takes 15 minutes to do the first, 1 hour to do the second. When the girlfriend comes over, I cook a better meal, for survival reasons... her cooking is too tasty for me. I sometimes eat in the cafeteria but feel so bad both in my stomach and in my wallet.

Thank you for the recommendations. I've already made appointments to talk with the rest of the physics faculty that I haven't talked with already. However, I don't think this will help. There's 3 professors doing experimental materials research; the rest are doing theoretical and computational. I'm not a good programmer, I tried to learn it several times and the first time, I was rescued by a very nice TA, second time, I slammed into a brick wall. With my math skills and background, I don't think that I'm going to do astro, particle, etc. 1 of the professors, who I was told by older grad students was very strict, still hasn't responded to my email requesting a meeting to tour his lab and talk about his research. Both the other professors are doing magnetism research that I didn't even know how to start asking questions for. I've also asked the advisor for a meeting to see how to graduate and how to study more effectively in the math class. However I'm not optimistic; I bought the books and reviewed for most classes during the summer instead of relaxing or working and went into this with both eyes open knowing that its going to be a long haul. I just didn't realize it was going to be even worse than I imagined. I don't mind working on a professor's project. I didn't even expect to work on my own project at all and instead was prepared to listen to the professor and do what was told then write a thesis based on the professor's project. However, it seems that my understanding of what the professors project actually was, was not correct. I'll be doing research on a topic I've only learned about in class in a 1 day rushed lecture (magnetism) and with instruments I didn't even know existed. I guess I kind of rushed into this, since in my undergrad I always thought I didn't do something "quantitative" enough and thought I was doing stuff that "anyone else could do". I didn't consider the effects of cohort (very similar to your situation) as so important but it seems to be important now. So I wanted to do stuff that "not everyone can do". Damn, it sounds so foolish now. It turns out that I was correct, that "not everyone" can do physics... but didn't consider the possibility that the "not everyone" could include myself.

I am a grad student in Physics. However, I'm having trouble with the core classes and don't think I can graduate quickly. I also find that I'm simply not interested in the way how physics approaches problems and the problems that are interesting to physicists. They seem to be much more theoretical than I realized. Reading papers on Arxiv and listening to the researchers here talk, I feel like all of them are answering highly theoretical problems thinking in terms of models, rather than actually designing new materials, processes, devices and ultimately, products that are marketable. I also realized I'm simply not good enough at higher math (math beyond calculus, vector calculus and differential equations) to be a successful physicist. Complex analysis, for instance, is the first subject of our math methods class and things like complex differentiability and branch cuts are already coming up. I have never seen this before, I can't even do a single problem (I tried reviewing this over the summer, and failed. I still can't do a single problem). The math is just going to get worse when we move to tensors and Greens functions. This is nothing like the math methods class I had in undergrad which was built on the science/engineering math core and involved stuff like integral (Fourier and Laplace) transforms, ODEs and PDEs. Instead, I want to switch to chemistry. I have a solid background of organic/inorganic/analytical/physical chemistry, took a grad quantum class and have a year of research. I switched to physics because I thought I wanted to be more "quantitative" but didn't know it was going to be *this* quantitative. All the math I've done will be used in chemistry and *no more*, which is the good part. I'll also be able to graduate earlier. I've already talked to the director of the chemistry program and they say they'll be glad to take me, as soon as physics allows me to switch out. However, the school is forcing me to stay an extra year, so I'll be registered as a physics student while taking chemistry. Originally I had funding for physics, but I'm scared that they'll take it away once I announce I'll switch, but if I don't announce I'll switch, I'm going to be behind for chemistry since it'll be an entire year wasted of no research and no classes. Would you recommend switching? How should I talk to the physics advisor about this?

NOTHING could've prepared me for this... I knew it was going to be hard going in but I didn't know it was going to be like this!!

Agreed. For those in physics, for example... just doing the bare minimum coursework and going through the motions = unemployment if you picked a crap field. Hell, even if you picked a "good" field like condensed matter or optics, whose to say they'll pick you if you did the bare minimum and cannot distinguish yourself? That's why you get experience on a wide variety of instruments and software, learn how to program, talk to people outside your immediate field and get skills in things you *know for a fact* will be used in industry. Right now, everything is for applications, and the main point is **DO NOT BE A COMPANY COST CENTER**. Whats a cost center? Anything that requires research that doesn't pay off within 4 months. Any wonder why the bio and organic chemistry guys got cut in the downturn but the analytical, physical and polymer chemists stayed? Analytical chemistry makes money/saves money on the timescale of days. Physical and polymer chemistry makes money with new product formulations or processing methods in the span of months. Bio and organic talk about "the pipeline" in terms of years. Guess who gets cut. Ever wonder why the "chemistry sucks" complaints are mostly from bio, medicinal or organic guys, and the analytical/physical/polymer guys don't really speak up? Ever wonder why the physicists adjuncting or working high school usually did astro or particle (then again, some of them are making scary money in finance)? Why are there very few condensed matter or optical physicists adjuncting? Maybe its because developments in electronics move at the rate of months and finance is scarily fast at milliseconds, while astro and particle... well, it just doesn't change that much day to day, and isn't profitable. So is it any wonder that in times of downturn, the first to get cut are the astro and particle guys who didn't go into finance?

I don't think this is the case. I'm seeing not too few jobs for analytical and physical chemists working in biotech, polymers and materials. For synthetic organic chemists or biochemists, yes the gravy train left 5 years or so ago with the pharmaceuticals bust, but that's just one aspect of chemistry, and back then they were given 6 figure starting salaries. The biggest aspect of chemistry is analysis, formulations, process improvement and other things that have little to do with organic reactions. Same with physics. From what I know, plenty either find jobs in semiconductor companies, as optical engineers, or move to finance, with 6 figure salaries. There's also those who are stuck adjuncting or postdocing, but that might be because they picked something “bad" like theoretical particle physics or biochemistry. I don't know a single unemployed analytical chemist or optical physicist. I have a hard time imagining that something as narrow and non quantitative as toxicology or pharmacology would have better career prospects than the quantitative physical sciences. This is backed up by the experience of friends who got undergrad degrees in toxicology and pharmaceutical sciences who are now working fast food while reviewing for the MCAT. Simply hired also shows 7000 jobs for "chemistry phd" and 1000 for "toxicology phd" http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-chemistry+phd http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-toxicology+phd And many of the materials science jobs that aren't in metallurgy seem to be asking for chemists: http://webconnect.sendouts.com/CN_Frame.aspx?ID=AccessStaffing&SiteID=Webconnect&Group=Webconnect&Key=CN&CNTrackID=1006&MTTrackID=1001&CnId=&PostId=1406e119-f081-40cb-b4e4-a6b207d213b4&ApplyNewCan=0 "PhD in Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Materials Science or related" "Strong knowledge and experience of Materials Science or Chemistry"

Its worse than I thought... because I came from a different major as undergrad, it is a big culture shock especially given my cohort and I'm not sure how I'll graduate on time or publish a paper. My cohort is not very diverse to say the least. 1/4 of them are buddies from undergrad and half of them attended a school equal to or better than mine, but with an actual major in physics; I only took 5 actual upper division physics classes, which fulfilled the requirement for entry but wasn't "recommended". There's only 3 PIs in my "big subfield" of experimental materials science, not good news... and once I went there, someone told me to stay away from 1 of them because of personality issues. I really, really doubt I can publish with these guys, not because of them but because my own limited skill; I don't even really know whats an interesting problem from the "physics" point of view, and from my reading of tens of Arxiv papers, the problems "physics" is interested in answering in materials science, are not as interesting to me. The TA for the grad class isn't very helpful to say the least. I have to make up remedial classes; when I interviewed they assured me that most graduate in 2 years, now they tell us "3 years is the usual time". I'm having trouble in a core class, hopefully it gets better. I'm seriously thinking of going back to my original major so I can do more research and graduate in 2 years so I can move on to a PHD in a non-physics program or a job. Spending 3 years on a MS when I already spent 5 years on an already hard BS is too long, then 5-6 years (standard for physics) if I stayed in a straight physics PHD? Almost half my life would be spent at school! It'd be the equivalent of graduating 4 years with a BS and doing a 9-10 year PHD! The opportunity cost is staggering. On the other hand if I went back to my original major, I'll graduate in 5 + 2 + 4, since 4-5 years is standard, which is much more acceptable.

Its like this: There's 6 professors doing research in my field of interest (nanomaterials for optoelectronic or sensor applications) in a single department at my alma mater, compared to 0-2 for every other school that I could possibly get into with my low UG grades. That means I have more choices at my alma mater; if I think one professor just isn't my style, I can move on to another guy. Whereas if I go to a school with a single professor in this field and I cannot change myself to fit their personality, I might have to switch departments or worse, just leave emptyhanded. My alma mater is not ranked exceptionally high. It isn't the greatest school, and I didn't do as well as I could have or should have, but it really has a great program in the area of my interest in my personal opinion. I did my undergrad research at a different department under a cross listed professor. Also, although he gave me A's for research and I worked hard, I want to do something different. Here you don't apply to a professor's lab directly, you can maybe express your interest and they can say if they'll instantly reject you, but they can't say they'll instantly take you.

Hi. I'm thinking of going back to my alma mater for PHD after my MS is completed. Its not because its easy to get in, but simply because it happens to have alot of professors working in the field that I am interested in. However, I heard that schools discourage students from going to the same school for both BS and PHD. Is that true? Will that decrease my chances despite knowing some professors better?