Any Physicists here?

[Rebeccat]

What's that then mate? Eh? You're right. I blindly posted without reading the thread.


What I'm saying is that as much as Victoria admits some level of confusion or concern over what area of physics she might want to specialise in, she also betrays a lack of understanding of some fundamental principles (such as theory vs. research; particle vs. quanta). All of these will be addressed when she starts school, so in essence I am reiterating what has already been said by many. However, I added my knowledge and experience of the grad school system to expand on what Polar Bear, amongst others, have already said.

Isn't that the point? Open discussion? There is always going to be some level of repetion because of the way a forum works. Often you're posting to several answers at once, or trying to follow the path of an argument from several posts before.

therefore, I used a little repetition to build my point, then I used my experience to make my point.

I also used the expression "not to be mean" because as we all know it's very easy to misconstrue what is actually meant by a post; emoticons can only do so much. I didn't, and don't, want Victoria to think I'm slagging her off or calling her naivete a bad thing.

 

[MildredG]

Very tiny 'units of energy' then? They just seemed to be very similar from the descriptions I've read. And it's ok, I can tell the difference between theory and research, was just checking that the theoretical degree wasn't a better option as someone mentioned it.


Which is why I'm trying to find which job area the topics I'm most interested in come under.


I don't imagine for a second that a PhD is easy, and I wouldn't even consider going that far in a subject I wasn't interested in. Which is why I was looking for which area of physics covered my specific interests. Admittedly 'energy and matter' was quite vague, but now I've more or less found that what I was trying to explain was 'Particle Physics'; the description I posted is very close to home.

True my interests may change as I study things I haven't come across before. But I've had the same interest for as long as I can remember and I'm heading this way for personal reasons other than employment at the end of it. And so I would be very surprised if my interests did change

 

[LtColUSAFR]

Cool. then all the extra schooling will help you define a specific subarea (not just particle physics per se, for example my field is neuroscience, my subfield is postsynaptic signal transduction)... if you're all set up then getting into a lab as soon as possible, even before grad school will really help. Some of the best scientists I know worked in labs on little projects and stuff before they went to grad school

 

[EnglishAJ]

I've narrowed it down to particle physics but I do think I need to study the subjects more before looking to narrow it further. As much as I 'feel' what I want to do, I don't have the knowledge yet(!).

And I am actually hoping to get into a lab soon, if A levels are enough. It'll be a salary drop no doubt but I'd rather get the experience in, and small assistant jobs do pop up here from time to time.

 

[GuessWho]

When are you actually planning to apply? It's too late to apply for entry this September unless you go through clearing.

 

[aj_foxrider350]

Wouldn't you need to build a foundation in general physics before you specialised, which probably explains the lack of specialised undergrad degrees. Specialisation tends take place at postgrad or PhD level. Most degrees will tend to start off with a general base in the subject (or even, in the case of places like Cambridge, general sciences), then in the second or third year you start start to narrow your area of study, then you would go onto a postgrad and specialise.

 

[JeanetteG]

Yes, of course. As I said I'm planning on the MPhys degree as it stands. I was just interested in what specialised area my interests were covered in. I gave the other information about university etc just so people could see where I'm coming from

 

[SaturdayJynx]

Sure it is, it's theoretical research. I'm pretty sure* I have to do research to get my PhD, despite the fact that I'm in theoretical astrophysics.


*By pretty sure I mean I'm at the end of my first year and done with all my course work except for one class, and I'm nowhere near finished with my PhD because I have years of research ahead of me.

 

[atul56seth]

touche

 

[KaitlynUnderwood]

Out of interest how long is your PhD? I hear in the US that take a lot longer to complete?

 

[thome_fan25]

They said the average here is six and a half years, although I think really, at most the average is actually six. But that's MS and PhD together.

 

[NYer]

Victoria,

I would echo what others have said an look for a degree that gives you a very soild foundation, rather than worrying about the future so much!

I would also consider looking into a joint mathematics and physics degree, but be careful that different universities consider this in different ways. For me, it was split down the middle, I did maths courses completely irrelevant to physics. Other universities look at it differently, and basically give you more of a "theoretical physics" degree, with all the maths courses directly applicable to physics - i.e. lots of differential equations and the like!
You can check out these differing philosophies on their sites.

When I was 18 and looking into physics, I was absolutely, 100% convinced that I would complete my degree with flying colours, specialising in some sort of funky pop-sci style particle/astro/quantum physics and then go onto do a PhD in the subject and ultimately work for the JPL (even though you likely need to be a US citizen).

But what happened? I *did* specialise as much as possible in the funky stuff, and it was really interesting. You do find during your degree that it's nothing like you imagine it to be from reading the popular science books. Still doesn't detract from the interest though (for me anyway).
I did my final year project and it was a bit of a killer, I loved it, but by the end I thought I may be slightly losing my marbles- which taught me that Masters/PhD was definitely not what I would be suited to. So really I only knew late in my final year that my original intentions would never be fulfilled (though to be fair, my aspirations had dropped a fair bit lower throughout uni anyway).

Anyway, the point I'm making is that you can't predict how you will handle the future, nor can you predict how your interests will develop or change.



I ended up in Meteorology, and couldn't be happier.

 

[LongD]

Zactly my point (made better than I managed)... Doing grad work isn't anything like anything else...

 

[htinhausa]

They're all good universities with strong reputations in Physics, I honestly dont think there will be any difference between them in terms of employability if you are looking for work within the physics field. Physicists will know their reputation. Personally I think the Oxbridge effect is all but dead and gone now, it only really seems to exist in philosophy and politics circles and we all know those aren't real degrees anyway.