1

I finished my 3rd year at a US public research university; however, since I switched majors 2.5 years into my studies (engineering to physics), I still have 2 more years to go. Because of this, I will only have the core undergrad classes under my belt (classical, stat., and quantum mech., as well as E&M with some relativistic treatments).

I would like to apply to high energy theory groups, but I get the impression that successful applicants all have had multiple years of graduate coursework in physics and mathematics at their undergrad institutions. Of course, I understand that research experience is far more important (and I think I do well in that aspect), but there's no doubt that the other highly qualified applicants have stellar research experiences as well -- with work in topics relevant to hep-th, no less.

My question, then, is whether this impression is realistic, or if I'm totally off-base and misguided here. My biggest concern is that, from what I have been told, a PhD in HET is not worth it unless it comes from one of the top 10 programs (due to the scarcity of positions and lack of funding afterwards). Again, this may be a total misconception on my part, but the prospects do seem rough (more so than other academic positions, I should say).

P.S.: FWIW, my interest in HET and cosmology grew from going through Anthony Zee's books on QFT and gravity (having self-studied the prereqs through a mix of Shankar and Griffiths), so I believe I have some idea of the actual nature/mathematics of the topics. However, I'm sure that saying something along these lines in my application, or how I go through the arXiv looking for papers I don't understand, is nothing short of pettiness. It would certainly be strange for someone with no formal experience in the subjects to profess deep interests in doing research in said field.

Banach space fan
  • 111
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
    Too long. If you wish to be considered for a response, I recommend tightening and shortening your question to the point; I was lost in details and could not really see what you are asking. – Captain Emacs May 17 '16 at 17:36
  • @CaptainEmacs got it; I'll read Mad Jack's link again, and if I still have questions I'll edit/shorten my post appropriately. – Banach space fan May 17 '16 at 17:55
  • A general comment: unless pursuing your goals would by chance be an irresponsible neglect of other responsibilities (family? etc.), and if the attempt would be what you'd prefer more than anything else, why not try? However rough the job market is, your chances are definitely worse if you don't try at all! But, indeed, these are not really "career choices", but choices based on passion. The attempt itself had better be interesting and fun, or the whole enterprise will not be rewarding... – paul garrett May 17 '16 at 18:56
  • @paulgarrett, My main concern is that it will be a waste of money (fees) and time if, as knzhou says, the there are certain tacit expectations that I simply do not meet. I would hate "losing" another year and putting off (the training towards) doctoral-level research just because I entertained some grandiose dreams. On the other hand, I accept that I might just be overly naive (or cautious) about this; one option is applying only to a few programs as HET, but whether that's a good idea I haven't heard many opinions about yet. – Banach space fan May 17 '16 at 20:30
  • @knzhou, Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep it in mind once I acquire enough rep. – Banach space fan May 17 '16 at 20:34
  • Based on analogous possible issue in mathematics (my field): yes, if one wants any chance for admission to top-10-type places, minimalist undergrad coursework is likely a fatal problem. If one insists on top-10, then, more coursework is inescapable. (And the cost may simply be worth the gamble? Will it matter in 10 years?) But/and, then does one "need" top-10? Such credentials don't promise anything in themselves, in any case. And the dichotomy between doctoral-level training and taking more grad courses as an undergrad is mostly an illusion... Confusing premises, to me... – paul garrett May 17 '16 at 20:56
  • @paulgarrett, I mentioned the top 10 thing because I've heard such statements thrown around often; whether or not it is accurate is part of the reason for this question, but as mentioned by knzhou, it seems it would be better suited for a more specific audience. As for the last bit, when I said the bit about "doctoral training" I simply meant starting my PhD asap, nothing more (rather than getting rejected everywhere and having to apply next cycle, for instance). – Banach space fan May 17 '16 at 21:38
  • Ah! In response to your last comment, @Banachspacefan, I might suggest/speculate that the (understandable) impulse to start a (hard science...) PhD sooner rather than later may lead to some failure-due-to-premature-attempt, which might be avoided without_loss by filling out pre-PhD prep better. But, yes, many factors to consider... – paul garrett May 17 '16 at 21:46

0 Answers0