Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeWantConsultant)
    Depends on the Ph.D: You'll need a professor as opposed to a regular Ph.D lecturer(A lecturer with a ph.d, not a lecturer who normalises in teaching Ph.Ds), which are in extreme demand, and then you have to spend 7 years in a class of around 40 siphoning his knowledge at the cost of thousands in student loans. Giving you stats about 1 in 900 go on to have a Ph.D

    Edit: Just realised you were trying to be a major or Ph.D in theoretical physics: You will need to be asoloute top because physics lecturers are in VERY high demand.
    I'm struggling to find a single thing that's actually right in this post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    also, what about funding for an MSc?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    During my undergrad, the people who were on the MSc in Particle Theory took some of the same lecture courses as I did in my 4th year. If you want to do a PhD in Theoretical physics do a 4 year MSci. It's really no different and you'll be able to get a student loan that covers the whole thing, rather than having to find the money for the MSc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I thankyou all for your time and for your very insightful advice...keep it coming

    So what about funding.

    Also to the point I (and other) raised earlier in the thread regarding an MSc giving you a more mature experience, in terms of studying the field in more depth and an experience of postgraduate study, what do you guys think about that.

    Also, and perhaps more importantly, if I wanted to apply to a top uni for a Ph.D after an MSc, would they view the fact that I'd done postgraduate study already as a 'bonus', or would it literally make no difference either way?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeWantConsultant)
    Depends on the Ph.D: You'll need a professor as opposed to a regular Ph.D lecturer(A lecturer with a ph.d, not a lecturer who normalises in teaching Ph.Ds), which are in extreme demand, and then you have to spend 7 years in a class of around 40 siphoning his knowledge at the cost of thousands in student loans. Giving you stats about 1 in 900 go on to have a Ph.D

    Edit: Just realised you were trying to be a major or Ph.D in theoretical physics: You will need to be asoloute top because physics lecturers are in VERY high demand.
    So...wrong...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    I thankyou all for your time and for your very insightful advice...keep it coming

    So what about funding.

    Also to the point I (and other) raised earlier in the thread regarding an MSc giving you a more mature experience, in terms of studying the field in more depth and an experience of postgraduate study, what do you guys think about that.

    Also, and perhaps more importantly, if I wanted to apply to a top uni for a Ph.D after an MSc, would they view the fact that I'd done postgraduate study already as a 'bonus', or would it literally make no difference either way?
    first off, regarding funding: I'm not sure but I would imagine getting funding for an MSc would be extremely tough, if such things even exist. Certainly it would be much easier paying for the last year of an undergrad masters

    Like I said, the last year of my undergrad masters was pretty much the same as the MSc that other people were starting at the uni. The two years are pretty much the same, a few taught modules and a short research project that either comes at the end in one large chunk or you're given at the start and have a year to finish it.

    A PhD and taught MSc are really nothing like each other at all. So long as you took the right specialist modules in an undergrad MSci there would be pretty much no difference between the two at all. Like someone said earlier, MSc courses are mainly money spinners for universities and for people who either underperformed at undergrad, or who want a change of direction (both in my case!). I don't think it would make a difference at all, the whole reason these MSci exist is to make it easier for science students to get into research!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Itchynscratchy)
    first off, regarding funding: I'm not sure but I would imagine getting funding for an MSc would be extremely tough, if such things even exist. Certainly it would be much easier paying for the last year of an undergrad masters

    Like I said, the last year of my undergrad masters was pretty much the same as the MSc that other people were starting at the uni. The two years are pretty much the same, a few taught modules and a short research project that either comes at the end in one large chunk or you're given at the start and have a year to finish it.

    A PhD and taught MSc are really nothing like each other at all. So long as you took the right specialist modules in an undergrad MSci there would be pretty much no difference between the two at all. Like someone said earlier, MSc courses are mainly money spinners for universities and for people who either underperformed at undergrad, or who want a change of direction (both in my case!). I don't think it would make a difference at all, the whole reason these MSci exist is to make it easier for science students to get into research!
    Referring to your last paragraph, I didn't think that phd's are in any way similar to masters.
    I have looked at some masters courses at various universities and it is, frankly, clear that some have been thrown togeather to make money for the university, having said that there are a few that look reasonably decent.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    Referring to your last paragraph, I didn't think that phd's are in any way similar to masters.
    I have looked at some masters courses at various universities and it is, frankly, clear that some have been thrown togeather to make money for the university, having said that there are a few that look reasonably decent.
    Well what I mean really is that since they are not similiar it doesn't matter if your masters is postgraduate or not (unless it's an MPhil, maybe).

    I'm sure some of them are very respectable courses, but there is no point at all doing a BSc in theoretical physics and then an MSc in the same subject when you can combine the two as an MSci and save yourself a huge amount of money! There really isn't much difference between the 4th year of an MSci and a one year Msc (I know this having done both).

    The only reason I did both was because I was going in a different direction (I found theoretical physics way too tough once I got to 4th year undergrad!).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well there is one difference between an MSci and MSc, the MSci is 9 months vs 12 months MSc usually, at my uni the MSc has more credits than the MSci and they share modules. But from what I understand and what others have said here, a good grade in either will get you onto a PhD. The MSci is cheaper (assuming the MSc fees go up when the undergrad fees do, which is likely), and you get the SLC >>> than a CDL.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    You will probably find that the route to doing a PhD in Theoretical Physics is being amongst the top ranking students in a competitive programme of study (i.e. study alongside students of high ability) and showing considerable strengths in the relevant areas that you want to do research it. After that it would help considerably if a senior academic writes a reference which says "this student is amongst the best undergraduates I have ever taught". Whatever route you take should be to address one or both of these issues. If you are the "big fish" on your course and the rest are plebs, you might want to try a graduate programme with a more stellar student make-up to show you have the right stuff. Alternatively, if you haven't got the ear of a respected academic, you might want to go somewhere where you can catch their attention.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schroedinger's Pandora)
    I went straight from BSc to PhD, I did however, need a first class BSc to do it.
    What was your PhD in though?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chemist548)
    What was your PhD in though?
    BSc Analytical Chemistry
    PhD Chemical Engineering (synthetic)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schroedinger's Pandora)
    BSc Analytical Chemistry
    PhD Chemical Engineering (synthetic)
    I'm about to start my PhD in Chemical engineering too, my undergrad degree was in chemistry . (BSc)

    I think masters are a scam. (£££) I couldn't afford to do a masters, not that I would want to anyway. When my tutor tried to convince me to do a masters I felt like punching him in the face!



    PS: In fact I think most of my undergrad time was wasted, if not all! Too much coursework, and too much irrelevant crap was put into my degree. But I suspect that's because I went to a sh*t university due to let's just say "unfortunate" personal circumstances during my A-levels. The university basically caters to idiots. I should show some of you the ridiculously easy work we get set but I don't work to reveal who I am
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As other people have said, an undergrad masters is (though rises in tuition fees may alter this, you don't say what year you are in at the moment, school/uni?) much better financially as you get a student loan and it'll be cheaper. Funding can be quite hard to get for theorectical physics masters. So I would definitely recommend that you do a 4 year undergrad masters, then in your final year apply for PhDs and then if you aren't having much luck also apply for masters if you want to give PhD apps another go the year after with the extra experience (or rather just knowing your final degree results, how your dissertation went etc.). Note that a lot of theorectical physics (high energy physics anyway) PhDs will have lectures at the start anyway (often the relevant masters courses) so you're not misssing out on these.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It makes me a little sad how many people considering applying for a Ph.D. can't even spell it. :facepalm2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suzanathema)
    It makes me a little sad how many people considering applying for a Ph.D. can't even spell it. :facepalm2:
    Maybe they can't be bothered using punctuation. Why would it make you sad? lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sooz)
    As other people have said, an undergrad masters is (though rises in tuition fees may alter this, you don't say what year you are in at the moment, school/uni?) much better financially as you get a student loan and it'll be cheaper. Funding can be quite hard to get for theorectical physics masters. So I would definitely recommend that you do a 4 year undergrad masters, then in your final year apply for PhDs and then if you aren't having much luck also apply for masters if you want to give PhD apps another go the year after with the extra experience (or rather just knowing your final degree results, how your dissertation went etc.). Note that a lot of theorectical physics (high energy physics anyway) PhDs will have lectures at the start anyway (often the relevant masters courses) so you're not misssing out on these.
    If you're smart you don't need a Masters to do a PhD. What the heck do you mean "much better financially as you get a student loan"....it's a LOAN, it's DEBT. Why do a Masters (assuming you want onto a PhD) if you can get onto a PhD straight away?

    EDIT: IMHO, Masters are a scam (£££).

    As for research experience, well you get that on a regular BSc pathway, and some of us get research experience (quite a lot in chemistry and engineering in fact) in an industrial setting as part of a year or summer placement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chemist548)
    If you're smart you don't need a Masters to do a PhD. What the heck do you mean "much better financially as you get a student loan"....it's a LOAN, it's DEBT. Why do a Masters (assuming you want onto a PhD) if you can get onto a PhD straight away?

    EDIT: IMHO, Masters are a scam (£££).

    As for research experience, well you get that on a regular BSc pathway, and some of us get research experience (quite a lot in chemistry and engineering in fact) in an industrial setting as part of a year or summer placement.
    I meant it was much better financially than doing a BSc + MSc (assuming you didn't get funding for the MSc).
    Yes, it certainly is true that you can get onto a PhD (even in theorectical physics) without a masters (from at least one example I can think of, though the PhD did include lecture courses to get everyone up to speed), but my gut feeling is that you would be at a disadvantage, though I can in no way prove this.
    Good point about research experience - try and get as much as you can e.g. look up Nuffield scholarships for summer research experience.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sooz)
    I meant it was much better financially than doing a BSc + MSc (assuming you didn't get funding for the MSc).
    Yes, it certainly is true that you can get onto a PhD (even in theorectical physics) without a masters (from at least one example I can think of, though the PhD did include lecture courses to get everyone up to speed), but my gut feeling is that you would be at a disadvantage, though I can in no way prove this.
    Good point about research experience - try and get as much as you can e.g. look up Nuffield scholarships for summer research experience.
    Well. No. The MSc lasts one full year, the final year of an MSci lasts at the most 8 months. Taking that fact into account, the MSc can quite often be cheaper in terms of the money/time ratio (tutition fees).

    Additionally, you get alot more choice with the MSc in terms of what you can study/research and you're not limited to your own university.

    That being said, securing funding for the MSci is probably more hassle-free.

    In any event, if you're smart and you know what you want, you should get yourself directly onto a PhD programme.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chemist548)
    . Taking that fact into account, the MSc can quite often be cheaper in terms of the money/time ratio (tutition fees).
    Can it? Unless you are lucky enough to have parents to give you cash or even luckier to get funding then you will probably be getting a career development loan on commercial terms to complete an MSc. Hardly something I'd be keen to do if the other option was to basically pay small amount of extra tax to cover the equivalent qualification.

    Theoretical physics is relatively popular so you do need the kind of recommendations that Shiny is talking about above much else. If your game is Cambridge then I think part III is a requirement for most PhDs in areas we would consider theoretical physics.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

4,683

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
  2. University of Bolton
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
  3. Bishop Grosseteste University
    All Courses Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.