Msc theortical physics vs Applied math

[Spark]

Hi guy,

I have an offer to do either a MSc in theoretical physics (quantum fields and fundamental forces) or Applied math at imperial. I always wanted to go onto study Quantum field theory , general relativity and quantum computing and cryptography. I would love to study a PhD in this area, however I'm really worried about the career prospects - there seem to be a hand full of academic positions and that's about it. I want to make sure I have a back up plan if I can't get post docs positions. My Proff says finance firms hire a lot of PhD physics students - but surely this would depend upon what exactly you what you researched. i.e a lack of say statistics and/or stochastic processes experience puts you at a real disadvantage. And I doubt company's want to re-train a theoretical physicist when there are other people fully trained in quantitative finance. Is this really a option? or is it more of a "well had you been lucky enough to have chose to study this aspect of quantum field theory we would be interest, but because you did a Phd in area X we have no use for you!"

I'm not oppose to going into finance, I really like mathematical modeling and high level math, but I would prefer to be a scientist - however I want a back up plan. I do have some choice in modules so I could (possibly have to double check with department) take MSc theoretical physics and a few finance modules. Then if I can go and get a Phd in theortical phys great if not try and get one in math. Or Msc Applied math (which includes the finance modules and general relativity as well as lost of numerical analysts) and a PhD in math. While I would enjoy either course my heart is set on the theoretical physics MSc as I love the weirdness and complexity of quantum mech. But I think ultimately it will mean I end up unemployable?. Where as the applied mathematics will allow me to become a quant or even industry? (if academia fails)

My main problem is every one I speak to about this gives examples from how they did it in 1970-1990 and with the recession and university now tailoring courses to suit these positions I think their info (while well intended) is a little out dated.

I need to make a decision soon and really can't decide! Any advice welcome!

 

[Abdel]

'was in the same position as you.

I decided to go into economics/finance to make my money first, then go study physics with no $ restraint.

 

[Barny]

I was in a similar position. I had an offer from Cambridge for MASt Physics and an offer from Imperial MSc Applied Mathematics. I chose Cambridge, but wish I chose Imperial. With a BSc in physics you are qualified enough to get a PhD in physics, and the stuff you learn at Masters is level is basically useless for further research. Where as the stuff you learn in Applied Mathematics can be incredibly useful for the future.

The exception of course is if you want to do a PhD in theoretical high energy physics, where the courses you learn at masters level are necessary and compulsory if you want any chance of admittance to a theory-HEP group. But I would actually strongly discourage this. A few reasons. Firstly, it is ferociously competitive. In the UK there are a handful of groups that do theoretical HEP - Cambridge, Imperial, York, Herriot-Watt, Nottingham, King's College. I can tell you now that this academic year just passed there was only enough funding for one-two people at each of the above institutions, and considering how many people are studying part III at Cambridge (with very good first degrees and on track to get merit/distinction during MASt) and QFFF at Imperial and similar courses at other UK unis - I would say your chances are slim.

I have seen several friends during the past year with excellent track records and very good knowledge of the physics be turned down time and time again - not because they weren't good enough, but because there was one truly exceptional candidate and they only had one funded place!

Not to mention the fact that theoretical HEP is a bit of a dead end subject - you can barely call it a science anymore, all of your work will be abstract analytical stuff and most of the groups that do theoretical HEP actually do string theory. That and there are no jobs available for you in science at the end of a long, hard PhD, and you certainly won't have picked up any useful skills for any other industries to be particularly interested in you.

So if I were in your shoes I'd do Applied Maths and then do a PhD not related to theoretical HEP. Just my opinion, ultimately do what makes you happy.

 

[Spark]

Hi Abdel, Hi Barny!!

Thanks for you answers.

Barny that's kind of my thinking. I would love to do a PhD in HEP and I have a very good academic record (top of my cohort and spent my MPhys researching at Harvard uni) but I get the feeling a large element of luck is involved in getting a PhD let alone a pocdoc/academic position! I would also be distraught if after working that hard and making sacrifices I fail to be employed by either industry or finance!! The way I see it I have two choices:

Take QFFF but make sure my optional models include applied stochastic processes and mathematical finance. The apply for theoretical physics PhD and mathematical physics/computational PhD's. If I can't get a theoretical physics PhD I can fall back on math.

Or take Msc applied math, get a good grounding in dynamic systems, numerical solutions and computational differentiate equations (stuff that's useful for industry/engineering/becoming a quant). And as an option take say a QFFF module or two for personal curiosity.

I think you are correct though that even with a Phd in HEP I wont get very far industry wise, but would it still get me into quantitative finance - or would I really lack all the skills necessary? I could always do my PhD in say material physics or silicon stuff. But maybe applied math would also get me down that route?

Cheers guys.

 

[Barny]

Let me reiterate. You do not need to study quantum field theory etc. unless you want to do research in quantum field theory/string theory. For every other area of physics research your BSc in physics is enough to get you admitted into a top PhD programme. Therefore, my advice would be to study the things which you want to study for your future career i.e. Applied Maths. A BSc Physics + MSc in Applied Maths will be a great combination for research in any area of physics other than HEP.

If you are dead set on doing a phd in HEP, do QFFF. If you're not, don't. It's that simple in my eyes. Another thing to consider is brand-names. By far the most useful thing for breaking into finance is collecting brand-names. You are almost certainly not going to be given an offer at Oxbridge/Imperial in HEP unless you are truly exceptional - so ask yourself whether or not you are.

 

[Abdel]

And as far as quantum physics, my friend completed his phd in quantum physics and is now working in.....an Investment Bank in London.

 

[Yike Lu]

Speaking as a Caltech physics major who did experimental HEP research, I am very skeptical of the usefulness of high level theoretical particle physics, especially string theory, even for the sake of advancing physics. Ask Prof M Lancaster at UCL (he teaches the Master level Particle Phys class) about theorists and you'll get an earful.

At some point in the last 10-20 years, theory outstripped experiment by a very large margin. There are still good, practical theorists out there who recognize the overgrowth and try to keep their work closer to experiment.

Then there's the issue of real-world usefulness. Sure I think GR and QFT are cool to learn, but I see very little connection to problems in the real-world.

My opinion is that computer skills are probably the most directly applicable thing to learn. With the heyday of the derivatives business long past, I feel that quants are mostly being hired for trading and risk, both data intensive disciplines. Learning technologies such as higher level programming languages (e.g. q/kdb+, F# - see Credit Suisse, OCaml - see Jane Street, MATLAB) provide massive leverage for your intellectual capabilities, and not the kind that's going to make your fund collapse. And experimental HEP is also massively data/technology driven.

So I guess my advice is to do Applied Math with lots of computation.

 

[AlexanderMcFarlane]

Speaking as a Caltech physics major who did experimental HEP research, I am very skeptical of the usefulness of high level theoretical particle physics, especially string theory, even for the sake of advancing physics. Ask Prof M Lancaster at UCL (he teaches the Master level Particle Phys class) about theorists and you'll get an earful.

At some point in the last 10-20 years, theory outstripped experiment by a very large margin. There are still good, practical theorists out there who recognize the overgrowth and try to keep their work closer to experiment.

Then there's the issue of real-world usefulness. Sure I think GR and QFT are cool to learn, but I see very little connection to problems in the real-world.

My opinion is that computer skills are probably the most directly applicable thing to learn. With the heyday of the derivatives business long past, I feel that quants are mostly being hired for trading and risk, both data intensive disciplines. Learning technologies such as higher level programming languages (e.g. q/kdb+, F# - see Credit Suisse, OCaml - see Jane Street, MATLAB) provide massive leverage for your intellectual capabilities, and not the kind that's going to make your fund collapse. And experimental HEP is also massively data/technology driven.

So I guess my advice is to do Applied Math with lots of computation.

I just saw three job ads with "String Theory" as a requirement today. I laughed at all of them.

I'm in the same boat but I'm trying to keep the difficulty level up in HEP Theory as it is always easier to go from HEP Theory to Experiment. With that said, I'm moving towards QCD Lattice Theory. That way you're ticking all high-brow Academic boxes whilst ticking HPC and Programming and clearly if you're studying RQFT / QCD you're more than capable of learning a few stochastic processes on the fly. If a recession hits, you're still safe and can get into academia.

With that said I've not yet graduated. So my advice may be completely useless but I've had significantly higher interest in my CV since starting my MSc in Theoretical Physics, for Quant / Trading roles than when I had just a BSc.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

So I guess my advice is to do Applied Math with lots of computation.

Ditto

If a recession hits, you're still safe and can get into academia.
Is that so?