Re: Career advice needed.
tessel_at_tum.bot
Date: 07/09/04
- Next message: Tim S: "Re: Spinors, 4-pi rotation & orientation in topology?"
- Previous message: tessel_at_tum.bot: "Re: Solitons in One Post [Was: Solitons in one sentence]"
- In reply to: WishfulThinker: "Career advice needed."
- Next in thread: grelbr: "Re: Career advice needed."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 9 Jul 2004 04:49:07 -0400
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, WishfulThinker wrote:
> I obtained a BS in History four years ago and have been working as a
> software developer.
That is indeed an unusual background, but you can probably make it work in
your favor.
> I have always felt under-challenged by my current work, however, and for
> a long time have been feeling the urge to do something more important
> for humanity. Recently I have been contemplating the possibility of
> getting back to school as a Physics undergrad, with the goal of
> eventually engaging in nuclear energy research. I just turned 27.
What city do you live in? LA? There are a fair number of large public
unis in California; a talented and determined student can acquire a superb
education in physics/math at any of these, including UCLA. Several people
who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics
departments in CA, or elsewhere on the west coast, and can no doubt
provide help to a deserving aspiring student.
Here is a widely accepted fact (?) which might help put your "wishful
thinking" in perspective: pursuing a career (or even an advanced degree)
in math/physics is inherently risky and there are no guarantees of
success, -no matter how good your UG background-. The good news is that
everyone who sits on an Admissions Committee will know very well that
determination and talent are much more important than preparation in terms
of eventual success, as defined by earning an advanced degree.
Of course, many (most?) math/physics Ph.D.s wind up working as programmers
or sysadmins or in the financial/insurance industries, so you might find
yourself programming again one day, but if so, probably you would be doing
something more interesting (and better paid)!
And if you are a really superb programmer, this is likely evidence of
genuine talents (e.g. patience, ability to focus and to think abstractly)
which will probably also serve you well in a math/physics related career.
> 1. Am I nuts?
Heck, no matter what your background, you -need- to be nuts to attempt
math/sci graduate school! :-/
> Have you ever heard of such a thing?
I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting
extraordinary students (including overaged returning students) who did not
have an UG degree of any kind. The talent of these students came to light
in various ways, but all, AFAIK, were enrolled in an undergraduate degree
program, were spotted by an alert professor, and were promoted forthwith
to graduate school.
Unless you have many tens of thousands of dollars in your savings account,
or know something I don't, I am not sure that obtaining a second B.A. is
financially feasible. But one great thing about -grad school- in the U.S.
is that American citizens who qualify to enter a Ph.D. program in math,
applied math, or physics, can often have their tuition waived and may even
receive a generous living stipend (perhaps in return for some TAing).
I am not sure about physics, but you might be surprised how slight the
entry requirements can be for -graduate- applied math programs and even
for most "pure math" programs, in terms of level of preparation.
Admissions Committees are probably far more impressed by hard evidence of
extraordinary talent and determination.
Be aware that a lot of applied math could equally well be called "applied
physics" or even just plain "physics".
At least if you are willing to try applied math, I can think of
departments where the real entry requirements are probably limited to a
solid background in two years of undergraduate math (maybe eight courses).
In your case, on the theory that "the best evidence of success is
success", you could proceed as follows:
1. identify a uni with a suitable grad program and advanced undergrad
courses (applied math/physics faculty will probably have home pages
describing their research, so you can surf the web looking for topics you
find exciting),
2. choose an upper level course like UG real analysis or complex analysis
or both, in which you would compete against the best UGs at your large
public uni, and find out the prerequisites for this course,
3. study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you
can probably arrange to use your local college library; if not, you can
buy suitable textbooks via Amazon or whatever),
4. next time the course is offered, move to the uni town, sign up for the
course as an extramural student (this means that you pay your own tuition
but don't enroll as an undergraduate degree student), and earn an A+ in
first quarter/semester,
5. even better, see if you can sign up to take the Putnam exam (a national
talent-search exam in math),
6. apply to enter the graduate program at your uni the next Fall, paying
particular attention to your application essay (explain clearly why you
believe you can make your background work to your advantage in their
program); be sure ask your prof. in the course to write a -blind- letter
of recommendation for your application (the department will probably want
numerous letters and such like, but most of these requirements can be
waived, especially if you have a faculty member backing your application),
7. if successful, you would probably receive a tuition waiver, a generous
stipend for first year, and you would be allowed (even required) to spend
your first year acing the UG courses which will prepare you for first year
graduate school; if not, repeat steps 4--6 as often as neccessary,
8. do well in the first year, do well in the second year (taking the
standard first year graduate courses), pass the first hurdles (written
exams, language exam), and you are on your way!
The point is, this route would enable you to entirely -skip over- the time
and expense of a second UG education. Most faculty will immediately
appreciate that this is superfluous in a case like yours (life experience
and all that). Even if it didn't work out, you would have not suffered a
huge financial hit as a penalty for even making the attempt.
If this plan seems discouraging, complicated and circuitous, well, I would
respond that -research- is discouraging, complicated and circuitous! In
fact, if you are rebuffed the first time around you apply to a graduate
program, if I were you I'd make precisely this point in your application
essay the second time around: "I have taken an inventive approach, I've
modified my approach in reaction to an initial setback, and as you can see
I'm not giving up". I have no doubt they will take the point: initiative,
adapatibility, and sheer stubbornness are all essential character virtues
in this game.
I don't know if you could try something analogous with physics substituted
for applied math above, but I suspect you that could. If not, if you are
dead set upon physics at all costs, if you got into a math program and had
a good first year, you could very likely transfer to the physics program
of UCLA or whatever after a year of math, as long as you can somehow
demonstrate a mastery of enough UG level physics. And a year of math
certainly never hurt any physics student!
A third option: have you thought about pursuing a career as a historian of
physics? You already have the historical background; the math/physics
background is IMO far more important (and far harder to acquire, to judge
from the work of most practitioners in this field). Are you are good at
documenting your programs? A clear and fluent writer in natural language?
If so, if you got into a degree program in The History of Science (they
are not easy to find, but they do exist), you might well find you have a
-better- background (programming) than your peers. If this sounds
intriguing, do some web surfing, and read some books by west coast
practitioners.
Hmm... I've been awaiting the opportunity to go off on another rampage
with the theme "all history is a lie", but I see that this is not the
moment to do this :-/
> 3. How hard would it be for me to re-enter
[snip]
> compared to someone fresh from highschool?
I can think of "reentering students" who initially expressed a similar
fear. One of them was clearly excelling after only a few weeks.
I doubt that your chances of success at jumping into a graduate program
(after taking and excelling in a few courses in the department of interest
as an extramural student, doing very well on a talent search exam, or some
other way to make your mark) are affected by your level of preparation as
much as by your determination and talent. Irrespective of preparation, I
think character virtues plus talent are invaluable.
> 2. I need to brush up on my rust-encrusted math skills. What areas of
> math should I work on BEFORE re-entering university, and up to what
> level? What other academic areas should I prepare myself on?
Well, for either applied math or physics you will certainly need a strong
background in differential equations and real and complex analysis. For
this you need a strong background in "abstract linear algebra" (vector
spaces and linear operators, not just matrices) and "advanced calculus".
To get some idea, and also for (3) above), I'd recommend you look at
standard advanced UG textbooks such as
author = {Mary L. Boas},
title = {Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences},
publisher = {Wiley},
year = 1982}
This is very clear, with good problems and solutions, so very well suited
for self-study. Mastering the subject matter in this one book would
probably take you a long way! If this seems too hard at first glance, the
Schaum Outline series has some excellent problem books on differential
equations and linear algebra which are old but (usually) not so old that
they use hopelessly outdated terminology.
OTH, IMO Dover books are generally to be avoided, with a handful of
exceptions, since these are often so old (typically, reprints of books
first published around 1930-1950) that their terminology/focus will only
mislead you about what you'll encounter in a contemporary classroom. To
forestall people who complain whenever I say this, it is true that one of
the very best Dover books in the area of PDEs was first published in the
19th century, and is still one of the best introductions to the material
it covers, and there are other counterexamples to my claim that most Dover
books are not good first books for a contemporary student. But as I see
it, right now you want books which will quickly prepare you to fit right
into an early 21st century classroom.
Good luck!
"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)
- Next message: Tim S: "Re: Spinors, 4-pi rotation & orientation in topology?"
- Previous message: tessel_at_tum.bot: "Re: Solitons in One Post [Was: Solitons in one sentence]"
- In reply to: WishfulThinker: "Career advice needed."
- Next in thread: grelbr: "Re: Career advice needed."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
