Should physics/maths graduates be worried about maths/physics graduates?

Theoretical physics is such a great field because people from lots of different academic backgrounds can transition into it! Fields that might seem far removed like computer science, engineering and even biology can often lead into theoretical physics. The main two sources of theorists are maths and physics graduates, this can sometimes be a source of worry for both cohorts, I know maths graduates have worried me in the past and still do! 

Lets talk about the concerns these two groups might have about how each other could have an advantage over them. After that I hope to at least reduce your worries, whether you are a physics or maths undergraduate. I'll also offer some advice to those of you who are approaching theoretical physics from a subject a bit further away than maths or physics.

Concerns of Physicists:

Lets start with something I know well, fear of mathematicians! I think a lot of the fear physicists have of mathematicians comes from the Cambridge Part III and the number of successful theorists that have come from that maths course. The study of high abstract topics like string theory, super-gravity, super-symmetry and similar topics is seen as being more akin to pure mathematics than physics sometimes. They deal with very generalised situations and use a language not featured in a large proportion of undergraduate physics topics (if any). 

Mathematicians often receive in depth training in subjects like topology and differential/algebraic geometry to a high level. These are linked heavily with subjects like string theory and general relativity, so such training is often seen by physics graduates as being a point of weakness on their part.

Furthermore, mathematicians spend a lot of time studying proofs and the art of proof, something physics students definitely DO NOT spend much time on it if any. The impression given is that theorists spend a lot of time proving things and as such physics students get nervous about their lack of experience with proving in a mathematical context.

There can also be a general atmosphere that mathematics is a trickier and purer subject than physics. I have had the idea that maths is superior to physics impressed upon me more than once, it does certainly get you down. Feelings of academic inferiority don't help the previous matters.

(Image Credit: A Growing Physicist)

Concerns of Mathematicians:

Now not being a mathematician, this is not personal experience I'm drawing on but comments from academics, students from both disciplines and some general logic and know how about maths courses.

Mathematicians are not always trained in advanced classical mechanics. This can appear quite the weakness when compared to physicists who are often trained quite well in the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalism by the time they finish their degree! This can be perceived as a weakness when beginning the study of field theory but in reality it is something a mathematician will pick up very quickly.

Physicists have often studied very specific (and highly relevant topics) like particle physics and electromagnetism. Mathematicians might be concerned that they haven't covered the standard model in qualitative detail or Maxwell's equations in depth. Special relativity also comes up, like electromagnetism this is not something necessarily covered in a maths course and a highly relevant topic to many areas of theory.

A more general skill physicists utilise is the contextualisation of mathematical results in a physical setting. Mathematics often does not focus on this, it maintains a more abstract setting (which itself can be perceived as a strength of maths students vs physics students) so mathematicians may fear that lacking experience of this leaves them at a disadvantage.

Like physicists, there can also be a feeling of academic inferiority though for my money I think this affects mathematicians much less. But it does happen, some mathematicians talk about theoretical physicists like they are scary people!

(Image Credit: WordPress)

Addressing concerns...

Firstly... you might notice that each side has plenty of perceived issues. So even if my proceeding comments don't offer you some peace about your perceived disadvantage, know that the 'other side' (for want of a better term) probably have a similar number of completely different deficits to your skill sets. I touched on this when talking about going to a 'non-perfect' uni, everyone, no matter their route, has advantages and disadvantages.

Furthermore, the primary skill you learn in a degree is to, well, LEARN. You can learn skills from maths and physics whichever camp you are approaching theory from. The subjects are not miles apart in the grand scheme of things either, mathematicians and physicists have the closest of languages in comparison to other academic fields. It is not hard for mathematicians to get acquainted with the physical context and interpretation commonly associated with skills acquired through studying physics. Likewise as a physicists you use maths all the time, it isn't hard to pick up a book on topology and starting learning it and the more generalised, proof driven structure of mathematics.

As this cross-over becomes more and more prominent, courses inevitably react as well! Mathematics courses these days often offer modules in quantum mechanics, physics courses also have more advanced maths modules. These supplement perceived weaknesses and can help prepare you for a career in theoretical physics.

I myself took a 'Further Mathematical Methods' module in my 3rd year. It involved studying complex analysis, linear algebra and basic group theory. After this I felt much better equipped to begin venturing into the world of mathematics for theoretical physics.

From my perspective the best thing you can do if you are in the midst of your degree is to (as always) take relevant options to your career path. If you're doing a maths degree take quantum mechanics options, if you're doing physics then take some higher level maths options. Asides from that, don't worry! Both sides have initial weaknesses but these disappear with further study.

With regards to feelings of inferiority, maybe comparison is just a silly idea. Both fields have their own methods and goals, own strength and weaknesses just as their students have. 

From my own experience, the criticism levelled at mathematicians by physicists is that their work is too abstract and inapplicable. Any physicist who says this is doing their own field a disservice, development of the language and techniques that physicists (and all scientists) work with on a daily basis is a purely positive thing. No group theory... no standard model, no crystal structure study, no cryptography etc.

Physicists can sometimes get the vibe from mathematicians that their work is not a 'pure' as theirs. This notion of purity and beauty is (sorry to be such a scientist here but) not as yet a measurable quantity. The 'pureness' of a subject is nothing to be concerned about. 'Yes but you haven't proven it in a self contained manner' (to para-phrase), its an irrelevant statement. It's not what physics is about, in the same way that pure mathematicians rarely spend time on applying their work to real world problems, and both of those aspects are ok. And lets not forget that sometimes physicists end up developing serious developments in mathematics (string theory cough cough). 

Theorists and mathematicians especially are very close in reality these days so its best not to be comparing ourselves to each other. We should worry more about defending ourselves to the sciences that are do immediate good for the world and explaining why we are still needed!

(Sorry for that rant...)

What if you studied theory and want to go into maths?

This is possible, though I think it's harder than transitioning to theory from maths. If you have covered sufficient mathematical content then it certainly can happen! What I mean by this is by studying GR you can gain experience in differential geometry for example. If you've focused on more numerical topics you might find applied maths fits well and if you've focused on the abstract purer mathematics will probably appeal to you more. Again maths and theoretical physics can be almost indistinguishable at certain boundaries, as a result transitioning from physics to mathematics is not unheard of. But as someone interested in this myself it's not easy to demonstrate you have the pre-requisites to do a PhD in geometry for example. This is only fair though, it's very unlikely that a maths grad would get on an applied particle theory PhD, that's a very real career option for someone like myself.

What if I'm further away from physics than that?

I'm not going to push an illusion here, you would be in a very exclusive (potentially entirely exclusive) group if you managed to do a degree in biology and then end up doing a PhD in say string theory. But for a lot of subjects that might seem a bit further away from theoretical physics, you might be surprised at the areas available to you. Mathematical biology and biophysics are two areas that come to mind when considering moving from traditional biology to a more physics-y direction. Did your degree in geology? Try geophysics. Computer science? Have a look at quantum information and the sub-branches of that. There are a large number of fields like atmospheric physics, physical chemistry and nuclear engineering that can definitely take a theoretical physics perspective. Not all theoretical physics is string theory, in fact most of it isn't!

So whilst I make no promise that anyone/everyone can get a slice of particle theory, I think there are plenty of opportunities for you to get a piece of the theoretical physics pie if you are coming from a different area of science. Sorry English students... I don't think you'll be able to re-specialise this drastically unless you're the next Witten. The key thing is to like (and ideally be good with) maths. Programming is always useful as well.


There you have it, my reasoning for not being afraid of your academic counterparts in other fields within the realms of theory. Ultimately its best to focus on acquiring knowledge and skills and then mastering them. This will put you ahead of your competition, not the nuances of the field you studied.

Is theory worth the odds?

Whilst it might not be pleasant to think about, the fact is there aren't many theoretical physicists in the world. Even worse is the comparison of the number of physics undergrads to the number of theoretical physics academics (a more useful comparison). Unfortunately I can't quote a specific number, but needless to say it will be very very small.

So is it worth it? That is, will the repeated applications, potentially to Masters, then PhD, then postdoc, then trying to work your way up the academic food chain till you gain a (reasonably) permanent position be worth a job in theory? Fighting for funding all the while, almost certainly having to teach in one way or another (good thing for me, but might not be your cup of tea) and compromising on your salary potential. Is it worth it?

I preface this with a warning, the whole post might seem like me listing off a load of reasons not to pursue theory but that is really not my intention. I would encourage anyone and everyone to go for a career in theoretical physics academia! But it's important to know the difficulties of getting there, I've tried to offer advice when I think there's something useful to be said, but this is more about what you'll be getting yourself into if you want to become a theorist...

PhD application odds:

It's no secret that PhDs in theory are not readily available. This statement can be much more relevant to you depending on what area of theory you're looking at, more on this later. Due to the lack of places you're likely to encounter the following problems.

High entry requirements: Just because the advertised entrance is 2:1, for many universities the chances are successful applicants will have a 1st. This not to say that if you don't get a 1st you can't do a PhD, not at all. It just means that you will be more limited and ultimately sport a less competitive application. For many people this seems unfair, but you have to bare in mind that for theory the skills they need you to have are difficult to measure without exams in the current system. Check my article on how to set yourself apart when studying theory for some things you can do outside of exams that might help you.

Now the most obvious but hardest answer to this problem is do as well in your exams as you can. If you can get a 1st, that would be ideal. But there are always complications in exam season, so what if you get a 2:1? Well there are plenty of PhD programmes that will take 2:1s, you might have to fight a bit (by which I mean write a kick-ass application and try and add some extra stuff on your CV like placements an such) but a good number of people get into theory PhDs with a 2:1. 

If you get a 2:2, in my personal opinion its unlikely that you would get onto a theoretical physics PhD. Please give it a go if you want to, but I wouldn't want to give an illusion of inflated odds. But that doesn't mean you can't do a PhD in a related field, to some this might sound like a cop out, but I think its a perfectly valid route and one that can be very rewarding.

Funding problems: You might get a PhD place... but is it funded? As an example, Imperial has funding for maybe 4 theory doctorates a year (at most). That's tiny. Some of you may be aware that the government has introduced a doctoral loan, but I would advise you not to use this in place of funding. Asides from that fact that the numbers don't really add up, I would strongly advise you to only do a PhD if it funded. There are many reasons why I believe this is the case but I won't discuss those here. One exception I can think of is if you gain a substantial graduate scholarship (like the ones offered at Oxford). 

You should also be aware that funding is often for 3.5 years, it is not unheard of for theorists to take considerably longer than that to complete their thesis. This would inevitably cause financial concerns if you aren't on track to complete within the funding window.

So what can you do about this? The main thing is to apply for full funded PhDs on topics that you are suited to. This insures financial security and if you are suited to the topic you would (hopefully) be more likely to complete the PhD on time. Funding is a difficulty all members of the theoretical physics academic system face, I don't see this changing anytime soon...

Getting the right PhD: When you apply your specific interests as a filter to the small puddle of theory PhDs you will probably be left with a droplet! You simply cannot avoid this as its absolutely essential you find a PhD that interests you. If you have broad interests, that's great. If you're like me and you only want mathematical physics and don't like phenomenology then things can become really quite tricky...

Some comments: So in essence the problem is that getting on a funded theoretical physics PhD that is on a topic you enjoy is not going to be a piece of cake. That's no reason not to give it a go. There's no denying that applying for PhDs can be incredibly stressful, but the pay-off can be amazing. The best thing you can do is try and do well in your exams and don't pick one you don't like or an unfunded one.

Scarcity of postdoctoral positions:

So even if you get on a theory PhD, the number of postdoc positions awaiting the years PhD cohort isn't large enough for everyone to get a job! This is a fact theorists especially have had to face of late. It's also a reason why you should only take a funded PhD, chances are if your PhD wasn't funded you won't have a shot at a postdoc position.

There are implications of this narrowing of the funnel...

Where you do your PhD matters: I wish I could say otherwise, but on balance of probabilities if you did your PhD at Surrey and you're up against someone who did theirs at Oxford you would be at a disadvantage. I'm not having a go at Surrey as a uni (it has a really good physics department) but relaying my assessment of the state of the perceived academic hierarchy at present. There are several reasons for this bias. 

Inevitably there is some bias of academics towards universities of higher repute, whether you see this as valid or not is besides the point, it is there. Somewhere like Oxford also has more funding and more pull within the scientific community, this has several implications. Your PhD research is more likely to reach further if you go to a better known institution, this is certainly beneficial when applying for postdoc. Also previous members of universities like Oxford/Cambridge dominate theoretical physics departments across the UK. They maintain links with Oxbridge and some of them have a preference for Oxbridge graduates, even over those who complete PhDs within their own department.

When I have spoken to theorists about career prospects they always said that what mattered most was the institution I did my PhD at. I'm not saying if you don't do your PhD at Oxbridge you've got no chance, but I'm under the impression it could help a lot...

What you do your PhD on matters: A little preface here, a lecturer of mine told me last year that trying to predict what topics would be 'in' by the time you finish your PhD was an absolute waste of time. I stand by that completely so take what I'm saying with a pinch of salt.

The most important part of this is that have to LOVE the topic you are going to research in your PhD. This gives you the best chance of producing good research that will be noticed by the scientific community because you will have maximum motivation to keep working hard. It also means that if you can't get on the postdoc ladder, you won't see your PhD as a waste of time. If you have a very specific idea of what you want to do, go with it. If you are a bit more open, you might want to consider the following...

If you are 50:50 stuck between string theory and particle phenomenology, you really like both, you might want to consider which one gives you better career prospects. In that case you would go for phenomenology, it has much more funding available and string theory is currently under stress. If you wanted to research formal string theory later in your career, this wouldn't be a hard transition and you'd be much more likely to get a postdoc in phenomenology than string theory. This is only for those who don't have a specific idea of what they want, I wish I liked phenomenology (who knows, maybe I'll change my mind over the next few months, it would make my life a lot easier) but I know its not right for me so I won't try and spend 3-4 years researching it! This can get even more specific so try and get a good idea of where the field is heading.

Some comments: It is key to realise that getting on a PhD does nothing to guarantee you a career as an academic. The best thing you can do is to pick a PhD that you love and then if you don't get into academia afterwards you'll still have loved the time you spent in research. It is also important to be aware of time scales, you may not immediately move from PhD to postdoc, you might have to work in industry for 6 months for example. Also bare in mind the reputation of the institutions you're applying for, they matter more than they ever have before. 

Difficulties in getting a permanent position:

This is a really important one to be aware of if you are seriously thinking about academic theory. Most academic positions these days are temporary, at least the kind of positions you'd be looking at for the first 5-10 years of your career after PhD. Some star theorists land professorships in that time frame, but that is certainly not the norm! Most departments work on 2 year contracts, forcing you to either fight to renew your contract, move up to a higher role in the same department or find a position at another university. 

This uncertainty and movement is something that will work for some and not others. What may not work for anyone is the potential to be left without a salary and no redundancy package to support you after that contract ends. It is a risk you should be well aware of when considering this career path. The path does lead to permanent positions but how long this takes is not set. Your progress is very dependent on your research and ultimately there is no way of predicting the quality and amount of research you'll produce in what time frame throughout your career. 

Dependence on funding:

Alongside the temporary nature of positions, academics have a continuous battle for funding. This involves a heap load of applications, presenting to panels and more in the continued fight for your academic livelihood! This is another level of uncertainty that would affect you in a number of ways.

Perhaps the most important is that your research capabilities may be directly impacted by your funding. This means you'll be fighting for resources that would enable you to carry out the research you're so passionate about. This is very different from say industry where often scientific researchers are provided with any resource they need! 

This has further impact, if there is a lack of funding, your research quality may decrease and subsequently you may be denied funding again. And so a vicious cycle may begin...

Furthermore, you may be fighting for group or departmental funding, this places the funding of colleagues under your responsibility and your success or lack of would not just impact you but potentially many others. That is a serious responsibility that could land in your lap if you take on a more senior academic role, you should be aware that this could be something you face one day. As mentioned above lack of funding can have serious long term consequences...

Teaching responsibilities:

There are no theoretical physics research institutes in the UK, so you would have to take up a research post at a university. For almost all of these you will be required to teach in some form. This could be lab supervision, lecturing, PhD supervision etc.

For some the prospect of teaching is enjoyable and a key part of being a scientist, for others they see it as getting in the way of their research. I'd advise you to convert to the former if you are currently in the latter. Some academics don't have teaching responsibilities but that is a small group and is especially true in theory.

The lure of other jobs and the question of money:

Having any level of qualification in theoretical physics from degree to PhD gives you serious (and I mean serious) career prospects outside of academia. Finance, defence, consultation, energy, data science, software engineering... in fairness not all of them considered savoury professions.

These are often (in comparison to academia) easier to get into than to carry on the path of theory. They also have more set career paths and perhaps most alluringly, more money...

Money vs your real passion is not a new question. Its especially relevant for theorists because they can earn A LOT of money outside of their real passion. Those who don't make the transition from PhD to postdoc often end up in very well paid jobs (this is another good reason to do a PhD regardless of your postdoc chances). You simply have to ask which matters more to you, but if you go into academia you should feel safe in the knowledge that well paid work awaits you outside academic research.

Choice of field:

Its important to know that some fields within theory are significantly more competitive than others. For example condensed matter theory PhDs often have a 2:1 entrance whereas particle theory PhDs often (basically always) have a 1st class entrance requirement. There are also far more postdoc opportunities for condensed matter theorists than particle theorists. This is something to be aware of if you undecided as to which direction to go in, there are certainly easier routes than others. Bare this in mind if you don't have a particular direction in theory you're passionate about.

Closing comments:

I hope that hasn't put anyone off pursuing theory, my intention was to make people aware of the difficulties associated with the career path and to offer some relevant advice. These challenges do perhaps ensure that you are truly committed to the career path, you absolutely have to be if you want to succeed in this business.

My Degree: What I did right (I think)

This is a follow up to my article on what I'd have done differently in my degree (sort of). I'm talking about decisions that definitely benefited me that maybe not everyone would have made (or did make). This doesn't mean you should follow my decisions! Especially if you aren't looking to pursue a theoretical topic in physics academia. If however that is your goal, this may offer useful ideas for how to approach some decisions through your degree.

I didn't have any specialised 2nd year options that impacted my 3rd year

This may not apply to other physics courses but in at my previous uni there was a 'core' of 2nd year courses which every student (no matter their specialisation) had to take at some point. As a result, those who had specialised courses in their 2nd year had to take a 2nd year course in their 3rd year (hope that makes sense). This was true of particle physics and astrophysics course in my case.

The immediate issue I have with this is that you are robbed of a third year level course. This is not good in my books, you lose a significant portion of higher level teaching. Furthermore you end up stuck between two years in your 3rd year, this created no end of logistical and administrative issues for these students. This is not what you need in your third year.

If you can specialise in maths/theory in your second without consequences then do so!

I was willing to take modules on other areas of theory

You may not be able to fill your 3rd year module choices with options you love. Chances are you'll have to compromise on your modules, I certainly did, the term allocations and timetabling simply didn't add up unfortunately. I made sure that the module I took that I wasn't so interested in had a reasonable amount of theoretical content, in my case I did a module on 'superconductors and magnetism'. Solid state isn't my thing but the theory kept me reasonably interested and also taught me a fair bit.

My point here is that if you have to compromise, stick to a topic with a fair amount of maths in it. A module that focuses on the experimental side will not help you in theory!

I didn't take any 'easy' options

This might seem kind of arrogant so let me explain... 

It's fair to say that in any physics course 3rd year there are some options that are trickier than others. I think if you're interested in theory its definitely worth taking the trickier ones because these test you and expand your capabilities more. There is also no point in trying to play your module choice so you get a high mark (not at this stage anyway). Academics know which topics are harder than others so if you come up against someone who took harder modules than you... they will know.

What I'm trying to say is don't pick a course because you think you'll get a higher mark on it because it's 'easier'. Pick the courses you want to do, you'll probably do best on those anyway.

I had a very clear idea of where I wanted to go by 3rd year

Arguably I had a clear idea well before 3rd year but the point is that I could tailor my options very specifically to my goals. For some people this wasn't the case and they did a mix of everything. This is ok but don't expect two experiment focused modules to help your case in a theory PhD application...

Try and have a clear picture of your career goal if you can, if you want to go into academia it's beneficial to have a strong idea of the field you want to be in. This will inform your module choices well. 

Now this doesn't mean you have to know the title of your future project! But you should ideally know what sort of area you want to be in, i.e. particle theory or condensed matter theory.

I learned to love maths as much as physics (perhaps more so than physics...)

Physics students who have an equal passion for the mathematics they are using tend to get on much better in theoretical modules. Many of my colleagues saw maths as a tool box which they dragged their feet in learning. This meant for example that a lot of the particle physics orientated students didn't take advanced classical mechanics, so they would go into studying QFT next year without knowing Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalism (lots of catch up). 

To me that's a serious disadvantage for someone looking to studying particle physics from any angle. Loving maths means I enjoy all aspects of theoretical physics and don't see doing maths as just another task I have to do before the fun stuff... I actually enjoy it just as much! It also means I don't get put off by 'maths heavy' modules, which are usually the most useful ones.

By nature of physics you will learn at lot of maths at uni, probably more maths than 'physics' depending on who you ask. It's best to enjoy them both, it will make your life a lot easier.

How do you set yourself apart when studying theory?

The idea of doing extra work in an academic setting is probably nothing new to you. Whether it be to put something extra on your CV, personal skill development and expansion of knowledge etc. etc. there is no doubt that if you put in more work you'll get more out (how much more admittedly can vary).

So whatever the stage you're at in your degree, what 'extra' things can you do? Often it is hard when studying theoretical physics to identify these, they simply aren't as apparent as for experimentalists or other scientists generally (I think). Prospective theorists are, at first glance, in a similar predicament to mathematicians. But over my degree I learned that there is plenty you can do, somethings big and somethings small, to boost your prospects in theory.

Disclaimer: As always, this list is not exhaustive but includes all the major activities I've seen students undertake to enhance their opportunities.


Easier:


Do the optional problems:
Some people need not be told this, plenty of physicists are academic masochists by nature! But plenty of us (myself included) have periods of time where we neglect to push ourselves to do the harder optional problems at the end of a problem sheet or those mentioned in lecture. Try and work through this if you can, sometimes time restraints come into play but if you have the time do your best to attempt optional problems, they often reveal a lot more about the subject than the standard tasks.

Investigate problems that interest you:
This need not be solely related to your courses, of course if your lecturer mentions something and you want to investigate and play around please do! But sometimes interesting topics arise completely outside of university. Time for a personal example.

I play the electric guitar, the part of the guitar where the frets are fitted is called the fingerboard and on electric guitars it is 'radiused' (i.e. it has a curvature). Different electric guitars have different radii, one might follow a circle with a 9.5 inch radius (Fender style) and another a 12 inch (Gibson style). A lot of musicians talk about how different radii feel, but I was interested in an actual numerical comparison. So I used Mathematica to plot various radii aligning a point on the circumference of the radii. Whilst this was a nice comparative diagram, it isn't very numerical so I compared the difference in distance between a flat fretboard and the surface of a given radius fretboard at the edge of the a standard Fender guitar neck. In doing so I was able to express this distance as a function of the radius, illuminating me as to 'how flat' certain radii actually are...

Yes I did actually do this in my spare time, that is something I might do on an afternoon and as you might be able to tell... I really enjoyed it. It was also great practise for Mathematica and some problem solving. So if you ask a question (or someone you know does) and the answer isn't immediately apparent, try and work out an answer!

READ!
You knew it was coming and here it is. But I don't mean trawl through thousands of pages of dry textbook material. First lets identify 'useful things you can read':

• Textbooks
• Journal Articles
• Popular Science Books
• Online articles (e.g. Wikipedia)

These are good for different things. If your lecturer mentions something specific in class that interests you, a textbook might suit. If they mention a piece of research that catches your ear, go read the Journal Article! What if it's too high level? Well maybe a PhysicsWorld article would be a better starting point. If you're in first year the particle physics behind dark matter research is not likely to be accessible for at that point. But a popular science book could provide some valuable conceptual insight that would prepare you for studying the real physics behind the ideas! Huge pdf's are also available, like the entire Feynman lectures which cost over £100 for a physical copy. Ultimately all these sources can benefit you, no matter what stage of studying. The more information you can absorb the better!

Watch/listen to lectures and science communicators:

YouTube is an established learning platform, with an enormous wealth of material that can benefit your studies available for free! This is also something you can do whilst doing other things, useful to keep your mind from rusting up if you need a break from the more intense activities in physics.

Many universities have published recordings of their lecture courses, i.e. Stanford, which are complete lecture courses on subjects like general relativity. There are also historic lectures like recordings of Richard Feynman, which are still very insightful and can often aid your conceptual outlook on problem solving. Public lectures are also useful if you haven't really traversed a subject yet, providing a conceptual grounding for you to work from.

Popular physics/maths channels are also great, I imagine most of you follow at least some of the following: 3Blue1Brown, Domain of Science (whose map series I love), MinutePhysics, Numberphile, Sixty Symbols, Kurzgesagt - In A Nutshell and I'm sure there are many many more! Some of these offer nice introductory reminders and inspiration with nice graphics (e.g. Kurzgesagt) and others offer higher level content (e.g. 3Blue1Brown).

Talk with your colleagues and lecturers:

If there's one thing I regret about how I handled my degree it's the fact I didn't engage with fellow theory students or try to talk to my lecturers more. The students who did clearly benefited from it and I think it had a very positive effect on their academic performance. This not only exposes you to new ideas but the networking is invaluable, giving you sources of advice to turn especially if you develop a good working relationship with lecturers.

Harder:

An industrial placement scheme:

Many university physics departments have specific placement schemes that offer tailored industry experience. As an aspiring theorist it is understandably tempting to dismiss this as a waste of time, with it being so different to theoretical physics academia. But some placements offer experiences relevant to theoretical physics skills. Although I ended up doing something different I was planning on applying to a data fitting placement (in a solid state physics setting) that would have given me practise with programming and function manipulation etc. These kind of placements usually revolve around programming so make sure you're up to speed on that.

A large scale research placement scheme:

Now this is HARD. The classic placement is the CERN final year 'internship' but plenty of people go to Japan, America, South Korea etc. Usually placements are available on experiments, particular in particle physics, but there can be analysis opportunities at experiments if you're willing to dig. You have to accept with these placements that the chances are you won't really be doing 'theory'. But that doesn't mean they can't do great things for you, plus they are often well funded.

A research placement with a university academic:

Sometimes universities run a formal scheme for this, others don't. This could be at your own university or at another and like large scale placements they are very competitive. For a theorist this is often the best route because university academics are more willing to let students pursue a theoretical topic. I was lucky enough to start my Bachelors thesis early in the form of a summer research placement. A stereotypical example is the UCL particle physics placement scheme that assigns you to a UCL academic to undertake a research project. But beware, these placements are not always funded and if they are they are not usually funded as well as the previous two.

Note: You can do more than one of these! Experimentalists often do an industrial placement in their 2nd year and a research placement in their 3rd year.

I hope that's given you some ideas for some things to do alongside your regular studies!

  

Projects/research modules vs taught classes

Whilst I was looking at masters courses at the beginning of last academic year, I spoke to two particle theorists about the advantages of taught and research components of a masters course. Instead of gaining clarity I was actually given two completely different answers! Here's what they said

The first academic told me that if he was looking for a PhD student he would value more extensive research experience. His background was in developing more precise calculation methods for particle collider experiments, specifically the LHC. He had done his undergrad in Germany and PhD in the US. His view point was that the best way to show you were ready to undertake a serious research project was to do a bit of research! Which makes sense right? As a student it would also give you confidence to have dipped your toe in the water before you dive in, surely?

The second held the opposite opinion. He suggested that having a large taught component was crucial as for particle theory understanding field theory well was something he would need a prospective PhD student to have. Such extra knowledge was crucial for getting into a theory PhD. He also had some interesting points about research projects. He pointed out that a research project is worth very little to an admissions officer as it's not complete. In the case of masters courses especially, the chances are you won't have even started your research project by the time the PhD cycle is finished. So it was better to have on your transcript that you were set to take a large number of high level courses, that would demonstrate your competence. This... also makes sense.

In an ideal world we want to take loads of high level courses whilst also embarking on a large ambitious research project which we can have evidence of by the time we are applying for a PhD...

There is a name for this. It's called a theoretical physics PhD!

So unfortunately for us we have to make a decision and it is most certainly not clear cut. I'm going to try and pick apart the above opinions and throw some of my own experiences and opinions into the mix. With luck, this will aid you in making a decision about what kind of course you want or what choices you should make on your current course.

It depends on what field you want to go into

The two academics might have both come from particle theory but they did very different things. The second lecturer worked on astroparticle phenomenology, developing new models to provide dark matter particle candidates for example. This is a less 'applied' area than the first lecturer's research topic.

(Image Credit: Domain of Science)

The more applied theorist wanted research skills and the more abstract one required higher level topics to be covered. This is often the case, to get into condensed matter PhDs for example doesn't always need a masters for instance! Different fields and areas within those fields have certain skill requirements, after you have fore-filled that they would like you to fill your remaining course credits with research based activities. For highly theoretical topics like string theory, quantum gravity etc. a project is in some academics eyes not remotely useful. The Cambridge Part III doesn't feature a project and is (probably) the most common route into such topics.

So making an assessment of the field you would like to go into and how high the skill level required is could be key for you making a decision. It is also a good idea to ask the most relevant academic you can talk to, for me I'm interested in topics closer to the second academic than the first so I weighted his opinion more in my decision making.

It depends on the types of institutions you're applying to

This isn't exactly a concrete/objective observation, but I think it's worth considering. Some institutions (i.e. Oxbridge) would be associated with preference to a larger number of high level taught courses, this is certainly suggested by the masters courses they offer. Sussex (disclaimer: a university I applied to for masters and received and offer from for Particle Physics MSc) is a university who's postgraduate courses have a large research component, I would expect them to like applicants who have done sizeable research projects.

This is a sweeping statement but... Universities with a public 'reputation' typically prefer taught courses and 'research focused' universities typically prefer research projects. I do not mean 'good uni's' like taught courses and 'bad uni's' like research modules' not at all. What I have in mind is that a great uni like Southampton doesn't expect you to have a masters in their entry requirements for PhD, so demonstrating research skills in your masters may well be more useful than taking loads of taught courses. Conversely a more 'traditional' uni like Durham would probably prefer taught courses for their PhD. This is not even a rule of thumb, just something I feel I've noticed in researching masters courses and PhD programmes.

I can't comment on institutions outside of the UK, I just don't have the experience or knowledge to provide good advice.

Which one are you better at? Which one do you like more?

A simple but crucial question. If you're lucky enough to be great at both, well done, but I don't think that's usual. Myself for example, my highest grade at undergraduate was my 3rd year project. So I guess I should have chosen a masters with a large research project! But that doesn't suit my PhD topic of interest so I chose a primarily taught course. However, grades are crucial for PhD admissions so if there could be a difference in what classification you achieve depending on the balance of taught vs research modules consider the implications seriously.

Alongside this, you should be enjoying what you're doing! If you prefer research take a more research heavy course, your enjoyment will probably enhance your grade.

Research projects are good learning experiences

I learned A LOT from my third year research project. I learnt a lot about what theory was not and stuff that theory was that I had no idea about! There are things that research can teach you that I think you really can't learn from standard physics courses. You might have experienced this you have/had to take lab classes in your first (potentially second) years. Even as a theorist you might find something like fitting a curve to data using Python or interpreting and applying an equation to data reveals new things to you in this 'research' situation because you have lots of time to play around with the ideas and apply them broadly. 

Now this probably isn't a reason to alter the size of project you want. But it is an incentive to choose a masters with a research component (i.e. not the Part III) or to take some research components in your degree if you have options in that regard.

Is a compromise worth a uni you're chasing?

So you want a big research project but you just got an offer from Oxford... yeah, dilemma. Oxford is maybe a bad example because grabbing that level of prestige that could carry you far in a PhD admissions process. But my point is that the contention of 'dream' uni vs better suited course structure happens. 

In all honesty, your decision should be based on what you think the best suited course is. Try to remove your preconceptions and personal alignments, choose the course with the best looking modules and course features, taking teaching quality into account if you can as well.

There you have it, I hope that's useful for anyone facing decisions regarding research and taught modules.