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.

MSc vs MSci

MSci is quickly becoming *the* route for physicists from all walks, whether you be aiming for industrial or academic research. Despite the fact that almost all those in my cohort who were aiming to become theorists went with the MSci programme, I choose to leave after three years with a BSc and do a separate MSc. In the interests of fairness I'd like to first argue (quite generally) why I (or you) should follow an MSci programme. After that I'll explain my reasoning for doing an MSc and why I think for some people its a better option.

General Outlook

There's no doubting a serious advantage of the MSci is that you are fully funded for tuition fees and provided a maintenance grant for your fourth year. You don't have to make a new funding application or apply for a new course either! Whilst these might just seem like simple practicalities I can't deny that the process of applying for a masters course was stressful and that the fact that my funding only covers my tuition fees is difficult!

There's also the continuity of your study, you maintain friends and links with academics for longer. If you're on the University of London intercollegiate programme this won't be the case so much but for all other MSci programmes you'd certainly benefit from this. 

Many programmes also have research skill modules structured throughout the third and fourth years for MSci students, this is something you would likely miss out on if you do a BSc followed by an MSc. In general universities recommend MSci programmes rather than MSc programmes. The good reason for this recommendation is that the MSci is being developed as *the* route into PhD.

Now here's my caveat. I think the MSci is probably the best route for most physicists, except in the following cases:

• You don't like your current university for genuinely good reasons and want to study somewhere else.
• You feel you need to study at a more reputable university to improve your chances of achieving your career goals.
• Your university doesn't offer modules on the masters level subjects you want to study or/and doesn't go to a high enough level of study for the career you are pursuing (topics like particle theory and mathematical physics come to mind).
• You need a clean slate for your grades. This is very specific. If you finish second year in a difficult position and are aware that you might be limited in third year and corresponding fourth year, you can do an MSc which is independent of your previous BSc and hope to better on the MSc. This is route that can (and I stress only 'can') provide you a second chance at getting into PhD.

I'd like to address each of these cases specifically.

If you don't like your current uni, have serious think about whether your course is actually bad or whether you're the problem. I know this seems harsh but over the course of my degree I heard plenty of complaints that made me think the following:

• You signed up to do a physics degree. This and all other uni's courses are not easy, that is not going to change wherever you go.
• If you don't have many friends (I was in this position so I know its hard) going somewhere else does not guarantee that you'll make friends or enjoy the environment any better.
• Lecture quality is not guaranteed, surveys are in my opinion usually pretty useless because everyone wants different things from lecturers. I've had lecturers that I thought were objectively bad who others loved and vice versa. Do not move for 'lecture quality'. If you know people at other uni's who you trust and have relevant experience you may be able to make a more informed decision regarding this.
• Add-ons like gyms, societies etc. are not reasons to ditch your course. If you are thinking like that you might find cutting your studies at BSc and going into employment might make you happier.

They are good reasons to want to not like your current uni:

• Your uni is not offering you support that you need, this could be regarding mental health, physical disabilities, accounting for childcare difficulties and more. If you uni is not supporting you through such difficulties I would strongly suggest you move onto a uni that will.
• You've been affected by a serious incident at your university. This could include being the victim of a criminal offence, assaults and sexual assaults are sadly very common at universities, it is understandable that your studies could be irreversibly affected by such an incident and that moving on could give you the clean slate you need.
• You are experiencing family difficulties that mean you may need to be closer to home. This could include a member of your family being ill or your commute affecting the amount of time you can spend with your partner and/or children.

Reputation is difficult to quantify but there is no doubt that grads from high reputation universities like Oxbridge enjoy heightened career prospects. But doing an MSc is not a decision to make unmeasured. Here are some reasons not to transfer to an MSc for an academic reputation boost:

• Because you don't feel like you went to a 'good enough' uni. If you just want a reputation boost for the sake of it, trust me, nothing is going to fill that hole. I've been there and it requires an attitude change not a new uni.
• You are looking for an unspecific career boost. If you just think that you need to try and up your career prospects without a specific goal or career based reason in mind going to a new uni to do an MSc is not a good idea. An MSci will offer you this and I'd argue that an MSci is better for industry than an MSc, somewhere you are more likely to end up if you don't have a specific academic career goal.
• You are going into a career that values high repute degrees but one where a masters doesn't really count. I'm looking at you prospective investment bankers (some roles) and non-scientific consultants. Take a serious look at whether having a masters is actually going to improve your prospects or whether the employer is likely to only care about your BSc. 

Here are some good reasons to go for a MSc at a higher reputation university:

• Employers you are looking at like Masters level students and care about degree reputation. An typical employment field like this would be defence, they love uni's like Southampton that have a reputation for producing graduates suited to defence work.
• You want to go into a very competitive area of academia like particle theory or maths and you need every edge you can get. If you can up your academic reputation it could be what you need to get a PhD offer.

If your uni doesn't offer the right modules for you or they aren't to a high enough level that's a serious motivation to move elsewhere. But sometimes our feelings are a bit mixed up in this observation. If you feel that you aren't 'personally' studying at a high enough level, its the wrong reason. If there's no concrete reason other than your own academic thirst then simply read outside the course. The course content is about what you are qualified in, your ego shouldn't influence what that needs to be for you. 

If however the course doesn't provide you with the skills and material you need to be qualified in for your career goal, that's a good reason to move. This I feel is particularly relevant for particle theorists and those wanting to change over to the mathematics side of things, many people go to the Cambridge Part III in this case. If you have a very specific industry career in mind this is also relevant, you might even want to cross-over into a different subject and do a mechanical engineering MSc for example.

I don't think the grades reasoning needs explaining anymore, so I'll move onto my own experience/reasoning.

Why I choose MSc

My initial motivation for switching to a BSc and carrying onto an MSc was a personal matter that affected me adversely at university. This also had a pretty serious impact on my second year grades. I felt I needed a clean slate both environmentally and grade wise.

Further to this my career aspirations lie in particle theory/mathematics. To maximise my chances of a highly theoretical and non-computational PhD I felt I needed to attend a course with higher level content, more specific instruction with regards to pure mathematics and a university with a reputation for getting its postgraduates into particle theory PhDs. Particle theory and related mathematics are however particularly competitive so this is a more niche situation than usual. Successful PhD candidates in this field usually come from courses like the Cambridge Part III. MSc's also give you more tuition, you get to study more modules and do your project over the summer rather than alongside your taught modules. I personally preferred the idea of getting to study more topics, the idea of having only five taught modules really didn't sit well with me, certainly not for my career path.

You can probably identify that some of the reasons I just listed align with those above. I think I made a very good call and hopefully it will get me to where I want to go. Whilst its not right for everyone, you should be aware its an option and that it could offer you some serious advantages depending on your intentions.

IP 1.4: Beginning strings

Some of the content I covered this week focuses on string theory and not really in a popular science context. You would need a decent understanding of particle physics at the least to get something out of these lectures, some of them you'll need much more knowledge. Nevertheless here's what I've been absorbing (trying to) this week gone.

'The State of String Theory' - Brian Greene (2008?)

Greene is a well known proponent of string theory but this lecture is different from the theatrical pop. sci. he is often known for. A review of the field at the time is present, bare in mind the Higgs hadn't been found yet and low energy SUSY wasn't ruled out yet either.

Greene is confident but at the same time fairer than some string theorists are about the merits and current deficits of the theory. The content doesn't dive too deep, I understood pretty much everything without having formally studied the subject. He can come across as a bit cocky, but plenty of theorists do. His dismissal of LQG didn't exactly sit well with me, he basically said that he hadn't read much about it but didn't like it anyway. But I'm biased here so take that for what you will, I just think one should be open to approaches outside their own.

I found this a really good introduction to strings pre-LHC findings, its by no means an introduction to the mathematics and mechanics of the theory but gives you an idea of current research. Worth a watch for anyone wanting an idea of what's being going on in strings.

String Compactifications (Lecture 1) - Edward Witten (2008)

If the previous lecture was an introduction this is pretty much the exact opposite. I'd be lying if I said I understood more than 50% of this conceptually... probably a lot less, lets not even make an estimate for mathematical understanding. Witten strikes me as very humble and to the point, he gets straight to it and doesn't let up. In spite of the dense mathematics he regularly contextualises the working in particle physics with relation to the underlying group structure of the standard model and GUTs. With my conceptual understanding of differential geometry I was able to get through most of it without feeling completely lost.

I think more importantly for me it was an absolute blast to watch. When a physicist wins a Fields Medal (the only one ever to do so)... you should definitely watch them lecture at least once. Witten is also a really strong speaker, very clear and calm, which gives you the best opportunity to (try to) understand what he's talking about. If you love particle theory, just do it.

Newton Medal Winner (2010) - Edward Witten

This 30 minute interview is interesting, seeing a bit of the life and research history behind one of the biggest names in string theory. Witten (again) speaks very clearly and you can see that he carefully considers what he's saying. But more than anything his humility and causality comes through, he seems very human though un-relatable due to the lightness with which he speaks of his enormous achievements. If you want to see the more human side of particle theory I'd definitely suggest watching this.

'Why Meat is the Best Worst Thing in the World' - Kurzgesagt

Let's preface this with my own relevant opinions: I do eat meat, I don't eat a lot of it though and I am conscious of the impact eating meat has on the environment and animals. At the same time I am also sceptical of a lot of arguments for veganism, less so for vegetarianism.

This is a nice summary video that I feel is relevant for those on either side of the debate. But this isn't so much about whether eating meat is right or wrong and more about the impact of eating meat and what we might do about it. They make a statement I very much agree with, "Eating meat doesn't make you a bad person. Not eating meat doesn't make you a bad person."

They mention the fact that almost all male chicks are slaughtered very soon after birth, the energy efficiency of certain animals etc. The main issues and concepts they covered also feature in the documentary "Before the Flood". It would have been nice if the video also covered some more concrete reasons to carry on eating meat other than enjoyment and social reasons, nutritional value etc. I also thought they could have covered fish as well, though maybe that's enough of an issue itself to be featured in another video. If you're new to this subject I'd suggest reading more widely to supplement this video.