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.
No comments:
Post a Comment