|
Having only studied basic engineering what does it take to become a Physicist writing the word is difficult for me ;) There can't be many physicist in the UK.
|
|
I recruit graduates (for a firm of accountants) and I see plenty of people with Physics A-level, which is where you'd start. Some go on to read it at university: quite often they do some form of combined science degree.
After that you would either try to find a job as a scientist (not easy) or go on to a Masters in physics, followed perhaps by a PhD.
I hope Bobbin Threadbare will see this: she is a professional physicist, I think with a PhD. She'd be able to tell you more - or she might even say 'don't do it....'
Edited by Avant on 18/07/2011 at 00:48
|
|
Depends what sort of physicist you want to be! I did physics and maths A-level amongst others (maths the more important, for skills, as physics concepts can be learned as you go along) then physics at undergrad level, then a PhD in experimental physics........there's a theme here! I've been a medical technical officer assisting medical physicists and oncologists, and a nuclear safety physicist. I'm just about to try another skill; teaching physics. Of the people I studied with at uni, there are a good handful of teachers, a few computer programmers/web designers, several accountants and actuaries, some in the nuclear industry (or utilities), some who turned to the dark side (engineering) and a lot of researchers with PhDs.
I would never, ever say 'don't'. Physics is fascinating (I reckon a lot of people find an interest in it from astronomy tbh) and immensely useful.
I point you to the Institute of Physics (an organisation I was heavily involved with as a student): www.iop.org/
|
|
Thanks for that information Bobbin and Avant,never thought a Physicist would be involved with oncologi the medical side.Keep up the good work Bobbin.
|
|
Yeah, medical physicists create the beam plans for zapping a cancer with radiation, working with the radiologists and oncologists. Some help in operations too, like for in-situ radiation therapy (where they sew a radioactive pellet in to shrink a tumour). Or they maintain and operate the radiotherapy machinery.
I shall strive to do my best, Dutchie!
Oh you said 'not many physicists' - I couldn't find statistics for how many are in jobs with 'physicist' in the title, but there aren't many women physicists (on my degree it was 10% female to 90% male).
Edited by Bobbin Threadbare on 17/07/2011 at 19:00
|
|
Genuine ( not leg pulling ) question Bobbin. Why the gender split do you think? I mean it's not like physics requires greater physical strength or something. Just curious.
|
|
It seems to be merely tradition! Historically, physics was seen as a 'boys' subject. The IOP and other organisations are trying to encourage more women into physics but I'm not sure how successful it is. However, at PhD level the balance is somewhat redressed, and then it drops off again at lecturer level - I was taught by just one lady lecturer in 4 years (and she was originally an electronic engineer!)
There's also some evidence that females who follow physics, engineering and maths-based paths have a more 'male' brain than most other women. I'd say that was true for myself (I volunteered on for a few psychology department experiments when I was at uni that quizzed all the women from eng, phys and maths; can't have been a very large focus group!) - women are statistically more empathetic and people-oriented yet on several of these tests I've scored lower than the average male for empathy...and higher for spatial awareness, pattern recognition and so on.
Having said that, there are even fewer female computer programmers (there is evidence to show that men become less bored with repetitive tasks than women - evinced I think by shoot-em-up games where you constantly die and must begin the level again ;-P) and my year group at uni managed two lady engineers to 70 men.
Other subjects are balanced the other way - I was at a graduation for one of the unis in Liverpool last week, and the nursing degrees must have had a 10% male, 90% female split. But, everyone 'knows' that nurses are girls, don't they...?
|
|
So basically you're a man? :P
[runs away]
|
[runs away]
So you're a chicken...?
|
|
Cluck Cluck! I don't want to be rugby tackled-even in a metaphorical sense. The only reason that I learned the rules of rugby was soI could predict where the ball would be-and make sure that I was elsewhere.
|
|
Major difference between Rugby and Football. If you keep the ball too long you'll get tackled and you can roll around pretending to be hurt. Do the same thing while playing Rugby and you will simply get hurt.
See, physics !
:-)
|
|
Football is nowhere near as fun as full-on body slamming another person to wrest a large egg from their arms and then run with it full-tilt through the mud and rain. Alas those days are over for me. And don't anybody say that's just a typical night out in Liverpool city centre :-P
I've found at a web-book on the physics of racing cars instead........looks interesting!
|
|
still have my degree notes in the loft..
|
|
|
Picking up the gender split issue from the interesting points above, here's a curious pattern relating to the accountancy profession.
When I started training in 1969, about one in 20 trainees was female (although as an enlightened profession there was equal pay).
During the 1980s and 1990s the proportion of girls training as accountants rose to nearly half - about 45 %.
But in the last few years it's sunk to about 30 %. I've been to a meeting at the Institute of Chartered Accountants and none of us can find a reason for this, and research is continuing, It isn't the usual 'accountancy is too boring for girls' argument - if it were, why did the proportion go up to 45 %?
Any sensible thoughts would be welcome!
|
|
I'd gladly put forward a sensible thought but you'd probably delete it.
How much does training to be an accountant cost? Perhaps due to other circumstances fewer women have the money to invest in the training.
|
|
|
|
Having only studied basic engineering what does it take to become a Physicist writing the word is difficult for me ;) There can't be many physicist in the UK.
I studied physics at first degree and PhD level (quantum theory of solids, ha ha). 25 years later I work in software. Of those who did PhD's alongside me, one became head of research at a merchant bank in the city, another is head of something or other at a merchant bank, another is a director at a merchant bank, another worked in software like me, and so on. Quite a few went into universities and there are a few professors who I knew when they were plain Mr or Ms. Of those in my undergraduate year, a few set up their own companies, one is head of physics at a major gov. lab, and I don't know about the rest.I didn't do too badly, and some did worse than me. My mistake was to stay in academia for too long. ;)
There are not many jobs for physicists as such, but a physics degree is not a bad training for engineering and science in general. A PhD is worse than useless in my view, at least 99% of the time anyway. If you research something that becomes important in industry, then you can do well. But usually it fills you with carp and self importance. (I exaggerate, but it is virtually useless.)
|
A PhD is worse than useless in my view, at least 99% of the time anyway. If you research something that becomes important in industry, then you can do well.
Yep. Mine's not served me very well yet, except as either a talking point with new acquaintances (or the point where they run away). Mine's something to do with turbulence and quantum and stuff. Useless, but fascinating. Employers don't seem to care, unless they've asked for the candidate to have a PhD. Shame, as PhD's have lots of skills a graduate doesn't necessarily have, like presenting work to an international audience of 300 people, writing papers properly, and project management.
Edited by Bobbin Threadbare on 21/07/2011 at 23:22
|
|
writing papers properly,
I would posit that a PhD gives ones the skills to fudge a paper properly!
|
|
How dare you!! Engineer alert!!
|
|
I fudged mine! I had some rubbish XRD data that I wanted to prove had created a solid state reaction alloy. The data didn't support this. So I moved the peaks about to give the impression of lattice strain (indicative of an alloy) All the physicists fell for it, hook, line and sinker. An engineer wouldn't! :P
|
|
Yeah but an engineer wouldn't get on the PhD program <handbags at the ready>
I never fudged mine. I had reams of data, too much to have the time to fudge it!
|
|
I have recruited a few PhDs, including one in engineering, who feel they've gone far enough in academia. No disrespect, Bobbin, but they haven't been any more successful than other graduates.
Jamie, I'm reluctant to delete any posts and if yours are concise and not offensive they're safe! If you train as a chartered accountant in a practice your firm will normally pay the costs for you; employers in industry are less generous.
|
|
|
|
So what's the EngD program for then, Missy Threadbare? Because we need engineers to solve the problems that exist as opposed to the hypothetical questions that no one is asking!
<flees>
|
|
Well we have to put them somewhere. 'Missy' indeed!
|
|
|
|
A missy with unruly hair.:)
|
|
|
Here's one for Bobbin:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14258601
A definite contender for non-story of the week award.
Edited by unthrottled on 23/07/2011 at 15:25
|
|
I will strongly point out that I am NOT a particle physicist. There are other, more useful topics to go for when looking for a PhD or something. Particle physics is interesting, in a sort of hobbyish way.
|
|
Not just me that doesn't get excited by Feynman diagrams then?!
|
Not just me that doesn't get excited by Feynman diagrams then?!
Well Feynman had an eye for the ladies but I don't imagine he sketched Compton scattering to get them excited....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employers don't seem to care, unless they've asked for the candidate to have a PhD. Shame, as PhD's have lots of skills a graduate doesn't necessarily have, like presenting work to an international audience of 300 people, writing papers properly, and project management.
Despite what I wrote earlier, I do agree with you. I learnt to manage a project, and I when I am allowed control over my work, I always get praise from managers, deliver on time etc. Unfortunately it is the rare manager that allows an engineer control, and in software managers tend to be control freaks, unable to trust engineers.
I suppose there is the belief that a Ph.D. is someone who excels at using expensive equipment to examine their own navel, and there is some truth in that view, as academic work and industry are somewhat different.
|
|
"Shame, as PhD's have lots of skills a graduate doesn't necessarily have, like presenting work to an international audience of 300 people, writing papers properly, and project management."
That's what one hopes for when recruiting a PhD, although not all of them have presented to 300+. But it doesn't necessarily happen. The ancient Greeks, who had two separate words for wisdom (sophia = academic achievement, phronesis = common sense), recognised that skill in one doesn't always mean excellence in the other. I suspect, Leif, that you could manage a project successfully whether or not you had a PhD.
|
|
I think a lot of physicists lack the common sense part of the brain. It helps to perpetuate the myth that we are all mad-haired, crazy-eyed loons working in dungeons with lots of equipment and wires and smoking things. But that's just Cern; the rest of us are ok ;-)
Edited by Bobbin Threadbare on 24/07/2011 at 19:37
|
|
|
But it doesn't necessarily happen. The ancient Greeks, who had two separate words for wisdom (sophia = academic achievement, phronesis = common sense), recognised that skill in one doesn't always mean excellence in the other. I suspect, Leif, that you could manage a project successfully whether or not you had a PhD.
You might be right. However, going through a Ph.D. allows you to see a fairly long project through from A to Z, which gives you insight into projects management. I agree that there is academic learning, and practical skills. I work with someone who has a Ph. D. and prides himself on play acting the genius (the technical director even tells him in front of everyone that he is a genius), and yet everything he does is over complicated, and impractical. He takes pride in producing software that no-one understands. But to be fair, I am sure he was like that before doing a Ph.D.
|
|
Maybe the art of a genius is to keep it simple so the majority of people will understand.
If its overcomplicated and impractical in my opinion he is insecure.
|
|
That could almost go in the the thread about inventions!
|
|
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate".
One for Jamie 745 to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.
I wonder why it was called a razor - maybe it was thought to cut through previously-held beliefs?
|
|
Ockham didn't invent the 'razor' part himself; it was added later by some baron whose name I forget. It was meant to signify the 'shaving' of any superfluous information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
