I have an admission interview tomorrow, and have to know the possibility of having physics lectureship after the completion of MSc in maths.

I am interested in research, but want to know the possibility of having lectureship too.

From this UGC notification (page no. 22):

“…Provided further, the award of degree to candidates registered for the M.Phil/Ph.Dprogramme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bylaws/Regulations of the Institutions awarding the degree and the Ph.D candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:- a) Ph.D. degree of the candidate awarded in regular mode only;
b) Evaluation of the Ph.D. thesis by at least two external examiners;
c) Open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate had been conducted;
d) Candidate haspublished two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one must be in a refereed journal;
e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in conferences/seminars, based on his/her Ph.D work.
(a) to (e) as above are to be certified by the Vice-Chancellor/Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Dean(Academic Affairs)/Dean(University instructions)….”

it seems that PhD candidates in physics are allowed to have physics lectureship, but don’t know on whether it has to be augmented with MSc in physics or not.

Questions:

  1. If I complete MSc in maths, will I be allowed to write NET in physics?

  2. If I complete MSc in maths and qualify NET in maths, and have PhD in physics, will I be eligible for physics lectureship?

I have an admission interview tomorrow, and have to know on the possibility of having Physics lectureship after the completion of MSc in Math.

I am interested in research, but want to know on the possibility of having lectureship too.

From this UGC notification (page no. 22):

“…Provided further, the award of degree to candidates registered for the M.Phil/Ph.Dprogramme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bylaws/Regulations of the Institutions awarding the degree and the Ph.D candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:- a) Ph.D. degree of the candidate awarded in regular mode only;
b) Evaluation of the Ph.D. thesis by at least two external examiners;
c) Open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate had been conducted;
d) Candidate haspublished two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one must be in a refereed journal;
e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in conferences/seminars, based on his/her Ph.D work.
(a) to (e) as above are to be certified by the Vice-Chancellor/Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Dean(Academic Affairs)/Dean(University instructions)….”

, it seems that PhD in physics candidates are allowed to have Physics lectureship, but don’t know on whether it has to be augmented with MSc in Physics or not.

Questions:

  1. If I complete MSc in math, will I be allowed to write NET in physics?

  2. If I complete MSc in math and qualify NET in math, and have Phd in physics, will I be eligible for physics lectureship?

I will be completing my MSc in mathematics, in India; and have before completed my PUC (11 & 12th classes) in PCMC (Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Computer Science), and BSc in PCM (Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics). In the MSc Math here in India, the courses are pre-fixed, and involves uniform concentration of all the math.

If I want to switch to doing research in physics, how difficult would it be? Is it harder to change fields at the stage of a PhD or a postdoc (or later)?

I’m a graduate student working on a master’s thesis to get a master’s degree and I’m quite in doubt if the behavior of my advisor is the expected one.

He proposed a work on the dynamics of extended bodies in General Relativity. Now, the first point: he himself said that he tried to study the suggested formalism in the past but didn’t succeed and gave up on it.

Now, on the begining of the work, he just handed me Dixon’s papers explaining the formalism, told me to study them, and to present seminars to him and another student of his. He put a lot of pressure, because he didn’t want me to get there with a rough idea, he wanted me to really learn by myself to explain them.

After some time I got the impression that he simply had no idea of the contents of the papers.

Furthermore, he never offered support but one single time. And this single time, he didn’t know how to help, questioned two things that I didn’t know, nor him, and in the end I was the one who figured it out.

Now, as time passed and as I studied the papers, when talking to him, I’ve noticed that he really doesn’t know the contents of the papers, nor he was studying in parallel to the seminars.

He asked my help with a problem he was struggling with his students. After dedicating a few hours to it, I saw that all he was proposing didn’t even make sense. The problem boiled down to just conservation of angular momentum in flat spacetime, and he wanted the equations of motion to involve the multipole moments of the body, which are known to appear on the equations just in curved spacetimes.

In the end he said that after thinking he agrees I’m correct and that he was frustrated it wasn’t the way he thought. This again suggests me he doesn’t know the theme.

So in summary: (1) I have a strong impression that he doesn’t know the theme he gave me to work on, (2) I also have a strong impression that he is not even studying it, (3) he’s pressing quite a lot for me to learn it all by myself and present the results to him and his students, (4) he doesn’t offer much help, and when I try to discuss something with him, I feel totally disconnected to the actual formalism (like the case where he wanted the equations to involve something while it was clear that it wouldn’t happen) and (5) many times he complains he doesn’t agree that what I’m doing is right, only to find in the end that it is right. By the way, he doesn’t tell the right way to do so, he keeps pushing me that I’m the one who should show him the right way.

Now, I’m not comfortable with all of this. I thought an advisor was meant to provide support, not to keep pushing without offering help. More than that, I find quite annoying that it seems he doesn’t know the topic he gave me to work on.

So my question is: is this the expected behavior of an advisor? Is it “expected” that the advisor doesn’t know the topic and it is the responsibility of the student to learn the topic and “teach him in the process”? Is it “expected” that the student must do it all by himself like that?

Again, I find it umconfortable, but perhaps that’s the way things actually work on master’s thesis in Physics and I should get used to it. Is what I described the expected, normal and correct to happen in a master’s thesis in Physics?

I have been involved in quantum control simulation physics research for the last two years of my undergrad and will pursue an honors thesis with the work. However, I am also very interested in differential geometry and topology. I will be pursuing an independent study in algebraic topology next semester after completing a point-set course this semester.

I have a physics REU set up this summer learning the ropes of field theory under a professor working in AdS-CFT. I think I will really enjoy this.

As I am compiling my spreadsheet for physics PhD programs to apply to next year, I’m noticing the lack of a very rigorous math involved research available. I am thinking working with Calibi-Yau manifolds, string theory, and maybe representation theory. On a hunch I started looking at math departments instead and lo and behold I find much more of this.

I am MUCH more qualified for a PhD program in physics than math, but am I following the wrong path?