Will I need a coin?
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:15 pm
So another one of these threads, but I have been tearing my hair out quicker than it can fall out by itself and I am pretty much desperate for any advice. So am stuck in the crux of broader research selection vs. money and what future a field has. My story goes as such:
I got stuck with a "little innovation here" field for most of my undergrad research (Local Helioseismology) and my home department has mostly theory people (and string theory at that). Now I had a summer internship in Double-Beta decay and loved it, so i decided to take the shot gun out and apply to both astronomy and physics programs, for either solar/stellar physics/astronomy or particle physics... yeah i know brilliant of me. I had bad season with a lot of waitlists and 3 acceptances (two in particle physics and one is stellar spectroscopy).
I have now kicked Penn State off my list because I can simply can't over the location. The department was great, the people were great, I just can't see myself living "centrally isolated." And the people that i wanted to work with all came from my other choice Madison. I just came back from Madison and had a great time (well besides the unexplainable cuts after I ahm "walked" to the hotel and the 3.5 hour delay on my flight because of 6 inches of snow in Chicago and Madison... Ohare will remain the worst airport in the world for me). The faculty seemed genuinely interested in new students and were very attentive to any awkward questions you might ask. The groups I am interested in working with are mostly HEP and UHEP (PeV) experiment. Here is the problem, I have worked in a collaboration style group only for a short time and as a grad student you are the bottom of the pecking order and sorta have a thesis topic handed to you from what I can tell when I read titles. On the other hand, I can go back to Europe for 3 years and I have a pretty secure post doc depending on with whom I work. So yeah the pros and cons are about equal in that respect, but my question is the "beyond LHC" perspective of particle physics. The ILC is a nice idea, but who will throw money at that and what will happen to astroparticle after IceCube and Pierre Auger (north and south). They all say astroparticle is the coming field, but that is what everybody says about their respective field.
Against the particle crowd at Penn State and Madison stands UT Astronomy in stellar spectroscopy. I am mostly interesting in working in something between either asteroseismology or stellar composition, two sort of established fields (the latter more than the former). This said their retention rate of 83% is impressive (i dunno about the other two) and people I would work with are established themselves as very good people. The resources are very good compared to other places because of the observatory and the amount of time students get on it (one of the students has booked 90 nights this year). this also means that there is money lying around. I would not have to TA necessarily and I could get funding for any conference trips etc. (i have not heard anything like that from the other schools). The thesis/research is pretty much up to me and I can rum with the topic. The problem is that everything is ground-based. I only heard of one grad student working with space data and honestly even with TMT and GMT space just gives better data (i have dealt with ground data for three years now, it sucks). that said, I am not quiet sure about the post doc chances and later work, since one person at Madison told me that there were 150 applicants for a single astronomy faculty spot at Washington State.
And now weird part of this all... money.... the Madison stipend lets face it is at the very low end with ~17.5k per year (i am considering the fees i am supposed to pay and taxes), while UT offers me up to 11k per year more. Just to clarify, Austin and Madison have 3% difference in cost and are ranked #2 and #3 most livable city in the US, so they are pretty much the same except for the weather of course.
The money is bothering me a lot because i heard some talk about 10k fellowships that are lying around but only for domestic students. On the other hand, the job security (and funding security-Madison guarantees 5 years) might outweigh the monetary difference, but I am not quiet sure in that. To boil it down.... what is the future of particle physics beyond LHC, etc. compared to astronomy? should i say *** it and take the job security over the extra 150 bucks a month? and just general opinion on this...
and dlenmn, you are not allowed to answer until you have had a your barleyos or beeryos.
I got stuck with a "little innovation here" field for most of my undergrad research (Local Helioseismology) and my home department has mostly theory people (and string theory at that). Now I had a summer internship in Double-Beta decay and loved it, so i decided to take the shot gun out and apply to both astronomy and physics programs, for either solar/stellar physics/astronomy or particle physics... yeah i know brilliant of me. I had bad season with a lot of waitlists and 3 acceptances (two in particle physics and one is stellar spectroscopy).
I have now kicked Penn State off my list because I can simply can't over the location. The department was great, the people were great, I just can't see myself living "centrally isolated." And the people that i wanted to work with all came from my other choice Madison. I just came back from Madison and had a great time (well besides the unexplainable cuts after I ahm "walked" to the hotel and the 3.5 hour delay on my flight because of 6 inches of snow in Chicago and Madison... Ohare will remain the worst airport in the world for me). The faculty seemed genuinely interested in new students and were very attentive to any awkward questions you might ask. The groups I am interested in working with are mostly HEP and UHEP (PeV) experiment. Here is the problem, I have worked in a collaboration style group only for a short time and as a grad student you are the bottom of the pecking order and sorta have a thesis topic handed to you from what I can tell when I read titles. On the other hand, I can go back to Europe for 3 years and I have a pretty secure post doc depending on with whom I work. So yeah the pros and cons are about equal in that respect, but my question is the "beyond LHC" perspective of particle physics. The ILC is a nice idea, but who will throw money at that and what will happen to astroparticle after IceCube and Pierre Auger (north and south). They all say astroparticle is the coming field, but that is what everybody says about their respective field.
Against the particle crowd at Penn State and Madison stands UT Astronomy in stellar spectroscopy. I am mostly interesting in working in something between either asteroseismology or stellar composition, two sort of established fields (the latter more than the former). This said their retention rate of 83% is impressive (i dunno about the other two) and people I would work with are established themselves as very good people. The resources are very good compared to other places because of the observatory and the amount of time students get on it (one of the students has booked 90 nights this year). this also means that there is money lying around. I would not have to TA necessarily and I could get funding for any conference trips etc. (i have not heard anything like that from the other schools). The thesis/research is pretty much up to me and I can rum with the topic. The problem is that everything is ground-based. I only heard of one grad student working with space data and honestly even with TMT and GMT space just gives better data (i have dealt with ground data for three years now, it sucks). that said, I am not quiet sure about the post doc chances and later work, since one person at Madison told me that there were 150 applicants for a single astronomy faculty spot at Washington State.
And now weird part of this all... money.... the Madison stipend lets face it is at the very low end with ~17.5k per year (i am considering the fees i am supposed to pay and taxes), while UT offers me up to 11k per year more. Just to clarify, Austin and Madison have 3% difference in cost and are ranked #2 and #3 most livable city in the US, so they are pretty much the same except for the weather of course.
The money is bothering me a lot because i heard some talk about 10k fellowships that are lying around but only for domestic students. On the other hand, the job security (and funding security-Madison guarantees 5 years) might outweigh the monetary difference, but I am not quiet sure in that. To boil it down.... what is the future of particle physics beyond LHC, etc. compared to astronomy? should i say *** it and take the job security over the extra 150 bucks a month? and just general opinion on this...
and dlenmn, you are not allowed to answer until you have had a your barleyos or beeryos.