Questions by a First Year UofToronto Physics Student on Grad Admissions

[Ege Artan]

Sorry if this is long, just want this to be as definitive as possible.

Hello everyone, I am a first year physics & mathematics specialist (which is kind of analogous to double major here) student in University of Toronto and had several questions on applying to grad school.

So, to give some additional background, I want to be a theoretical physicist in the future, specializing in the fields of QFT, Quantum Gravity and Strong Gravity. The course load I am taking and planning to take here at UofT includes more math courses than what a physics student normally takes, 4 Graduate School Level physics and 1 graduate level math courses (Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity 1&2, High Energy Physics, Complex Analysis 2).

I wish to study at the top universities like everyone such as Princeton, MIT, Cambridge, Stanford, Caltech, UCSB, UCB, Oxford, UT-Austin, Chicago, Cornell. Currently I am planning a complete list of projects to complete and courses to take and have some questions on what to do.

1st Question: Does course load matter a lot? Will taking 5 shared courses from our grad school and having a more than usual math load benefit me in the application (note: I really want to take these courses the content interests me)?

2nd Question: I am currently aiming a GPA of 4.0 and will probably achieve around 3.8 this semester. Will 3.8 GPA be enough for the competitive applications?

3rd Question: I am planning and really want to start doing some research, I just love the process. But not everything in life is based on our wishes, will it be sufficient enough if I have 1 or 2 publishes before the applications and working on another one in my final year?

4th Question: Will pGRE scores be useful during applications, most unis say they don't require pGRE and they won't even consider GRE, is this cap?

5th Question: I want to partake in the Putnam competition and currently studying for it. Will Putnam be useful in my application? As with the other stuff, I have fun doing this and don't want to stop doing it due to it potentially not being important in applications.

6th Question: How much importance do extracurriculars have? Is becoming a leader in clubs carry that much importance in applications? Will it be good enough if I just do what I love and just attend the club activities and be a regular member?

7th Question: Final question, I heard that LORs carry immense importance, from which professors or people should I get my LORs from?

Sorry if this post is a wall of text, I tried to be as non-boring as possible, all help and all answers on questions are greatly appreciated.

All in all, what should I generally do and be careful about in undergrad to achieve my dreams of becoming a theoretical physicist and get into a good academic institution?

 

[Choppy]

1st Question: Does course load matter a lot? Will taking 5 shared courses from our grad school and having a more than usual math load benefit me in the application (note: I really want to take these courses the content interests me)?

Yes and no. Your performance in the courses you take is what matters most. While admissions committees might be impressed that you've taken some graduate level courses as an undergrad, you do have to be careful not to overload yourself. It could be seen as a flag if you bite off more than you can chew and end up with a sub-standard performance.

2nd Question: I am currently aiming a GPA of 4.0 and will probably achieve around 3.8 this semester. Will 3.8 GPA be enough for the competitive applications?

No one can tell you this. Graduate admissions are a competitive process, so a lot depends on how many people apply, what their applications look like, and how many students a program (and subfield within it) can admit in a given year. Sure, a 3.8 is likely to be competitive, but if they only have one spot open and someone else with a 4.0 applies (which will likely be the case for the big name programs) you won't be first in line.

3rd Question: I am planning and really want to start doing some research, I just love the process. But not everything in life is based on our wishes, will it be sufficient enough if I have 1 or 2 publishes before the applications and working on another one in my final year?

Any publications you get as as an undergrad will help you. A lot depends on the details though. "This student independently designed, setup, executed and wrote up the results of a project that already has a high impact in the field" carries a lot more weight than "this student worked in my lab for the summer, helped write a python script, and so we added their name as the eighth of twelve authors."

4th Question: Will pGRE scores be useful during applications, most unis say they don't require pGRE and they won't even consider GRE, is this cap?

In a lot of cases the pGRE is used as a means of normalizing grades. Some schools have a reputation for grade inflation. Some schools have no reputation at all. And sometimes students chose to take the exam as a means to demonstrate that their grades are not a complete reflection of their capabilities. Canadian schools don't typically look for students from other Canadian schools to provide pGRE scores though.

5th Question: I want to partake in the Putnam competition and currently studying for it. Will Putnam be useful in my application? As with the other stuff, I have fun doing this and don't want to stop doing it due to it potentially not being important in applications.

It's not going to hurt you, obviously. But when it comes time to make decisions on studying for your courses or studying for a competition, I would bias in favor of your grades. Don't sacrifice your GPA, something that *is* helpful, for something that might be helpful.

6th Question: How much importance do extracurriculars have? Is becoming a leader in clubs carry that much importance in applications? Will it be good enough if I just do what I love and just attend the club activities and be a regular member?

I'd follow your interests on this one. While maybe not so helpful on applications (though not ignored either), these kinds of activities are helpful in that they can broaden your academic network. Among the 2nd, 3rd and 4th year students you meet in your first year, are likely to be the graduate students you can contact when you are ready to apply to grad school. And the ones who can help you to navigate the system in your own school. Not to mention these tend to be groups to find like-minded friends, which can be extremely helpful in their own right. And it's a way for you to pay forward any help that you receive by assisting others who come after you.

7th Question: Final question, I heard that LORs carry immense importance, from which professors or people should I get my LORs from?

In most cases students look to the professors who have supervised their research projects, senior thesis, summer projects, etc. After those come professors who students have TA'd for, had classes with, or have worked with in some other contexts.

All in all, what should I generally do and be careful about in undergrad to achieve my dreams of becoming a theoretical physicist and get into a good academic institution?

Take it one year at a time. It's good to think about graduate school now, but also make you're you're keeping as many doors open as you can. Your tastes might change. You might discover that you really love another branch of physics, or that some other direction is right for you.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Some comments:

A 3.8 is good, but it is a lot easier to fall below 3.5 if you start from a 3.8 than a 4.0.

Taking a lot of grad classes and not getting A's and the occasional B will demonstrate that you cannot handle grad-level work. Be careful.

LORs are more important than publications. There are students who seem more concerned about checking off a box on their next application than actually learning anything. Don't be that student.

At some point in your life you will want to do things because you want to do things, not because they look good on your resume. If not now, when?

 

[Ege Artan]

Some comments:

A 3.8 is good, but it is a lot easier to fall below 3.5 if you start from a 3.8 than a 4.0.

Taking a lot of grad classes and not getting A's and the occasional B will demonstrate that you cannot handle grad-level work. Be careful.

LORs are more important than publications. There are students who seem more concerned about checking off a box on their next application than actually learning anything. Don't be taht student.

At some point in your life you will want to do things because you want to do things, not because they look good on your resume. If not now, when?

All noted, thank you for the great advice.

However, I have a question related to your last paragraph. Sure, we must pursue the things we love in life not things which might provide more money, opportunities, etc. That is why I chose to major in these fields in the first place. However, isn't it also bad if we pursue goals life hedonistically? Our hedonistic goals might not aim with societies' goals and we might be left off the track, no? I am trying to say what if me pursuing only the stuff I love might lead me to a road where I realistically cannot get in a good grad school to do what I love more? Don't we also have to do stuff that aligns with the goals of the society? This maybe doing some certain thing or being with some certain people. How can I decide on which approach to take during anything that shows up?

 

[Ege Artan]

Take it one year at a time. It's good to think about graduate school now, but also make you're you're keeping as many doors open as you can. Your tastes might change. You might discover that you really love another branch of physics, or that some other direction is right for you.

All of the points you've made seem to make sense and I thank you a lot for them.

However I can't decide if what you've said in the quote above makes sense or no.

I completely agree that one's expectations of a field or their views towards it might fool them into thinking they would be good fit to eventually discover they love something else. But is there any chance for this not being true?

I am asking this because I've been watching the online graduate level theoretical physics seminars provided by Perimeter Institute, reading through upper year physics and math textbooks, and surfing through advanced wikipedia articles on theoretical physics for quite a long time now. Lastly, started reading the influential articles.

Additionally, I am someone who just loves exploring stuff, I have read the pages of many different areas of physics and concepts related to them. I have watched online seminars on Youtube provided by the Royal Society, and had brief looks at upper year textbooks. But doing these, I can't seem to find something that even comes close to challenging theoretical physics, apart from some pure math stuff and I would say I probably like theoretical physics more.

Aren't these sufficient enough to say that I will probably, go into that field? If not, then what will make it sufficient enough to make me decide on pursuing that? If these are not enough, what hint will be sufficient enough to settle down on something in life? As someone who loves philosophy and debates, I can see that this argument can be expanded and said that a person will never ever settle on what they want to do in life. If so, why pursue something anyway, if I won't be beneficial to humanity and help humanity make progress?

 

[gmax137]

"Take it one year at a time." To me, this is good advice. Based on your posts here in this thread, I would say you have a much more developed "plan" for the future than most. But, you are only starting, you're in your first year of undergrad. The advice is, be open to changing your plan as your studies evolve. Your interests may change, be open to recognizing that if / when it happens.

 

[Ege Artan]

"Take it one year at a time." To me, this is good advice. Based on your posts here in this thread, I would say you have a much more developed "plan" for the future than most. But, you are only starting, you're in your first year of undergrad. The advice is, be open to changing your plan as your studies evolve. Your interests may change, be open to recognizing that if / when it happens.

To be honest I am kind of afraid of "taking it one year at a time". What if I do that way but I miss something in the future? For example lets say I want to do "x" in 3rd year but I had to do "y" in 2nd year. What if I miss "y" in life and be unable to achieve what I have wanted to do? Is this fear relevant, should I overcome it? If so, how?

 

[gmax137]

For example lets say I want to do "x" in 3rd year but I had to do "y" in 2nd year. What if I miss "y"

Well I think that's a valid reason to do some planning ahead.

But, what if you're in the middle of 2nd year Y and you begin to realize that 3rd year X is no longer something you care about? All I'm saying is, don't panic! Adapt! Don't be a hostage to the plans you make when you're 18 years old.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm hearing a lot of pushback. While it is possible that we "just don't get it", if that were the case, why ask us?

The probability that you end up doing something other than theoretical physics as you describe it are greater than 99%. People I know who started their freshman year in college hoping to be a theoretical physicist ended up becoming doctors, lawyers, experimental physicists, stay-at-home moms, technical writers, internet millionaires, executive in Fortune 500 companies, military officers, high school teachers, English professors, playwrights, and more. All of them discovered something they'd rather be doing.

Eisenhower once said "Planning is important. Plans, however, are worthless."

 

[Ege Artan]

I'm hearing a lot of pushback. While it is possible that we "just don't get it", if that were the case, why ask us?

The probability that you end up doing something other than theoretical physics as you describe it are greater than 99%. People I know who started their freshman year in college hoping to be a theoretical physicist ended up becoming doctors, lawyers, experimental physicists, stay-at-home moms, technical writers, internet millionaires, executive in Fortune 500 companies, military officers, high school teachers, English professors, playwrights, and more. All of them discovered something they'd rather be doing.

Eisenhower once said "Planning is important. Plans, however, are worthless."

Don't think I am pushing back on anything, I was merely providing more information to receive a more specialized answer to my initial question.

From a more philosophical perspective, if it is so hard to decide on what you want to do later in life, then does it make sense to make ANY plans? If as you have said, 99% I won't pursue theoretical physics in the future, then should I just lose any plans I have made and purposes I have adopted?

Lastly, I appreciate your answers but please I am just asking questions to people who I seem worthy to ask advices from. I am not pushing back on anything and trying to be as open as possible. Again, I appreciate your help.

 

[Ege Artan]

Well I think that's a valid reason to do some planning ahead.

But, what if you're in the middle of 2nd year Y and you begin to realize that 3rd year X is no longer something you care about? All I'm saying is, don't panic! Adapt! Don't be a hostage to the plans you make when you're 18 years old.

How do you think I should find the sweet spot? A sweet spot of planning ahead so that I will achieve stuff I want now in the future, but also not get too drowned in my plans to become effectively blind to any changes in what I want to do or it becomes too late or hard to adapt to changes?

I think the modern educational system made it incredibly hard to find this sweet spot. To achieve greatness you must have plans with some other auxiliary things to make it easier to succeed nowadays. The frontier of research in physics is way further ahead than undergraduate compared to the beginning of cold war era physics as far as I know. So, it becomes a "common denominator" to become successful and pursue your dreams. Please excuse me if my ideas are simply wrong or undeveloped, I am completely open to any conversation on these topics, would love to improve myself.

 

[Choppy]

Aren't these sufficient enough to say that I will probably, go into that field? If not, then what will make it sufficient enough to make me decide on pursuing that? If these are not enough, what hint will be sufficient enough to settle down on something in life? As someone who loves philosophy and debates, I can see that this argument can be expanded and said that a person will never ever settle on what they want to do in life. If so, why pursue something anyway, if I won't be beneficial to humanity and help humanity make progress?

There's no litmus test that will tell you for certain what field you'll end up going into.

Don't worry, I'm not telling you to give up. Quite the contrary. You've found something you like. Pursue it as best you can. It seems like you're on the right track.

The point is just to keep an open mind. One challenge that a lot of theoreticians face is a lot of competition for very few positions. Roughly an order of magnitude more PhDs are produced than there are tenured professor positions. And once you get into a pool of competitive PhDs, there are a lot of uncontrollable factors that can determine who gets those positions. It's not all about being smart, and passionate, and hard-working... just about everyone in the pool has such qualities. Those 10% who move on into academic careers may just have happened to pick the right topic at the right time. So just keep an open mind and develop some skills that you can market in the commercial world as a backup plan.

 

[Ege Artan]

There's no litmus test that will tell you for certain what field you'll end up going into.

Don't worry, I'm not telling you to give up. Quite the contrary. You've found something you like. Pursue it as best you can. It seems like you're on the right track.

The point is just to keep an open mind. One challenge that a lot of theoreticians face is a lot of competition for very few positions. Roughly an order of magnitude more PhDs are produced than there are tenured professor positions. And once you get into a pool of competitive PhDs, there are a lot of uncontrollable factors that can determine who gets those positions. It's not all about being smart, and passionate, and hard-working... just about everyone in the pool has such qualities. Those 10% who move on into academic careers may just have happened to pick the right topic at the right time. So just keep an open mind and develop some skills that you can market in the commercial world as a backup plan.

Thank you for the insight, if the 10% ratio is the case, then it definitely means I need some more qualities to market in commercial world or industry.

What are these "qualities" exactly? Where should I begin with to develop some artificial (not through pursuing what I love but rather pursuing to live, and not be an unemployed theorist) qualities? What is mostly needed in the industry?

 

[Dr Transport]

To survive in industry, you need what are called soft skills (people, etc.). I had the chance to hire a very good, intelligent theorist on my team years ago. We didn't extend an offer because there was no way they would fit in with the existing team, the personal dynamic just wasn't there.

The common thread in this is that you are a freshman, plan, but obsessing over what to do for graduate school 3-4 years down the road is premature. Obsessing about missing some mid-term goal is also not conducive to learning in general, living with regrets sucks.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To survive in industry, you need what are called soft skills (people, etc.). I had the chance to hire a very good, intelligent theorist on my team years ago. We didn't extend an offer because there was no way they would fit in with the existing team, the personal dynamic just wasn't there.

The common thread in this is that you are a freshman, plan, but obsessing over what to do for graduate school 3-4 years down the road is premature. Obsessing about missing some mid-term goal is also not conducive to learning in general, living with regrets sucks.

Just as an aside, has your company ever hired theorists in any roles?

 

[StatGuy2000]

1st Question: Does course load matter a lot? Will taking 5 shared courses from our grad school and having a more than usual math load benefit me in the application (note: I really want to take these courses the content interests me)?

Question #1: The answer depends on if you are applying to graduate programs in physics or math. For PhD applications in math, taking a few grad courses in math could be beneficial, in the sense that it would demonstrate understanding of the material, as well as provide with you potential professors from whom you could get a LOR. Also provides understanding that would enable you to apply for research internships like the NSERC USRA.

2nd Question: I am currently aiming a GPA of 4.0 and will probably achieve around 3.8 this semester. Will 3.8 GPA be enough for the competitive applications?

Question #2: 3.8 should be quite competitive, but this varies from year to year, because you are being compared to all applicants at a given year. So take this account in mind when applying to graduate programs.

3rd Question: I am planning and really want to start doing some research, I just love the process. But not everything in life is based on our wishes, will it be sufficient enough if I have 1 or 2 publishes before the applications and working on another one in my final year?

Question #3: Number of publications does not matter. What matters more is the experience you developed in the research, which your adviser can provide more feedback through the LOR.

4th Question: Will pGRE scores be useful during applications, most unis say they don't require pGRE and they won't even consider GRE, is this cap?

Question #4: This would depend on the universities you would apply to for graduate programs. But I would say that pGRE scores are one additional piece of information that could work in your favour, so I would advise you to prepare for them. I would give you the same advice for the math GRE should you instead decide to pursue math grad programs.

5th Question: I want to partake in the Putnam competition and currently studying for it. Will Putnam be useful in my application? As with the other stuff, I have fun doing this and don't want to stop doing it due to it potentially not being important in applications.

Question #5: I doubt Putnam competitions would be all that useful, especially for physics graduate programs. That being said, participating in them could be fun, and I don't want to dissuade you from pursuing them.

6th Question: How much importance do extracurriculars have? Is becoming a leader in clubs carry that much importance in applications? Will it be good enough if I just do what I love and just attend the club activities and be a regular member?

Question #6: Similar to Question #5, I doubt extracurriculars will be all that useful for applications to graduate programs (the answer would be different if you were applying to a job after school, where extracurriculars would be given more weight).

7th Question: Final question, I heard that LORs carry immense importance, from which professors or people should I get my LORs from?

Question #7: You should get LORs from professors from whom you have either taken coursework (especially in senior courses), attended seminars, advised you on any undergraduate thesis courses on, or conducted research with as part of an internship.

Perspective: University of Toronto alumni (although not in the mathematics and physics joint specialist program).

 

[Choppy]

What are these "qualities" exactly? Where should I begin with to develop some artificial (not through pursuing what I love but rather pursuing to live, and not be an unemployed theorist) qualities? What is mostly needed in the industry?

To begin with, it's probably best not to think of marketable skill development as "artificial."

The question of what skills are going to be most in demand a decade from now when you would be finishing a PhD is a very challenging one. Some areas are common for physics graduates to jump into...
- professional branches of physics such as medical physics or geophysics
- data science
- programming
- engineering
- project management
- technical sales
- teaching
- entrepreneurial ventures

 

[gmax137]

What are these "qualities" exactly? Where should I begin with to develop some artificial (not through pursuing what I love but rather pursuing to live, and not be an unemployed theorist) qualities? What is mostly needed in the industry?

Where I worked (engineering) PhD engineers were expected

• to come up to speed very quickly
• to really understand the physical and computational bases for the "standard" analysis methods we used
• to pass this deeper knowledge on to the other engineers
• to come up with good innovative solutions to our client's problems
• to work with little or no supervision

It is worth noting that their PhD thesis and specific research area were sometimes important but not always. Our engineers tended to stay with the company for long careers, and what anyone was doing at 20 or 30 years sometimes was quite different than their first 5 or 10 years. Others delved deeper and deeper into their specialty, becoming valuable as recognized experts whose opinion was sought by clients and trusted by our government regulators.

Also, in industry, research has a place but what counts is delivering what the clients need. Studies that lead only to further studies will be noticed, and not in a good way.

 

[Dr Transport]

Just as an aside, has your company ever hired theorists in any roles?

Yes, but they were hired for other roles, not a theoretical physics role.

 

[CrysPhys]

How do you think I should find the sweet spot? A sweet spot of planning ahead so that I will achieve stuff I want now in the future, but also not get too drowned in my plans to become effectively blind to any changes in what I want to do or it becomes too late or hard to adapt to changes?

It's a tricky balance between "living in the moment" and "planning for the future", but it's a balance that you should strive for. This balance of course is not static; it needs to be dynamically readjusted. There's a cliché that's apt here: plan for the destination you want to reach, but don't forget to enjoy the journey getting there. Also, should you stumble across an intractable obstacle along the way, be prepared to change your route or destination.

I once served as an industry mentor for a sophomore physics undergrad. She asked me to help her develop a 10-yr plan. I smiled, and explained to her why that wouldn't be worthwhile. That's one extreme. Most other students I dealt with were on the other extreme: they were in their final undergrad or grad year and seeking advice on what to do next.

If you're a first year undergrad and at least contemplating grad school, it is reasonable for you to do some planning 3 to 4 yrs out. After all, applications will typically be due ~end of first semester senior year. You don't want to be one of the myriad students who wait until the start of the senior year to start assembling an application; it'll be too late to remedy many deficiencies. E.g., prior to the start of your senior year, you should have completed research projects, nailed down references for recommendation letters, developed a candidate list of grad schools (which requires identifying what research area you want to pursue), ....

If you do pursue a PhD in physics, I'll repeat the perspective I've offered many times here: the PhD is not necessarily a means to an end; it can be an end in itself. This is different, e.g., from going to med school or law school. If you do a PhD in physics, you should be motivated by the research in and of itself. After you complete your PhD, you move on. To what exactly is uncertain; too many unknowns. Maybe you'll continue your research as a postdoc and later as a professor; maybe not. Maybe you'll land an R&D position in an industry or government lab; maybe not. Maybe you'll switch out of physics entirely. Whatever the outcome, you don't want to beat yourself up, "Why did I spend all those years getting a PhD in physics? I didn't get the career I had hoped for. Instead, I'm working in X."

And remember, even if you initially get the career you had hoped for, a lot can change in the decades to come, both professionally and personally. So you need to be flexible and adaptable, The ability to pivot is essential.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It's a tricky balance between "living in the moment" and "planning for the future", but it's a balance that you should strive for. This balance of course is not static; it needs to be dynamically readjusted. There's a cliché that's apt here: plan for the destination you want to reach, but don't forget to enjoy the journey getting there. Also, should you stumble across an intractable obstacle along the way, be prepared to change your route or destination.

I once served as an industry mentor for a sophomore physics undergrad. She asked me to help her develop a 10-yr plan. I smiled, and explained to her why that wouldn't be worthwhile. That's one extreme. Most other students I dealt with were on the other extreme: they were in their final undergrad or grad year and seeking advice on what to do next.

If you're a first year undergrad and at least contemplating grad school, it is reasonable for you to do some planning 3 to 4 yrs out. After all, applications will typically be due ~end of first semester senior year. You don't want to be one of the myriad students who wait until the start of the senior year to start assembling an application; it'll be too late to remedy many deficiencies. E.g., prior to the start of your senior year, you should have completed research projects, nailed down references for recommendation letters, developed a candidate list of grad schools (which requires identifying what research area you want to pursue), ....

If you do pursue a PhD in physics, I'll repeat the perspective I've offered many times here: the PhD is not necessarily a means to an end; it can be an end in itself. This is different, e.g., to going to med school or law school. If you do a PhD in physics, you should be motivated by the research in and of itself. After you complete your PhD, you move on. To what exactly is uncertain; too many unknowns. Maybe you'll continue your research as a postdoc and later as a professor; maybe not. Maybe you'll land an R&D position in an industry or government lab; maybe not. Maybe you'll switch out of physics entirely. Whatever the outcome, you don't want to beat yourself up, "Why did I spend all those years getting a PhD in physics? I didn't get the career I had hoped for. Instead, I'm working in X."

And remember, even if you initially get the career you had hoped for, a lot can change in the decades to come, both professionally and personally. So you need to be flexible and adaptable, The ability to pivot is essential.

I think the issue that students who have finished their PhD in physics have faced is that the experience they have developed in their research may not readily translate to any job.

There was an infamous series post from @ParticleGrl (this was back over a decade ago), who completed her PhD in particle physics, only to be unemployed and forced to work as a bartender for nearly a year until she was able to retrain and find employment in a data science role for an insurance firm.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Not everything @ParticleGrl said, um, stood up to scrutiny. Other examples might be better.

 

[CrysPhys]

I think the issue that students who have finished their PhD in physics have faced is that the experience they have developed in their research may not readily translate to any job.

There is of course a wide range of experiences in a PhD physics program, some readily applicable to future jobs, some not. E.g., it makes a big difference whether you're an experimental solid-state physicist well versed in instrumentation, apparatus design, lab construction, sample preparation, data analysis, and computer programming or a theorist pondering what came before the Big Bang.

The bigger issue I've often come across is the resistance of many physics PhDs to work in areas outside of physics. "I have a passion for modelling phase transitions in soft condensed matter, but I'll be damned if I have to model supply chains to earn a living."

 

[StatGuy2000]

There is of course a wide range of experiences in a PhD physics program, some readily applicable to future jobs, some not. E.g., it makes a big difference whether you're an experimental solid-state physicist well versed in instrumentation, apparatus design, lab construction, sample preparation, data analysis, and computer programming or a theorist pondering what came before the Big Bang.

The bigger issue I've often come across is the resistance of many physics PhDs to work in areas outside of physics. "I have a passion for modelling phase transitions in soft condensed matter, but I'll be damned if I have to model supply chains to earn a living."

@CrysPhys , on your note above, what I suspect that many physics PhDs would want is to be able to make use of the skills they have developed during their PhD in an area of work that is interesting. After all, they have invested a total of 8 to 15 years of their education (if you combine their years studying for a bachelor's degree, plus their time finishing their PhD).

So it would not be unreasonable to expect that any future job will readily make use of the time they spent in their education. Otherwise, that time would have been a waste.

Of course, part of this involves awareness. Physics PhDs (at least some of them) may not be aware that -- to use your example -- modelling supply chains would involve the same (or similar) skillsets in mathematical modelling as modelling phase transitions in soft condensed matter. And we are seeing an increasing number of physics PhDs who are finding employment in areas like data science, which they discover use many of the mathematical, experimental, and/or computational skills developed as part of their PhD research.

The flip side is that many employers are also not aware that physics PhDs have the skillsets that would be of value to their company/organization.

 

[CrysPhys]

So it would not be unreasonable to expect that any future job will readily make use of the time they spent in their education. Otherwise, that time would have been a waste.

Hence the need to distinguish between a set of skills, knowledge, and experience applicable to many fields vs. in-depth expertise in a narrow field. If a student believes that their time in school has been wasted unless they gain a long-term career in their particular niche, they will be in for a lot of grief. Hence the need for a different perspective from the get-go:

If you do pursue a PhD in physics, I'll repeat the perspective I've offered many times here: the PhD is not necessarily a means to an end; it can be an end in itself. This is different, e.g., from going to med school or law school. If you do a PhD in physics, you should be motivated by the research in and of itself. After you complete your PhD, you move on. To what exactly is uncertain; too many unknowns. Maybe you'll continue your research as a postdoc and later as a professor; maybe not. Maybe you'll land an R&D position in an industry or government lab; maybe not. Maybe you'll switch out of physics entirely. Whatever the outcome, you don't want to beat yourself up, "Why did I spend all those years getting a PhD in physics? I didn't get the career I had hoped for. Instead, I'm working in X."

 

[gwnorth]

How do you think I should find the sweet spot? A sweet spot of planning ahead so that I will achieve stuff I want now in the future, but also not get too drowned in my plans to become effectively blind to any changes in what I want to do or it becomes too late or hard to adapt to changes?

I'm curious to know how you're planning on reaching graduate level courses during your degree. Are you entering with advanced standing or transfer credit?

Undergraduate Physics curriculums are pretty standard at most Canadian universities. While UofT does provide some options for some more advanced math courses, they're still part of the the foundational coursework you will be taking in your first 2 years. The ability to diversify your degree by taking electives of interest doesn't really happen until 3rd year, and mostly 4th year. As a result there is no rush to decide what direction to steer your courses as you plan for graduate school. Before you get there you need to complete Intro to Physics I & II and Calculus I&II in first year followed by E&M I, Classical Mechanics, Intro to Quantum Physics, Thermodynamics, Intermediate Lab, Calc 3-4, Linear Algebra, and Intro to Ordinary Differential Equations. Your 2nd year alone requires 9 of your 10 courses to be in the major so unless you're going to be taking spring/summer courses or you're ahead in your math curriculum all your courses are pretty much set to that point. Also don't forget that you have Breadth Requirements to also fulfill with your electives. You can't devote them all to additional Physics and Math courses.

The flexibility in choosing electives doesn't really come until 3rd year. As a result you won't really need to start narrowing your focus until then, and your 2nd year Physics courses will be sufficient preparation for any 3rd year course that you might want to take. The only exception to this may be for any additional Math courses you may wish to take and for those you should look and see what the required prerequisites are and plan accordingly. Otherwise you don't need to decide too soon with the exception of figuring out how you're going to manage to accelerate taking the requisite prerequisites for the grad courses you say you plan to take.

Also note that theory is not a branch of Physics it's an approach. You can be a theoretical high energy physicist or an experimental one and until you do more lab courses and get into the meat and potatoes of theory courses you may not know if you truly prefer theory over experiment.

 

[gwnorth]

Also I took look at the proposed graduate courses you listed that you want to take. If these are the ones, I note that they are all 4th year electives cross listed with grad courses (which is common at other universities as well). That doesn't make them graduate courses.

PHY491H1S Current Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

PHY489H1F Introduction to High Energy Physics

AST 2060HF / PHY 1483F / APM 426/ MAT 1700S: Introduction to General Relativity

PHY484H1S/1484HS Relativity Theory II

MAT454H1: Complex Analysis II