Ph.D?

[GaryC]

That's what I've been thinking as well. Being a run-of-the-mill engineer is just so common. I just need a very, very good topic, though. How important is the topic selection for your future career path? Say I research into "Overpressurised Cracking of Oil Pipelines", how likely is it I'll go into aerospace?

 

[DanRoM]

Getting a Ph.D. shows first and foremost your ability and will to stick to a task and seeing it through, plus your ability to work methodically and according to scientific standards. Of course it's beneficial if your topic is something of interest for your future employer. But even if that isn't the case: Your thesis topic has to be of immense interest to you, otherwise it won't work out for you. The work you'll do one day in your job has to be interesting as well. So naturally you'll tend to choose both from the same area, which is close enough.

.... It's all just applied physics and mathematics anyway.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

I also haven't heard that you can jump from bachelor to ph.d. I'm doing my master in "engineering and management" right now (I'm bachelor of mech. engineering) ... and i wish i wouldn't have done it and just started working after my bachelor...

I also do not intend to do a ph.d. At least not directly at a university. I know of some people, who found a "mentor" (or how is it called) so that they can graduate as ph.d. with a project from their regular work. It was some kind of company - university department cooperation.

Something like that I can imagine to do myself one day...

Its called an Eng.D here. you work for your company, at your company. But you have to work specifically on that particular research project. Its a project that will of course be related and is probably some kind of cheap, uni supported R&D for the company. But you get to gain more industry experience. Takes 4 years I believe.

Not sure what the salary is like, but doing a properly funded Ph.D means the money isn't bad... its tax free and student status exempts you from paying hefty council tax and gets you student discounts.

 

[Cobol74]

Do it, you will regret not doing it for the rest of your working life.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

That's what I've been thinking as well. Being a run-of-the-mill engineer is just so common. I just need a very, very good topic, though. How important is the topic selection for your future career path? Say I research into "Overpressurised Cracking of Oil Pipelines", how likely is it I'll go into aerospace?

Not sure, might get you a gig in the Oil and Gas industry (hint hint, mega bucks)

For me, the PhD I got offered, offered me a lot. There was genuine scope for developing something completely new. I mean no one to my knowledge has tried or is even doing what we are doing at the moment. Not allowed to divulge what it is as I am under NDA with CAT. There are so many avenues I can explore with this and its something that will leave me as possibly only one of very few people in the country, maybe the world who understand how it all works. Likely hood is it will never see production, but thats not always the point of R&D.

Its also a well funded PhD, I have 2 supervisors with *a lot* of funding between them..... we are actually struggling to spend it (and spend it you have to). I get to go to conferences, get trained up in things like LabView, present to management at CAT, run engine tests, play with things in my lab etc etc very varied and very project orientated.

I have to admit though, If I got offered a PhD looking at the vortices produced when an ant farts... I would more than likely of said no. I couldn't sit in front of a workstation doing CFD for 3 years on something that really only advances knowledge a tiny fraction. If I got offered what you said, I would probably turn that down too.

So yes, you do need a very good topic, something that is going to entertain you for 3 years.

I can't believe all this "PhDs are only good if you want to work in academia/research" stuff. A doctor title on your business cards opens all sorts of doors. Consultancy work, spinning your own company out of reasearch, and working in venture capital are three that spring immediately to mind (because I know people who have done them all).

Exactly, I know people who have done this too. The guy who worked on my project last has set up his own company to do with advanced electronic power supplies. A few of the professors here basically run little companies from a purpose built facility so that they can spin off their research and sell it for profit. I know one guy who is actually consulting himself out on the side while he writes up his PhD!! (not sure how he is blagging that one!!)

Like I said, opens more doors than it closes.

 

[GaryC]

Yeah.. It's time I went back to the prof and asked about what topics he has.

 

[GaryC]

So the new update is that there's possibly a HVAC project with one of the airports where they're asking the uni to investigate into a refurbishment of their current ventilation system and they'll need a CFD guy. This isn't a 'pure' research Ph.D but an industry-related one. I thought it was quite good since I'd still have some connection to the industry. But I highly doubt they'll give me a Ph.D just to do some consulting work.

 

[TBossM]

So the new update is that there's possibly a HVAC project with one of the airports where they're asking the uni to investigate into a refurbishment of their current ventilation system and they'll need a CFD guy. This isn't a 'pure' research Ph.D but an industry-related one. I thought it was quite good since I'd still have some connection to the industry. But I highly doubt they'll give me a Ph.D just to do some consulting work.

Money?

 

[GaryC]

You mean bursary for me? Sure. If I get it, at least I can claim that I was the CFD guy that designed (or screwed up) the airport's solar chimney ventilation system.

 

[GaryC]

After getting the first prize award for my paper at AIAA, my supervisor says that I can easily get an 'Ivy' university like MIT or Princeton with my qualifications now, rather than stay in Adelaide. But he also mentioned that a big CFD guy (John Abraham) from Purdue is coming to Adelaide, and I'll mostly like be the student under him, and his interests are engine combustions and CFD, which I like too.

So the question here is, under other similar conditions, is a good well known university more important or a good well known supervisor?

 

[Dr_Grip]

So the question here is, under other similar conditions, is a good well known university more important or a good well known supervisor?

Ideally, both. A well-known supervisor working at an well known university.

In your case? If you are one hundred percent sure (as one hundred percent sure as one can be in one's mid-twenties) that you will continue to work in a field where John Abraham is a household name (not as a political activist, but as a scientist) then the name of the college is not important and I'd stay on with the CFD guy.

But if you might want to switch to another career within engineering or even change sides to a administrative position some day, every HR person knows what the MIT is.

Additionally, having studied on different continents looks good on your CV as well - but of course you could always do an exchange term at MIT or somewhere else to tick that box.


EDIT: If you still want to work in F1, try to get into whatever is the best engineering college in Oxbridge. Being geographically close to (almost) every important F1 team's base is more important than working with the right professor because at some point, it will not be about qualifications alone, but about knowing the right people, as well.

 

[WillDAQ]

So the question here is, under other similar conditions, is a good well known university more important or a good well known supervisor?

If you're going for F1 then it makes relatively little difference...

EDIT: If you still want to work in F1, try to get into whatever is the best engineering college in Oxbridge. Being geographically close to (almost) every important F1 team's base is more important than working with the right professor because at some point, it will not be about qualifications alone, but about knowing the right people, as well.

Even this isn't quite true...

Having a good PhD in a relevant topic is helpful to getting an F1 job, but just as many engineers go into it from their undergrad as do from their postgrad degrees.

Here's an example question from an F1 job interview:

"You're watching the race on Sunday when the front suspension does a Toro Rosso, you get a picture message from the race team of the part that fails, what's your first reaction?"

 

[Dr_Grip]

But I think we agree on my main point, being that if F1 is the goal, "England" is where he should get his Ph.D?

 

[WillDAQ]

But I think we agree on my main point, being that if F1 is the goal, "England" is where he should get his Ph.D?

Yes I think that's fair. However probably not a PhD, this is the closest thing to an F1 qualification... but even then it is not the magic bullet that Southampton would like it thought to be. Bristol has about the same number of graduates in F1 teams and we have no racecar research at all.

 

[XYZviper]

If You have time, You like it, can afford it! DO IT! It won't weigh You down.

 

[GaryC]

Thanks for all the advice guys, though I think my 'goals' so to speak have shifted a bit. I know I still want to work in F1, but from the time I created this thread to now, there are other engineer fields that have interested me too. I'm also equally interested in the aerospace industry, internal engine combustion, and yes, racecar aerodynamics. But I also don't want to limit myself too early. So yes, wow, that Southampton MSc looks great, but it just seems quite focused

 

[czelaya]

These last 6 months have been very interesting for me. Basically I'm having to decide what I'm going to do once I graduate within this year (Ph.D in chemical physics with a masters in theoretical chemistry). What I'm praying for is an experimental/theoretical job dealing with molecular physics. Basically anything dealing with industrial chemistry, alloys, drug design, kinetics, and so forth are possibilities.

However because of family reasons I won't be able to move under any circumstances. This drastically limits my jobs options to three basic areas: petroleum industry, applications in chemical engineering, and academics.

However, recently, one of my professor's post doctoral students stopped by and we had a conservation and he asked if I ever contemplated the financial industries. Interestingly enough he left science, and went in financial modelling and it seems like he's doing very well. Initially, I was hesitant but financial engineering, quantitative analysis, and financial econometrics are beginning to sound very like a possibility. It seems that my mathematical and modeling skills can have more applications than I once thought. This is a long shot and there's probably a small likelihood that I would ever give this a chance-much less endure the competitive nature of this sector but the pay is very enticing. Overall, the job prospects for Ph.D's in the experimental and theoretical physical sciences is currently low in the market, however, my acquired skills seems to be more versatile and is more malleable than I initially thought (ie I'm glad I'm getting a Ph.D).

Has anyone here ever had exposure to derivative pricing and risk assessment?

 

[Labcoatguy]

Has anyone here ever had exposure to derivative pricing and risk assessment?

After the last few years, I think much of the world has been exposed to them one way or another. As a masters-level economist I've dabbled with them, but not at the level that someone with PhD-level math training would. Seeing as finance is driven by big egos (not that academia isn't, but to a different degree and application), it sounds like it'd be a challenge in many regards.

 

[Dr_Grip]

Has anyone here ever had exposure to derivative pricing and risk assessment?

One of our dutch members, hajj, works in finance. But I don't know what exactly he's doing.

 

[czelaya]

After the last few years, I think much of the world has been exposed to them one way or another. As a masters-level economist I've dabbled with them, but not at the level that someone with PhD-level math training would. Seeing as finance is driven by big egos (not that academia isn't, but to a different degree and application), it sounds like it'd be a challenge in many regards.

From what I've been told, the mathematical training isn't very advanced. As long as you had exposure to multi-variable calculus, linear algebra, ordinary differential equation, partial differential equations(including complex PDE's), calculus based statistics, methods of approximations, and possibly complex analysis(residue theorem, conformal mappings, contour integrals, expansions)-then you understand the overall math. Matter of fact, very little exposure to more advanced mathematics such as differential geometry, group theory, Lie algebras, manifolds, Lie groups, advanced algebras (for example, Clifford algebras), topology, and advanced differential geometry (fiber bundles, homotopy, Khaler manifolds...) is not even mainstream in finance. Furthermore, just as important, the ability to build successful models is a large plus(which is what most physical scientist develop).

Basically, after reading several brochures, exposure to the applications of the math and its direct applications are the only requirements. The financial machinery can be learned as you progress.

However could you please elaborate on your comment on "big egos".

I just didn't realize the large number of scientist and engineers that are being utilized in the financial sector.