<p>I just got a PhD in Nuclear Science and Engineering from MIT. I finished my PhD in three years right after undergrad (physics major). However, by the second and third year (last year) I knew I did not want to go into academia or work for some national laboratories. But since I was funded by the department and it just seemed to be the right thing at that time, I was like why not get a PhD. I do really enjoy nuclear science but can't see myself in academia or working in a national lab. I have realized that I am more interested in nuclear policy, nuclear politics, and management. I am very interested in working with politicians and policy makers in DC in nuclear field. So I am looking at Master in Public Policy (MPP) with a concentration in nuclear policy at Harvard now. </p>
<p>So what I wanted to ask you guys is doesn't this seem to be the right thing at this point? What do you guys think? Also wouldn't already having a PhD in Nuclear Engineering from MIT help me get into Harvard's MPP program? Are there people out there who are in the same boat as me?</p>
<p>Have you thought about applying or at least talking to the Department of Energy or a think tank? In many cases they will hire you for these kinds of positions without a polict degree, and may provide funding for your education as well. An old friend of mine is an agricultural engineering professor who works part-time for a think-tank on agricultural issues.</p>
<p>Agreed. My daughter works as a research assistant in a think tank and the analysts mostly have PhD’s in various fields. A MPP isn’t needed. At the very least, I’d get out and work a while, identify some long term career goals, and then see what the requirements are for those positions. You might want to eventually double up with a law or Econ degree, for instance. Right now, your map is blank.</p>
<p>I agree with TheDad. I was on the PhD track and decided in my second year that I just wanted to teach, so I took my master’s degree and ran with it. While looking at jobs, I thought about a lot of different possibilities: teaching high school, teaching community college, going back for an education degree (there was a really interesting program at UC Berkeley I was considering), teaching English abroad for a while, etc. At first, all of those possibilities sounded so great (especially since none of them involved pure math research, which is why I stopped working towards the PhD).</p>
<p>After a year, though, I have a much better idea of which of those would be good for me and which wouldn’t. I’ve been teaching at the college level since, and I’ve realized that I would hate teaching high school students (I like to be able to treat my students as “adults”:), I would have been unhappy teaching English abroad, and I would be MISERABLE in a math education program (if I ever go back to school, it will be in a long time). Even though all of these would have been better than the path I was on (and thus looked GREAT when I was leaving school), having a better perspective now, I can see that most of them would have made me fairly unhappy.</p>
<p>I’d suggest you get a bit of experience working, if nothing else than to have experience on the other side. In six months to a year, you’ll likely have a much better idea of what you want to do, as well as the best way to get from here to there.</p>
<p>Sounds like that you are searching for a philosophy. </p>
<p>Sounds like you want to explore policy of —whatever-issue–.
But why should we want you to become a public policy thinker when it is difficult for you to analyse yourself into the field of policy making and out of physics? Does attending classes make you an expert in nuclear physics or is your ability to think your way though to the multiple answers?</p>
<p>Now that you have a phd in nuclear physics, explain to me, why and how do we deal with Iran’s ability to enrich uranium? IOW, can you make a case?</p>
<p>DS undergrad advisor, mentor, and employer, told us, that she hoped that DS is going to MIT for the right reasons (She did not know that DS was not accepted). That she had gone to MIT (phD) for the *usual reasons. * {??} </p>
<p>Did you go to MIT for the *usual reasons * ??</p>
<p>LongPrime, I wonder why you are so bitter? Did you not get into the school that you wanted to go to? Your comment seems to echo your frustrations. Things change, so do people. Please do not comment if you don’t have any positive thing to say. Thank you!</p>
<p>Although perhaps an unfair comment, the first thing I would say that you should have leveraged the plethora of career opportunities available to you back when you were still at MIT. MIT is a target school of a wide variety of the top recruiters in the world, which is why so many MIT engineering PhD students wind up taking jobs that have nothing to do with whatsoever with their PhD field, such as management consulting, investment banking, or venture capital. MIT is also well known for its extensive connections within government and the policy/think-tank space, which would have provided you with what you want. Heck, many MIT PhD students don’t even bother finishing the program at all because they were able to obtain the job they wanted without finishing the degree.</p>
<p>Having said that, I think that you can still take advantage of the MIT network to find what you want. You could arrange meetings with the MIT political science faculty, particularly those who study nuclear issues. Similarly with Harvard, taking advantage of the close ties between the two schools. You could leverage the MIT alumni network to find people who could arrange an interview or tell you about jobs of which you are not aware. </p>
<p>That’s not a knock against the Harvard MPP program - I’m sure that it can provide another pathway. However, that does seem to be an inefficient way of achieving your goals, considering you already have the MIT PhD in hand.</p>
<p>This post itself is quite immature. You asked for our opinion, and now you are saying you only want to see positive things?</p>
<p>Looks like to me the problem is you are graduating with PhD at too young of a age. You lack the understanding of life and that’s exactly why you can’t communicate and don’t even know what to do with your own life.</p>
<p>You original post is quite cocky and you didn’t thank the people who gave you opinions. Instead you attacked the person who tried to help you. </p>
<p>Way to go, MIT-graduate. You are the type of kids need to know there are many things to learn outside of classroom.</p>
<p>People jump to quick conclusions based on a handful of words on a forum post. People come off differently online. I’m amazed at how much time has been spent talking about the way things are said and criticizing each other.</p>
<p>That’s a stupid excuse. Yes, it is the internet, and you can be immature, but it doesn’t mean you have to be or should be just because you CAN be.</p>
<p>It sounds like you’re having trouble deciding what to be when you grow up.</p>
<p>What you have done so far will give you a lot of options most people don’t have. You could, for example, sit for the patent bar exam and become a patent agent, or go to law school and become a patent attorney, or do any number of things, depending on what it is you want to be when you grow up.</p>
<p>So, what do you want to be when you grow up?</p>
<p>MIT did not offer acceptance to DS. But oddly, PI that DS wanted to work with, called DS after the acceptance date and did a phone interview. PI wanted DS to reapply the next year, to which he declined because his accepted school gave him a full scholarship plus fellowship. </p>
<p>I haven’t figured out what DS’s advisor meant by her comment. I brought it up because maybe you have a good answer. </p>
<p>DS is now a university staff researcher and assists in helping phD candidates in their projects.</p>
<p>As for a nuclear policy formulator or public policy advocate: I would think that such a program tries to examine the possible outcomes in decision making.</p>