Your Freshman year

Colleges and Universities A-Z California Institute of Technology
21

<p>To me, the emphasis on math and physics makes a lot of sense for a research career. To be an engineer, all you need is the "shortcut to the solution" that's already been solved, but to do research and solve new problems, being able to "derive all of the relationships" is indispensable. Maybe this is why most engineers opt for a non-research master's.</p>

<p>As a researcher, you're expected to learn the details of your subfield on your own. The grad program preps you with all of the background theory, and then you apply it to experimental design and interpretation on your research project. The other students shouldn't be expected to know the details of your subfield (in many cases it would not help them in their own work), so the grad program doesn't require all of the students to take courses in all of the subfields of the department. This is why your whole cohort has to take lots of math and physics background theory, but each student takes only a few courses in materials science.</p>

<p>It's the same in my field (biology): everyone takes core + the physical chemistry series, and thus multiple terms of quantum and thermodynamics. But I don't have to take physiology or microbiology, and a physiologist wouldn't have to take structural biology or comparative/evolutionary biology, and a structural biologist wouldn't have to take genomics or immunology. Quantum/thermo is relevant to all of us as researchers, but only the immunologist needs to know the details of immunology, and so on.</p>

<p>At the undergraduate level, exploring and sampling within your field is encouraged, and you can take a variety of courses in order to discover what you like. It sounds like you did this in your undergrad matsci program, taking crystallography and microstructural evolution and the like. But by the grad level, your research interests should be narrowed, and it is no longer the time to study all forms of materials science. It's time to prepare yourself for a specific research project of your design, and so your courses will mainly teach you how to design experiments and interpret results, which is where the proof-based math and physics comes in.</p>

<p>How do you see yourself using a Ph.D. in Materials Science? Engineering or research? Industry or academe? I think Caltech's approach is great if you ultimately want a research faculty post, but if you want to be an engineer, or go into industry, it's probably overkill. What made you choose Caltech? Were you aware that the requirements are very different from Berkeley, Stanford, etc.?</p>

<p>Also, I'm a little surprised that there are "fundamental materials science" questions on the quals here. In bio, quals are mostly a defense of your research proposal, and there is nothing "fundamental" about the questions you'd be asked. At some schools a paper exam is also administered, but it's usually a paper review or somesuch, never with short-answer questions like "In which vascular tissue can sieve tube members be found?" What's the format for your qualifier?</p>

22

<p>(This is all off-topic for this thread, but just wanted to post a reply to the past couple of posts)</p>

<p>The moral of RacinReaver's posts: know what you're getting into before you get into it. If you talk to students here, you can find out what it's like before you come. Caltech is a good fit for some people, but would also be a horrible place for other people- by talking to a few students before you come, you can save yourself years of grief if it wasn't the place for you.</p>

23

<p>Alright, lots of things to address here, I'll try to do them in order this time. Gonna throw in quote tags to simplify things a bit more, too.</p>

<p>I'm actually surprised you'd say that most engineers opt for a non-research related masters degree, since I don't know anyone in my undergrad program that didn't do some form of research. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The grad program preps you with all of the background theory, and then you apply it to experimental design and interpretation on your research project...This is why your whole cohort has to take lots of math and physics background theory, but each student takes only a few courses in materials science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, the thing is, MSE is really a science all to itself. It's like suggesting you can fully understand biology by only ever taking physics classes. Sure, everything you'd ever need to do in biology can somehow be elucidated out of physics, but it's a very inefficient approach and many details and special aspects of the field will be lost.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's the same in my field (biology): everyone takes core + the physical chemistry series, and thus multiple terms of quantum and thermodynamics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The courses I mentioned above are the core classes for a typical materials degree. It would be like me coming from MSE to do a degree in Chemistry and never having to take an organic chem class ever. They're very fundamental vital to the science. If I were to attend any technical conference without having those classes I probably wouldn't be able to even figure out what 90% of the talks are about.</p>

<p>
[quote]
At the undergraduate level, exploring and sampling within your field is encouraged, and you can take a variety of courses in order to discover what you like. It sounds like you did this in your undergrad matsci program, taking crystallography and microstructural evolution and the like. But by the grad level, your research interests should be narrowed, and it is no longer the time to study all forms of materials science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These are standard classes at pretty much every graduate school offering materials science in the country. One of the main reasons being that MSE is such an interdisciplinary science that many people need to play catch-up on fundamental mat. sci. concepts.</p>

<p>Not to mention you're talking about how grad school is for taking classes that apply exactly what I want to do. Well, I want to do pure materials science! My project isn't going to be based on deriving things from first principles, it's going to be about engineering materials. The classes I'm taking aren't preparing me for the research I'll need to conduct at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How do you see yourself using a Ph.D. in Materials Science? Engineering or research? Industry or academe? I think Caltech's approach is great if you ultimately want a research faculty post, but if you want to be an engineer, or go into industry, it's probably overkill. What made you choose Caltech? Were you aware that the requirements are very different from Berkeley, Stanford, etc.?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I came here for the professor I'm working for. He's a fantastic guy, I love the work he does, and everyone else in the lab is great. After deciding I'd work for him, it also turned out that he's considered one of the biggest names in his field, which is an even bigger bonus. :p</p>

<p>Also, I feel the courses I'm taking here aren't preparing me for the kind of teaching I'd be expected to do at any other university. After all, how much good is a year of quantum, a year of solid state chemistry, and a year of upper level math going to do me when I'm teaching a class on how a steel refinery works? I'd much rather be taking classes on metallurgy (processing methods, selection, chemistry of, etc.) since that's the field my research is in than pure physics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What's the format for your qualifier?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>From what I understand, each faculty member asks one or two questions of you. Not short-answer questions, more like exam style questions where it would take a page or so of work to get to an answer (or a lengthy verbal answer). There's a few questions based on the theory behind your research, and then a review of the research you've conducted up to that point (we do a combined quals/candidacy exam).</p>

<p>I think one thing you need to keep in mind is each field is very different from the next. I know my roommate is doing chem and he only has to do five classes and their quals/candidacy are pretty much completely based on their research since they're not expected to do so much time in class. I imagine this is also because they have people from a very consistent background. I doubt there's more than a handful of non-chem undergrad majors at any school's chem graduate program. If you look at the people that do a Ph.D. in MSE, you'll find physics, chemistry, biology, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and electrical engineering undergrads there. Since we come from such diverse backgrounds it creates a real problem for developing a solid curriculum, so I figure Caltech just decided to take the path of least resistance and not create any courses of their own and just outsource us to other departments.</p>

<p>And, yeah, jdhutchin, you've pretty much just brought my whole thing down to a nice little paragraph. I'm glad I didn't go to Caltech for undergrad since I feel I wouldn't have learned what I wanted to learn in college.</p>

<p>Sorry for the epic-length post, everyone. :(</p>