Hi there, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on what steps I can take in order to get myself into an Astrophysics/Astronomy PhD. I'm quite good at maths and physics but don't really have the formal components to show this from my first degree (MSci in Chemistry)?

Should I be looking to do another undergrad degree first in Astrophysics, or are there perhaps other less cumbersome practical steps I can take to put myself in an acceptable position for both a PhD in Astrophysics/Astronomy and a subsequent career in the field?

Cheers

I don't think it will be possible to go straight from chemistry to a phd in astrophysics/astronomy.

Best bet would be to do a taught masters such as http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/postgraduate/msc/#mscastro

I guess you will need to prove that you are very capable when it comes to physics and maths, some chemistry UG degrees have loads of physics/maths others don't.

Yes, thanks for that. An MSc or taught masters seems like the appropriate step for me. No time to do another full undergraduate degree.

Cheers

You won't know until you apply, but every funded pure physics PhD position I've ever seen has stipulated that the candidate holds a good physics undergrad degree. Perhaps things are different for astronomy/astrophysics, but I wouldn't count on it since these groups are normally a small part of a large physics department. My personal feeling is you will have a hard time trying to convince someone from a physics department that you're up to scratch as, I'm sad to say it, physicists tend to look down upon those from the other scientific fields. When I was a physics undergrad I can remember countless times when a lecturer would make snide remarks about chemists and biologists. This is stupid, of course, since much of science is interdisciplinary (even more now than it used to be with convergent fields such as nanotechnology), but I fear it is still a relatively commonly held attitude.

Of course, there is also the small matter of whether you really are up to the task! It is worth bearing in mind that the first two years of a UK undergrad degree in physics are heavily focused towards understanding the maths that you need to tackle physical problems to any sort of depth. If you have only studied maths up to A-level, you really will need to put in considerable effort before embarking on a PhD in physics. This came as quite a shock to me as I transitioned from physics A-level to undergrad degree level. The subject you study at sixth form is barely recognisable to the real deal at university. Quite simply, my maths was nowhere near good enough and it's a common complaint of physics departments up and down the country that the students they receive do not have the necessary grounding in the subject.

Hi there procrastinator, I think in many ways you are spot on there! My chemistry degree was heavily theoretically based and to be honest, from my point of view much of what I learned as the science of chemistry had more to do with understanding molecular structure.

Much of the material I covered in my 1st and 2nd year chemistry could easily be omitted and learned in the final years, but like you say, for physics the need for an understanding of 1st prnciples from 1st year onward is far more important for the physicist than the chemist.

The two sciences are not comparable in any way, although there is the crossover areas of physical chemistry, chemical physics, materials science and nanotech.

There is a lot of math for me to cover... I think the math will be the main sticking point...I'm just not prepared to do a full degree to get myself up to scratch so am looking for an alternative way to go about it, which will indeed involve a lot of self-study. However, I am deterimed to do it. Ideally, I could learn the math from a comprehensive text book and the same with the physics, but I am also thinking that this approach will probably not be sufficient to give me good grounding in these areas.

If, of course I then do manage to get my physics and maths up to scratch, I then have the final hurdle of translating that knowledge into something formal that a department will accept in place of a degree, not to mention the missing "practical elements".

I remember when I was an UG, the arguments we (chemists) used to have with the pompous physicists Obviously the chemists were the best and won

I think you should contact Queen Marys and see what they think about you doing their taught masters course. Also ask them about going on to a PhD and your chances with that.

It's worth a shot, chemists get all over the place (in some random areas) so don't give up. You need good reasons for the conversion, do plenty of background reading - possibly get hold of the main texts for an UG physics course (start by brushing up on A-level Physics and Maths).

Good luck!

i don't really know anything about this, but it occured to me that it might be an idea to take some Open University courses? as the OU works in modules, if you could take some final year physics degree modules - you would have good guidance on what you need to know, and even if you don't get the full degree, if you pass those modules, that would be highly legitimated knowledge.

or, i don't know if this happens in the sciences as well, perhaps there is the option of a diploma? diplomas are usually one-year courses for people who already hold a degree but want to continue in a different discipline. it assumes that you know how to study but don't know the discipline-specific stuff. if you get the diploma, it's about equivalent to a degree and qualifies you for masters courses. but then, if you can get into a masters directly, maybe there isn't much point to it.

Hi, thanks for the replies.

I think the main problem will lie in the gaps in underlying knowledge. Sure, if you're incredibly bright, then it may be possible to scrape through a PhD (in Astrophysics), re-learning things from first principles as you go along, but it would be very tiresome and could be a recipe for disaster, storing up problems for the future - can one really reach the top of their field in this way? I very much doubt it.

The only compromise I can think of at the moment is to self-study level 1 and 2 physics and math, then perhaps persuade a university to let me sit the honours years of a physics degree - I think this is the direction I am heading unless someone has any better ideas.

The OU option could be a way that you could pick up a new undergraduate degree, alongside work, if you're willing to wait a bit. OU degrees are either named or unnamed. I have an unnamed one which cut down my study time hugely. Nearly half my history degree was free credit transferred from a computer science degree. Your chemistry degree could be used in the same way, basically jumping you straight into second year. Then I took more level 2 and level 3 (3 is honours) courses to make up the full 360 points worth. Jumping in like that without the first year was a bit of an experience, but I quickly picked up the ropes and it cut down my study time hugely. I followed it with a taught Masters, but it also helped me get funding: I had a new first degree in the right subject to prove to the funding council.

Someone from my undergrad uni graduated in microbiology and went straight into a PhD related to astronomy. Maybe if you find an astronomy PhD related to your degree it might be possible.

There's always astrochemistry of course. Googling turns up a number of research groups and possible PhD openings in the field.

Like this one...

http://www.findaphd.com/search/showproject.asp?projectid=8807