Edinburgh, Imperial, Oxford, Cambridge....?

[Gleeson]

I just finished an undergraduate degree in Maths/Physics. I got accepted to;
- Edinburgh: MSc Mathematical Physics
- Imperial: MSc Quantum Fields and Fundamental Forces
- Oxford: MSc Mathematical and Theoretical Physics
- Cambridge: MAST Applied Maths and Theoretical Physics (Part III)

I am really struggling to figure out the best option. I would very much appreciate any thoughts on this from anyone who knows about any of these courses, especially people who have taken one of these courses.

Context: My goal is to be a researching Mathematical/Theoretical Physicist. I am interested in High Energy Theory/Gravity/Geometry. From the Masters I want to nail down more precisely what I like, and be as competitive as possible for Phd applications. My plan is to apply to several American grad schools this Autumn, and then to a several UK Phd programs in Winter. And hopefully I will have at least one option this time next year. I am slightly favoring the states, due to funding being easier to secure.

Edinburgh and Imperial have similar structures in that they are 9 months of courses, followed by a 3 month supervised research project. The research is very appealing. The topic is picked after the 9 months of courses, so I have background to be able to pick a topic I like. It is supervised, and so there is a chance to have experience of a supervisor/student relationship and to have at least one good contact within an area I am interested in.

Oxford and Cambridge have similar structures, in that they are just 9 months of courses, with no research. The "essay", as described online, is not something I would do. The Cambridge essay comes at the cost of one of the 6 subjects I would be doing. It is unsupervised. I think they list 50 titles, and students do what they want, and the person who suggested a topic meets any students who are interested in their topic "up to 4 times" or something like that. It just is nothing like the Edinburgh/Imperial projects, and the strong vibe is that the faculty are less approachable.

My current thinking:
- I think Edinburgh probably isn't quite at the same level as the other 3 - the courses seem a bit more basic.
- I think I have essentially ruled out Oxford based on a detailed review I saw on youtube.
- Cambridge has the downside of no research, and I get the vibe that the faculty is perhaps less approachable.
- Imperial seems to be ranked pretty much as highly as Cambridge, has the benefit of getting of the project, and a vibe of the faculty being more approachable. However Imperial is substantially more expensive. I will have to take out a UK government loan for 12000, whereas I might be able to avoid this if I go to Cambridge. Also, QFT and the GR course at Imperial are undergraduate level. And I suspect the Part III Differential Geometry would suit me be better that the Imperial version.
- Perhaps Cambridge sounds better on a US application than Imperial.
- I checked out the Faculty at Imperial, and they almost all seem to have Phds from Cambridge.

Any thoughts/suggestions/relevant experience would be much appreciated.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Perhaps Cambridge sounds better on a US application than Imperial..

Far more important than the school name is whether the professors you work with are known by the professors in the schools you apply to.

 

[Gleeson]

Thanks.

I'm going to have to apply to the US around the time I am beginning one of these Masters. The references I have will be those from the undergrad I just finished.

And Cambridge doesn't have the option of working with any Professor anyway. Imperial does, but I would only be doing so several months after the decisions for US grad schools are made.

 

[gwnorth]

If your goal is to apply to PhD programs in US then you're going to need to demonstrate research experience and it doesn't sound like the Oxbridge programs would give you that. That leaves Edinburgh and Imperial.

In terms of cost and efficiency though, if you want to do a US PhD your better bet might be to skip doing a UK MS altogether and apply directly to US PhD programs. US programs are primarily integrated MS/PhDs (which means that your MS would be funded) so you run the risk of having to repeat your MS depending on how much credit, if any, you're given for it. If you don't get any credit for it then you're out 1 year and $.

 

[Gleeson]

Thank you.

With regards to skipping the UK Masters and applying directly to the US Phd programs: I'm not sure how that will work, if I need research experience to have a realistic chance in getting into those programs

But I'm going to have to apply to the US Phd programs around the time I'm starting any of these UK Masters'. So even if I do the Edinburgh or Imperial course, I will just be able to say that I will be doing a research project, rather than telling them what research I have done. So not sure how much that would make a difference.

Maybe I can apply to the states in a month or two. Hopefully I get in. If not, apply again the following year, having completed a Masters. At that point, if I did the Edinburgh/Imperial course, I would be able to talk about the research I had done. So I guess the only actual benefit of the Imperial/Edinburgh option is specifically to improve my chances if I don't get in this year, and am trying again the following year..?

I think the Cambridge course might be more up my alley (and much cheaper). I think maybe the issue with it is that it would (possibly) weaken the application to the US next year, if I don't get in this year.

Again, any thoughts/suggestions/advice from anyone much appreciated.

 

[gwnorth]

Given the timelines you've laid out it seems to me that for your UK MS to be beneficial in being admitted to US PhD programs you would need to be applying towards the end of the degree once your coursework was complete and your research project was at least underway. Otherwise if you're applying at the beginning of your program it will be no different than applying straight from undergrad.

Were you involved with any research during your undergrad?

 

[Gleeson]

I did nothing that I think qualifies as "research".

Before starting undergrad, I did MIT sequence in Quantum Mechanics on edx, and the third course 8.06x involved a small project. I wrote a short paper on the Zeeman effect. About 5 pages, where I solved what I think was a variant of a problem from Griffiths.

In Summer 2020, I had a Summer Internship at my University, where I had regular meetings with a Prof and his research team. I myself did a project on Bell Inequalities. I Studied it from two resources and wrote a 20 page paper on it. I also gave several small presentations relating to it to the research group as I was doing the project.

In Summer 2021, I had a Summer Internship at a different Institute. There was supposed to be a research/presentation component during the last couple of weeks. But due to Covid-related issues I couldn't take part in that section. I had several meetings and tutorials, read up on some topics, attended seminars, but no report at the end.

During my final year of undergrad I did a project on Distributions and Sobolev spaces. This was worth two subjects at my University, and came in at about 60 pages. I studied the first couple of chapters of what I found to be a difficult Math book, and tried to say it as much as possible in my own words. Along with weekly meetings with my supervisor to discuss the trickier parts. Again, not research.

I can't imagine any of this counts as "research". Although I'd be very happy to be wrong about this.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You don't have to do research for your letter. My best letter of recommendation was from my tutor at Oxford, who did not do any research with me but was very familiar with me and could attest to my ability to succeed in grad school. This probably more so requires whoever is reading your letter to know the person on the other end or at least believe they are in a positron to know this (people in the US might not know why this person would be so disown in their assessment)

 

[Gleeson]

Thanks. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, but I realize I don't need to have done research with someone to get a letter of recommendation from them. Four different people from the University I just finished up at did the reference letters for my Masters applications. One taught me 4 courses and I did a Summer project with. The others taught me at least two courses. So I think they know me well enough to write letters. And the letters they wrote were at least good enough to get offers from the four Masters programs I am asking about.

Is the issue not my lack of research being a significant (possibly insurmountable) shortcoming in my upcoming US grad school applications?

 

[gwnorth]

I did nothing that I think qualifies as "research".

In Summer 2020, I had a Summer Internship at my University, where I had regular meetings with a Prof and his research team. I myself did a project on Bell Inequalities. I Studied it from two resources and wrote a 20 page paper on it. I also gave several small presentations relating to it to the research group as I was doing the project.

In Summer 2021, I had a Summer Internship at a different Institute. There was supposed to be a research/presentation component during the last couple of weeks. But due to Covid-related issues I couldn't take part in that section. I had several meetings and tutorials, read up on some topics, attended seminars, but no report at the end.

During my final year of undergrad I did a project on Distributions and Sobolev spaces. This was worth two subjects at my University, and came in at about 60 pages. I studied the first couple of chapters of what I found to be a difficult Math book, and tried to say it as much as possible in my own words. Along with weekly meetings with my supervisor to discuss the trickier parts. Again, not research.

I can't imagine any of this counts as "research". Although I'd be very happy to be wrong about this.

This absolutely counts as research. You can do the UK MS if you want but I think you already meet the requirements for admission directly to a US PhD program provided you can also get the necessary Letters of Recommendation.

 

[Gleeson]

Really? Which part would be considered research?

My letters of recommendation were (and will be) from the guy I did the Bell Theorem project with and taught me 3 courses. And three other guys who taught me two or three courses each.