Opening the door to an Astrophysics PhD after a 5 year gap

[kranbeari]

Hi all. Do you ever find yourself gripped by a sleepless, restless feeling, that there is a dream or ambition you had that was achievable, and if left unresolved will leave a feeling of regret for the rest of your life? For context, I graduated with a B.S. in Physics from Stanford in 2019, and all through high-school going into college I believed I would pursue a research focus in astrophysics and would go straight to a PhD. In high school, I attended a summer program in asteroid observation/orbital modeling research, which assured this feeling for myself, and I was always a self-motivated, self-teaching person taking great pride in my aptitude and success.

However, when in college itself, life happens, complications ensue, self-doubt sinks in and one middling test score leads to another to another. I found myself arrested in this negative feedback loop, but I kept up my love for the subject and my enjoyment of research the whole way through. I ate up coursework in everything from quantum to stat mech to GR to cosmology. I did research in molecular physics, which only got me to 3rd/4th author on a paper. My favorite research experience was in binary pulsar systems, though I did not give this experience my all, which is another regret although I did get a considerable amount out of the experience.

After college, I entered the workforce, working in image/color science/engineering, and kept asking myself “what is this all for?” and hated it. It was hard work to what end? The next job I entered was in big tech, which had the double trouble of not challenging me enough, I felt I was in the complete wrong place, and the space was not directed towards anything impactful either IMO.

At a personal level, since the start of Covid, I have gone through a full revamp, and I take a great sense of self-discipline and focus as well as personal responsibility - all which would have helped me substantially in college, and which I used to have before college. Better late than never, and I have been going through a hard reset on myself.

Right now, I am finally at a place where I truly enjoy what I do, conducting original research in greenhouse gas emissions modeling in a non-profit context driving impact. I have learned the value that I can add by putting in 100% of my energy, and take great satisfaction in seeing the positive outcomes in this field that my work can provide. I work with everyone from economic experts to atmospheric scientists, and having attended the last AGU conference, I was enamored again with the full feeling and energy of a research atmosphere. Subsequently, in my mind there is a field that consider going “all the way” for me - astrophysics. There is nothing that makes my heart flutter with quite the staying power as neutron stars, blazars, supernovae processes, binaries/mergers. So there I am. I have a white whale. A heart of hearts. And it has been bubbling under the surface for me ever since I finished undergrad, no matter how I try to justify that feeling away (“oh, I’m just not interested anymore”, etc).

I am seeking practical advice on any steps I can pursue - taking into account that I am 5 years out of undergrad and physics research/coursework, that I have had a number of “meh” grades on my transcript, and that I have flip-flopped on my true field of interest like nobody’s business (from cognitive science, to quantitative sociology, to biophysics, to straight statistics, to complex systems). What is the right way to consider my problem at hand, and what would be practical routes to finding and getting accepted into a PhD program that would be a good fit for me? More general thoughts are also, of course, welcome.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I have had a number of “meh” grades

How "meh" is "meh"? Are there any trends?

The three components that matter most are GPA, PGRE and letters. What do you think the other two look like? I can tell you honestly that there are two interpretations of your story - one is a student who spent some time in industry to gain some perspectibe fore returning to school. The other is a total flake who is going back to grad school because work wasn't enough fun. Obviously you want people thinking along the lines of the first and not the second.

 

[kranbeari]

How "meh" is "meh"? Are there any trends?

The three components that matter most are GPA, PGRE and letters. What do you think the other two look like? I can tell you honestly that there are two interpretations of your story - one is a student who spent some time in industry to gain some perspectibe fore returning to school. The other is a total flake who is going back to grad school because work wasn't enough fun. Obviously you want people thinking along the lines of the first and not the second.

Letters of recommendation from prior research advisors in undergrad may be a bit of a tough pull with respect to quality/recency, since those were from 2018 and 2019, so of course that's something for me to sort out. Also, I never took the PGRE, but would like to as an indicative quantitative metric of some sort. I know plenty of schools have de-emphasized them as of the last couple of years, but I still would look to take it.

Concerning the interpretations of my story you mention, I respect the honesty in your assessment. Indeed the time in industry was intended for perspective, and the desire to pull the trigger for school now is to reduce the time difference. I do think a "flake" and someone who wasn't having fun are not the same thing - we should both enjoy what we do and seek out the challenges it provides for growth, its not a question of a second choice becoming a first choice or purity of intention. It's a question of figuring out what one really wants to do, and recognizing from the beginning that a PhD program is not to be taken lightly. This is why its been such a complex question in the back of my mind for a while, where if I'm going in I know I have to go all in - and I better know what I'm going all in for. Why else do so many folks drop out? Especially young people who found it too demanding for the wrong rewards?

Again, all of these questions all may mean this is not an approachable path for me, that its not worth my time and that ship has sailed, but this is why I'm seeking practical advice. If it's a path I really do want, and am ready to commit to, what does it take to show myself as a worthwhile contender and someone who is seriously ready to contribute research?

There is a conventional road - grades, PGRE, letters of rec from research + publications - get the applications in at the end of undergrad and begin right away. Then there is the one from my own reality, and that of plenty of other folks I'm sure, because life can be incredibly non-linear. Perhaps grad schools don't much care for that second reality, so that is worth knowing for me here and now.

 

[Choppy]

What stands out to me is:

I have had a number of “meh” grades on my transcript, and that I have flip-flopped on my true field of interest like nobody’s business (from cognitive science, to quantitative sociology, to biophysics, to straight statistics, to complex systems).

Along with jumping through your various positions in the workforce, this is painting a picture of someone who might have trouble with a program that's going to require 4-6 years or more of full-time, focused work. Much of it will be quite boring, some will be downright frustrating, and statistically speaking, the odds are against you making a living in the field, even if you do finish the PhD, so you will question what the point of it all is.

There are a lot of people who are successful in graduate school even after a 5 year gap. There will be hurdles to getting in that wouldn't have been there had you gone directly out of undergrad, but they are not insurmountable (depending on your definition of "meh" I suppose). But the question isn't so much whether the ship has sailed, but rather if it's a ship you really want to be on.

 

[hutchphd]

because life can be incredibly non-linear

I don't know what this means or even suspect what it implies to you . To ce tcurtsnomy own syllogism: I think that a leopard seldom changes her spots.

 

[gwnorth]

The three components that matter most are GPA, PGRE and letters.

I would argue that the 3 components that matter most are GPA, research experience, and research fit (followed by LORs).

I'm not sure how much PGRE scores actually help to mitigate a subpar GPA. The reality is these programs are small and in high demand making them super competitive for admission. They attract highly accomplished applicants. GPA is probably going to be the first metric that needs to be met, and baring something truly compelling in the rest of the ap, is going to be the basis of the first cut. I'm doubtful that a strong PGRE score would move the needle that much. In any case the OP can check



to see if the programs they would be interested in applying to even accept PGRE scores.

What they really need to focus on is getting research experience. Publications would also be very useful.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is a conventional road

Grad school admissions is a competitive process. Admissions committees are looking to put together the best class they can. So the question they ask is not "Do we want to give Applicant X a chance?" but rather "Do we want Applicant X or Applicant Y?" This may make you unhappy, but that's what they do.

You certainly can decide that they are asking the wrong question, and that because of that you don't need to provide them the information they are looking for, but they are under no obligation to come around to your way of thinking nor to accept you.

• "Meh" grades (your words)
• No PGRE yet
• Letters that are not especially strong

Am I right? And if so, the question is "Why should they take you as opposed to someone with better grades, stronger letters, and a decent PGRE?" Because the committee will be asking that question.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would argue that the 3 components that matter most are GPA, research experience, and research fit (followed by LORs).

I don't agree.

The problem with "research experience" is requiring it closes doors to good students at SLACs who may not have had the opportunity. An emerging issues - I wouldn't call it a problem yet, but it could be soon - is "grade inflation" in research. Some professors put undergrads names on papers with a drop of a hat. If you search the forum, there is a thread by an undergrad who got all huffy because his name wasn't on a paper, and it turned out it wasn't even his paper. How can you claim authorship if you don't even recognize it?

The problem with "research fit" is that many students say the want to do particle theory, many more than end up doing that. So while it matters, it's not as important as other factors. Also, you will see threads here that sau "I really want to do particle theory...but what should I say I want to do to get admitted - my plan is to switch later".

 

[kranbeari]

I appreciate all the thoughts provided here (Vanadium, gwnorth, Choppy). The specificity of what departments seek is not lost on me, and the trade-off of "Do we want Applicant X or Applicant Y?" is undoubtedly the reality considering the finite slots in a competitive field.

I guess it is time to throw in the towel. I know I should have made moves a few years ago to build better momentum. And of course, in undergrad itself I should have optimized my efforts/time to make myself a strong contender, potential which I know I had. Seeking help in those moments instead of letting small defeats feel like apocalypse-after-apocalypse (knowing how to fail and growing from them to develop a strong positive trend, an important skill many of us develop too late in life) would certainly have afforded me a much stronger GPA (far more A's than B's, as opposed to more B's than A's as it turned out for me).

One thing I know is, doing research as I am doing now is far more gratifying than any corporate work I have done when I tried out those hats, and doing research in undergrad fed into that same feeling. Perhaps I need to explore domains/fields that would be a better fit for where I am now, instead of chasing the "white whale" path I was once more immediately on.

Anyway, it was at least worth throwing out some feelers to see if there is any angle of encouragement I could follow through on. But the reality of physics academia is its own beast, which I fully understand and accept, and that it is probably not in the cards for me.

 

[hutchphd]

One thing I know is, doing research as I am doing now is far more gratifying than any corporate work I have done when I tried out those hats, and doing research in undergrad fed into that same feeling. Perhaps I need to explore domains/fields that would be a better fit for where I am now

I think this is good attitude. You may well be surprised how interesting some researches are so long as you allow yourself the joy of new results. Most of the (few!) really good ideas I.ve had came forward because I was engaged in some routine activity or other. The "hey, wait a minute" ideas are far more common for me than the "I've beat this problem to death" ones.......Sitting still and thinking very, very, hard seldom works for me. But both kinds bring a pure joy.
So don't dismiss all "corporate" research with the same broad brush of scorn . Seek a good place with smart people then learn and be creative. Personally I found academia to be pretty stifling.

 

[gwnorth]

I don't agree.

The problem with "research experience" is requiring it closes doors to good students at SLACs who may not have had the opportunity.

You presume that admissions committees are really all that focused on equity issues when making admissions decisions. What they want to know is that the students they admit are going to be successful making it through the program and are capable of becoming strong researchers. The best indication of that is research experience, and students at SLACs are just as capable of acquiring that as students attending R1s. It may not be in a large lab, but so long as their school has professors engaged in research (and that does happen at SLACs) then the opportunity to get involved is there. There are also summer internship opportunities. The same argument can be made for many international applicants from educational systems who don't typically have access to research experience as part of their undergraduate studies and the fact that they are applying at a disadvantage is also not a consideration. There are so many more highly qualified and experienced applicants for every admissions slot that programs can afford to be choosy. Your chances of being admitted without some degree of relevant research experience is very low unless you're choosing to apply to the lowest ranked programs at small regional colleges that no one has ever heard of.

Beyond that more and more applicants these days seem to already have master's degrees as well and no one is turning down their applications in favour of undergraduates with lesser experience on the basis that them not having a master's degree hasn't afforded them the same opportunity to be able to demonstrate research experience. The number of applicants with publications is also on the rise.

The problem with "research fit" is that many students say the want to do particle theory, many more than end up doing that. So while it matters, it's not as important as other factors.

And yet students do get routinely rejected due to a mismatch between their stated research goals/research background as outlined in their SOPs, and the needs of the department with regards to which researchers have room in their labs/funding to take on new students and what projects they're working on. This is why it's so important to reach out to potential supervisors prior to application to try and find the programs where you are the best fit for the research being undertaken and where you know there are going to be potential supervisors available that are a match.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You presume that admissions committees are really all that focused on equity issues when making admissions decisions.

Not really. I know there are a lot of places that, at best, pay it lip service. They'd rather take someone from Harvard than Spelman, and if their admissions criteria favor that, well, that's just how the cookie crumbles.

However, those places won't be available to the OP anyway. If they want an entering class that "looks like them", a person with a 5-year gap and "meh" grades isn't going to get the nod.