PhD Programs for Mathematical Physics (Experimental Condensed Matter Physics)

[CrysPhys]

In the US, where students are admitted directly from an undergraduate degree, I would have expected that the foundational courses for the qual exam would give students a better feel for what research area they would ultimately pursue.

No. The foundational courses are grad level versions of typical undergrad courses, such as classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, and mathematical methods. Typically no labs. There will be later grad level specialty courses in solid-state physics, nuclear physics, high-energy particle physics, .... Depending on the school, some may be required, but often a student will elect those of value to his chosen research. Typically he doesn't have the luxury of first taking a full suite of specialty grad courses and then choosing his research field.

As I've written several times, in the US, you don't want to sign onto a PhD Physics program with the expectation of finding what ignites your passion. You sign onto a PhD Physics program because some passion has already been ignited ... and a PhD Physics is the appropriate means to satisfy that passion.

For many years, I served as an industry mentor for STEM students. One was a physics undergrad in the US. When she was a senior, she wasn't sure whether she wanted to pursue a PhD physics program. I cautioned her that with only a bachelor's in physics, she would be employed as a research technician or assistant, not as a lead researcher, in industry; and she'd probably be bored to death within a year. But I also cautioned her that since she hadn't identified an area of research that ignited her passion, a PhD physics program was not a good default alternative, either. In the end, she landed a job as a research assistant for a company developing and manufacturing accelerators for medical treatment. Sure enough, within a year, she wanted out. But she now had a new found passion for medical physics. So she applied for a PhD program in medical physics and got accepted to a top program.

 

[advhaver]

Where you see "flexible", I am afraid the admissions committee will see "unfocused".

If you want a research degree, it is reasonable to know where you want to start your research career. In addition to classes, universities have colloquia and seminars, where undergrads are encouraged to attend, as well as research projects, senior theses and the like.

But as I've alluded to before in other threads, it is very difficult for any undergraduate student to have an idea of the exact field (or even sub-field) they will be interested in, especially because these students would have only been familiar with introductory courses in many physics fields.

Do you expect a student to say (as an example), "I am interested in research in experimental condensed matter physics" when such a student would have only taken at most 1 course in statistical mechanics? And likely would not have had any research experience in such a field?

Imagine the person reviewing your application asks the following questions: (1) Could this person have sent this application to any other university after simply switching out the university name? (2) If no to (1), is there any evidence in the application materials that supports the reasons applicant has listed for wanting to come here? You want a "No" to (1) and a "Yes" to (2).

(1) As I pointed out in another thread, if a student doesn't know the general field he's interested in (e.g., experimental solid-state physics vs theoretical high-energy particle physics), how is he going to develop a candidate list of grad schools to apply to?

(2) We're talking about the US. If the student did not develop a strong interest in a particular field as an undergrad, how will he miraculously discover one in grad school? The first year will primarily be foundational courses in preparation for the qual exam. There typically is no grad lab equivalent to junior lab to permit the student to sample a variety of fields. And there typically is no opportunity for research until he gets accepted into a research group (with perhaps the exception of the first summer in some schools).

No. The foundational courses are grad level versions of typical undergrad courses, such as classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, and mathematical methods. Typically no labs. There will be later grad level specialty courses in solid-state physics, nuclear physics, high-energy particle physics, .... Depending on the school, some may be required, but often a student will elect those of value to his chosen research. Typically he doesn't have the luxury of first taking a full suite of specialty grad courses and then choosing his research field.

Thanks, everyone. My dilemma is that in college, I got the opportunity to do research in ONE research laboratory. That was in experimental condensed matter physics. I did not get to work in experimental High Energy Physics or experimental Particle Physics, or Quantum Physics. I understand that Condensed Matter Physics is a vast field with several focus areas, and it would take a lot of time and effort (more than I have between now and October) to read up on each of these.

My limited exposure to Physics is why I am unsure about the area of Physics I would like to focus on. How do I know if I would like Quantum Physics more if I have never had any formal exposure to the subject?

Since my only exposure is in Condensed Matter Physics, I started looking for professors working in Experimental Condensed Matter at universities known for their condensed matter programs, even if the research being done wasn't in what I have worked on at my research assistant internship.

My first list included MIT, UC Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Columbia, Chicago, Brown, UC SB, Rice, U Penn, Penn State, UIUC, Cornell, U Mich Ann Arbor, Northwestern, Yale, UCLA, Ohio OSU, U MD College Park, UC San Diego, UT Austin, U Minn Twin Cities, Rutgers, JHU and U Colorado Boulder. Are there any others I should consider?

From this list, I narrowed it down to Chicago, Yale, U Penn, Cornell, Northwestern, UCLA, U MD College Park, UT Austin, UC San Diego, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, and Rutgers.

Currently, I am talking to 2 professors (one from my college and one from another who I am working with), and their advice has been to focus on U Penn and Cornell. They also told me not to worry too much about my (side) interest in Mathematical Physics, and I will be given the option to choose three advisors. Hence, I can work with one even if they are in another department (Mathematics) at the college.

I hope this clarifies things.

 

[StatGuy2000]

No. The foundational courses are grad level versions of typical undergrad courses, such as classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, and mathematical methods. Typically no labs. There will be later grad level specialty courses in solid-state physics, nuclear physics, high-energy particle physics, .... Depending on the school, some may be required, but often a student will elect those of value to his chosen research. Typically he doesn't have the luxury of first taking a full suite of specialty grad courses and then choosing his research field.

As I've written several times, in the US, you don't want to sign onto a PhD Physics program with the expectation of finding what ignites your passion. You sign onto a PhD Physics program because some passion has already been ignited ... and a PhD Physics is the appropriate means to satisfy that passion.

For many years, I served as an industry mentor for STEM students. One was a physics undergrad in the US. When she was a senior, she wasn't sure whether she wanted to pursue a PhD physics program. I cautioned her that with only a bachelor's in physics, she would be employed as a research technician or assistant, not as a lead researcher, in industry; and she'd probably be bored to death within a year. But I also cautioned her that since she hadn't identified an area of research that ignited her passion, a PhD physics program was not a good default alternative, either. In the end, she landed a job as a research assistant for a company developing and manufacturing accelerators for medical treatment. Sure enough, within a year, she wanted out. But she now had a new found passion for medical physics. So she applied for a PhD program in medical physics and got accepted to a top program.

The question is not about passion -- I am of course operating under the assumption that the student applying for a PhD program has passion for physics in general. So according to you, @marcusl and @Vanadium 50 , every student who has finished their bachelor's degree in physics knew exactly what precise area of physics they wanted to research after finishing one introductory course (keep in mind that all undergraduate physics courses are ultimately introductory courses), and after attending a few seminars in such a field.

But the physics field is vast -- so vast that it boggles my mind that any student (apart from a very few) would have the knowledge after completing a bachelor's degree to know the exact area they want to research in.

Let me give myself as an example. I was studying mathematics at the university. Even by the time I finished my third year of my undergraduate degree (and when I started to think about whether to apply to graduate school or not), I had no idea of the vastly different areas of research within math. After taking a full course in mathematical statistics, I became interested in wanting to study statistics in more detail and decided to essentially double major in math and statistics, and applied for a masters. But I did not have any illusion of what precise area of statistics I wanted to pursue research in until after I was accepted and enrolled in a Masters program.

 

[Vanadium 50]

@StatGuy2000 are you arguing that things are different, or that things should be different? And if the latter, should adbive be given based on how things are or how they should be?

 

[StatGuy2000]

@StatGuy2000 are you arguing that things are different, or that things should be different? And if the latter, should adbive be given based on how things are or how they should be?

I am arguing that things were different with me as an undergraduate student in math (keeping in mind that I graduated with my undergraduate degree more than 20 years ago in Canada).

At the same time, I don't think my experiences were all that unusual. Many people that I know of who ultimately completed their PhD in statistics (whether in Canada, the US, or elsewhere) frequently completed their Masters degree in statistics or some other cognate program (like mathematics, operations research, etc.) before enrolling in and being accepted to a PhD program in statistics. This would have given these students opportunities for research experience, seminar opportunities, etc. that would have given the students the chance to narrow down their research interests in just such a way that you advise.

It seems to me that physics (or mathematical physics) is different. Perhaps physics undergraduate students generally speaking know what they want to do their research on by the time they graduate.

 

[StatGuy2000]

In case I'm being especially argumentative here on this thread, my basic arguments are the following:

• You don't know what you don't know.
• You cannot be expected to be passionate about a field of research you don't know anything about.
• A single course on its own does not equip students with enough information to know whether they will be interested in it.

Can someone please point out what is wrong with my logic above?

 

[gwnorth]

I agree with @StatGuy2000. I often wonder how students graduating from undergrad are so certain as to what specific field they want to pursue for a PhD after just 4 years of study at the undergraduate level. My son will be applying to Physics grad programs this fall, but while he has identified certain fields he's not interested in pursuing, he hasn't yet narrowed his interests sufficiently to be ready to commit to a specific subdiscipline. This is why he's opted for a master's first. That'll give him more exposure to coursework and research before needing to make a firm commitment to a specific subfield for a PhD. I know that doesn't really help applicants to PhD programs in the US, but that's why he's not applying there at this time. If the OP hasn't narrowed down their area of interest sufficiently, they may want to consider applying to research master's programs first.

 

[advhaver]

@StatGuy2000 are you arguing that things are different, or that things should be different? And if the latter, should adbive be given based on how things are or how they should be?

It seems to me that physics (or mathematical physics) is different. Perhaps physics undergraduate students generally speaking know what they want to do their research on by the time they graduate.

Thanks, Vanadium and StatGuy,

I do understand what StatGuy is saying because I am in the same boat now that he was in when he was applying for grad school.

It's near impossible for someone to get the opportunity to get a research internship in 3 different areas in 4 years of college. This was more complicated because the Class of 2022, 2023, and 2024 lost a year of access to laboratories due to Covid. For example, my classmates studying Computer Science could work remotely, but Science Majors couldn't.

I do not know any of my peers who secured internships in Astro Physics, High Energy Physics, Particle Physics and Condensed Matter Physics (Quantum Materials, Mesoscopic Physics, Nanophotonics, Solid State, Soft Matter, etc..). For example, the recent advances in Ambient Temperature Super Conductors also sound exciting, but I know no research laboratory would allow me to study this subject. I am limited to what is available on Google and YouTube.

After talking to the professors at my college, I understand that I should focus on my primary interest (Physics) as I can still study Mathematical Physics at University as part of my PhD Prep (pre-PhD). So there is no need to select universities because they have Mathematical Physics as part of the Physics department. A college like Northwestern (for example) would permit me to study Mathematical Physics (MP) as part of (or alongside) my PhD in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics even though MP is part of their Mathematics Department. So MP is not an issue.

I would be much obliged if anyone could offer any input on the universities mentioned in my earlier post or suggest other universities known for their work in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics (E-CMP).

Thanks.

P.S. I do not know if I would be drawn towards Experimental High Energy Physics in the middle of my PhD program. Still, given my interest in materials and my fondness for tinkering (because of which my mother wanted me to study Engineering), I suspect I will find what I am looking for within "Condensed Matter".

P.P.S. Knowledge is never wasted. If, after two years of my PhD I find I am unhappy and would be happier studying Engineering, I believe I could exit with a Master in Physics and apply for a Master in Engineering. I might even follow my dad's advice and do a Master's in Computational Finance; you never know. For the moment, the dream is to do a PhD in E-CMP.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can someone please point out what is wrong with my logic above?

It is a statement of what you think should be.

Like it or nor, some schools are better in some areas than others. Knowing what you want to research helps steer your application.
Schools ask for a statement of purpose. They expect to know "why us".
About 2000 students a year somehow manage to come up with an area they are interested in.

Is the system perfect? I don't think anyone would say it is. Is it unfair? Probably to some degree, but I am not sure you'd get unanimity on what fairness is. But in any event, it's the system in place, and our advice should be geared to guiding the people through the system as it is, and not as some of us wish it would be.

 

[advhaver]

I agree with @StatGuy2000. I often wonder how students graduating from undergrad are so certain as to what specific field they want to pursue for a PhD after just 4 years of study at the undergraduate level. My son will be applying to Physics grad programs this fall, but while he has identified certain fields he's not interested in pursuing, he hasn't yet narrowed his interests sufficiently to be ready to commit to a specific subdiscipline. This is why he's opted for a master's first. That'll give him more exposure to coursework and research before needing to make a firm commitment to a specific subfield for a PhD. I know that doesn't really help applicants to PhD programs in the US, but that's why he's not applying there at this time. If the OP hasn't narrowed down their area of interest sufficiently, they may want to consider applying to research master's programs first.

Most programs in the US permit the student to exit the PhD with a Master's in Physics after completing the exams. Given the investment made by the university, I expect there to be riders, and this is only offered as an exception, but there is the option of an exit if you can justify it.

 

[advhaver]

Like it or nor, some schools are better in some areas than others. Knowing what you want to research helps steer your application.

Fair enough. Let's assume that my area of interest is Experimental Condensed Matter Physics. My research for the past 15 months (part-time and full-time) has been on Soft Matter.

Could anyone provide a "sanity check" on the university lists I suggested in post #32?

 

[StatGuy2000]

It is a statement of what you think should be.

Like it or nor, some schools are better in some areas than others. Knowing what you want to research helps steer your application.
Schools ask for a statement of purpose. They expect to know "why us".
About 2000 students a year somehow manage to come up with an area they are interested in.

Is the system perfect? I don't think anyone would say it is. Is it unfair? Probably to some degree, but I am not sure you'd get unanimity on what fairness is. But in any event, it's the system in place, and our advice should be geared to guiding the people through the system as it is, and not as some of us wish it would be.

If you are asking me what I think should be the way to apply to PhD programs in general, my view is that students should complete a Masters degree first (preferably with a thesis or project option), then apply for a PhD program (as is required for PhD programs in Canada and several other countries).

But I get it -- direct admissions is the system American universities employ.

What I question is how the 2000 students a year you quote somehow manage to "know" what exact research field within physics they intend to pursue research in (as expressed in their statement of purpose), given their relative lack of knowledge/experience of said field.

You seem to be implying that physics programs in universities in the US do a good job of making their students aware of the vast research fields available, and thus graduates know exactly what research field they want to pursue.

 

[CrysPhys]

If you are asking me what I think should be the way to apply to PhD programs in general, my view is that students should complete a Masters degree first (preferably with a thesis or project option), then apply for a PhD program (as is required for PhD programs in Canada and several other countries).

Ideally for a master's program to accomplish your goals, a physics student would need at least 1 yr of graduate level foundational courses [e.g., mechanics (classical and relativistic), electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, advanced math], followed by at least 1 yr of graduate level specialty courses across a spectrum of fields (e.g., solid-state, high-energy particle, astro, plasma, nuclear, fluids, AMO (atomic, molecular, and optical) ...), and followed by at least X yrs of research projects in at least Y specialties. Then (a) the student can decide whether he wants to do a PhD program at all, or pack it in and (b) assuming he wants to do a PhD program, he now has enough advanced knowledge and direct research experience to determine (i) what specialty and (ii) what methodology (e.g., experimental, theoretical, or computational). Given the large number of combinations, does this sound realistic?

If we limit a master's to 2 yrs, including a 1 yr research project, then that means the student would need to choose the research project after 1 yr of foundational courses. So maybe he is slightly better off than after 4 yrs of undergrad courses (if that comprises his entire basis for selection), but not much. And there is time to complete only ONE research project, correct? If that ignites his passion, he's all set for a PhD program. But if it doesn't????

 

[CrysPhys]

Most programs in the US permit the student to exit the PhD with a Master's in Physics after completing the exams. Given the investment made by the university, I expect there to be riders, and this is only offered as an exception, but there is the option of an exit if you can justify it.

A grad student is not an indentured servant. If you want to quit, you quit. [Depending on your funding sources, there may be some fine print attached.] To get the master's, you need to fulfill the requirements for a master's (typically completing a required set of courses with a minimum required grade in each). But that's also why a master's in physics (specifically in physics, not in all majors) in the US doesn't have much value. For most of the top schools, you can't apply for a terminal master's. The only way you get a terminal master's from those schools is to (a) apply for and be accepted into a PhD program, (b) complete the requirements for a master's, and (c) not complete the requirements for a PhD.

 

[CrysPhys]

In case I'm being especially argumentative here on this thread, my basic arguments are the following:

• You don't know what you don't know.
• You cannot be expected to be passionate about a field of research you don't know anything about.
• A single course on its own does not equip students with enough information to know whether they will be interested in it.

Can someone please point out what is wrong with my logic above?

Yes, but:

* You do know what you do know.

* You can be passionate about a single field of research that you do know something about.

* A single course taught by the right professor can spark interest (even passion) in a subject; a single course taught by the wrong professor can kill passion (even interest) in a subject. [Not physics related, but have you seen the movie Dead Poets Society?] Regardless, you do have further resources to explore your interests other than a single course [e.g., prior innate interests going back to high school (and, in my own personal instance, elementary school), including science fair projects; inspiration by specific professors; junior-level specialty courses (e.g., solid-state or nuclear); survey lab courses (e.g. junior lab at MIT); undergrad research (during the semester and, more particularly, summer internships; senior thesis comes too late as a deciding factor, since grad school applications are generally due by end of first semester senior year); attending presentations in different fields given by professors or guest speakers; reading articles in different fields (not necessarily in advanced academic journals, but e.g. in Physics Today); talking to researchers in different fields (besides professors, researchers in government labs, industry, and business); participating in formal mentoring programs].

 

[CrysPhys]

But I get it -- direct admissions is the system American universities employ.

What I question is how the 2000 students a year you quote somehow manage to "know" what exact research field within physics they intend to pursue research in (as expressed in their statement of purpose), given their relative lack of knowledge/experience of said field.

You seem to be implying that physics programs in universities in the US do a good job of making their students aware of the vast research fields available, and thus graduates know exactly what research field they want to pursue.

It's a self-fulfilling protocol, isn't it? If students know what research field they want to pursue, and if they have evidence to support that (along with requisite grades and test scores), they will have a strong application and be admitted. If they don't know what they want, and if they apply to find out what they might want (if any), they will have a weak application and be rejected.

As it should be. We've been round the block on this many times. A PhD in physics is not a guarantee of a career, either in the specific research field, or in physics per se at all. So the PhD program needs to have value in and of itself. Given the long years (and attendant personal and financial trade-offs), it has value in and of itself only if it satisfies an innate passion for research. And you generally do not have a passion for "research in physics", but a passion for "research in X". If you don't, why do it?

 

[advhaver]

You seem to be implying that physics programs in universities in the US do a good job of making their students aware of the vast research fields available, and thus graduates know exactly what research field they want to pursue.

In my limited experience, I suspect their success is partial.

Take my mom and dad, for example. They both graduated in the 80s. Mom in economics, Dad in engineering. Mom found her true interests lie in art, and Dad self-studied macroeconomics (after his BS).

My ONLY experience is in Soft Matter. I do not know enough about the other avenues in Physics to know if I would enjoy them more or less. It was during my research internship in soft matter I came across Graph Theory and enjoyed that enough to consider studying Mathematics while doing my PhD in Physics. I know I have no interest in Astronomy, but I don't know enough about Quantum, Particle, High Energy etc.

The US education system exposes you to several courses outside your core subjects. It also means you are limited to 4-6 classes each in your core subjects (such as Mathematics and Physics). That is too limiting to decide on a PhD. But it is what it is. We can't change the system, we have to live with it's limitations.

If that ignites his passion, he's all set for a PhD program. But if it doesn't????

Or what if it ignites a passion for the one area he/she has experience in, only for him/her to find out later that there are other subjects that are more exciting?

A grad student is not an indentured servant.

That's the worst-case scenario I am willing to consider. If I am unhappy, I will complete a master's (in Physics) and choose another avenue. Since my interests have always been related to maths and physics, there are plenty of other options (within these subjects).

* A single course taught by the right professor can spark interest (even passion) in a subject; a single course taught by the wrong professor can kill passion (even interest) in a subject. [Not physics related, but have you seen the movie Dead Poets Society?] Regardless, you do have further resources to explore your interests other than a single course [e.g., prior innate interests going back to high school (and, in my own personal instance, elementary school), including science fair projects; inspiration by specific professors; junior-level specialty courses (e.g., solid-state or nuclear); survey lab courses (e.g. junior lab at MIT); undergrad research (during the semester and, more particularly, summer internships; senior thesis comes too late as a deciding factor, since grad school applications are generally due by end of first semester senior year); attending presentations in different fields given by professors or guest speakers; reading articles in different fields (not necessarily in advanced academic journals, but e.g. in Physics Today); talking to researchers in different fields (besides professors, researchers in government labs, industry, and business); participating in formal mentoring programs].

Agreed. A good professor can make a world of difference.

I have always been drawn towards Mathematics and Physics. As a high schooler, I used to tinker with springs, capacitors, inductors, Peltier elements, piezo-electric sensors, etc. I built several projects, including an umbrella gun (inspired by The Kingsman), Wolverine claws, Taser rings (inspired by Superman), etc. I am pretty clear whatever I end up doing, it will involve Mathematics or Physics or both.

As of now, I am relying primarily on my college classes, undergrad research and senior theses (I have 2 - one each in Maths and Physics). I am unsure if that's enough, but I am ploughing ahead.

Meanwhile, the question I was hoping to find an answer to remains unanswered.
"Could anyone provide a "sanity check" on the university lists I suggested in post #32?"

Thanks, everyone.

 

[CrysPhys]

Or what if it ignites a passion for the one area he/she has experience in, only for him/her to find out later that there are other subjects that are more exciting?

That's always the case. It's necessary and sufficient to have passion in one area of research. If later on you find other areas that ignite your passion even more, you can switch (if opportunities arise, circumstances permit, and you're willing to do what it takes to retrench). I've known some researchers who have stayed in the same narrow niche for their entire careers; and others who have made radical shifts.

That's like a guy falling in love with a girl, but refusing to make a commitment ... because he might meet another girl that he finds even more exciting.

 

[advhaver]

That's always the case. It's necessary and sufficient to have passion in one area of research. If later on you find other areas that ignite your passion even more, you can switch (if opportunities arise, circumstances permit, and you're willing to do what it takes to retrench).

Exactly, that's what I meant when I said, "I am ploughing ahead", with the limited knowledge at my disposal.

I could use that "sanity check", though. Have I missed including any university in my long list? Is my short list too "dream heavy"? Should I switch any from my shortlist and long list?

The shortlist: Chicago, Yale, U Penn, Cornell, Northwestern, UCLA, U MD College Park, UT Austin, UC San Diego, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, and Rutgers.

The long list: MIT, UC Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Columbia, Chicago, Brown, UC SB, Rice, U Penn, Penn State, UIUC, Cornell, U Mich Ann Arbor, Northwestern, Yale, UCLA, Ohio OSU, U MD College Park, UC San Diego, UT Austin, U Minn Twin Cities, Rutgers, JHU and U Colorado Boulder.

 

[Vanadium 50]

My advice hasn't changed - you need to go through the list of people with whom you might want to work and see if they still active. Yes, that's a lot of work. But it is your future.

 

[jtbell]

For most of the top schools, you can't apply for a terminal master's. The only way you get a terminal master's from those schools is to (a) apply for and be accepted into a PhD program, (b) complete the requirements for a master's, and (c) not complete the requirements for a PhD.

I find it hard to believe that a school would refuse to award you a master's after you've completed the requirements for one, simply because you're (still) in a PhD program. Although I suppose anything is possible at some school or other.

While I was in the physics PhD program at Michigan many years ago, I simply filed for a master's degree, in the physics department office, after I had completed the required number of courses. I figured I might as well pick up that sheepskin just in case. At least one of my grad-student friends never bothered with this, and ended up with just a PhD. Of course, if he had decided to "bail out" of the PhD, like some of our other grad-student friends did, he could have picked up the master's at that point.

I even went to the degree ceremony for my master's, which was combined with the undergraduates in May. It was the only time I've ever been in Michigan's basketball arena.

 

[CrysPhys]

I find it hard to believe that a school would refuse to award you a master's after you've completed the requirements for one, simply because you're (still) in a PhD program. Although I suppose anything is possible at some school or other.

While I was in the physics PhD program at Michigan many years ago, I simply filed for a master's degree, in the physics department office, after I had completed the required number of courses. I figured I might as well pick up that sheepskin just in case. At least one of my grad-student friends never bothered with this, and ended up with just a PhD. Of course, if he had decided to "bail out" of the PhD, like some of our other grad-student friends did, he could have picked up the master's at that point.

I even went to the degree ceremony for my master's, which was combined with the undergraduates in May. It was the only time I've ever been in Michigan's basketball arena.

But I never said that you can't get a master's on route to getting a PhD. I wrote above:

"For most of the top schools, you can't apply for a terminal master's. The only way you get a terminal master's from those schools is to (a) apply for and be accepted into a PhD program, (b) complete the requirements for a master's, and (c) not complete the requirements for a PhD." <<Emphasis added.>>

A terminal master's refers to the final degree that you receive in the particular program that you apply to.

At some schools and in some majors, you can apply specifically for a master's program only. If you complete that program, the master's is a terminal master's, as far as that program is concerned. You of course can later apply for a separate PhD program, perhaps at the same school (if offered), or at another.

But at some schools and in some majors (physics being a common one), you cannot apply specifically for a master's program only. The only graduate program is a PhD program.

If (a) you apply for and are accepted to a PhD program, (b) complete the requirements for a master's on route, (c) are automatically issued a master's degree or request to be issued a master's degree, and (d) subsequently complete the PhD program and are issued a PhD degree, then the master's is not a terminal master's, because the final degree you received in that program is a PhD.

It is a terminal master's though, if you fulfill (a), (b) , and (c), but not (d). This is what I've referred to previously as a master's granted as a consolation prize (for having attempted, but not completed, a PhD program), and hence having diluted or dubious value (like some elementary schools in which students get an "A for effort" even if they failed miserably in exams, or everyone competing in a sporting event gets a "participation trophy" even if they finish dead last).

 

[advhaver]

My advice hasn't changed - you need to go through the list of people with whom you might want to work and see if they still active. Yes, that's a lot of work. But it is your future.

I have and am in the process of writing to professors at U Penn and Cornell (1 professor at each).

I was wondering if there are any other universities I might have missed or universities in my short list that I should replace with others from my long list.

 

[Vanadium 50]

am in the process of writing to professor

Be careful.

Dear Prof X:

I am wondering if you're still active. I mean you're pretty old and all. I suppose I could check out recent journal articles, but that's such a bother. It's easier to let you do the work for me. I very much want to become a research physicist. but reading journal articles = or even titles - is a step too far, I'm afraid. I'm on a deadline here, so you better get hopping! Chop chop!

 

[advhaver]

Be careful.

Dear Prof X:

I am wondering if you're still active. I mean you're pretty old and all. I suppose I could check out recent journal articles, but that's such a bother. It's easier to let you do the work for me. I very much want to become a research physicist. but reading journal articles = or even titles - is a step too far, I'm afraid. I'm on a deadline here, so you better get hopping! Chop chop!

The professors in who labs I am working in are guiding me with these two universities since they did their PhDs at these universities. I hope (and pray) that they write me good LORs and/or recommend me to the professors at Cornell/U Penn, but I am not relying on this degree of assistance, nor will I ask for it directly - it's not who I am.

The other universities on my list are Chicago, Yale, Northwestern, UCLA, U MD College Park, UT Austin, UC San Diego, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, and Rutgers. How does this list look? Too many dream options? Thanks.

 

[gwnorth]

Most programs in the US permit the student to exit the PhD with a Master's in Physics after completing the exams. Given the investment made by the university, I expect there to be riders, and this is only offered as an exception, but there is the option of an exit if you can justify it.

I'm talking about a standalone research master's, not a master's on the way to a PhD. A master's on the way to a PhD suffers from the same problem of needing to apply to a specific sub-discipline whereas many standalone research master's offer a more generalized program where there is still time for some exploration before needing to commit to a specific sub-discipline.

 

[gwnorth]

But at some schools and in some majors (physics being a common one), you cannot apply specifically for a master's program only. The only graduate program is a PhD program.

In the US.

The vast majority of countries outside of the US require a master's prior to applying to PhD programs and as a result offer research master's degrees. Now if the OP isn't willing to consider programs outside of the US, then that's a different story.

 

[gwnorth]

The other universities on my list are Chicago, Yale, Northwestern, UCLA, U MD College Park, UT Austin, UC San Diego, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, and Rutgers. How does this list look? Too many dream options? Thanks.

Well those are all still top ranked Physics programs (except for maybe Rutgers) so

 

[CrysPhys]

In the US.

The vast majority of countries outside of the US require a master's prior to applying to PhD programs and as a result offer research master's degrees. Now if the OP isn't willing to consider programs outside of the US, then that's a different story.

Yes. But my post that you cited was specifically in the context of the US system. If you backtrace far enough, my starting point was in response to Post #40 by adhaver:

" Most programs in the US permit the student to exit the PhD with a Master's in Physics after completing the exams. Given the investment made by the university, I expect there to be riders, and this is only offered as an exception, but there is the option of an exit if you can justify it."My post that you cited also had this passage (immediately preceding the specific passage you cited):

"At some schools and in some majors, you can apply specifically for a master's program only. If you complete that program, the master's is a terminal master's, as far as that program is concerned. You of course can later apply for a separate PhD program, perhaps at the same school (if offered), or at another."

E.g., even in the US, terminal master's in many engineering fields are common.

[Sorry, I can't seem to use the "Add Quote" feature once I hit "Reply".]

 

[advhaver]

Well those are all still top ranked Physics programs (except for maybe Rutgers) so

All the programs I seem to find are "competitive". I eliminated the obvious ones like MIT, UC Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Columbia, UC SB, Rice, U Mich Ann Arbor, JHU and U Colorado Boulder.

I kept 3 top colleges in Chicago, Yale, and Northwestern on the list just to include some dream options and was hoping that the University of Minnesota Twin Cities and Rutgers would be "safety" options.

If UCLA, U MD College Park, UT Austin, and UC San Diego are also too competitive for my profile, should I replace any including Chicago, Yale, Northwestern, UCLA, U MD College Park, UT Austin, or UC San Diego with either Penn State, UIUC, or Ohio OSU?

I am hoping to have a more balanced list and I suspect from the discussion here that my list is too "Dream Heavy". Suggestions are welcome. Thanks.