How can I stand out as a grad school applicant?

[DucTapePhysic]

Good evening! I'm currently a junior at a top 10 US university. I'll walk away next year with a BS in physics and probably with some type of honor due to GPA/honors thesis. I'm sure like half the posters on here, I have deluded dreams of attending certain grad schools. I don't prescribe to the "top grad school"/"grad school ranking" idea, but I don't think there will be any question that my top choices are extremely competitive. I've chosen them based on their research in the areas that I'm interested in, not simply for the name, and I assure you that I've spent a lot of time looking into each of them (this is not to say my list won't change dramatically!) As of right now, my preferred schools are Stanford, MIT, Harvard, UChicago, Caltech, UC Berkeley, and Princeton.

Any ideas on what I can do to distinguish myself from other applicants over the next year? I have roughly a 3.4-3.5 in major GPA (which I don't think is high enough, even given my school), started research freshman summer, did more sophomore year, was a teaching assistant before junior year, and was abroad in the fall preventing any real research then. I plan on research this summer as well as teaching once more.

I really enjoy teaching, and more than anything I LOVE physics because I want to research, to discover something new. I've heard this is beneficial whilst applying since schools don't select you to "learn" but to teach and research.

I'd love any and all advice you can give me that's a bit out of the box. Thanks a ton, and hope you learned something new in physics today!

DTP

 

[twofish-quant]

As of right now, my preferred schools are Stanford, MIT, Harvard, UChicago, Caltech, UC Berkeley, and Princeton.

1) Can you explain why those schools?

2) You are likely to have six to eight applications out. I think it would be better if you most of them in schools that aren't big names.

One thing that concerns me is that I can't figure out what your research interests are from the list of schools. If you had said that University of Virginia was on your list, I would have figured that you are interested in radio astronomy.

Any ideas on what I can do to distinguish myself from other applicants over the next year?

The problem with this sort of question is that if I say, do X, then everyone else will do X, and you won't end up with any advantage, and all of the things that you need to get into physics graduate schools are pretty standard.

The only things that I can think of are the standard things, get good grades, get good recommendations, find some field that you are really interested in.

The only one thing that could give you an edge is the personal statement of purpose which graduate students applicants tend to flub. The problem is that people tend to write general abstract and meaningless statements, whereas it helps to show that you have some sign that you've done some homework and know why you are applying to school X rather than school Y.

 

[twofish-quant]

I've heard this is beneficial whilst applying since schools don't select you to "learn" but to teach and research.

As a graduate student, you will be an academic serf. You will be doing the grunt work that makes the university run.

 

[DucTapePhysic]

1) Can you explain why those schools?

One thing that concerns me is that I can't figure out what your research interests are from the list of schools. If you had said that University of Virginia was on your list, I would have figured that you are interested in radio astronomy.

Sure:
I love the cosmology/gravitation (especially theoretical work) at Stanford, Caltech, Harvard and MIT and the elementary particle work (and ties to cosmology stuff) at UC Berkeley, Princeton, and UChicago. More specifically even:
Stanford--the research by Roger Blandford, Peter Graham, Risa Wechsler
Caltech--Marc Kamionkowski, Christian D Ott
Harvard--Christopher Stubbs, Douglas Finkbeiner, Lisa Randall
MIT--Edmund Bertschinger, Alan Guth
UC Berkeley--Uros Seljak, Martin White, Eliot Quataert
Princeton--Paul Steinhardt, Frans Pretorius
UChicago--Michael Turner

I realize they research a wide variety of topics, but mostly within theoretical cosmology and astrophysics.

I know there are a lot of schools here, I bet by the time I actually apply it'll be cut in half plus, as I believe you put it, 3-4 not quite as top tier programs. And I've accepted the fact that I'll be a serf!

The problem with this sort of question is that if I say, do X, then everyone else will do X, and you won't end up with any advantage, and all of the things that you need to get into physics graduate schools are pretty standard.

I hesitated putting this phrase in for precisely this reason, and I left out some of the extra prep I plan on doing but I'd still appreciate anything out of the box you can tell me (it's my first rodeo, I'm sure you've been through this before!) and if you do have a fantastic idea you don't won't to share, I'll always accept PMs !

EDIT: I just realized I clicked on the wrong forum when I originally posted this. i apologize for the mistake and hope it will be moved to Academic Guidance soon.

 

[twofish-quant]

I hesitated putting this phrase in for precisely this reason, and I left out some of the extra prep I plan on doing

The one "easy" thing that you can do is when you write your statement of purpose for school X, mention some of the names of the professors and what research they do. The fact that you know that Prof X does research Y at school Z will put you ahead of 80% of the personal statements.

The other thing that I would suggest that isn't obvious is to start reading Astrophysical Journal and pre-prints from the Los Alamos Preprint server and to do extra reading that has things to do with your topic of research. People often don't do that, because they don't get "credit" for it, but it helps a lot and doing things like that moves you from the undergraduate mindset to the graduate student mindset.

 

[negru]

Also, drop the extra teaching, just do research. They will only care about research when you apply to grad school, and they will only care about research when you apply for a job.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also, drop the extra teaching, just do research. They will only care about research when you apply to grad school, and they will only care about research when you apply for a job.

*SERIOUSLY BAD IDEA*

First of all, teaching isn't the most important thing when they look for in grad school, but it won't hurt you much. Second, a lot of the jobs that you can get when you graduate are teaching related.

Teaching skills are also *extremely* useful in the workplace. A lot of what you will end up doing once you get your Ph.D. is to teach a course called "this is why you should give me money" or "this is why you should hire me" or "this is why you should not fire me." You also learn a huge amount when you teach something.

One thing that is very different between undergraduate work and life is that as an undergraduate you get an obvious grade for everything that you do. You take a course or a test, you get a grade, and that tells you whether things are good or not. Life both in graduate school or outside of academia doesn't work that way. You have to figure out what you need to do, and there isn't an obvious grade associated with it.

One other difference is that as an undergraduate, you are pretty much expected to do what authority tells you to do. Once you graduate, then it's expected that sometimes you will need to challenge authority, since you are becoming an authority. You'll sometimes come to the conclusion that "they" are idiots.

 

[negru]

I was only talking about getting into grad school/becoming a professor. For application purposes it is always better to do research than teach.

 

[Msh1]

I don't want to disappoint you but your GPA worries me a lot. I speak from experience I am a 4th year computer science and mathematics student. I applied to MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, Caltech, Cornell and Berkeley last summer for theoretical computer science. I was only admitted to Harvard (my own school has a better program in my field actually so Harvard isn't really big on computer science research) and Cornell which is alright but still not top 5. Even Caltech which is not as highly ranked rejected me while I applied with a 3.96 GPA, 2 publications (first author) and pretty good recommendation letters. I plan on applying again this summer and take an extra year to graduate.I highly recommend you do the same thing. taking an extra year to graduate to boost up your resume might actually get you (and me) to one those schools.

 

[DucTapePhysic]

I don't want to disappoint you but your GPA worries me a lot...Even Caltech which is not as highly ranked rejected me while I applied with a 3.96 GPA, 2 publications (first author) and pretty good recommendation letters.

As I've mentioned, I don't pretend to have a particularly high GPA. I am confident that through interviews and standardized tests my ability level will come out, especially because personal issues caused my grades to dip into the B range for just one semester.

Again, I am more interested in what I can do to stand out--I don't harbor any false ideas of how they'll take my GPA, and I'd rather continue to work towards acceptance at a program of my choice than dwell on the past. I believe it was twofish who said above that grad school marks a shift away from grades and more towards doing things without set deadlines/expectations; I already operate like this and put more stress on learning and developing mastery than simply my grade, because I've learned that in the long run the stress just isn't worth it and hurts more than it helps.


That being said, what say you all on campus visits? Rather than elaborate spring breaks, I've been saving up to visit some of these schools and meet with the physics departments.

 

[Msh1]

I believe it was twofish who said above that grad school marks a shift away from grades and more towards doing things without set deadlines/expectations; I already operate like this and put more stress on learning and developing mastery than simply my grade, because I've learned that in the long run the stress just isn't worth it and hurts more than it helps.

Ok, how do you think you can prove to them that you have developed mastery or that you can "do things"?. You might be more qualified than someone with really high grades but this has to be reflected upon something! like research, try to get your name on a few publications. Again I am not trying to disappoint you, but I have come to realize that I have stressed way too much trying to get into one of those schools and now I feel like my dreams are shattered.So I am just saying you can either continue working hard and experiencing a lot of stress or you can lower your expectations and aim for a school that is not as highly ranked.

That being said, what say you all on campus visits? Rather than elaborate spring breaks, I've been saving up to visit some of these schools and meet with the physics departments.

I have actually visited only MIT and Harvard, but that was 3 years ago while I was still a freshman and I had no idea that 3 years later I would be applying to grad school there.

 

[DucTapePhysic]

STUFF I'M QUOTING

Understood.

I have actually visited only MIT and Harvard, but that was 3 years ago while I was still a freshman and I had no idea that 3 years later I would be applying to grad school there.

I'm a junior, so I'd be doing that over this coming summer. I figure that's close enough to have a handle on some of the schools I'll be applying to.

 

[twofish-quant]

I plan on applying again this summer and take an extra year to graduate.I highly recommend you do the same thing. taking an extra year to graduate to boost up your resume might actually get you (and me) to one those schools.

I don't think that it's a terribly good idea. The problem is that your application is what it is, and if you aren't getting into the first school on your wish list, I don't think that spending an extra year is going to help things much.

The good news is that as far as quality of graduate education, there isn't a huge difference between the "big names" and names that you've never heard of, which is why I think it's really important to do research and apply to a variety of schools so that you get in somewhere.

One other difference between graduate school and undergraduate school is that graduate school is the time in which failure becomes normal. A lot of people that apply to graduate school have never failed at anything in their entire life, and going into an environment in which failure is expected and in fact a good thing, is a shock.

The other thing that people do need to get used to is that as you get into graduate school and beyond, things get increasingly "random." The number of students that a graduate school can admit and the type of physics that they are looking for is based on funding issues to which there is a high degree of randomness.

You could be the world's fifth best string theorist, but if there are three jobs in string theory and thirty in ocean physics, then someone else is going to get the job.

 

[twofish-quant]

Again I am not trying to disappoint you, but I have come to realize that I have stressed way too much trying to get into one of those schools and now I feel like my dreams are shattered.So I am just saying you can either continue working hard and experiencing a lot of stress or you can lower your expectations and aim for a school that is not as highly ranked.

If you are talking about rankings, then it's already skewed.

Also you have to realize that people's expectations are extremely skewed based on undergraduate admissions. The difference between a "big name" grad school and a "small name" is that a "big name" generally has a larger program that can have a foot in everything. Small names have to focus at one thing, but by focusing at one thing, they can be outstanding in that area.

For example, one of the big name in loop quantum gravity theory happens to be Louisiana State University. One of the big names in supernova theory works at Florida Atlantic University.

Also, the big names can be bad in some areas. MIT isn't strong in optical astronomy or computational astrophysics or quantitative finance.

One other thing is that graduate school admissions can change a small department in ways that aren't true for undergraduate. If you get admitted to MIT as an undergraduate, you are going to be one of 1000 students, and you aren't going to make a big difference. If you get admitted to a graduate school, you are going to be one of ten students in a big one, perhaps the only Ph.D. that they graduate every other year in a small one.

In that situation, you can influence the professional reputation of the department more than the department influences yours.

 

[Msh1]

I don't think that it's a terribly good idea. The problem is that your application is what it is, and if you aren't getting into the first school on your wish list, I don't think that spending an extra year is going to help things much.

That is true but I am planning on taking 6 graduate courses in the area that I want to apply for during that extra year (I have heard it makes a difference) and also do another full summer of research. That might get me into at least one of them assuming I will maintain my GPA. I am not 100% sure though I might just go to Cornell.

The good news is that as far as quality of graduate education, there isn't a huge difference between the "big names" and names that you've never heard of, which is why I think it's really important to do research and apply to a variety of schools so that you get in somewhere.

I agree but in my case the best programs happen to big at schools with big names.

 

[rhombusjr]

I agree but in my case the best programs happen to big at schools with big names.

I don't think you entirely understand what he's saying: you don't have to go to the "best in your field" to get a good education in that field. At least that's my interpretation.

 

[DucTapePhysic]

So does building a relationship with professors whose research you are interested in, at schools that you'd like to attend (presumably because you are interested in their research...kind of circular, eh?) help your chance of admission at that school? And what about campus visits and meeting with said professors?

 

[twofish-quant]

So does building a relationship with professors whose research you are interested in, at schools that you'd like to attend (presumably because you are interested in their research...kind of circular, eh?) help your chance of admission at that school?

Yes, but if the professor is even moderately famous, then it's unlikely that you'll be able to build any sort of relationship, and certainly not quickly.

 

[jtbell]

If you get admitted to a graduate school, you are going to be one of ten students in a big one,

Are you referring to number of students admitted, or the number who finally end up with a Ph.D.? When I entered grad school at Michigan, I was one of probably about 20-25 first-year grad students, going by my memory of first-year class sizes.

 

[creepypasta13]

I was only admitted to Harvard (my own school has a better program in my field actually so Harvard isn't really big on computer science research) and Cornell which is alright but still not top 5.

Sounds to me like Cornell is top 10 in your field, and you want to go to a top-10 school. Why not just go to Cornell?

Also, the big names can be bad in some areas. MIT isn't strong in optical astronomy or computational astrophysics or quantitative finance.

What other big names are 'bad' in computational astrophysics?

I don't think that it's a terribly good idea. The problem is that your application is what it is, and if you aren't getting into the first school on your wish list, I don't think that spending an extra year is going to help things much.

What if the schools I got into aren't great and have only 1 professor researching in my main research area? I think that if I reapply (and spend the year primarily researching and trying to get a publication) then I'll at least get into 1 school that has more professors doing research in my main area of interest and has better pedigree than the schools I already got admitted to. I don't know if I could've gotten into those schools since I didn't apply for them this year.

 

[twofish-quant]

What other big names are 'bad' in computational astrophysics?

This is something that people need to do their own research for. The easy way of doing that is to go to the library, get a lot of research papers and the AIP guide, visit the web sites, and then make your own conclusions.

I can pick on MIT, because I went to school there. If I started complaining about Yale or Harvard, then there is a larger chance that I'm just wrong, and I may get pulled into in pointless flame war.

The point is that all schools have their strengths and weaknesses, and rather than looking at tiers, you are better off looking at each school on their own. There is also no shame at not being good at everything. The fact that MIT isn't strong at computational astrophysics or derivative-valuation quantitative finance is like Chicago not being a good place to find New York-style thin crust pizza.

What if the schools I got into aren't great and have only 1 professor researching in my main research area?

One is enough. The only risk (and it's not a minor risk) is that you may find that you have incompatible personalities in which case you either have to change your personality or your field of interest, and it's usually a lot easier to change one's field of interest than to change one's personality.

There's also nothing wrong with changing your field or interests based on the people that you meet. If you have a good adviser, they can get you interested in something that you never thought you'd be interested in.

Finally, in astrophysics, your "pedigree" depends on your adviser. I'm X's student, and it's a mere detail that X works at university Y. Professors do move around, and when professor X moves from school A to school B, what happens to his graduate students is a very important topic and sometimes the students will move with the professor.

There are analogies here with major league baseball. You can think of the professor as a player and the universities as a team.

I think that if I reapply (and spend the year primarily researching and trying to get a publication) then I'll at least get into 1 school that has more professors doing research in my main area of interest and has better pedigree than the schools I already got admitted to. I don't know if I could've gotten into those schools since I didn't apply for them this year.

Very risky...

The big risk is that if you have gotten admitted to a university, and you turn them down, then next year they are not likely to be happy about admitting you again, since you already said no. The other thing is that if your application is decent, there really isn't all that much that you can do in one year.

Finally, you have to be very, very sure that the universities that you are thinking about applying are better enough to be worth the risk.

 

[twofish-quant]

Are you referring to number of students admitted, or the number who finally end up with a Ph.D.? When I entered grad school at Michigan, I was one of probably about 20-25 first-year grad students, going by my memory of first-year class sizes.

Here are the stats.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/EDphysgrad07.pdf

One thing that I find interesting about physics Ph.D.'s is how few there are. The biggest department is MIT that produces 37 Ph.D.'s/year, and 41% produce three or fewer each year.

By contrast Harvard Business School has an enrollment of*900* MBA's each year.

http://www.hbs.edu/about/statistics/mba.html

So Harvard Business School alone produces almost as many MBA's as all Ph.d's in the US.

One reason I don't think that people should obsess over which school they end up in, is that just by getting a physics Ph.D., you are already in a very, very, very exclusive club.

Just to give you some more ideas about how exclusive the club is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

Number of Olympic Athletes in 2008 summer games: 11028
Total number of medals awarded in 2008: 958

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/physrost.pdf

Total enrollment on graduate physics departments (both masters and Ph.D.): 14808

 

[creepypasta13]

The other thing is that if your application is decent, there really isn't all that much that you can do in one year.

Finally, you have to be very, very sure that the universities that you are thinking about applying are better enough to be worth the risk.

it was good enough to get into the top-15 schools, but got rejected by 2 of the top 10. If I reapply, I want to apply to some Astro programs. I got rejected by a couple this year, and I'm pretty sure it was based solely on the fact that I haven't taken any classes or research projects in it. I was thinking of devoting the year off primarily to research in astro

 

[jtbell]

Here are the stats.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/EDphysgrad07.pdf

So, smoothing out fluctuations by eye, during the last few years the number of first-year graduate physics students is about 2500 per year, and the number of physics Ph.D's awarded is about 1300. That's roughly a 50% attrition rate, which fits with my recollections from Michigan 30-odd years ago.

Of course, large state universities need lots of teaching assistants for introductory labs, often more than the number of positions for research assistants who are working on Ph.D. dissertations.

 

[twofish-quant]

Of course, large state universities need lots of teaching assistants for introductory labs, often more than the number of positions for research assistants who are working on Ph.D. dissertations.

That is one piece of important information that any perspective graduate student try to find out, which is the attrition rate. If you have a system in which it is mathematically impossible for everyone to finish their dissertation, this is bad for you.

Also this can vary wildly between departments. UT Physics had a large attrition rate for the reasons you mentioned. UT Astronomy does not.

 

[jtbell]

If you have a system in which it is mathematically impossible for everyone to finish their dissertation, this is bad for you.

Most of the people who "wash out" probably do so before they even have a chance to start their dissertation research, i.e. they either fail the qualifying exam for Ph.D. candidacy, or they can't find a professor who wants to take them on and has the money to support them as a research assistant.

 

[flemmyd]

Most of the people who "wash out" probably do so before they even have a chance to start their dissertation research, i.e. they either fail the qualifying exam for Ph.D. candidacy, or they can't find a professor who wants to take them on and has the money to support them as a research assistant.

So (some) students go in, do fine in their classes/qualifying exam and they still have to leave because there isn't enough room? How do you explain kicking out perfectly good students who have done the work to be there?

 

[Vanadium 50]

A lot of students go to grad school to see if its for them, and a lot of them discover that it isn't. I'd say a good half of the attrition happens within the first year.

Then there are the students that can't pass the qualifyer.