Admissions Should I apply to Physics PhD programs?

[decisivedove]

Hi,
I am a senior at a large research public university in the US (UC Davis). I really want to go to grad school but I am not sure if I should apply this year. I am only 19 years old (I graduated high school with an associates in physics) so this is only my second real year of college and I graduate with my BSc in Physics at the end of this academic year. I have a 3.76 GPA with straight As in my upper-division physics classes (my GPA would be a lot higher but I received a C+ my very first quarter. I have only gotten straight A's since then). I will also graduate with a minor in Pure Math. Problem is: I have zero research experience and I do not know 3 professors well enough to get solid letters of recommendation. My first year of college was basically an adjustment period for me while I was still figuring out a lot of other things being straight out of high school. I can still somehow manage to get 3 letters of recommendations although it will be of low quality. I did however do an internship with JPL so I can potentially include that as work experience, but the internship was online so I did not get to know my advisor well enough for a strong letter.

I am mainly interested in theory and still trying to figure out exactly which subfield I am interested in (I know that I enjoy general relativity based on my limited exposure to it, but I do not know whether or not I will enjoy quantum field theory because I still need a lot of prerequisites before diving in. I am really bad at circuits and lab work, but I really love math and I am good at programming - even better than some CS majors I know, but I do not like pure computational work). I have looked at alternative career options like engineering, programming, or teaching but they do not seem to interest me enough to do for the rest of my life based on my experiences with them.

My question is will gradschools consider my unique circumstances and potentially overlook my weak letter of recs and research experience? If so, what tier of gradschools should I apply to?

 

[berkeman]

I am a senior at a large research public university in the US (UC Davis). I really want to go to grad school but I am not sure if I should apply this year. I am only 19 years old (I graduated high school with an associates in physics) so this is only my second real year of college and I graduate with my BSc in Physics at the end of this academic year.

Kudos on your great start. This sounds like some of the difficulties of outrunning the norm, but that can be okay.

UC Davis is my undergratuate alum, so I know that they do a great job of assigning faculty advisors to students. Even though you've only been there 1+ years, you should have access to your faculty advisor on a regular basis. What has been their advice so far to these questions?

 

[Vanadium 50]

OK, so you're going to have grades that are roughly average for admitted students (3.74 is the average), and letters that are maybe a little weaker than average. So that makes the PGRE especially important. I presume you are taking it Saturday, so while preparing is always good, there's not a whole lot to be done between now and then.

As a general rule, people move one tier down for grad schools, so that's where you should concentrate your efforts. You should have a relatively wide range - you might get lucky and get into more places than you think, and you might get unlucky and have only one choice. Bit the sorts of places I'd be looking at are Riverside, Vanderbilt, Louisiana State and their peers. If lucky, maybe Tufts or Pitt, if unlucky, maybe Wayne State or Drexel.

Now the bad news - there are plenty of hidden gems in these departments. The top schools are strong in everything, and the next layer down are strong in a few things. Looking at QS rankings, the best school in the country for Astronomy is probably Arizona - ranked #132 overall. Nuclear Physics is probably Michigan State - at #92 (or possibly Stony Brook, #85). The problem you face is that to take advantage of this, you need to make up your mind about what you want to do.

 

[decisivedove]

Kudos on your great start. This sounds like some of the difficulties of outrunning the norm, but that can be okay.

UC Davis is my undergratuate alum, so I know that they do a great job of assigning faculty advisors to students. Even though you've only been there 1+ years, you should have access to your faculty advisor on a regular basis. What has been their advice so far to these questions?

Thank you for the response. I have already reached out to my staff advisor and I am still waiting to hear back. I also plan on getting some advice from one of my professor.
Thanks for the encouragement.

 

[decisivedove]

OK, so you're going to have grades that are roughly average for admitted students (3.74 is the average), and letters that are maybe a little weaker than average. So that makes the PGRE especially important. I presume you are taking it Saturday, so while preparing is always good, there's not a whole lot to be done between now and then.

As a general rule, people move one tier down for grad schools, so that's where you should concentrate your efforts. You should have a relatively wide range - you might get lucky and get into more places than you think, and you might get unlucky and have only one choice. Bit the sorts of places I'd be looking at are Riverside, Vanderbilt, Louisiana State and their peers. If lucky, maybe Tufts or Pitt, if unlucky, maybe Wayne State or Drexel.

Now the bad news - there are plenty of hidden gems in these departments. The top schools are strong in everything, and the next layer down are strong in a few things. Looking at QS rankings, the best school in the country for Astronomy is probably Arizona - ranked #132 overall. Nuclear Physics is probably Michigan State - at #92 (or possibly Stony Brook, #85). The problem you face is that to take advantage of this, you need to make up your mind about what you want to do.

Thanks for the response.
I have not registered for the Physics GRE. I had been told that it was no longer required so I did not register and the registration deadline has already passed. I had given all hopes of applying to grad school because I did not think I could get 3 recommendation letters until now, so I did not even consider registering.

3.76 is my UC GPA not including all of my units from community college (where I had a 4.0). It depends on whether 3.74 is the average for all 4 years of admitted students or just their upper-division GPA. My C+ was only in Stellar Astrophysics my first quarter, which was just because of the final (the exam basically had 0 mathematics in it and was just facts about stellar evolution). Without that C+, I would be at a 3.931. All of my other grades from my current institution are all A's with 2 A-'s and 2 A+'s. One of my A- was in my electronics class and the other is in my second upper-division analytical mechanics class. I am currently taking graduate classical mechanics and anticipate to get an A or an A+, which hopefully means they overlook my A- in my undergrad mechanics class. And I hope my A- in electronics does not matter much unless I apply for experimental physics. I might even specifically mention how I do not enjoy circuits when making an argument for why I want to do theory.

In my experience taking the graduate class so far at my institution full of PhD students, my grades based on the assignments are higher than the average on Canvas with a 97.1% in the class currently without any curve. I do not feel like PhD students at a Tier-2 university are that much more academically advanced than me. For undergrad, I only applied to one tier-1 school for undergrad - UC Berkeley and I got accepted but I decided to not go there.

I get that I might not be as strong as other applicants on paper and I might be lacking in other aspects. I am willing to consider other schools that are lower tier. I would have to make up my mind on what subfield I want to study for it, for sure but I would like to have at least a couple backup options in case I end up hating the field I initially apply for. I will apply to the kind of schools you have suggested for sure and look more into it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm not going to argue with you about grades. Of course you have a story. Everybody has a story. And everybody loves a story. Guessing whether this admissions committee or that admissions committee will like your story better than someone else's is a waste of your time and mine.

It was a mistake to avoid the GRE. It limits your choices, but it also is a missed opportunity to strengthen your application. Beyond that, my advice is the same:

1. If you want a doctorate, apply.
2. Apply to a wide range of schools, centered one notch down from Davis.
3. Picking your subfield now has advantages,

 

[decisivedove]

I'm not going to arbue with you about grades. Of course you have a story. Everybody has a story. And everybody loves a story. Guessing whether this admissions committee or that admissions committee will like your story better than someone else's is a waste of your time and mine.

It was a mistake to avoid the GRE. It limits your choices, but it also is a missed opportunity to strengthen your application. Beyond that, my advice is the same:

1. If you want a doctorate, apply.
2. Apply to a wide range of schools, centered one notch down from Davis.
3. Picking your subfield now has advantages,

Thanks. I will be sure to apply and make my mind up about a subfield of physics. If I end up not going to grad school next year for some reason, I will take the GRE before applying next time.

 

[CrysPhys]

I might even specifically mention how I do not enjoy circuits when making an argument for why I want to do theory.

This would not be a good strategy.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Just to point out, you don't actually have to pick a field. You cab apply to Arizona and tell them how you love astronomy, and Michigan state while telling them you love nuclear physics, and then pick which one you do later.

This makes the applications harder since you're going to have to write more stuff, and maybe be prepared to answer questions about the subfield if you talk to a person at the school before the decision is made.

 

[decisivedove]

This would not be a good strategy.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. My original intention was to compare and contrast between the different stuff I have been exposed to and then make a claim that I like something better. But that might not be a good strategy either.

 

[decisivedove]

Just to point out, you don't actually have to pick a field. You cab apply to Arizona and tell them how you love astronomy, and Michigan state while telling them you love nuclear physics, and then pick which one you do later.

This makes the applications harder since you're going to have to write more stuff, and maybe be prepared to answer questions about the subfield if you talk to a person at the school before the decision is made.

That is a great strategy. I was looking up 1 faculty member at each school that I feel has interesting work and I would target it to that faculty member's work. Maybe I will even contact the professor and ask them questions about their research if I find the work interesting enough.

 

[CrysPhys]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. My original intention was to compare and contrast between the different stuff I have been exposed to and then make a claim that I like something better. But that might not be a good strategy either.

You want to emphasize that you are pursuing X because you are interested in X and are good at X. You don't want to say that you are pursuing X because you are not interested in NOT-X and suck at NOT-X.

 

[gwnorth]

It was a mistake to avoid the GRE. It limits your choices, but it also is a missed opportunity to strengthen your application.

It won't necessarily limit the OP's choices since many schools, even the top ones, have continued to either not accept the GRE at all, or make it optional this year. I agree however that it was a missed opportunity at those schools where it is optional for the OP to strengthen their application.

Problem is: I have zero research experience and I do not know 3 professors well enough to get solid letters of recommendation.

This is indeed your core issue and not your GPA and one of the downsides to fast tracking your undergraduate degree. Given this, your age, and your indecision regarding what field of Physics you would be interested in specializing in, I would recommend that you not rush directly into grad school. You should consider taking an additional year or two (the amount of time you otherwise would have spent completing your degree) and get some research experience under your belt and to make connections with faculty who would be in a position to write your strong LORs. It may be possible for your to take some graduate level courses at the same time and in that way you may be getting a jump on your graduate studies.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Just to point out, you don't actually have to pick a field.

Yes, but.

If you want to do experimental particle physics, Georgia Tech is not a good choice. (They don't do it) If you want to do biophysics, it is. Targeting what I called the "hidden gems" means targeting the schools that are strong in what one is interested in, not just the giant programs that are strong in many areas.

Maybe I will even contact the professor and ask them questions about their research if I find the work interesting enough.

This is often a bad idea. The thinking goes "I will ask him a question and that will demonstrate interest, which will help me in the application process". The thing is, the question is often something that can be found in the papers or the website. So this backfires instead of an image of an interested go-getter, it presents the image of someone who won't do his own spadework and will require a lot of hand-holding.

Are there good questions? Sure. Do most of them need to be answered pre-admissions? Usually not. Are most questions good? Nope. There is a lot of potential downside here.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Yes, but.

If you want to do experimental particle physics, Georgia Tech is not a good choice. (They don't do it) If you want to do biophysics, it is. Targeting what I called the "hidden gems" means targeting the schools that are strong in what one is interested in, not just the giant programs that are strong in many areas.

Yeah, I meant you can target hidden gems in several different fields and see where you get in.

 

[CrysPhys]

Yeah, I meant you can target hidden gems in several different fields and see where you get in.

It's OK for high-school students to apply for undergrad colleges without a firm idea of what they want to major in. But a PhD Physics program is an entirely different story. If a student really does not know what specialty (at least broad specialty such as nuclear, condensed matter, high energy, ...) he wants to do his dissertation in, he shouldn't be applying for a PhD Physics program. Seconding:

Given this, your age, and your indecision regarding what field of Physics you would be interested in specializing in, I would recommend that you not rush directly into grad school.

 

[decisivedove]

This is indeed your core issue and not your GPA and one of the downsides to fast tracking your undergraduate degree. Given this, your age, and your indecision regarding what field of Physics you would be interested in specializing in, I would recommend that you not rush directly into grad school. You should consider taking an additional year or two (the amount of time you otherwise would have spent completing your degree) and get some research experience under your belt and to make connections with faculty who would be in a position to write your strong LORs. It may be possible for your to take some graduate level courses at the same time and in that way you may be getting a jump on your graduate studies.

Nice point. I was considering taking a gap year or two. I had quite a few plans including taking another year to finish a degree in math while working on a physics research project for a bit, or just working under a professor or a lab while taking grad level physics classes as a non-matriculated student.

My plan was to get into well-rounded grad school, I can potentially change sub-fields if I do not like it after a year or two if I still want to continue, and I would be making progress faster towards a PhD. I am kind of unsure how strong LORs will be. The JPL internship I had was also labeled as "research" so I am thinking that would count as research experience.

There are topics that interest me for a PhD in physics but I am not sure whether I want to commit to something that I currently know so little about currently for the rest of my life. For example, I am interested in a faculty member's work at my current school who is working on scattering amplitudes in QFT. I just try to dive into research papers and most of the time even if I do not understand it, I can make an educated guess on whether I like it or not. The only issue is that theory has so many prerequisites to even get a feel for the research. I know what I am not interested in way better than what I am interested in. I have attended a ton of undergrad research presentations and sat in on a few undergrad research group meetings, altough I did not really conduct any physics research. The common theme is that I did not find interest in pure computation or experiment. It was only the presentations that had more abstract concepts and math involved that I found interesting.

I think high energy theory interests me more than other common sub-fields in most physics department websites because I feel like it can provide flexibility in what I can research with it and a lot of the papers look like something I will enjoy. But, I basically feel like I am just making assumptions of what I will like without experiencing it first hand. It seems difficult to get experience with theory before committing to it in a grad program.

 

[decisivedove]

It's OK for high-school students to apply for undergrad colleges without a firm idea of what they want to major in. But a PhD Physics program is an entirely different story. If a student really does not know what specialty (at least broad specialty such as nuclear, condensed matter, high energy, ...) he wants to do his dissertation in, he shouldn't be applying for a PhD Physics program. Seconding:

That is good advice. Ideally I would like to know more physics before making the decision on what I would like to do my PhD in. Would a masters program be better suited in that case so I can understand more physics like QFT and GR before making a decision and hopefully gain more experience with certain sub-fields, or applying to a PhD program as undecided or applying as the sub-field I feel like I will like the most for now (which is high energy theory) and then later switching out of it if I find out I do not enjoy it?

The problem I am facing is that I do not know whether it will be a good decision to commit to a sub-field. Like if I do not understand the prerequisites, all I see when I read the papers is a bunch of symbols and I try my best to deduce what it represents. Most research experiences opportunities that I can find after I graduate are either purely computational or experimental, which I am unsure will help to shed light on what sub-field I want to do if I still want to do theory that is.

How do most people choose their sub-field? Do they just simply fall in love with a field or they choose the same sub-field that they did in undergrad research? It seems to me that a lot of my peers are just applying to the sub-field their undergrad research topic was on.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yeah, I meant you can target hidden gems in several different fields and see where you get in.

Again, Yeah but...

In grad school, there is an expectation that you know what you're going to study. Sure, people move around, but giant steps, like from experimental biophysics to theoretical particle physics,. are both rare and difficult.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How do most people choose their sub-field?

Usually, the join a research group as an undergrad. Also, they usually attend seminars and colloquia to see what's going on in the field. Often, they join a journal club to read and sometimes present recent publications that may be interesting, important, and sometimes even both.

All of this is before they get out undergrad. There may be fine-tuning when they get to grad school, but most have an idea of the general direction when applying.

 

[Choppy]

How do most people choose their sub-field? Do they just simply fall in love with a field or they choose the same sub-field that they did in undergrad research? It seems to me that a lot of my peers are just applying to the sub-field their undergrad research topic was on.

It's not easy. And there's no guaranteed way to make the optimal decision.

Exposure helps. Attend departmental colloquia. Attend undergraduate physics conferences. Take the opportunity to get involved in research, and when you do, remember that you're not just learning that particular sub-field, but you're learning stuff that's broadly applicable to all types of research... project management and study design, keeping good notes, how to pivot when things don't work out as planned etc. Talk to professors, to post docs, to graduate students. Get involved with your undergraduate physics society. Read. A lot.

Take time to research the programs you're applying to and the faculty you'll be working with. I think it's just as important to find a mentor who you're going to learn well from as it is to find a subfield you're happy with.

Think about what skills you're getting out of your graduate studies. Where do you want to go afterward and what's the contingency if plan A doesn't work out?

 

[CrysPhys]

There are topics that interest me for a PhD in physics but I am not sure whether I want to commit to something that I currently know so little about currently for the rest of my life.

<<Emphasis added.>> There's the quandary. Going to grad school for a PhD in physics is not like going to med school for an MD. Once you complete your PhD in physics, there's no assurance that you'll be continuing in your specialty (or even in physics per se) for the rest of your life ... or even for more than a few years (e.g., beyond a postdoc or two). That's especially true if you specialize in high-energy theory.

That's why my perspective is that a PhD in physics needs to be satisfying, and have value, as an end goal in and of itself, not merely as a means to an end. You learn a set of skills and complete one or more research projects. Then you move on. Maybe you will continue in physics research. Maybe you will not.

You can call it passion, you can call it a calling ... but you need to have internal drive and motivation to make a PhD physics program viable. To expand on one of my previous post, it's perfectly OK for a high-school grad to spend the first one or two years in undergrad college to explore different subjects and "find himself". But if you enter grad school to find yourself, you will likely lose yourself.

 

[CrysPhys]

Would a masters program be better suited in that case so I can understand more physics like QFT and GR before making a decision and hopefully gain more experience with certain sub-fields, or applying to a PhD program as undecided or applying as the sub-field I feel like I will like the most for now (which is high energy theory) and then later switching out of it if I find out I do not enjoy it?

(A) If your intent here is to graduate from UC Davis with a bachelor's and apply to a different school for a master's in physics, the answer is no:

(1) Many physics departments (particularly the better ones) don't even allow you to apply for a terminal master's program. The only way to get a master's in those schools is to (a) apply for and be admitted to a PhD program, (b) complete the requirements (typically coursework) for a master's degree, and (c) pickup a master's degree on route to completing the PhD program, or pickup a master's degree as a consolation prize on route to exiting the PhD program before completion.

(2) Even for schools that do offer a terminal master's program, you typically will need to pay your own way. If you are admitted to a PhD program by a school that really wants you, however, you typically will get full tuition waiver and financial aid (typically via a teaching assistantship in most instances, but via a fellowship or research assistantship in some instances).

(3) If you complete graduate courses for a master's program at one school, you still might need to repeat them should you later apply for a PhD program at a different school (highly dependent on the particular schools).

(B) But if you can stay on at UC Davis for a combined bachelor's/master's program, it might be worth a shot, along the lines of gwnorth's Post #13. You've condensed the typical undergrad experience (sacrificing some worthwhile opportunities along the way), and have had to deal with limitations imposed by COVID. You've got time and opportunity to retrench, before you decide on whether grad school is even right for you.

 

[vela]

Most research experiences opportunities that I can find after I graduate are either purely computational or experimental, which I am unsure will help to shed light on what sub-field I want to do if I still want to do theory that is.

When I was applying to grad school, my professors noted that most students think they want to go into theory, but the vast majority will end up doing experimental work.

How do most people choose their sub-field? Do they just simply fall in love with a field or they choose the same sub-field that they did in undergrad research? It seems to me that a lot of my peers are just applying to the sub-field their undergrad research topic was on.

Maybe things have changed since I went to grad school decades ago, but most of my classmates didn't really know what field they wanted to go into when they first got there. They had some vague idea, like preferring condensed matter physics to particle physics, so they chose to apply to schools strong in those areas. But beyond that, they settled on a specific field after talking to prospective advisors about their research.

Frankly, I don't think it's realistic to expect students to know exactly what they want to do in grad school. You should, as suggested, engage in activities outside of class, liking reading, going to talks, talking to others, etc., so you can see where your interests might lie. But I don't think you should feel pressure to make a career-defining choice at this stage in your education.

 

[decisivedove]

It's not easy. And there's no guaranteed way to make the optimal decision.

Exposure helps. Attend departmental colloquia. Attend undergraduate physics conferences. Take the opportunity to get involved in research, and when you do, remember that you're not just learning that particular sub-field, but you're learning stuff that's broadly applicable to all types of research... project management and study design, keeping good notes, how to pivot when things don't work out as planned etc. Talk to professors, to post docs, to graduate students. Get involved with your undergraduate physics society. Read. A lot.

Take time to research the programs you're applying to and the faculty you'll be working with. I think it's just as important to find a mentor who you're going to learn well from as it is to find a subfield you're happy with.

Think about what skills you're getting out of your graduate studies. Where do you want to go afterward and what's the contingency if plan A doesn't work out?

That is some good advice. I will start doing that.
Is there anything specific for to look for in a mentor before applying to a program? There are some programs that only really have 1 or 2 faculty I am interested in working with and if that does not work out, I will have no backup options.

 

[decisivedove]

<<Emphasis added.>> There's the quandary. Going to grad school for a PhD in physics is not like going to med school for an MD. Once you complete your PhD in physics, there's no assurance that you'll be continuing in your specialty (or even in physics per se) for the rest of your life ... or even for more than a few years (e.g., beyond a postdoc or two). That's especially true if you specialize in high-energy theory.

That's why my perspective is that a PhD in physics needs to be satisfying, and have value, as an end goal in and of itself, not merely as a means to an end. You learn a set of skills and complete one or more research projects. Then you move on. Maybe you will continue in physics research. Maybe you will not.

You can call it passion, you can call it a calling ... but you need to have internal drive and motivation to make a PhD physics program viable. To expand on one of my previous post, it's perfectly OK for a high-school grad to spend the first one or two years in undergrad college to explore different subjects and "find himself". But if you enter grad school to find yourself, you will likely lose yourself.

It is kind of like a harsh pill to swallow for me to spend so many years of life on something and then move on from it entirely especially if it is unwillingly, and then start working on something else. I probably just need a change of mindset. I need to start thinking more short-term as in a few years down the road and try my best to optimize it. A PhD in physics, even if I do not continue in physics, seems like in itself a big accomplishment that very few people will ever get to experience. But at the same time, I do not want to force it.

 

[berkeman]

A PhD in physics, even if I do not continue in physics, seems like in itself a big accomplishment that very few people will ever get to experience.

Is there someone in your life (a parent or relative) who is pushing you hard toward this goal?

If not and this is solely your goal, where did it come from? It's great that you have done so well in school so early, but you need to combine that inate ability with good goal setting for your whole life, IMO.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But at the same time, I do not want to force it.

Then don't. Your life, your choice.

 

[decisivedove]

(A) If your intent here is to graduate from UC Davis with a bachelor's and apply to a different school for a master's in physics, the answer is no:

(1) Many physics departments (particularly the better ones) don't even allow you to apply for a terminal master's program. The only way to get a master's in those schools is to (a) apply for and be admitted to a PhD program, (b) complete the requirements (typically coursework) for a master's degree, and (c) pickup a master's degree on route to completing the PhD program, or pickup a master's degree as a consolation prize on route to exiting the PhD program before completion.

(2) Even for schools that do offer a terminal master's program, you typically will need to pay your own way. If you are admitted to a PhD program by a school that really wants you, however, you typically will get full tuition waiver and financial aid (typically via a teaching assistantship in most instances, but via a fellowship or research assistantship in some instances).

(3) If you complete graduate courses for a master's program at one school, you still might need to repeat them should you later apply for a PhD program at a different school (highly dependent on the particular schools).

(B) But if you can stay on at UC Davis for a combined bachelor's/master's program, it might be worth a shot, along the lines of gwnorth's Post #13. You've condensed the typical undergrad experience (sacrificing some worthwhile opportunities along the way), and have had to deal with limitations imposed by COVID. You've got time and opportunity to retrench, before you decide on whether grad school is even right for you.

As far as I am aware, UC Davis does not offer a combined bachelor's/master's program for physics unfortunately. But I am allowed to take graduate physics classes as a non-matriculated student at UC Davis. I wonder if I will be allowed to transfer in as a PhD student after taking a few and establishing connections with faculty.

My plan initially was to work with a professor at UC Davis on some kind of research while then taking classes as a non-matriculated student. Hopefully if the position with the professor would be paid, I would be able to pay for the classes using it, that way I would continue getting research experience and taking physics classes. Eventually I would transfer into a physics graduate program. That was my ideal plan but there are so many obstacles - including potentially having to retake the classes, finding a professor with a funded position available that would be enough for me to live comfortably while paying for classes (otherwise I would have to not take classes and focus on getting a part time job instead). Staying close with the university would also allow me to attend colloquias and research presentations of many subfields, to hopefully get to know professors better.

 

[decisivedove]

Is there someone in your life (a parent or relative) who is pushing you hard toward this goal?

If not and this is solely your goal, where did it come from? It's great that you have done so well in school so early, but you need to combine that inate ability with good goal setting for your whole life, IMO.

No. My parents and relatives wanted me to do CS instead because I always used to be very good at it with no effort and it makes real money (physics for me used to take a lot more effort and still does to this day, and that made me like it even more). I don't even think they respect science (judging from the amount of pseudoscience in my family).

The only reason I am finishing school so early is just because I used to lock myself up in a room and grind math back in middle school, just because I wanted to learn physics and I had no life lmao. Eventually, I found this program that would allow me to dual-enroll in a community college and take classes off from high school to take college classes, and I took advantage of it and did all the math classes that was offered in just a year and spent the next two years doing physics, and completed my general education requirements too.

I honestly don't know where my drive came from. Some stuff just inherently interests me and I am unable to push myself to do the stuff that I am not interested in no matter how hard I try. This only makes me closer to the stuff I do enjoy which is physics. I have ADHD so that probably has something to do with it. I also found that physics so far has changed me completely from my beliefs to the way I think eventough I have just gotten started.

 

[decisivedove]

Then don't. Your life, your choice.

By forcing a PhD I meant doing it even if I do not enjoy it just for the sake of getting it done.

 

[Vanadium 50]

By forcing a PhD I meant doing it even if I do not enjoy it just for the sake of getting it done.

That's pretty much the worst reason I have heard to get a PhD.

There are lots of things that you won't get done in life. Play professional football. Play professional trombone. Go over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Go over Niagara Falls without a barrel.

 

[decisivedove]

That's pretty much the worst reason I have heard to get a PhD.

There are lots of things that you won't get done in life. Play professional football. Play professional trombone. Go over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Go over Niagara Falls without a barrel.

I was just clarifying what I meant by "I do not want to force it" in my previous post.
I should have worded it better I guess.

 

[Choppy]

Is there anything specific for to look for in a mentor before applying to a program? There are some programs that only really have 1 or 2 faculty I am interested in working with and if that does not work out, I will have no backup options.

Well, it's difficult to really assess this before you actually apply and spend some time in the program. Many schools don't require you to make a final decision on a supervisor until the end of your first term. This gives you time to get to know the faculty a little. But again, the more you learn, the better.

It's important to look beyond just the subject matter that they study.

Consider how you learn. What type of professors do you learn the most from? Which ones do you struggle to understand? What type of hours do you like to keep? Do you respond well in a regimented atmosphere (i.e. 9 - 5 days, regular weekly meetings, a clearly defined outline of expectations, etc.) or do you prefer more independence (i.e. the freedom to come and go from the lab/office as you please, sometimes working late into the night, the ability to walk into your supervisor's office unannounced, etc.). Are you okay with online meetings or do you respond better face-to-face?

How much freedom do you want in defining the direction of your project? Some supervisors very much fall into the "do what I tell you and don't waste your time on anything else" class, while others lean more toward the "so what have you been up to over the last month?" Some students are flexible to this kind freedom/regimented spectrum, but others really struggle if the supervisor doesn't jive with them.

Look at a supervisor's other commitments too. How many other students do they supervise? If a supervisor has a dozen students, how much one-on-one time are they going to be able to commit to you? Are they planning a sabbatical in the next few years? Retirement? What committees do they serve on? What's their teaching load?

You can also look at current and past graduate students of theirs, if that information is available. (Often this is the kind of thing you find out on a campus tour.) Where are they ending up? Are they going into work areas you see yourself doing?

 

[CrysPhys]

It is kind of like a harsh pill to swallow for me to spend so many years of life on something and then move on from it entirely especially if it is unwillingly, and then start working on something else. I probably just need a change of mindset. I need to start thinking more short-term as in a few years down the road and try my best to optimize it. A PhD in physics, even if I do not continue in physics, seems like in itself a big accomplishment that very few people will ever get to experience. But at the same time, I do not want to force it.

You need a balance between short-term and long-term plans, with the realization that there is greater uncertainty in the outcomes of long-term plans. That's why a broad-based education, along with resilience, flexibility, and ability to pivot with the job market are critical to your future happiness.

E.g., if your long-term plan is to become a tenured university professor specializing in high-energy theory, I'm certainly not going to discourage you. But you need to plan for the contingency that after you complete your PhD (and one or more postdocs), you might not get a faculty position. Then what? You don't want to say to yourself that you've just wasted X years of your life, and be filled with bitterness, regret, and self-recrimination. Your PhD (and one or more postdocs) need to have value as a shorter-term end goal, even if it doesn't lead to the long-term career that you had initially envisioned.

 

[decisivedove]

Well, it's difficult to really assess this before you actually apply and spend some time in the program. Many schools don't require you to make a final decision on a supervisor until the end of your first term. This gives you time to get to know the faculty a little. But again, the more you learn, the better.

It's important to look beyond just the subject matter that they study.

Consider how you learn. What type of professors do you learn the most from? Which ones do you struggle to understand? What type of hours do you like to keep? Do you respond well in a regimented atmosphere (i.e. 9 - 5 days, regular weekly meetings, a clearly defined outline of expectations, etc.) or do you prefer more independence (i.e. the freedom to come and go from the lab/office as you please, sometimes working late into the night, the ability to walk into your supervisor's office unannounced, etc.). Are you okay with online meetings or do you respond better face-to-face?

How much freedom do you want in defining the direction of your project? Some supervisors very much fall into the "do what I tell you and don't waste your time on anything else" class, while others lean more toward the "so what have you been up to over the last month?" Some students are flexible to this kind freedom/regimented spectrum, but others really struggle if the supervisor doesn't jive with them.

Look at a supervisor's other commitments too. How many other students do they supervise? If a supervisor has a dozen students, how much one-on-one time are they going to be able to commit to you? Are they planning a sabbatical in the next few years? Retirement? What committees do they serve on? What's their teaching load?

You can also look at current and past graduate students of theirs, if that information is available. (Often this is the kind of thing you find out on a campus tour.) Where are they ending up? Are they going into work areas you see yourself doing?

That is some great advice. I was looking at the PhD program of my current school and they have a Student-Advisor expectation worksheet with stuff like a lot of the things you mentioned like freedom and meetings. In some schools, you do a trial project with your advisor too so that is probably very helpful in choosing an advisor.

Considering the amount of other students the advisor has and stuff is also something important that I will keep in mind. I can never benefit much from group meetings but I do find a lot of value in one on one meetings based on my experience so far, so I will make sure to have plenty of one-on-one time.

Looking up their past students also seems smart. Would it be advisable to contact their past students?

Very good advice. Thank you so much.

 

[decisivedove]

You need a balance between short-term and long-term plans, with the realization that there is greater uncertainty in the outcomes of long-term plans. That's why a broad-based education, along with resilience, flexibility, and ability to pivot with the job market are critical to your future happiness.

E.g., if your long-term plan is to become a tenured university professor specializing in high-energy theory, I'm certainly not going to discourage you. But you need to plan for the contingency that after you complete your PhD (and one or more postdocs), you might not get a faculty position. Then what? You don't want to say to yourself that you've just wasted X years of your life, and be filled with bitterness, regret, and self-recrimination. Your PhD (and one or more postdocs) need to have value as a shorter-term end goal, even if it doesn't lead to the long-term career that you had initially envisioned.

That is a very valid point. I am was recently getting very stressed on what my undergrad physics degree even means if I do not end up getting into a PhD program and doing something else for a while. In this process of chasing these "long-term" goals, I am basically ruining the value my BSc in physics will have and not celebrating it enough. A PhD seems very similar too with the only exception being that you put in a lot more work into it. My current situation is a very good learning opportunity for me to try and change my mindset in a way that I won't be be broken if I end up doing something completely different after my PhD. I will not give up trying to achieve my long term goals but if it does not seem like a well-paved path (like it seems now to a lesser extent), I need to learn to appreciate the value of the experiences I had in themselves.

I absolutely agree with your point that I need to find a balance between short-term and long-term goals, and account for the uncertainty with longer-term plans. (There is an uncertainty principle for short term and long term goals. :-) ) I need be more flexible for sure.

 

[gwnorth]

(A) If your intent here is to graduate from UC Davis with a bachelor's and apply to a different school for a master's in physics, the answer is no:

(1) Many physics departments (particularly the better ones) don't even allow you to apply for a terminal master's program. The only way to get a master's in those schools is to (a) apply for and be admitted to a PhD program, (b) complete the requirements (typically coursework) for a master's degree, and (c) pickup a master's degree on route to completing the PhD program, or pickup a master's degree as a consolation prize on route to exiting the PhD program before completion.

(2) Even for schools that do offer a terminal master's program, you typically will need to pay your own way. If you are admitted to a PhD program by a school that really wants you, however, you typically will get full tuition waiver and financial aid (typically via a teaching assistantship in most instances, but via a fellowship or research assistantship in some instances).

(3) If you complete graduate courses for a master's program at one school, you still might need to repeat them should you later apply for a PhD program at a different school (highly dependent on the particular schools).

Re #1 & 2 unless the OP chooses to pursue a master's degree outside of the US where standalone master's programs are common. Also in some countries, like Canada for example, it is common for the master's to be funded similarly to a PhD such that there are no (or limited) out of pocket expenses.

That does however lead to the issue of #3 should the OP then wish to pursue PhD studies in the US after the completion of the master's. The chances that they might not receive any credit for the previously completed master's studies is a consideration, but given the OPs age and lack of direction, taking a few additional years to get their a PhD may not be a big issue. Certainly it would be no different than taking a gap year or two and would allow for the acquisition of additional research experience and for the OP to make connections to potential letter writers.

 

[decisivedove]

I just talked to a faculty advisor who has experience working with graduate admissions. The advice I got was that I still have a shot if I apply but high energy theory is highly competitive so there is a chance I do not get in. If every other part of my application is strong besides undergraduate research, it will not matter that much especially with an explanation. Taking another year of undergrad might also be beneficial.

I also just completed my GRE General yesterday (which was only required for 1 school) but I did not do that well on it. I did not study for it because I had scheduled only a week ago which was midterms week, and I was sleep-deprived when I took it. I also ended up getting burnt out after just 2 hours of the test writing essays, reading random passages, and doing a few quantitative questions.

On the very first quantitative section, I think I got every problem right except maybe 1 or 2 because of algebra mistakes and stuff. Then the second and third quantitative section of the test only got harder with most of the problems being hard. There were a bunch of trick questions that I noticed and did not fall for it but I have no clue how many trick questions I fell for.

They were by no means hard for me but I ended up taking a lot of time trying to solve the hardest problems on there and I did solve it, but I ran out of time for the other problems. If I just did the easy problems first (I did not know that each question is weighted equally. I thought a hard problem is worth more than an easy) and tried to use test taking strategies like eliminating answers, I am confident that I could have gotten a near perfect score on the quantitative section. I ended up getting a 160 on the quantitative unofficial but there is a good chance that it will be curved up a little because a lot of the problems were stuff that I would not expect someone without a background in mathematics, physics, engineering, etc to be able to solve.

I am not allowed to disclose the questions but the problems were way harder than the sample quantitative questions on their website with basic number theory and stuff. I had found some of the tricks I learned in real analysis helpful on the comparison questions.

In the second and third sections, the geometry was crazy, one of which I remember had 3 triangles inscribed on a circle. Something else that slowed my down were the numbers. The calculator on the GRE is very bad so when very complicated numbers were involved, I did one operator at a time noting them down on my scratch paper because if I even press a single wrong button, I would have gotten a wrong answer and not even know about it because it does not show you the input so you can figure out whether something is wrong with it.

My unofficial score for the verbal was a 149. I think I did comparatively better on the essay section. I never want to take the GRE General ever again, because it is 5 hours long. I might give GRE Physics a chance after studying for it next year.

 

[gwnorth]

From the research I've done for Physics the 70% & 90% on the GRE are: V - 160 & 166, Q - 163 & 170 respectively with a total score of 323 & 336, so yes your scores are a little low even if your Quant score is the one that they will mainly focus on. A 149 V + 160 Q doesn't even get you to the 50th percentile for typical Physics applicants. For the different program "tiers" a competitive applicant would score in the range of:

T-10 = 164-68 V + 168-70 Q
T-11-50 =161-65 V + 164-68 Q
T-51-100 =158-162 V + 161-65 Q

As HEP-Theory is one of the most competitive fields for admissions, for schools requiring that you submit GRE scores, you would most likely need a substantially higher score. Fortunately many programs still aren't requiring it, or the PGRE, at present.

You could go ahead and apply for PhD programs and see what results you get, but have a back up plan in case it doesn't work out. The downside to this is that the application fees can be quite substantial. My best advice though would be to take 1-2 years to strengthen your profile before applying. Whether that means finding an RA position while potentially taking some grad courses or attending a master's programs would be up to you.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, there's good news and bad news from those numbers.

The good news is the general GRE is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to admissions. The university might require it, but I am aware of no cases where it made any difference - neither "look at those General scores! We have to admit him!" nor "we dodged that bullet - we almost accepted this guy, but look at the General GRE!"

The bad news is the reason that it's irrelevant is that all the information contained there is contained elsewhere. We don't have that information, but we can infer from the General GRE score that this will not be great. As you showed, the scores are below the median, and we know that many more people take the GRE than are accepted to grad school.

I also think the worse problem is that yet again there was an important step to grad school, and again the OP didn't prepare adequately, and unsurprisingly the OP performed below where he needed to. This is not a recipe for success in grad school.

 

[decisivedove]

You could go ahead and apply for PhD programs and see what results you get, but have a back up plan in case it doesn't work out. The downside to this is that the application fees can be quite substantial. My best advice though would be to take 1-2 years to strengthen your profile before applying. Whether that means finding an RA position while potentially taking some grad courses or attending a master's programs would be up to you.

Yeah. I have finally decided on taking a gap year. While I want to do a physics PhD, I feel like I need to learn and grow outside of academia for at least a year. Initially my plan was to take a gap year too but I would think of me not getting into a PhD program as defining my self-esteem. But lately I am starting to realize, I enjoy doing physics, and school is just kills a lot of the fun I have by doing problems, going slow through the material and making sure I understand it the best I can.

At school, I have a deadline every day of the week except Monday and Sunday, so I never get to enjoy learning or doing physics. There is just so much pressure to perform by doing well in exams and rushing through material instead of appreciating the material and solving problems for the sake of it. I am sure that I can learn any subject way faster and deeper on my own without these external pressures if I can take control of my learning. I would like to take a break from taking classes full-time for at least a year. This is why a PhD seems appealing to me - there is so much time to focus on one problem and take my own learning in my own hands (after finishing the classes).

I am thinking that I can do an internship at a national lab during the Summer and then work on a RA position while taking the quantum field theory and quantum mechanics sequence as a non-matriculated student. And then I can try my luck with a PhD program next year or the year after. What matters is that I continue to learn and grow instead of having expectations on myself to get into a top PhD program, and getting good grades, etc, and that requires a change in my mindset.

 

[decisivedove]

I also think the worse problem is that yet again there was an important step to grad school, and again the OP didn't prepare adequately, and unsurprisingly the OP performed below where he needed to. This is not a recipe for success in grad school.

I do agree. I was self-conflicted for a long time on whether or not I should apply this year. Signing up for the GRE was an impulsive last-minute decision to try my luck for one school. I will not be applying for a PhD program this year. Next year, I will plan in advanced on how I will structure my time to prioritize research experience and the GRE.

 

[Vanadium 50]

At school, I have a deadline every day of the week except Monday and Sunday, so I never get to enjoy learning or doing physics. There is just so much pressure to perform by doing well in exams and rushing through material instead of appreciating the material and solving problems for the sake of it.

And you think this will get better in graduate school? It will not. It will likely get worse.

I can learn any subject way faster and deeper on my own without these external pressures if I can take control of my learning.

Um...

This opens up all sorts of cans of worms you don't want opened. Reasonable questions are: "If you are so good at learning on your own, why are your grades and test scores average or slightly below?" (And you will need a score on the Physics GRE in the high 900's to make this argument credibly) "If learning under the guidance of others is such a detriment, why are you applying here to do just that?" "If this is true at Davis - the only place you really have xperience = why the heck didn't you transfer?"

This position will not help you, will likely hurt you, and if nothing else is hard to swallow.

 

[Vanadium 50]

gap yea

Do not call it a gap year.

A gap year is something done by flaky students who either can't make up their minds or are incapable of meeting deadlines.

A year outside of school in support of specific goals X, Y and Z is much better.

FWIW, I had what is now called a gap year and got into my first choice for graduate school. But I had specific goals in mind and could speak to them when asked (and I was),

This is general advice. Specifically, I think it is more important for you. One might look aty your application and conclude "This person considers graduate school the default option - he's not applying because he wants to do something specific, but he couldn't think of any other options". True or not, it doesn't matter - that's what it looks like. Stirring a "gap year" into the mix only reinforces this.

 

[decisivedove]

This opens up all sorts of cans of worms you don't want opened. Reasonable questions are: "If you are so good at learning on your own, why are your grades and test scores average or slightly below?" (And you will need a score on the Physics GRE in the high 900's to make this argument credibly)

My exam scores in my physics classes are not below average. Here is my last undergrad E&M class for example (well above upper quartile):

I do not consider exam scores a true reflection of understanding. Exam problems (at least in my school) tend to be way easier than homework problems but the only catch is that it is a challenge to finish on time. Many of my classes have elements that are not geared in learning - for example I lost a bunch of points for not plugging in the numbers for statistical mechanics problem (I only plugged in numbers for the last part of the problem where it was required to calculate something but not in the other parts).

As for GRE General scores, I did not prepare at all and my attention span << 6 hours which was reflected in my scores. I got a higher percentile for analytical writing than the quantitative section eventough I am clearly better at doing math than writing, just because it was in the beginning. My official diagnosis of ADHD only reflects this. I do not consider myself a good test taker.

"If learning under the guidance of others is such a detriment, why are you applying here to do just that?"

I should have elaborated more. Learning under the guidance of others is not an issue for me. In fact, I appreciate having a good teacher who answers my questions. The "detriment" is the pace at which the material is taught. At most other schools E&M is a 3 quarter series, but at my school it got condensed to 2 quarters while still covering all of Griffiths. Quantum Mechanics is also similarly only 2 quarters. I can keep up with the pace but the issue is that whenever I have a conceptual gap or a weakness, instead of being able to spend more time on it, we just move on and I feel like I am left with gaps in my understanding. The faster pace also means we are assigned easier problems which in my opinion is not the best for learning.

And you think this will get better in graduate school? It will not. It will likely get worse.

My sample size for graduate school classes is very small (1 class - graduate classical mechanics) but so far I find that it helps me learn a lot more per week compared to any undergraduate class. This is mainly because of 3 reasons:

• The professor is more involved with our learning and lets us ask tangential questions that can benefit our understanding. Students ask more questions too. The professor also hosts 2 homework workshops each week and I attend both of them and get conceptual gaps clarified (like recently I was not too comfortable with linear algebra in index notation, but my professor helped me a whole lot with it).
• The homework problems are more abstract and help me understand the material way better. I turned in my homework a little late once and I still did not lose any points for it. This encourages to turn in a perfect homework each time and take my time to make sure I understand all the material. In undergrad, most my homework are rushed.
• The material is very interesting. I really enjoy the abstract discussions of canonical transformations and classical field theory, as opposed to undergraduate "compute this".

This is by no means solid evidence. There were undergraduate classes I attended that I found really helpful, and my sample size for graduate classes is a lot smaller. But I think it is safe to assume that homework assignments of graduate classes are more geared towards helping me get the material. Even if I hate classes in graduate school, it will be mainly over in like 2 years.

"If this is true at Davis - the only place you really have xperience = why the heck didn't you transfer?"

Davis is the only place I have experience. I had no reason to believe that this highly specific stuff would change at another school on the quarter system. (Berkeley was the only semester school I got into) Maybe I would have been better off if I went to UC Berkeley instead, but at that time I had my reasons. Also, at this point I do not consider transferring smart because at Davis I am allowed to just enroll in more advanced graduate physics classes. I have a friend at another schools who say that it requires prior approval to take graduate physics classes, and he did not get approved despite being recommended by the professor.

 

[decisivedove]

A year outside of school in support of specific goals X, Y and Z is much better.

Sure. That is some good advice. I will frame it that way while applying for graduate school.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You have lots of excuses. Excuses are fine, but getting into grad school is competitive. The schools are going to take accomplishments over excuses every single time. Unfair? Maybe. But that's how it is.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Sure. That is some good advice. I will frame it that way while applying for graduate school.

Don't frame it that way. Make it that way. What are you going to do during your gap year to improve yourself, either as a physicist or as a general human being?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Make it that way.

This.

What are you going to do during your gap year to improve yourself, either as a physicist or as a general human being?

And it will go a lot smoother if you decide this now, before you start, rather than trying to piece the story together after the fact.