Transcript vs Research - grad school admissions

[tachyon4]

Transcript vs Research -- grad school admissions

Background: I'm a sophomore math/physics major with a 3.9 GPA at a top-ten school. I've begun grad-level studies in physics and have made room in my schedule for me to more-or-less complete the masters curriculum by the time I graduate two years from now. I hope to attend a top-ten grad school for theoretical physics (QIT or QFT, I think).

But here's my problem: I have no research experience beyond small summer projects and the basic requirements of my courses. I assume grad schools consider both difficulty of coursework and research experience when making admissions decisions, so I wonder: are both of these elements are necessary or can exceptional coursework compensate for a lack of research?

Due to time constraints, I doubt my ability to maintain my progress in advanced coursework while also taking part in research: it seems that I must choose... and do so before I lose the opportunity to give either route a strong effort.

I'm leaning toward the coursework side of the debate because I think my transcript would set me apart from most applicants. I also think that any research I were to do would not set me apart: it's impossible (understandably) for an undergrad to get a job in quantum theory, so I'd likely end up in a chemistry lab doing experimental research purely for the sake of my grad school applications. Is this analysis reasonable?

Basically, I don't want to put all of this time into difficult coursework only to get screwed over by grad school admissions because I didn't participate the obligatory tradition of undergrad research.

Another concern: I hear letters of rec are important for admissions. Will a strong letter from a professor whose class I took hold as much weight as a letter from a research supervisor?

Thanks all! My concern is probably premature, but I'd still appreciate any guidance / reaffirmation you can provide.

 

[twofish-quant]

But here's my problem: I have no research experience beyond small summer projects and the basic requirements of my courses. I assume grad schools consider both difficulty of coursework and research experience when making admissions decisions, so I wonder: are both of these elements are necessary or can exceptional coursework compensate for a lack of research?

You really should do some research. The big issue here is not how graduate schools look on research, but if you do research and then you find out that you totally hate it, then you should reconsider whether or not to go to graduate school at all. Whereas if you do research and you totally love it, that will give you more motivation and energy to do well in the other parts of your undergraduate curriculum.

Also research gets you recommendation letters and a better statement of purpose.

Due to time constraints, I doubt my ability to maintain my progress in advanced coursework while also taking part in research: it seems that I must choose... and do so before I lose the opportunity to give either route a strong effort.

They actually are reinforcing. If you have a good prof, then it will help you "make sense" of what you are doing in class.

Another concern: I hear letters of rec are important for admissions. Will a strong letter from a professor whose class I took hold as much weight as a letter from a research supervisor?

Generally no, unless it's a small seminar style class, in which the professor actually knows your name. If you are one of eighty students, the big problem is that the professor is going to have difficulty remembering who you are.

 

[physics girl phd]

As a former member of a graduate admissions committee, I second all of twofish-quant's advice above. We would question how someone who didn't have much research experience knew they wanted to pursue an advanced degree, and judged letters of recommendation based on how much the professor knew about the student's research abilities. After all, you will be admitted, and typically paid a stipend, to do research under the direction of one or more of their faculty (and of course be awarded a degree for such research). We judged GPA less... mainly looking to see if the students had high enough marks in challenging enough courses that he/she could be expected to "get through" preliminary exams and core coursework/qualifying exams successfully.

Your inquiry also isn't premature. You should be trying to line up research for this summer or fall to really be competitive.

 

[sutupidmath]

@tachyon4: I hope you don't mind me for chiming in. I am interested in this topic as well.

How would the graduate admission committee view someone's application which shows that the applicant has clearly quite some research experience like participated in REU's, summer research with a professor from home institution, thesis research project etc. but did not manage to publish?

I am sure, that being a published author will clearly skew the scale, but I'm interested how the above situation would be viewed? If you didn't manage to publish (although you might be currently in the process, but for the sake of the argument let's suppose that you are not in the process of submitting a paper either), would the graduate admission committee look down on you and view you as some sort of failure or?

Thanks!