Schools Transfer Schools: Is It Worth Pursuing a Better Education for My Future?

[platonic]

I am a physics major, and I currently attend Georgia State University. I have been accepted as a transfer student to Georgia Tech, which is a better school than State, especially in math and the physical sciences. I plan to go to graduate school in physics or possibly medical school. My grades at state are pretty good (4.0, though we are on the plus/minus system where 4.3 is perfect) and I do feel I could graduate with a 4.0 or above from there. The classes at tech would be harder, though, and I'm not sure I could graduate with anything close to 4.0.

So I guess my question is this. Would I be better off with very high grades at the lesser school or with pretty good grades (say, 3.3-3.5 or so) at the better school? Would one choice help me more with graduate school in physics? Would one help me more if I were to go for medical school? Thanks in advance.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You should go wherever you think you will learn the most.

 

[platonic]

You should go wherever you think you will learn the most.

this is good advice of course. But if I learn the same amount both schools, is one of the options better than the other as far as how graduate schools would look at me as an applicant?

 

[physics girl phd]

By "learn the most," I'd note a few points:

Challenging classes are always great... but they have to challenge you at the right level (so you aren't completely lost, but have challenges that help you learn).

Facilities: It's been a long time since I was at Georgia Tech (in '96 for an REU)... and that was in a theory group (so I just needed a computer and a lot of texts) and I've never been to Georgia State... but how do the facilities compare... and how do you think you would learn in the environment? Cutting edge facilities can be great, but sometimes learning with less modern equipment can teach you more in the long run (if you have to work with it more -- i.e. repair it or struggle with its deficits!) That said, you'll run into old junk anywhere if you really look for it, or even if you don't. Most research labs are pack-rat facilities. I remember a colleague in my REU complaining about old junk at GT.

You also have to feel comfortable with professor availability/accessibility (do you think you might find professors at a different institution intimidating, especially if you transfer in, or are you naturally confident and outgoing?)

Cutting edge research opportunities for YOU: (do you think you will be able to get better research opportunities at one school over another, do you think you might have more responsibility on a good research project at one school over another, etc.). Note some of this depends on professor accessibility.

Overall, I think that a graduate committee would view slightly lower grades at a slightly better institution roughly equal to slightly higher grades at a lower institution... and I think that's what Vanadium is suggesting too... so I'm trying to clarify just a bit by what he means about YOU learning the most.

 

[Vanadium 50]

this is good advice of course. But if I learn the same amount both schools, is one of the options better than the other as far as how graduate schools would look at me as an applicant?

The odds of learning exactly the same at two different schools are so small as to be negligible. If you are smart enough to get into grad school, you're smart enough to figure that out. So your message indicates that you think it's more important to have an application that looks good than to learn as much as possible. That's not true, and it's not an attitude successful graduate students have.

You should figure out where you will learn the most and that should drive this decision.

 

[twofish-quant]

this is good advice of course. But if I learn the same amount both schools, is one of the options better than the other as far as how graduate schools would look at me as an applicant?

The school that you will learn the most physics in will make you a better applicant. Admissions committees try very hard to look at a transcript and figure out what the student really knows, and a lot of the "games" that people think of playing to make an application look better are pretty transparent to admissions committees that can see through them.

Getting a C in Advanced Quantum Field Theory taught by the world's expert in the field is going to look a hundred times better than an A+ in Remedial Consumer Math.

There's also the issue that you have to graduate with an undergraduate physics degree before you even think of getting into graduate school. Getting a Ph.D. in physics primarily for career reasons is a stupid idea. You should be getting a Ph.D. because you are driven to do physics, and you want to be challenged, and you want to have "fun" in a way that people outside of physics may find twisted. If you don't want to push yourself as an undergrad, then you are going to have serious, serious problems in graduate school.

 

[twofish-quant]

Challenging classes are always great... but they have to challenge you at the right level (so you aren't completely lost, but have challenges that help you learn).

It also helps to have faculty that know when to drop you in the river and let you thrash about, and when to throw you a life preserver because you are really drowning. Also, I'd have to say that the quality of the students are more important than the quality of the faculty.

Cutting edge facilities can be great, but sometimes learning with less modern equipment can teach you more in the long run (if you have to work with it more -- i.e. repair it or struggle with its deficits!)

Also if you want to learn by yourself, good computer facilities and good libraries are really important. The other thing that you want are a stream of people giving talks and seminars.

Overall, I think that a graduate committee would view slightly lower grades at a slightly better institution roughly equal to slightly higher grades at a lower institution... and I think that's what Vanadium is suggesting too... so I'm trying to clarify just a bit by what he means about YOU learning the most.

The other question that you have to ask yourself is why do you want to study physics and go to graduate school.

 

[proof]

your school's prestige can easily be one of the largest determining factors of where you end up in grad school / future employment so i am going to recommend transferring as long as it is reasonably possible (cost approx the same etc)

 

[platonic]

The odds of learning exactly the same at two different schools are so small as to be negligible. If you are smart enough to get into grad school, you're smart enough to figure that out. So your message indicates that you think it's more important to have an application that looks good than to learn as much as possible. That's not true, and it's not an attitude successful graduate students have.

You should figure out where you will learn the most and that should drive this decision.

Obviously learning is the most important part of school and should be the primary focus. But besides learning, someone planning to go to grad school should also take into consideration factors that make an impressive applicant. So to assume equal learning wasn't to say both would definitely give me the exact same knowledge, but this assumption is a tool that allows us to look at the other factors that go into an applicant. Such as "is it better to have slightly higher grades at the lesser school or slightly lower grades at the better school," all other things being equal.

 

[platonic]

By "learn the most," I'd note a few points:

Challenging classes are always great... but they have to challenge you at the right level (so you aren't completely lost, but have challenges that help you learn).

Facilities: It's been a long time since I was at Georgia Tech (in '96 for an REU)... and that was in a theory group (so I just needed a computer and a lot of texts) and I've never been to Georgia State... but how do the facilities compare... and how do you think you would learn in the environment? Cutting edge facilities can be great, but sometimes learning with less modern equipment can teach you more in the long run (if you have to work with it more -- i.e. repair it or struggle with its deficits!) That said, you'll run into old junk anywhere if you really look for it, or even if you don't. Most research labs are pack-rat facilities. I remember a colleague in my REU complaining about old junk at GT.

You also have to feel comfortable with professor availability/accessibility (do you think you might find professors at a different institution intimidating, especially if you transfer in, or are you naturally confident and outgoing?)

Cutting edge research opportunities for YOU: (do you think you will be able to get better research opportunities at one school over another, do you think you might have more responsibility on a good research project at one school over another, etc.). Note some of this depends on professor accessibility.

Overall, I think that a graduate committee would view slightly lower grades at a slightly better institution roughly equal to slightly higher grades at a lower institution... and I think that's what Vanadium is suggesting too... so I'm trying to clarify just a bit by what he means about YOU learning the most.

My biggest concerns about transferring are mentioned with here. At my current school, the physics department is small, and personal relationships with the professors are easy to develop. As far as research goes, there is more research going on at Tech, but I'm not sure how easy it is to get involved with research there (especially as a transfer), whereas it's pretty easy to get involved at Georgia State.

 

[twofish-quant]

your school's prestige can easily be one of the largest determining factors of where you end up in grad school / future employment so i am going to recommend transferring as long as it is reasonably possible (cost approx the same etc)

Utter nonsense.

 

[twofish-quant]

Obviously learning is the most important part of school and should be the primary focus. But besides learning, someone planning to go to grad school should also take into consideration factors that make an impressive applicant.

An impressive applicant is something that can demonstrate that they've learned the physics they need to do graduate work.

Yes, you should take into account the factors that make an impressive applicant, which means that you should pay attention to the opinions of people that have seen how things work in admissions committees, and much less attention that people who are just guessing about what the committees want.

The other thing is that you have a life after graduate school.

Such as "is it better to have slightly higher grades at the lesser school or slightly lower grades at the better school," all other things being equal.

Don't confuse "big name" with better or worse. The best school is one in which you end up learning the most physics in. There is a bit of individuality in this because different people learn in different ways. Also, people put *FAR* too much emphasis on grades. As long as you have a decent GPA, then grades become sort of irrelevant, because there is just too much variation between schools to know exactly what that means.

 

[twofish-quant]

My biggest concerns about transferring are mentioned with here. At my current school, the physics department is small, and personal relationships with the professors are easy to develop. As far as research goes, there is more research going on at Tech, but I'm not sure how easy it is to get involved with research there (especially as a transfer), whereas it's pretty easy to get involved at Georgia State.

You should find out before you jump. Something that matters a lot are letters of recommendation and research experience, and if they are easy to get in school A, and hard to get at school B, then school A is better.

Also, people worry too much about getting into graduate school, whereas the big challenge for an undergraduate is to get the bachelors without either burning out or hating physics. What's important is to have a good supportive physics environment that gets you to the bachelors.

Finally, you do need to realize that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. What that means is that you should do things for the sake of doing them rather looking for a payoff at the end, because that payoff may never come.

 

[proof]

Utter nonsense.

It's important to distinguish here between how the world should be and how the world actually is. yes i agree it is a shame and utterly nonsensical that prestige matters so much. the education system shouldn't be this way but it is the way it actually is. Knowing this is useful because you can then plan your moves accordingly

 

[twofish-quant]

It's important to distinguish here between how the world should be and how the world actually is. yes i agree it is a shame and utterly nonsensical that prestige matters so much. the education system shouldn't be this way but it is the way it actually is.

Except that it actually isn't in physics and math. If you are going out for your MBA and maybe med school, then the brand name of your graduate school matters a great deal. If you are going out for your physics Ph.D., it doesn't, and brand name of your undergraduate school doesn't help you that much in grad school or in life.

I got my degree at a big name undergraduate school. It was *really* useful because I got a first rate education, but if you tear off the brand label, I would have done just as well, and it wasn't as if grad school were kissing my feel because I had a big name undergraduate degree,

Also if you don't like the world, *CHANGE IT*.

Knowing this is useful because you can then plan your moves accordingly

Except I think that undergraduates tend to plan for the wrong thing...

1) The most important thing is that will get you into graduate school is to finish your undergraduate without hating physics. Because graduate schools need massive amounts of serf labor, if you end up with a decent physics degree with decent recommendations, you'll get in somewhere.

2) You should expect that once you get your physics Ph.D. you are *NOT* going to get a job as a professor at a research university. In fact you should expect that after you get your physics Ph.D., that there is *NOT* going to be a clear path that tells you what you should do next, Trying to figure out what to do with your education should be part of your education.

I'm seeing a lot of undergraduates get into a "career treadmill" which just leads nowhere.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's important to distinguish here between how the world should be and how the world actually is. yes i agree it is a shame and utterly nonsensical that prestige matters so much. the education system shouldn't be this way but it is the way it actually is. Knowing this is useful because you can then plan your moves accordingly

And I'm here to tell you how the world actually is...

*Branding* doesn't matter. *Networks* and *quality* matters, but that's something different.

You should absolutely not go to graduate school unless you love physics and math. A Ph.D. *is* useful for career, but once you have your Ph.D., you'll be leaving with no clear path ahead of you, and you will have to make your own path.