Most U.S. physics programs except a dozen in the top most tier do not function without the presence of foreign grad students; I’m not sure this would actually be true, but I have a feeling that the lower tier programs won’t have enough willing domestic grad students in physics to maintain the infrastructure (TAs, RAs, etc.), if they cut off the labor supplies from foreign countries. I am curious how much those top-tier programs “favor” domestic students in this sense. Do they simply employ a quota and get the best from different pools?

(Just to avoid potential misunderstanding, I’m not saying foreign students are better than domestic ones at all.)

Also, I think it is strange that some schools I applied to asked applicant to visit BEFORE deciding who to admit, while others (as you described ) admit first, then invite to visit. I went on one of those before you’re admitted visits, and it was a nail-biting experience because you feel that they are watching everything you do and judging. On the other hand, they admitted me and I did like it there.

Also, perhaps a strange question. Say a student (call him/her X) visits, and you really like him/her, and want to add X to your research group. You try to recruit X to your department, but in the end X decides to go somewhere else. A year later, you see X presenting at a conference. Would you hold a grudge?

1. Are the students tracked after admission? Do you know that your admissions criteria correspond to sucessful students? In an astro program with low statistics this wouldn’t be as useful as a big physics department.

2. What is the leading reason the job is still managed by the faculty? Time is a serious issue in the admission process. I can’t help but think that the earlier stages of selection could be handled by a seasoned admissions vetran whose full-time job is understanding which applicants have the best fortunes in grad school. They could even handle some of the tracking mentioned in part 1.

I am currently doing an Msc in physics (in Canada Msc -> Phd is the normal route, I am told it is different in the states) at a well respected Canadian university and didn’t bother writing the GRE. Granted, I had no ambition to go to the states so I just saved myself some time and a ton of money.

The official line was that good GRE scores can help you a lot if your marks suck and your reference letters are mediocre, but other than that, concentrate on your marks in your final year, rather than studying for the GRE.

If you are an experimentalist with research experience and a clear focus that is compatible with research at the university you are applying to, that will make it a lot easier.

If you want to do string theory, like far too many other people who applied in the 90s, it will be easier if you say you want to particle physics experiment. They always need bodies to build detectors and do data analysis, and they may fund you over the first summer while you study for the candidacy exam. Their standards are typically lower as well, from a purely supply-demand angle.

In general, if you decide to apply in something that is less popular with the cool kids but has an established presence at the universities you are applying to, then you will have a better chance.

Super Bohr Model - you’re in trouble at the top twenty programs with that GRE score unless you have something else going for you.

Getting in is fairly arbitrary, and there is low correlation with GRE scores and undergraduate grades with later physics success if one is above a fairly low level. So don’t worry too much either way, once you get into a decent program, how you got there doesn’t matter.

Actually it was last year; the suspense was killing me but I wasn’t sure what’s happening.

Now I’m very pleased to know that I made it into the waitlists of some awesome schools, haha. Well, I’m more than satisfied with where I’m right now anyways. But it feels REALLY good to know. Thanks again.

I have always wondered why the GRE counts more for theorists? As a hopeful theory student (w/ 730 GRE score, bleh) waiting to hear back from programs, this question is very interesting to me. It seems to imply that theorists should know more physics and than experimentalists, which is not at all true. Also, it seems to me that the kind of problems that are on the GRE, which use dimensional analysis, order of magnitude, and other back of the envelope tricks would be used just as much by an experimentalist as a theorist, if not more. What is the reasoning behind the idea that the GRE should count more for theorists?

Carl — The current max on the Physics GRE is 990, I think.

I can’t resist asking this:

is it true that if you don’t get admission decisions until very very late, then you’re on a “wait-list”?

I always thought there won’t be a waitlist since the committee already takes into account the fact people won’t neccesarily come once accepted.

Thanks

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/09/26/unsolicited-advice-iv-how-to-be-a-good-graduate-student/

Short answer: among the people who were accepted, not very much.

I applied to six schools, add in general and subject GRE tests and I spent around $1200, plus many dozens of hours of time. I would have applied to 1 or 2 more but one acceptance letter had already come in. I’ve seen 3 to 12 among my friends.

I’m not rich and it was mostly on loan leftovers, but it’s really not a lot of money. Just the stipend between different programs has a standard deviation greater than $1200, not to mention what comes after graduate studies which is the point. It’s chosing a department, a city, a subdiscipline, et cetera. Considering how much people spend on clothes, electronics, spring break, et cetera - it’s not much.

I applied to the other two because I honestly didn’t know which one I would prefer to attend.

The thing is, it actually costs quite a bit of money to apply to a school, like $100 plus expresspost fees, transcript fees, etc. I probably spent ~$400 applying to three schools.

Maybe strong students also have strong wallets, but I was accepted into all three schools I applied to and did it without too much financial hardship visited upon my part-time-job bank account.