Expressing Neurodivergency Obstacle in Grad School Personal Statements

[TRB8985]

Many sources recommend detailing the social/educational/cultural/economic/etc. obstacles that a student has overcome in their academic journey when filling out a Personal Statement essay to a graduate program.

Personally, I don't really have any obstacles that fall into that category. However, I did deal with very severe ADHD while obtaining my undergraduate degrees in math and physics that was diagnosed and treated after I graduated. Since then, I feel like my ability to concentrate and focus has increased exponentially, and sometimes I wonder what my 3.2 overall GPA could have been if I would have had that all figured out before graduating in 2019.

Would mentioning something like this in a Personal Statement be a "kiss of death" to my application? Obviously, it would be worded far more eloquently in the Personal Statement essay, but I'm worried whether it would be a cause for concern to the selection committee knowing that I had difficulty concentrating in my past. I think it's important to be transparent and forthright, but I don't want it to be at the cost of a potential graduate candidacy.

Any advice on how to approach this?

 

[WWGD]

At first sight, it seems relatively mild, as long as you don't seem to be dwelling on it and focus on having overcome the difficulty. Let's see what others say.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What does the say for the instructions for this personal statement?

 

[Haborix]

First I would check to make sure that what these "sources recommend" actually fits within the prompt given by each university. No good confessing and being off topic.

Second, I don't really understand your comment about being transparent and forthright. A personal statement is not a confessional; you decide what goes in the personal statement. Given your GPA, I think disclosing the challenges with ADHD is much more likely to be read as an attempt to explain/mitigate/excuse the GPA.

EDIT: I wanted to add that my past paragraph wasn't meant to give the impression that you shouldn't write about this. And if you do, it is important to be clear about what you hope the reader takes away and do your best to make it so that it is the case.

 

[Haborix]

What does the say for the instructions for this personal statement?

Dang it, beat me to it!

 

[Vanadium 50]

O was kind of waiting to read your reply, but I probably should follow up on @Haborix post.

A 3.2 GPA is a problem.
Do you think a 3.2 GPA plus ADHD will be interpreted as zero problems or two?

 

[WWGD]

O was kind of waiting to read your reply, but I probably should follow up on @Haborix post.

A 3.2 GPA is a problem.
Do you think a 3.2 GPA plus ADHD will be interpreted as zero problems or two?

What if his " In major" GPA was higher, say 3.6?

 

[Vanadium 50]

What if his " In major" GPA was higher, say 3.6?

What if it was? That's why I asked for the instructions. If they don't say "Please explain why your grades shoulda coulda woulda been better" one should carefully think about what you say about them.

It is impossible to predict what a committee will think, but one might well say "3.6 in major is 2.8 out of major. If he doesn't like what he's doing, he's a C+ student. And there's lots in grad school not to like". But his grades are what they are.

 

[TRB8985]

Looks like a couple things to respond to here, I'll try to go through them individually. My apologies for having this posted in the wrong section.

Given your GPA, I think disclosing the challenges with ADHD is much more likely to be read as an attempt to explain/mitigate/excuse the GPA.

That is exactly the kind of thing I'd like to avoid. Hit the nail right on the head. I understand how there's a very thin line between making such an obstacle known and using it as a crutch, which really outlines my post concerning whether it's even worth mentioning.

I wanted to add that my past paragraph wasn't meant to give the impression that you shouldn't write about this. And if you do, it is important to be clear about what you hope the reader takes away and do your best to make it so that it is the case.

No worries; I totally understand and 100% agree with your input on it. Thank you, Haborix.

A 3.2 GPA is a problem.
Do you think a 3.2 GPA plus ADHD will be interpreted as zero problems or two?

While I see what you're getting at (and would agree that I should have performed better), it could potentially go either way.

What if his " In major" GPA was higher, say 3.6?

To be more specific on these numbers, the GPA of my major (astrophysics) was 3.32. The GPA in my minor (mathematics) was 2.88. Cumulative for the entire undergraduate journey is 3.2.

It is impossible to predict what a committee will think, but one might well say "3.6 in major is 2.8 out of major. If he doesn't like what he's doing, he's a C+ student. And there's lots in grad school not to like". But his grades are what they are.

Too true. I really did enjoy working in physics research, though. For context, I was involved in the submission of three different conference proceedings (with my name as first author on one of them) and presented two at an AIAA conference back in 2018. Whether this is something worth mentioning either is another question, as the work didn't amount to an actual scientific paper while I was still enrolled.

While the instructions for the personal statements vary depending on the institutions, the following seem to be more or less required:

1.) A description of my relevent background (academic, personal, and service)
2.) My career goals
3.) The scientific questions that I'm interested in the most and why
4.) The specific areas I'd like to conduct research in + the factors contributing to those choices
5.) My interest in participating in the PhD program at University XZY

My understanding is that this whole ADHD business would fall into the category of "personal background" to some extent. My idea was to bring it up in such a way as to not excuse past performance, but rather, elucidate numerically how things have changed for me since I've had it addressed. For example, my general GRE quant scores in 2019 and 2020 were 152 and 151, respectively. As of last year, the score rose to 158.

With that said, does this seem like a significant enough change to warrant a mention? If not, I understand and appreciate the recommendation.

 

[gmax137]

I'm more than four decades out of grad school, so my opinion is definitely of the dinosaur variety. I wouldn't write anything about ADHD. I don't see anything in those 5 items you quoted as asking for that kind of information. Even number 1 asks for "relevant" background. To me, that's physics, physics, and physics.

 

[Vanadium 50]

it could potentially go either way.

It is a logical possibility mathematically distinct from zero, yes. But remember the problem the admissions committee is tasked with solving: admit the best class they can. They are not asking themselves "do we give the fellow a chance" but rather "do we want to take candidate X or candidate Y".

You have to decide if you think they will react with "Low grades and ADHD! Gotta get me some of that!" or "Let's treat him as if he got higher grades than he did."

The General GRE is fairly irrelevant. If you want to use it as a proxy for improvement, it's one quintile, but you';re still in the bottom half of physical science majors. I am not sure I'd want to be drawing attention to this.

I see another red flag. A 2.88 in Math will provoke questions like"will he pass his qual?". "will he pass math methods?" and "will he pass Jackson E&M?" Do you want them asking these questions? Then you don't want to draw attention to this either.

This is one part of one part of five, Why use it to draw attention to the weak spots of your application? Johnny Mercer gave some good advice decades ago - Accentuate the Positive.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Question for @TRB8985 ,

How long ago has it been since you have graduated from your undergraduate degrees in math and physics?

I ask because a 3.2 GPA will almost certainly guarantee that you will not be accepted into any graduate program in the USA or Canada -- graduate admissions are competitive, and typically to have a chance at admittance you would need a GPA of at least 3.6, and more likely even higher (most people I've known had GPAs more in the range of 3.8 to 4.0). Stating that you were diagnosed with ADHD does potentially mitigate this, but not by much.

Is there a possibility that you can pursue a second undergraduate degree (either at the same school, or at another college/university)? Since your ADHD is being treated, presumably this would give you a chance to demonstrate that you can improve your grades.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How long ago has it been since you have graduated from your undergraduate degrees in math and physics?

And related, how long did it take you to graduate?

Your profile says you are 34. If it took you 4x as long as is typical to finish an undergrad degree, some committees will estimate that it will take you 4x as long as is typical to finish graduate school. And that will be a problem.

 

[WWGD]

Maybe OP has a chance to take 2-3 classes and really shine at them, getting 4.0( or equivalent) in all of them?

 

[TRB8985]

How long ago has it been since you have graduated from your undergraduate degrees in math and physics?

Going on about 5 years now, finished in 2019.

And related, how long did it take you to graduate?

Seven years. I know that sounds a bit lengthy, but I walked onto campus not even capable of doing high school algebra.

Is there a possibility that you can pursue a second undergraduate degree (either at the same school, or at another college/university)? Since your ADHD is being treated, presumably this would give you a chance to demonstrate that you can improve your grades.

Well, I actually have two undergraduate degrees already. (B.S. astrophysics, B.A. mathematics)
While the idea of shouldering an additional chunk of debt for a third degree is unappealing, I would certainly consider it if it meant my chances of working towards a PhD in cosmology were non-zero.

"will he pass Jackson E&M?"

Funny I didn't see this earlier - I've actually owned that book for quite some time now! That and Steven Weinberg's 'Cosmology' are my go-to reading material when donating plasma every week.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are more red flags here.

There will be committees that will do the calculation: 7 years for BS/4 years for most people * 7 years average for a PhD = 12+ years. Not only will they not like this number, it means you will be taking up two spots, not just one - one for years 1-7 and another for years 8-12+. A university needs to really want you to mortgage another student.

There will also be those who say "In 7 years he only managed a 3.2!"

Your LORs will be stale, if you've been out for 5 years.

And while being out for a year or two is not at all uncommon, at 5 years, they will wonder why only know you're deciding you want a PhD.

If you're going to use your statement to apologies and excuses (which I don't recommend), these are the issues that you need to tackle.

 

[gwnorth]

OP what's your end goal for a PhD in Cosmology? Are you wanting to pursue it as a personal passion project or do you have specific career goals you're hoping to be able to realize with the degree?

 

[TRB8985]

I do have (slightly) specific career goals, yes.

The general idea is to complete the PhD and earn a position at a professional research institution or university with the intention of a full-fledged career in academia as a researcher or professor.

A couple things that I'd love to work on include (but are not limited to):

1.) Investigating new functional forms of the inflationary potential $V(\phi)$.
2.) Constructing hybrid inflationary models consisting of multiple fields and potential structures.
3.) Assisting with the estimation of the parameters of the inflationary potential from observational data.
4.) Studying the implications for the inflation potential using models with non-canonical kinetic terms for the inflaton field.

I'm very much aware that these topics are shooting well above my current station, but this is what I find cool. To achieve such an outcome, I've narrowed down the list of institutions and faculty members to the following:

University of Minnesota
- Dr. Keith Olive
- Dr. Liliya Williams
- Dr. Clement Pryke

University of Boulder
- Dr. Senarath de Alwis
- Dr. Oliver DeWolfe

University of Michigan
- Dr. Fred Adams
- Dr. Gus Evrard
- Dr. Dragan Huterer

University of Oregon
- Dr. David Craig

UC Santa Cruz
- Dr. Anthony Aguirre
- Dr. Edgar Shaghoulian
- Dr. Tesla Jeltema

There's more work to be done expanding this list, initiating contact, etc. But that's the current state of things and the goals I have crystallized in my head so far. I know some locations are going to be overwhelmingly more unlikely than others, but I was always told to cast a wide net.. just in case. Thankfully as a military veteran, the application fees get waived most of the time.

 

[symbolipoint]

I just now reached and read to your post #18.
I do not have the motivation to recheck what you are doing now; but could you be content just finding stable employment related to what you have studied/earned degree in so far?

 

[TRB8985]

It may sound ridiculous, but.. not really.

I've already looked past the introductory-level "veil", if you will, and seen a bit of what lies beyond. After that, it's hard to imagine wanting to remain at the tip of the iceberg and ignoring what's out there.

Hopefully you know what I mean.

 

[symbolipoint]

It may sound ridiculous, but.. not really.

I've already looked past the introductory-level "veil", if you will, and seen a bit of what lies beyond. After that, it's hard to imagine wanting to remain at the tip of the iceberg and ignoring what's out there.

Hopefully you know what I mean.

I do not know what you mean. When I asked about "content", I don't mean "happy"; I only mean, could you find a job in which you can settle into and is stable or stable enough and which does not create excess trouble for you to have and to do.

 

[TRB8985]

Oh! My mistake, sorry. Misinterpreted what you meant there.

Yes of course, that's no issue.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you need a Plan B.

Your issue is not just getting into grad school with a less than stellar record. Its doing this and getting a permanent position in one of (if not the) most competitive areas in physics. With a less than stellar record.

You mentioned a dozen names (and by the way, do not mess up the name of a university when applying - it's the University of Colorado, not University of Boulder). Let's say there are twice as many in this field. This is generous, because many of the people on your list are not doing theoretical cosmology full time, but lets use x2. That's 24. Assuming a professor's career lasts on average 25 years, the number of positions opening per year averages to one.

Are you the best in the world? Or even the second best?

Because it's a hot field now, these folks are cranking out graduate students. These are your competition. As they start populating physics and astronomy departments, the need for cosmologists will drop. Departments will hire people who do AMO, or solid state, or biophysiocs, etc. On average you are looking at finding a job 14 years from now, and in that intervening 14 years departments aren't standing still. They are filling their ranks.

The questions you pose may not even be interesting 14 years from now. There may be other questions deemed more interesting or more urgent.

If it takes you more than the average time, as your history suggests it might, this just gets worse.

Put another way, there are perhaps 10,000 people out there in a position as good or better thah yours, and one job. Maybe zero jobs.

You need a Plan B.

 

[gwnorth]

OP I have to echo what @Vanadium 50 has said. I hate to burst your bubble but a career in academia is just not realistic. The majority of new tenure track hires come out of a handful of elite graduate programs (I'm sure you can figure out what those would be for Physics and none of them are on the list you provided), so it's not just a matter of getting into grad school with a less than stellar record, it's getting into a highly competitive highly ranked elite graduate program, with a less than stellar record. Even then only about half of the graduates from those programs go on to successfully land TT professorships. Added to that, even if you could get admitted to one of those feeder programs, it's going to take ~6 years to complete your PhD and potentially another 3-5 years as a post-doc before you get hired as an assistant professor. Are you prepared to invest that amount of time? You should also go into this endeavour with the knowledge that It will take a further 3-7 years after your initial hire to rise to the rank of a full tenured professor. During the intervening years as PhD student/post-doc/assistant professor/associate professor, your income is likely to be very low and you will be sacrificing many years of being able to save for retirement.

I can not speak to your goal of becoming a researcher in a government lab but I have to think those positions are equally competitive to land. If you truly want to pursue graduate studies in Cosmology you need to come up with a alternative outcome. Also you should be aware that competition for admission to programs varies considerably by sub-field and Astro/Cosmology are very popular at the moment attracting a lot of applicants. These programs also tend to be quite small making them especially competitive for admission even at the lowest ranked programs.

Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention​

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05222-x

 

[Vanadium 50]

@gwnorth I don't think it's quite as bad as you say.

Yes, students from Stanvard do well in the competitive process. However, I know people from Minnesota, Michigan, and Colorado (from the list), South Carolina, Georgia Tech and Notre Dame (not on the list) who have gone on to tenured positions. However - and this is a big however - I think most or all of them could have gotten into Stanvard, but chose somewhere else because it was a better fit.

The timescale is a little different. A PhD averages 7 tears, and two postdocs of 3 years each is increasingly common, and assistant professors (who make better money than they used to) are promoted typically after 6.

If the OP's plans were to get a PhD and then go on tgop build better light bulbs for Philips, I'd say "Great". I see the problem is that the number of jobs that he finds acceptable is likely zero or one. And it will take him, on average, 13 years to find out what this number is.

R1 universities consider what the funding situation is when making hires. Pure theoretical cosmology is not well supported. You have NSF Astronomy, where the competition is stiff, a sliver of DOE focusing on Dark Matter and a sub-sub-sliver on Dark Energy, and NASA, with a university program that's smaller than DOE's. I don't see this as a growth area. I see retirements being replaced by people who do other and/or more thiings.

If someone said they want an advanced degree in theology because they wanted to become Pope, I'd say much the same thing.

 

[Choppy]

A PhD averages 7 tears,

... an interesting typographical error.

 

[Vanadium 50]

researcher in a government lab

Pure theoretical cosmology is essentially zero in the Labs.

The Labs have a large role in large scale instrumentation (e.g. the LSST camera), and in Dark Matter searches, and there is a small theoretical effort that is sort of an appendage to that. Then you have a computational cosmology program as an appendage to supercomputing. But that's really not what pays the bills.

 

[TRB8985]

Thought I'd elaborate on a few things here as it sounds like I may have made myself look a bit foolish in my last post:

I think you need a Plan B.

Completely agree 100%. Universally good advice regardless of endeavor.

Are you the best in the world? Or even the second best?

Heh, no. Not even close. I'm not that delusional.

The questions you pose may not even be interesting 14 years from now. There may be other questions deemed more interesting or more urgent.

Certainly. Those questions/topics just represent some of the things I find the most compelling. It's by no means a list of 'I only want to do these things and nothing else' kind of deal.

If it takes you more than the average time, as your history suggests it might, this just gets worse.

While I think that's a reasonable conclusion under those conditions, I can very confidently state it's not like that anymore. The stark contrast in quality of life improvement between then and now seriously cannot be stressed enough.

I completely understand that selection committees may assume the same looking purely at the numbers from the last decade as you described. I don't think that's unfair of them to think that. Which is kind of the point behind this thread - figuring out whether it would be advantageous in dispelling those notions to inform them of the change in such a way that doesn't excuse past performance, but puts it into perspective.

Added to that, even if you could get admitted to one of those feeder programs, it's going to take ~6 years to complete your PhD and potentially another 3-5 years as a post-doc before you get hired as an assistant professor. Are you prepared to invest that amount of time?

If I was lucky enough to be granted that opportunity, then yes. Without hestitation.

During the intervening years as PhD student/post-doc/assistant professor/associate professor, your income is likely to be very low and you will be sacrificing many years of being able to save for retirement.

Yes, I'm aware that's a bit of an unfortunate reality there. But again, if granted that opportunity, I would find a way to make it work.

If the OP's plans were to get a PhD and then go on to build better light bulbs for Philips, I'd say "Great". I see the problem is that the number of jobs that he finds acceptable is likely zero or one. And it will take him, on average, 13 years to find out what this number is.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that either. Research positions in industry (like at Honeywell, for example) could be an interesting option too, especially since they're located about an hour away from me.

You have NSF Astronomy, where the competition is stiff, a sliver of DOE focusing on Dark Matter and a sub-sub-sliver on Dark Energy, and NASA, with a university program that's smaller than DOE's.

No problem with these, either. Dark energy is admittedly more interesting, but it sounds like it likely suffers similar problems in admittance and competition as the cosmology route.


This response is getting to be a bit long, so I think I'll stop here.

I would like to say, though, that I appreciate the transparency about the difficulty in attaining such a lofty aspiration. As an undergrad, all I ever heard was "the process was competitive" - clearly, this isn't a good representation of how truly difficult it must be. I'm glad you didn't sugar-coat it. Thank you for that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But again, if granted that opportunity, I would find a way to make it work.

What does that mean? It sounds like "If I get into graduate school, I'll somehow manage to be the one person who gets a tenure-track position in theoretical cosmology." That does not sound realistic.

No problem with these, either. Dark energy is admittedly more interesting,

I think you missed the point.

R1 universities hire faculty working in subfields that are well funded. Theoretical cosmology, for good or ill, is not. Therefore, the number of positions will likely go down, and not up.

I can think of five people with faculty positions doing only theoretical cosmology. Three are in their 70's, one in his 80's and one is dead. This is not exactly a "growth industry". Everybody else is doing something in addition - particle astro, observation, supercomputing ,etc.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that either. Research positions in industry (like at Honeywell, for example) could be an interesting option too, especially since they're located about an hour away from me.

First, if you want a career as a physicist, expect to move. I've lived in only four places, which is unusually low.

Second, you should try and arrange a visit and find out what PhD physicists do there, and what their background is.

Finally, you need to be prepared for the possibility that Honeywell will not hire a theoretical cosmologist to help them make widgets if thet can find someone who specialized in wigitology. The unemployment rate among PhD physicists is very low indeed, but not so low that a newly minted PhD always gets her first choice of location and job scope.

While I think that's a reasonable conclusion under those conditions, I can very confidently state it's not like that anymore

With all due respect, you do not know how much slower your proegress will be compared to the typical student. ADHD aside, half of all students take longer than the median. (Go figure) Further, you have some catching up to do: the 3.2 and 2.8 show that. Maybe the impediment is gone, but yoiu still fell behind. Your planning needs to consider that this will take you longer than the median studenr.

 

[gwnorth]

@gwnorth I don't think it's quite as bad as you say.

Yes, students from Stanvard do well in the competitive process. However, I know people from Minnesota, Michigan, and Colorado (from the list), South Carolina, Georgia Tech and Notre Dame (not on the list) who have gone on to tenured positions.

There's an enrolment cliff coming on the horizon meaning that the number of TT roles are likely to shrink (and more college closures) making them even more competitive to land.

https://www.cupahr.org/issue/dept/interactive-enrollment-cliff/

 

[Vanadium 50]

Certainly demography is a factor, and certainly universities will adapt in different ways. It was always thus. Harvard will weather this. The universities that will be in the most trouble will the ones with small endowments and whose selling point is that it's a good place to drink beer and watch football. But they tend not to be places with active cosmology programs. Maybe cosmetology.

My objection is that it's really not true that you need top graduate from a "big name" to get a faculty position. Maybe in some fields, but no so much in physics.

 

[gleem]

We have not discussed letters of recommendation and physics or math GREs. Will professors of five years ago remember you well enough? Since your ADHD treatment occurred after leaving college they cannot vouch for your improvement. Your improvement evidence in the GRE may be weak as your improvement should improve by taking it multiple times.

Contrary to Walt Disney's maxim "If you can dream it you can do it" it is not something you can take to the bank. The best evidence for a desirable outcome is to stand in favorably compared to the competition.

As for plan B have you considered experimental physics? You will most likely have more skills that will be of more value in industry if plan A does not work out.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Contrary to Walt Disney's maxim "If you can dream it you can do it" it is not something you can take to the bank.

One mighty even question whether it makes sense to take advice from a frozen head in a jar.

We have not discussed letters of recommendation

I did mention that. GREs are also an issue. The OP attributes his low grades to his ADHD, but it could just as easily have been low grades because of less learning because of the ADHD. Which will show up in other places.

A PhD looks difficult, but not impossible. Some of the gpals beyond that look unrealistic.

 

[gleem]

This might be useful

University	Applied	Accepted	Enrolled	Awarded MS	Awarded PhD
U of Minnesota,	76	30	28	16	17
U of Colorado	865	216	66	23	21
U of Michigan	666	87	22	22	23
U of Oregon	10	10	n/a (10?)	10	14
U of Cal S.C.	238	42	9	7	7

Source: https://www.petersons.com/graduate-schools/ Searched: acceptance rate Univesity graduate physics program

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think you need a Plan B.

Your issue is not just getting into grad school with a less than stellar record. Its doing this and getting a permanent position in one of (if not the) most competitive areas in physics. With a less than stellar record.

You mentioned a dozen names (and by the way, do not mess up the name of a university when applying - it's the University of Colorado, not University of Boulder). Let's say there are twice as many in this field. This is generous, because many of the people on your list are not doing theoretical cosmology full time, but lets use x2. That's 24. Assuming a professor's career lasts on average 25 years, the number of positions opening per year averages to one.

Are you the best in the world? Or even the second best?

Because it's a hot field now, these folks are cranking out graduate students. These are your competition. As they start populating physics and astronomy departments, the need for cosmologists will drop. Departments will hire people who do AMO, or solid state, or biophysics, etc. On average you are looking at finding a job 14 years from now, and in that intervening 14 years departments aren't standing still. They are filling their ranks.

The questions you pose may not even be interesting 14 years from now. There may be other questions deemed more interesting or more urgent.

If it takes you more than the average time, as your history suggests it might, this just gets worse.

Put another way, there are perhaps 10,000 people out there in a position as good or better than yours, and one job. Maybe zero jobs.

You need a Plan B.

@Vanadium 50 , I have a few follow-up questions:

1. What Plan B would you recommend to the OP, if asked? The OP did state that they are 34 years old and out of university for 5 years. I have no idea what they do for work, and so am wondering what options are available.

2. On a separate note, you state that cosmology is a hot field now, and as physics departments fill them, they will look to hire people who specialize in AMO, solid state, or biophysics (among other specialties). This leads me to wonder -- given the time it takes for students to finish their PhDs, what would you advise current physics majors considering further graduate studies, in terms of areas of research?