Getting into a top tier Physics PhD Program with a Masters Degree

[ForTheBit]

Hello everyone,

I graduated a few years ago with a bachelors in aerospace engineering with a 3.2 GPA and a second author on a published research paper. I am currently working as a senior software engineer, but have been considering going back to school for a PhD in Physics. I am planning on getting a Masters Degree in Physics to bridge any gaps in my knowledge, get more research experience, and bring up my GPA. My two questions are, how can i maximize my chances of eventually getting into a top tier physics phd program? and how likely is this?

I realize that this will be difficult, and I have many steps ahead of me, but I just wanted to get a general idea of the landscape. Thanks in advance!

EDIT: I am aware the requirements for getting into a top program are high, so assuming (big assumption) i am able to get a GPA close to 4.0 and do good research during my time in the program, which seem to be necessities for any good PhD program in physics.

EDIT 2: also wondering if I would be better off going for a Bachelors and trying to graduate in 3 years rather than getting a masters.

 

[berkeman]

Welcome to PF.

Are you in the US? If so, is that where you are planning on getting your MS and PhD?

 

[ForTheBit]

Welcome to PF.

Are you in the US? If so, is that where you are planning on getting your MS and PhD?

I am in the US. Going to be targeting mid tier MS programs and then hopefully top PhD programs after that. I am looking at schools like UMD, CU Boulder, University of Illinois, Penn State, and Michigan for my masters.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First and foremost, you need to pick a school that actually has a terminal MS program. UIUC, which is the only one I checked, does not.

This program needs to emphasize core content and not be very engineering-oriented. You have already shown you can do engineering.

Next, you need to ace the GRE. High 900's. Your competition will.

Next, you need strong letters from people who have been to physics grad schools themselves. Engineers will carry less weight. Only engineers will carry much less weight.

Finally, you need to look beyond 'top tier'. Your GPA will hurt you, and you need to plan on that. Four years of a 3.2 and one year of a 4.0 makes 3.36, That's not what these schools are looking for.

 

[TeethWhitener]

I am in the US. Going to be targeting mid tier MS programs and then hopefully top PhD programs after that. I am looking at schools like UMD, CU Boulder, University of Illinois, Penn State, and Michigan for my masters.

The schools you listed are all top 20 physics grad programs (I think UIUC is top ten). What the heck do you consider top tier if those are mid??

 

[ForTheBit]

The schools you listed are all top 20 physics grad programs (I think UIUC is top ten). What the heck do you consider top tier if those are mid??

top ten programs are what I was considering top tier. and I know UIUC is sometimes rated in the top ten depending on where you look. But the acceptance rate for masters programs at these school seems to be fairly lenient. Boulder for example does have a great program, but also has a fairly high acceptance rate. So I thought it best to target schools with reputable programs, and more lenient admissions.

 

[ForTheBit]

First and foremost, you need to pick a school that actually has a terminal MS program. UIUC, which is the only one I checked, does not.

This program needs to emphasize core content and not be very engineering-oriented. You have already shown you can do engineering.

Next, you need to ace the GRE. High 900's. Your competition will.

Next, you need strong letters from people who have been to physics grad schools themselves. Engineers will carry less weight. Only engineers will carry much less weight.

Finally, you need to look beyond 'top tier'. Your GPA will hurt you, and you need to plan on that. Four years of a 3.2 and one year of a 4.0 makes 3.36, That's not what tyhese schools are looking for.

After finishing a masters program I would have two years of a hopefully higher GPA correct? I also asked in my post if it would be better to go back for a second bachelors and transfer credits to hopefully graduate in 2-3 years. would this be a better use of my time?

 

[ForTheBit]

First and foremost, you need to pick a school that actually has a terminal MS program. UIUC, which is the only one I checked, does not.

This program needs to emphasize core content and not be very engineering-oriented. You have already shown you can do engineering.

Next, you need to ace the GRE. High 900's. Your competition will.

Next, you need strong letters from people who have been to physics grad schools themselves. Engineers will carry less weight. Only engineers will carry much less weight.

Finally, you need to look beyond 'top tier'. Your GPA will hurt you, and you need to plan on that. Four years of a 3.2 and one year of a 4.0 makes 3.36, That's not what tyhese schools are looking for.

here is the link i found for UIUC physics masters: http://catalog.illinois.edu/graduate/engineering/physics-ms/#text maybe this is a newer offering?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Look at https://physics.illinois.edu/admissions/graduates/apply

They say they do not offer a terminal masters program. The master degree in the catalog is for people accepted into the PhD program.

I just checked every school on your list. None accept students for a terminal MS. If they award one, it is to an undergrad getting a combined BS and MS,

I think you need to rethink this plan.

 

[CrysPhys]

top ten programs are what I was considering top tier. and I know UIUC is sometimes rated in the top ten depending on where you look. But the acceptance rate for masters programs at these school seems to be fairly lenient. Boulder for example does have a great program, but also has a fairly high acceptance rate. So I thought it best to target schools with reputable programs, and more lenient admissions.

What is your source for this info (higher acceptance rate/lower standards for terminal masters vs PhD programs at these schools)?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Oh, and a physics MS is usually one year. It might take you two depending on the school and its prereqs and how they handle them.

Even 2 years is not so helpful, as it's really 1-1/2 years of grades before applications are due. Assuming a 4.0 - which many more students predict than accomplish - that's a 3.4.

I know on one terminal MS program in the top 20, other than awarding MS degrees to undergrads, and that's at Washington. And they specifically say this degree is unsuitable for people who want to do what you want to do. So you are probably talking about, at best, non-flagship state schools, not the peer institutions of the handful of schools you are interested in.

About 2000 physics PhDs are granted in a year. You don't define 'top tier' but maybe admitting 500 students total? That's out of 13.000 bachelors degrees, just in the US. So you;re talking what - the top 5%? Do you think you're better qualified than 95% of the physics graduates?

We can (and probably will) quibble about these - or any - numbers. But qualitatively the problem is still there: you are competing for a very small number of openings with some very strong competition.

 

[Choppy]

Something that might help you figure out the 2nd BSc vs MSc question is to consider the coursework you have. In a master's degree you are going to jump into heavy core physics courses.

To be successful in those you need to have been successful in their undergraduate prerequisite courses, i.e. if you're looking for a 4.0 in graduate level E&M, you will need to have taken a senior undergraduate course in E&M. And it won't be sufficient to have just passed it. You will need to have mastered the material covered in it. The same goes for quantum, classical mechanics, etc.

If you took these as options in your engineering degree, and got all As in them, then you're probably set up to do okay in a master's program. Otherwise you'll be jumping into a program for which you're not well prepared, and the probability of success will go down big time.

 

[ForTheBit]

Oh, and a physics MS is usually one year. It might take you two depending on the school and its prereqs and how they handle them.

Even 2 years is not so helpful, as it's really 1-1/2 years of grades before applications are due. Assuming a 4.0 - which many more students predict than accomplish - that's a 3.4.

I know on one terminal MS program in the top 20, other than awarding MS degrees to undergrads, and that's at Washington. And they specifically say this degree is unsuitable for people who want to do what you want to do. So you are probably talking about, at best, non-flagship state schools, not the peer institutions of the handful of schools you are interested in.

About 2000 physics PhDs are granted in a year. You don't define 'top tier' but maybe admitting 500 students total? That's out of 13.000 bachelors degrees, just in the US. So you;re talking what - the top 5%? Do you think you're better qualified than 95% of the physics graduates?

We can (and probably will) quibble about these - or any - numbers. But qualitatively the problem is still there: you are competing for a very small number of openings with some very strong competition.

do you think if I am seriously considering this then going back for a second bachelors would be the best option? I could likely transfer a lot of gen ed and math credits from my aerospace degree, really focus on the physics classes, and gain some TA and RA experience. And likely finish in less than three years.

 

[ForTheBit]

Something that might help you figure out the 2nd BSc vs MSc question is to consider the coursework you have. In a master's degree you are going to jump into heavy core physics courses.

To be successful in those you need to have been successful in their undergraduate prerequisite courses, i.e. if you're looking for a 4.0 in graduate level E&M, you will need to have taken a senior undergraduate course in E&M. And it won't be sufficient to have just passed it. You will need to have mastered the material covered in it. The same goes for quantum, classical mechanics, etc.

If you took these as options in your engineering degree, and got all As in them, then you're probably set up to do okay in a master's program. Otherwise you'll be jumping into a program for which you're not well prepared, and the probability of success will go down big time.

I realized I just asked this to vandium. but from the sounds of your answer, do you think a second bachelors would be a better path?

 

[TeethWhitener]

Also important: why physics? Are you interested in doing physics research that will use your aerospace background? (E.g., fluid dynamics, plasma physics, materials, etc.) Or are you trying to do something completely different? If the former, you might be able to look into a PhD in aerospace engineering with ties to physics groups. This would likely necessitate you focusing not on schools but on individual research groups—some of which might be top-tier groups at not-top-tier institutions. (NB—it’s not a bad idea to take this approach regardless)

If you’re trying to do something completely different and you have the cash, a second bachelor’s might be a better option.

 

[ForTheBit]

Also important: why physics? Are you interested in doing physics research that will use your aerospace background? (E.g., fluid dynamics, plasma physics, materials, etc.) Or are you trying to do something completely different? If the former, you might be able to look into a PhD in aerospace engineering with ties to physics groups. This would likely necessitate you focusing not on schools but on individual research groups—some of which might be top-tier groups at not-top-tier institutions. (NB—it’s not a bad idea to take this approach regardless)

If you’re trying to do something completely different and you have the cash, a second bachelor’s might be a better option.

I think I want to try something different. I have always been interested in physics, but honestly I just was not as focused as I should have been in undergrad. I liked learning about theory, math, and concepts. I am just fascinated by physics, and want to see if I could make a career out of it. If it doesnt work out I can always just go back to software.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A second bachelors certainly fills in the gaps in your education. It also lets you - at least in theory - accumulate more A's and boost your GPA. And it will be a source of letters. However, there are multiple downsides:

1. Seven years in college cries out "perpetual student". Not a good look to admissions committees.
2. Many of the same schools that don't have a terminal MS don't accept students for a second BS
3. You almost certainly will get little to no financial aid. Can you afford this?
4. What are you going to do if your plan to get a 4.0 doesn't pan out and you do exactly as well as the first time around? What are you planning to do if you tank the GRE? What are you going to do if you just plain change your mind? Three years is a huge investment.

 

[ForTheBit]

A second bachelors certainly fills in the gaps in your education. It also lets you - at least in theory - accumulate more A's and boost your GPA. And it will be a source of letters. However, there are multiple downsides:

1. Seven years in college cries out "perpetual student". Not a good look to admissions committees.
2. Many of the same schools that don't have a terminal MS don't accept students for a second BS
3. You almost certainly will get little to no financial aid. Can you afford this?
4. What are you going to do if your plan to get a 4.0 doesn't pan out and you do exactly as well as the first time around? What are you planning to do if you tank the GRE? What are you going to do if you just plain change your mind? Three years is a huge investment.

i guess i would just go back to software. hopefully i could secure an RA or TA position within a year to help pay for subsequent years of tuition. and penn state and university of pittsburgh seem to allow second bachelors with a top 30 physics program.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Pittsburgh is excellent. But I would not count on a TA or RA as an undergrad, certainly not one that pays a substantial portion of your expenses. Or everybody would be doing it.

Pittsburgh treats 2nd bachelors as transfer students. Thei acceptance rate for transfers is about half. Is that realistic? Could you have gotten into Pitt the first time around? Easily? Remember, they will see the 3.2 and won't like it either.

 

[ForTheBit]

Pittsburgh is excellent. But I would not count on a TA or RA as an undergrad, certainly not one that pays a substantial portion of your expenses. Or everybody would be doing it.

Pittsburgh treats 2nd bachelors as transfer students. Thei acceptance rate for transfers is about half. Is that realistic? Could you have gotten into Pitt the first time around? Easily? Remember, they will see the 3.2 and won't like it either.

yes i actually was accepted here previously but chose a different university.

 

[Choppy]

I realized I just asked this to vandium. but from the sounds of your answer, do you think a second bachelors would be a better path?

That's for you to decide and I would think your decision should depend on where you're at right now.

Take a deep dive on where your education is at. What courses do you have and which ones do you need? Of the preparatory course work that you have, how well did you do in them? Ultimately, even if you get into an MSc program, how realistic is it that you'll come out with the 4.0 GPA you're after? And then weigh that against the costs and lost opportunities that come with a second BSc. I don't think there's a perfect solution to the problem.

 

[Vanadium 50]

And while you're at it, you might think really hard about "top tier". Lots of people are competing for a limited number of slots, and they have better GPAs, better physics preparation, more relevant and often more substantial research experience and have a higher likelihood of a high GRE score. You're closing a lot of doors with this requirement.

If you would be happy at Stanford but not at, say Pitt or Iowa State, why not?

 

[gwnorth]

But the acceptance rate for masters programs at these school seems to be fairly lenient.

Admission to many Physics master's program in the US may indeed be easier than to get admitted to than a PhD because most students don't do a master's degree first. Top candidates go straight from bachelor's to PhD. The majority of master's programs are course-based and designed for applicants targeting moving into industry or improving their career credentials. They are not first and foremost designed to be stepping stones to a PhD. They mostly will not come with any funding and will be very expensive. Non-professional course-based master's degrees have a general reputation of being "cash cows" for the universities that offer them and as a result may not be as selective in their admissions. In some fields they are a common vehicle for international students trying to immigrate and find employment in the US and some universities exploit that fact. PhDs on the other hand do come with funding and are much more competitive for admission.

While attending and excelling at a top ranked master's program in Physics can be helpful in raising your profile to make you more competitive for admission to a PhD program, there are some things you need to take into consideration.

The first is if you can actually get admitted to a master's program coming from an Engineering background. It always amazes me the number of students who think that doing a master's is the same as applying to undergrad. A master's is a specialist degree. It presupposes a general level of knowledge at the undergraduate level. It is not a "pivot" degree where you decide you want to go into a completely different field. Whether or not your undergraduate studies have sufficiently prepared you for a master's will depend on the specific courses you have taken.

Secondly that as you will be applying to PhD programs with a master's degree, the bar may be set higher for you relative to applicants applying straight from undergrad. You may be expected to have significantly more research experience and potentially publications. Given that you will be applying at most after a year (for 2 year programs) or even just as you begin your masters (for 1 year programs), you may not have sufficient time to adequately raise your profile without taking a gap year so that you can complete your master's first. You will also be competing with international applicants many of whom also have master's degrees.

Third to be of maximal value the program you attend would need a research based/thesis master's. These programs tend to be 2 years in duration (1 year of courses + 1 year of research) and there may not be very many on offer. Any that do exist are likely to be more competitive for admission than course-based programs.

As to the question of whether the better option is to get a 2nd bachelor's or go for a master's, there is potentially a 3rd option you could look into which is a bridging program. If you do decide to try for a master's you may be better off looking at programs outside of the US. Most countries outside of the US require a master's degree before applying to for a PhD and as a result offer far more thesis-based master's. If you could get admitted to a top ranked international program for a master's it might hold more weight than a US course-based degree. The downside is that it could be an expensive endeavour as most will not provide funding (though possible in Canada) and scholarships will be very competitive to land.

 

[ForTheBit]

And while you're at it, you might think really hard about "top tier". Lots of people are competing for a limited number of slots, and they have better GPAs, better physics preparation, more relevant and often more substantial research experience and have a higher likelihood of a high GRE score. You're closing a lot of doors with this requirement.

If you would be happy at Stanford but not at, say Pitt or Iowa State, why not?

as i said before i was interested in trying to make a career out of physics. and it seems these positions are quite competitive. so it doesn’t have to be at a top tier university per-say. but it certainly improves your odds at getting a research or professor position.

 

[Vanadium 50]

OP. can you please use capitalization and punctuation?

You say that a top tier institution improves your chances of getting a preferred job later. Prove it. You said you wanted to be a scientist, right? OK, back up your statements with evidence. In particular, make sure you are not looking at the effect of size, quality of students, and that you are looking at the current situation. (Harvard was without peers centuries ago - because it was literally without peers.

 

[Vanadium 50]

a bridging program

Do these actually exist?

The APS makes a hoopla about theirs, but as far as I can tell, it is less a "progra," and more a matchmaking service between underrepresented populations and schools that want to improbe their demographics. If you are not a member of an under-represented population, their interest seems to fade, If the student gains admission and is unsuccesful, this seems not to be of major concern - everyone says "well, we tried".

Is there any place that has an actual program, and one that tracks oitcomes?

 

[ForTheBit]

I do not mean to confuse you with lack of capitalization. And apologies that I may not be correctly inferring your tone. But I do feel that you may be attempting to discourage me from attempting to break into this field at all.

Is there any reason for this? Do you think it is inadvisable to try to switch from my current profession into Physics? Or, are you just trying to give a realistic portrait of the academic landscape?

 

[gleem]

What state do you live in?

Here is a link to a document from the American Institute of Physics which lists Physics programs for schools that grant only BS degrees, a max of an MS (53 schools), and a max of a PhD. It gives the number of degrees conferred in 2020 from those schools.

Is an MS from Towson State (MD) going to get you into UMD or Johns Hopkins? Maybe, they may be familiar with Towson's program and Towson did graduate 7 students in 2020. Compare that to Texas A&M at commerce which graduated 25 persons in 2020 maybe better or at least bigger but would a degree from them pique the interest of a good PhD program?

Then there is the University of Oregon which graduated 39 MS students and 23 Ph.D.s suggesting they have a terminal MS program. This could lead maybe to being accepted to the Univ of Washington (good program).

There are a few other large universities that have significant MS grads compared to PhD grads.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think your odds of success are higher if you expand your list of acceptable schools.

I also think the odds of getting someone else to pay for you to rmedy yoyr deficiencies is low. There's not enough financial aid out there to cover everybody's first degree, which is why there is close to zero for people getting their second degree.

 

[ForTheBit]

What state do you live in?

Here is a link to a document from the American Institute of Physics which lists Physics programs for schools that grant only BS degrees, a max of an MS (53 schools), and a max of a PhD. It gives the number of degrees conferred in 2020 from those schools.

Is an MS from Towson State (MD) going to get you into UMD or Johns Hopkins? Maybe, they may be familiar with Towson's program and Towson did graduate 7 students in 2020. Compare that to Texas A&M at commerce which graduated 25 persons in 2020 maybe better or at least bigger but would a degree from them pique the interest of a good PhD program?

Then there is the University of Oregon which graduated 39 MS students and 23 Ph.D.s suggesting they have a terminal MS program. This could lead maybe to being accepted to the Univ of Washington (good program).

There are a few other large universities that have significant MS grads compared to PhD grads.

Thank you for this information! I will check out these reports.

 

[ForTheBit]

I think your odds of success are higher if you expand your list of acceptable schools.

I also think the odds of getting someone else to pay for you to rmedy yoyr deficiencies is low. There's not enough financial aid out there to cover everybody's first degree, which is why there is close to zero for people getting their second degree.

And just to clarify. Are you suggesting that I apply to lower ranked PhD program? Or that I aim for a second bachelors even though there will not be much aid, if any. Or is there another path I am missing? Thank you for taking the time to answer my many questions. This conversation has given me a lot of insight.

 

[gwnorth]

Do these actually exist?

The APS makes a hoopla about theirs, but as far as I can tell, it is less a "progra," and more a matchmaking service between underrepresented populations and schools that want to improbe their demographics. If you are not a member of an under-represented population, their interest seems to fade, If the student gains admission and is unsuccesful, this seems not to be of major concern - everyone says "well, we tried".

Is there any place that has an actual program, and one that tracks oitcomes?

I did a quick Google search for bridge programs specifically and a number came up, mostly in Australia, but when I searched for post-baccs I got hits like:

https://www.physics.utah.edu/graduate-programs/gradadmission/post-bacc-fellowship/

we also have a post-baccalaureate program to support students interested in a PhD in physics or astronomy, but who may need an extra opportunity to develop core skills in research and course work. This is a fully funded one-year program that will engage students in research and upper division undergraduate physics course work. The ideal student for this program is anyone who is: (1) in need of extra course work to prepare for graduate courses, (2) returning to graduate school after years in the workforce, or (3) students interested in transitioning into physics or astronomy from an adjacent field (e.g. engineering, math, etc.).

There are others - https://www.umdgradmap.org/bridge-programs. I don't know about how good their outcomes are though.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't know about how good their outcomes are though.

I know some of them are intended to "improve diversity", so unless the OP is an URM.

The Utah program looks interesting, as it is structured as a fellowship. It appears to be a way to accept underprepares students and pay them while they catch up, with the intent that they continue on in the graduate program. It's not so clear how strongly this is coupled to the desire to improve diversity, which might or might not be relevant to the OP.

Unfortunately, this has two problems for the OP. It;s a year. and the OP feels he is farther behind than that, and as a feeder to the grad program, Utah, while very good, is not top tier. Another reason why the top tier constraint is goingh to be trouble.

 

[ForTheBit]

I realize that the title is about getting into a top tier school but what it really should’ve been is “what is realistic path to take to become an employable physicist in research or academia”.

 

[hutchphd]

but it certainly improves your odds at getting a research or professor position.

Not if you don't thrive there. If you truly believe that you will compete successfully with this cohort of students then OK. I would advise a more detailed and selective approach. It is far better to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, and your overall chance of success is enhanced. Any way you do it will require concerted effort and help along the way.