Is there a better way to estimate chances of admission to a PhD program?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bjnartowt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reading Statistics
AI Thread Summary
To gauge chances of admission into a PhD program, applicants often calculate acceptance ratios, but this can be misleading due to varying competitiveness among schools. Factors such as domestic versus international applicant standards and personal qualifications compared to current students can provide better insights. Seeking advice from advisors who understand specific program dynamics can also be beneficial. However, relying too heavily on statistics may not improve admission chances, as randomness and interview performance play significant roles. It is advisable to apply to multiple programs rather than focusing on a single institution.
bjnartowt
Messages
265
Reaction score
3
Hi all, I'm wondering how to gauge the chances i have of making it into a PhD program.

First approximation: took ratio of accepted students to number of students who applied.

But: that produced a 116/487 = 24% chance of being admitted to U-Cal San Diego, verses a 45/260 = 18% chance of being admitted to Rutgers. I hear Rutgers is less competitive than San Diego.

Suggestions on other ways to improve this first approximation of "chances of successfully-being-admitted"? Perhaps other factors need to enter into some sort of linear combination? :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could try to compare your own qualifications to the resumes of current graduate students. Or ask your references about your chances :)

Be careful with overall admission statistics because many programs have a huge discrepancy between their admission standards for domestic and international students. I have only heard this about math (my own field) but I am confident that it applies to physics as well. I remember one professor announcing at a grad school info session at a national conference, "If you score at the 90th percentile of the math subject GRE, you are better than most of our American applicants and worse than any of the Chinese."
 
Ha ha...

But I wonder: what would my advisers know that the APS book wouldn't? For instance, I am wondering if I can get into Rutgers. But their condensed matter physics is said to be like top 20.
 
They might have guided several generations of students through the graduate admission process and observed patterns which students are accepted or rejected. They also know the content of their own letters, which will likely make or break your application :)
 
bjnartowt said:
Suggestions on other ways to improve this first approximation of "chances of successfully-being-admitted"? Perhaps other factors need to enter into some sort of linear combination? :)

I would suggest not doing this at all. It won't improve your chances, nor will it help you sleep at night. There is too much of a random factor (as well as how you come across in interviews) to be able to make even an educated guess at something like this. :smile:
 
The other thing that makes thing misleading is that the quality of the admissions can vary wildly from school to school. What gives you a better gauge of your odds of admission is to look at the median GRE physics score and then compare it to what you get.

Also, I'd strong suggest that you apply to several schools, and not to have your heart set on one particular school.
 
TL;DR Summary: What topics to cover to safely say I know arithmetic ? I am learning arithmetic from Indian NCERT textbook. Currently I have finished addition ,substraction of 2 digit numbers and divisions, multiplication of 1 digit numbers. I am moving pretty slowly. Can someone tell me what topics to cover first to build a framework and then go on in detail. I want to learn fast. It has taken me a year now learning arithmetic. I want to speed up. Thanks for the help in advance. (I also...
Hi community My aim is to get into research about atoms, specifically, I want to do experimental research that explores questions like: 1. Why do Gallium/Mercury have low melting points 2. Why are there so many exceptions and inconsistencies when it comes to explaining molecular structures / reaction mechanisms in inorganic and organic chemistry 3. Experimental research about fundamental Quantum Mechanics, such as the one being followed by Hiroshima university that proved that observing...
guys i am currently studying in computer science engineering [1st yr]. i was intrested in physics when i was in high school. due to some circumstances i chose computer science engineering degree. so i want to incoporate computer science engineering with physics and i came across computational physics. i am intrested studying it but i dont know where to start. can you guys reccomend me some yt channels or some free courses or some other way to learn the computational physics.

Similar threads

Back
Top