What are my chances of getting into a competitive physics PhD program?

[PhysUser124]

Hello everyone,

I'm a fifth-year student at Iowa State University, double majoring in Mechanical Engineering and Physics, and I will be graduating this year. I realized my passion for physics late into my academic career, which is why I'm in my fifth year—I've been working hard to catch up since the end of my junior year.

I currently have a 3.97 GPA (on a 4.0 scale) and have completed a summer and a semester of research. The research I participated in will result in me being listed as a co-author on a paper that will submitted soon. Still, it will likely be published after the application season is over.

Additionally, I won't be submitting a GRE score, as I'm still learning core physics classes like Electrodynamics and Quantum Mechanics, and thus, my score wouldn't accurately reflect my abilities/competency. I'm concerned that this may impact my application.
I am currently planning to apply to experimental physics PhD programs, some of which are in the top 10/25 range. After reading these forums, I'm nervous about my chances, especially considering my school's ranking isn't particularly high. From what I have gathered, the general rule of thumb is that you tend to go down one tier. Is this true? Am I shooting way too high? I would rather not waste time and money applying to these schools if my chances of getting in are pretty low.

Given these factors, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my chances of being accepted into competitive PhD programs, especially if I can find faculty and research groups that align with my interests. Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would certainlu apply more broadly.

"He got a 3.97 at Iowa State, but it took him 5 years - just the sort of person we are looking for at Stanvard!" Does this sound right to you? More to the point, if Stanvard took all these people, wouldn't their classes be overfull?

So what do you have to sepearate you from the rest of 5he Stanvard applicants? Not your GRE scores. Your LoRs? Well, maybe, but you don't sound convinced there either.

Why should Stanvard take you? If you can't convince us, how will you convince them?

 

[PhysUser124]

Thank you for your feedback!

I'd like to clarify a couple of points. First, regarding the five-year/GPA remark, I didn't take five years because I only took a few classes a semester; I added a second major in my senior year, which required additional time. Given the requirements for a full physics major, completing it in just one year is not feasible. I was hoping that the graduate committees would understand this and that having a second mechanical engineering major could positively impact my application.

Secondly, regarding my LORs, I apologize for not mentioning them earlier. I believe they are strong, but I am also aware that other applicants will likely have strong ones. So, I'm not necessarily counting on these making me stand out alot.

Thirdly, I was already planning to apply broadly. I have a few prestigious research programs in mind that align with my interests, which is why I mentioned them. I'm seeking advice on whether it's reasonable to target these programs or if my chances of getting accepted to one of these programs are so slim that I would just be throwing money and time away.


I appreciate any further insights you may have!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I get that. What you need to get is that Stanvard is not saying "Do we give the poor bear a chance?" but rather "Who are the best N students in the applicant pool."

I get that you needed 5 years to double major. The other side of that coin is "couldn't make up his mind what he wanted" followed by "if we accept him, how do we know he won't change his mind again?" While this is not the end of the world, it is still very much a part of your record. And you are at the point where excuses, even hood ones, matter less.

You also need to understand that ":best student this year" is an average LoR. Students can shop for professors who will write good letters. A letter that causes a student to move up substantially is "best student in 10 years" or "best student I have ever seen or am likely to see."

I can't tell if Stanvard is in or out of the picture. I don't have your packet, I don't know what their applicant pool is, and I don't know what their present commitment is - if they have one faculty doing Pulsed Terahertz Spectroscopy, and he has more students than he can support now, pretty much nobody wanting to do that is going to get in. It would be irresponsible.

To add, if you are still taking core courses, that also opens up the question of how well you will do in them. Obviously, though grades are important,

 

[PhysUser124]

I get that. What you need to get is that Stanvard is not saying "Do we give the poor bear a chance?" but rather "Who are the best N students in the applicant pool."

I get that you needed 5 years to double major. The other side of that coin is "couldn't make up his mind what he wanted" followed by "if we accept him, how do we know he won't change his mind again?" While this is not the end of the world, it is still very much a part of your record. And you are at the point where excuses, even hood ones, matter less.

You also need to understand that ":best student this year" is an average LoR. Students can shop for professors who will write good letters. A letter that causes a student to move up substantially is "best student in 10 years" or "best student I have ever seen or am likely to see."

I can't tell if Stanvard is in or out of the picture. I don't have your packet, I don't know what their applicant pool is, and I don't know what their present commitment is - if they have one faculty doing Pulsed Terahertz Spectroscopy, and he has more students than he can support now, pretty much nobody wanting to do that is going to get in. It would be irresponsible.

To add, if you are still taking core courses, that also opens up the question of how well you will do in them. Obviously, though grades are important,

Ok, thanks.

I'm starting to understand how graduate committees might perceive my background. One of my letters of recommendation will be a joint letter from the two professors I've researched under, as it was a joint lab. They've told me I was the best undergrad research assistant they have ever had, so hopefully, that LOR will make me stand out a little. However, my other two letters will probably be average. I also agree that my late change in academic focus may hurt my applications and that my double major might not offset that.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Stanvard." Is that just a blanket term for prestigious universities, or is it a typo for Stanford? Sorry if this is just a case of me not being familiar with the lingo.

 

[PhysUser124]

Disregard my last question, I just realized that Stanvard is a combination of Stanford and Harvard.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Stanvard." Is that just a blanket term for prestigious universities

That. It also keeps me from getting into specifics. Some prestigious schools don't have strong programs everywhere. That just adds to the confusion.

 

[jtbell]

"Stanvard" is easier to say than "HYPMS".