Jump to content

Deltagrey

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States
  • Application Season
    2015 Fall
  • Program
    Inorganic Chemistry

Recent Profile Visitors

1,314 profile views

Deltagrey's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

6

Reputation

  1. Is Caltech finished sending out admissions? Based on previous years, it seems like this is the time that rejections will start coming out.
  2. I had no idea how much effort universities put into recruiting professors to work for them. The Stanford recruitment was the most outlandish.
  3. I second this. Talking with some of the professors at my university, they've told me that politics can be a huge issue, especially at a lot of the top ranked east coast schools. I don't know how much truth there is to it, but it is something to be mindful of. Grad students can be caught between the fighting and it's not unheard of for spiteful professors to try and fail their colleagues' grad students.
  4. That is actually something that I've been thinking about as well. My gf will be staying in the LA area next year, and while LA to SF is not nearly as far away as SF and Boston, they're not exactly quite down the street either. As for the culture, from what I've heard, most of the advisors at Berkeley (and the department as a whole) are more laid back--possibly due to it being a public school, being in a very liberal area, and being on the west coast.
  5. Well both programs are world class, so we're splitting hairs differentiating them. Their reputation in my eyes is the same as it is for most people: they're both name-brand universities that "geniuses" are typically found at. Both are fantastic for inorganic and materials chemistry. MIT is considered the top inorganic program in the world, with nobel laureates like Richard Schrock (a fellow UCR alum). But Harvard is just as good, especially with Nocera working there now. So the pros are mainly the program strengths, and their reputations will probably make it easier to get into academia since pedigree unfortunately matters a lot. The main cons that come to mind: cost and location. Boston is expensive, and it can be difficult to find housing close to campus on a graduate student salary. The T is also the worst subway system I've ever used and the city can be a nightmare to drive around in. So, commuting can also be difficult. As a masshole (born and raised), I can also tell you that it is brutally cold and miserable in the winter. So depending on your preference for geography, you might prefer something warmer.
  6. I'm still waiting for my other application decisions, but I've been leaning towards UC Berkeley for inorganic chemistry. I feel that I'll be able to make a decision once I visit them in March. That being said--and in the spirit of the other program specific threads--I have a couple questions for those that have applied or been accepted to the program: Are you planning on visiting? What do you see as pros and cons of the program? So far, I view the main pro being the reputation and strength of the program. The main con that comes to mind for me is the cost: Berkeley is very expensive to live in and the alternatives (Oakland and Richmond) can be somewhat dangerous, and more difficult to commute from without a car. Please feel free to chime in with answers and questions of your own. Hopefully we can have current Berkeley grad students weigh in on this topic as well.
  7. I'm getting kind of anxious about Caltech, MIT, and Stanford, and admittedly a bit jealous of all the other people getting accepted by them.
  8. And if it's any consolation, you and I have gotten into some amazing schools already. No matter what, we're going somewhere great.
  9. Not yet. We still have another week or so.
  10. It can be hard to generalize because every department has their own standards for what they feel is important for admission. That being said, I think you have a good shot at those schools with your GPA. My justification: your research is probably the single most important factor (followed by letters of recommendation and your statement of purpose). Overall, your research is very good in terms of quality and variety, and I think that will help you out. Industry experience can also help you stand out from the majority of applicants that are coming straight from undergrad. Your letters of rec look very promising as well, considering they're coming from top researchers. I wouldn't put too much stock in a letter of rec from a graduate student though, imo. Having good grades is certainly a plus, but as long as you're above a 3.0 GPA, I don't feel like it will hinder your chances at those schools (though Caltech and UIUC would be difficult to get in, even for so-called "elite" candidates). Also, this is just my own view, but I disagree with Sunnygirl's view on the GRE. I think the chem GRE (and the regular GRE to some extent) are a joke for American applicants. They're more important for international applicants because it is far more competitive for them. For you, as long as you don't completely bomb it, admissions committees aren't going to even care. I didn't take the chem GRE and I was still able to get into some great grad schools that "required", or at least "strongly recommended", taking it.
  11. Materials is closely related to inorganic, so my guess is that they are elite in that category as well. I'm not too familiar with the materials program at UNC, their inorganic is mostly geared toward energy (water splitting, electrocatalysis, etc.). That being said, UNC is one of the best in inorganic, so I'd imagine that whatever researchers they have for materials will be pretty strong.
  12. Congrats! UIUC is elite, especially for inorganic chem.
  13. Nevermind, I just noticed you were referring to Harvard.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use