cwr

Any internationals get their interview results? I would guess the foundation will post the official results online tomorrow, so I'd imagine the winners have already been notified by email.

This is right in line with my experience. Overall, I found the exam easier than the SAT/ACT, but I underestimated the difficulty of the second (adapted) math section. I did a few problems out of a book the week of the exam to prepare, but – because I waited until the night before to take it and was interrupted – I didn't finish a full practice test, so I wasn't fully prepared for the level of the questions. Taking a full, official practice test is a good place to start, like everyone else has said, and will give you an idea of where you stand.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. If you wanted to study economics, don't just give up because of one round of rejections. If you're willing to devote 5+ years of your life to it, then a couple months of hard work to strengthen your profile/statements/etc. before giving applications another crack is definitely within reason. Certainly, I would think this should precede completely and totally starting over. Don't be discouraged. Graduate school admissions can be fickle, so there's no telling what a few months of work on your application will do. Beyond GRE's, which are an obvious place to start if you feel you can/should improve, I would consider doing more digging into the people/programs that interest you. Hell, spend a month or two pouring over some papers from the economists you most fancy working with. You might find something really striking that you can either write them about in an email, mention in a personal statement, or both. In my experience, contacting professors beforehand works; it might be field dependent to some degree, but if someone is going to bring a stack of ten files past their desk for them to review and give a recommendation, them already knowing your name can't hurt. This sort of work – learning more about the people/research that interest(s) you – will hopefully strengthen your profile overall. One other thing that comes to mind is broadening your list of target programs. This might be easier said than done, but I think it falls right in line with acquainting yourself with the work of people that most interest you. What people are consistently asking the same questions as them? Do they ever collaborate on publications with people from other universities? (If so, who and where?) Look up their last couple students. Are any of them junior faculty somewhere? (If so, see what they're studying now and if you'd want to work with them.) Disclaimer: I don't know the first thing about economics, so I apologize if I have overlooked some field-specific nuances here. I tried to be as general as possible. Best of luck!

I would agree with this. A round of rejections is hardly a mandate to start over from the beginning of your undergrad, at least not in my eyes. I wanted to mention one other thing, and I may be totally and completely wrong in this regard. My bias as someone in physics – where the nearest fields of applied mathematics and applied physics (and even subfields within my own discipline) seem so far flung – might totally color my opinion of this issue. However, the question of "what should I get a Ph.D. in?" struck me as rather odd. My initial thought was if you're unsure of what field to pursue, then you're not ready to delve into the chaos of a Ph.D. program. I mean, I could tell you for hours about how my subfield of physics (and my research in particular) are the most interesting thing in the world and everyone should be studying it, and even I question if I have any idea what I'm getting myself into. Again, I could be totally wrong, and someone in a more interdisciplinary field should not hesitate to set me straight. But it seems like OP is asking "what should I study?" as opposed to "what Ph.D. program(s) would allow me to study X?", and while I understand the latter is a totally valid question (since many research questions crosscut disciplines), the former seems like a red flag to me.

I suppose I'm in a similar situation to the OP, since I'm trying to weigh all sorts of factors (fit, advisor/research compatibility, quality of life, prestige, etc.) in a really tough decision. At the moment, I'm most torn between Princeton and Chicago for a (high-energy physics) PhD. Certainly, one is a more recognizable name, but – like Penn and Harvard – they're both prestigious schools with a "name brand." The worst part about a "problem" like these is that you can't really convince any reasonable person that it's a problem. Any idea which way you're leaning at this point, OP?

Hi all, I was wondering what sort of monthly expenditures would be reasonable for a graduate student living in Princeton. I'm not from the area, so I would live on-campus (or very near to campus). I'll be alone (no pets, partners, dependents, etc. to speak of), and generally I'm comfortable with living relatively frugally. Other than the upfront cost of clothing warm enough for the northeast, I don't anticipate any expenses outside of housing, food, and miscellaneous costs. I realize the amount will vary, but a ballpark estimate would be great. Thanks in advance for any help!

If there's one thing that people in the international round should takeaway from the US round this year, it's that the process of departmental shortlisting, trust shortlisting, and finalist notification isn't totally transparent (since there are a lot of moving parts), but that the Gates is very helpful via email. (If you email Luisa Clarke, for example, I'm sure she'll let you know whether notifications have been sent out yet.) Best of luck to everyone. For those making it to finalist, the information on the Gates site about the interview format/content is accurate. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with that and expect the interview to be along those lines. Unless there is something in the news directly related to your field (e.g. Flint, MI crisis for someone studying water quality, to borrow from an example I know happened in the US round), you likely will not have any current events questions, and the discussion will center on "why Cambridge?", "why your department?", "why the Gates?", etc.

Were you applying as "CME or CMT"? If you were applying as CMT, then probably the competition is very steep, but I still would expect somewhere (e.g. UCI, Arizona) to say yes. Doubly true if you were applying as CME; I think there would have needed to be a huge typographical error if you applied as CME and didn't get into one of those places, assuming you have any research experience at all. However, if you said "CME or CMT", schools may have looked at this as a red flag. This is one thing I learned from talking to people beforehand. I was unsure of HEP-th vs. HEP-ex leading up to application season, but I heard – from very reliable sources (i.e. adcom members at top programs) – that schools will sometimes view an application saying "HEP-ex or HEP-th" as a person who is too unsure of their interests and likely result in a rejection, so I had to sort out very quickly experiment vs. theory. I would imagine the same sort of thing applies for CME vs. CMT, where they might look at this negatively. (Disclaimer: I'm an applicant just like you, so I don't claim to have any expertise; I'm simply repeating what I've heard from people involved in these processes, so take whatever I've said here with a grain of salt.) Best of luck sorting your visa situation. If you end up being able to remain in the US for a year, I recommend trying to get more research experience and nail down whether you want to do CME vs. CMT, because having a strong, declared interest in an area can only help your application.

Have you not already committed to a college? If not, I think there are some good online resources that give the important facts about each college (cost of a pint at the college bar, size of sport pitches, etc.). In all seriousness, though, this exists, and it includes other information like pro's and con's of each college. I would offer my personal input, but I don't know anything other than what I've read, since I won't start until next fall.

I'm currently a 4th year undergraduate looking at PhD programs, and when I was reading through some of the "city guide" threads, I noticed people talking about a "divide" between graduate and undergraduate students at Princeton. At least one other commenter noted that this same sort of divide existed at their previous institution and indicated that this might be a common occurrence elsewhere. I haven't really noticed a stark divide during my undergraduate, so I'm just interested in getting peoples' opinions on this. In what sense have you noticed a "divide" between graduate students and undergraduates? Is it comparable to the disconnect that might happen between graduate students in different programs/fields (e.g. physics vs. anthropology vs. biochemistry)? Or is there some sort of resentment/contempt there? Thanks in advance! Any input is useful and appreciated!

No need to apologize for the Big Bang Theory mention; I like the show! And the fact that you mention MIT/Caltech vs. Princeton is funny, because Princeton is by far my top choice (well ahead of MIT and Caltech). I agree that my friend's choice to go from Chicago to Harvard is pretty shocking (I just about fell over when I heard, especially because I remember helping her decide on Chicago while she was still on Harvard's waitlist), but that's the craziest part: Harvard gave her nothing in the way of aid. But she talked over the decision with enough people who know immeasurably more than I do about law school, and she's obviously brilliant, so I'm in no position to question her judgement, only to remark at how crazy the whole thing sounds. As far as physics though, you'd probably be surprised at how many really strong programs there are, especially when you consider the different subfields. All else being equal, I would of course choose a top 5 program over a top 25, given the choice, but not if it meant giving up $150k. For example, UW-Madison and CU-Boulder (both ranked #18 overall by USNWR) are top, top programs in my subfield, and arguably much better than Stanford and Harvard for the work that I want to do. And if that didn't shock you, the fact that for the work I'm doing UCSB (y'know, that "party school" in Santa Barbara?) is better than all four of the aforementioned universities ought to. There's really nowhere I can point to outside of the top 25 and honestly say "this school is amazing in my field", but there are still solid places outside the top 25 and a lot of parity within it.

This answer will really depend on field and type of program, as well. I have a friend who turned down full tuition to UChicago Law (tied with Columbia for 4th in the US, per USNWR) to attend Harvard Law (tied with Stanford for 2nd in the US, per USNWR). Now, it is undeniable that there is an elite group of universities within the US that mint most of the career academics within my field (physics), but electing to take $150k less in aid to jump from a top 25 to a top 2 program would seem absurd to me, let alone from #4 to #2. While turning down $150k for a 2-spot jump in the law school rankings is probably at the extreme end of the spectrum and STEM PhD programs – where everything is funded and there are a larger number of very good programs – at the other, I think it serves to emphasize the point that context (field, program, degree, rankings, etc.) is everything. As for my own personal answer to the question, of how much extra money from a school lower on my list might sway me, I'm really not sure. It would probably more likely be something like a fellowship (and the correspondingly lighter expectations where TA'ing is concerned) that sways me, rather than a dollar amount.

Somehow, until I read your question, I didn't realize (or fully appreciate) that if you wanted to wear shoes besides your winter boots, then you had to bring another pair. I don't know if I thought that boots were meant to be worn over a pair of normal shoes or what, but I had really never given it enough thought to realize how absurd that would be.

I know that there are very few people awaiting word for the Churchill (relative to other funding sources, I mean), so it's unlikely many will post in this thread, but I thought it was worth starting, since decisions should be announced relatively soon. I heard that the committee was meeting this week and that finalists should expect to hear not long after. Anyone who is still waiting or hears word should feel free to reply here, as I'm sure anyone waiting will appreciate knowing once decisions have started to go out. Best of luck to anyone else waiting!

Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm also applying for the GRFP this cycle (and its my first crack, so I have no prior experience with the process). That being said, I'm worried that it might come back without review, because this is what I was told by my university's writing specialist during the process (she cited this to ensure we would all put the headings in our statements). I obviously have no expertise in this matter, so hopefully I'm mistaken and they at least take the time to give comments. Either way, as you said, this should serve as a lesson to everyone (I know it was a good reminder to me) about both taking advice and giving advice to others regarding awards. I'm sure I've been guilty of giving outdated advice previously, and I've also received it, so the moral of the story (as you also said) is whoever is applying should read the solicitation and trust that over any "advice" from third parties.

Well that is unfortunate.

To those still waiting on mail about an interview, here's what I know: Some "Physical Sciences" applicants who are interviewing in Seattle (29-30th of January) received email on 11 December They asked that people confirm their participation and details by 14 December Additional emails were sent to "Physical Sciences" applicants interviewing in Seattle (29th-30th of January) on 15 December, presumably to fill spots not taken by the first group I haven't heard anything about people interviewing in D.C. for any subjects (which there almost certainly should be, since I think they split half-and-half) I also haven't heard anything about people interviewing in Seattle for anything besides "Physical Sciences" So, based upon this, I think it's very possible that they just haven't sent anything to "Social Sciences" applicants yet and/or that D.C. hasn't notified their finalists yet. (Anyone heard anything to debunk these conjectures?) They seem to be showing 20 interview slots for Physical Sciences applicants in Seattle (via the Doodle they sent out), so could it be that all Physical Science applicants interview in the same place with the same committee? Because I dunno if I believe that "Physical Sciences" applicants make up 40% of the overall finalist pool; 20% seems more likely.

I'm at a less well-known school (maybe top 50 depending on field), so I'm one of only two applicants for the Gates this year and I haven't heard from my school's other applicant. I really don't know what to expect in terms of notifying applicants later on. Presumably if people don't respond quickly enough, they might give up their spots to others? But they've asked for our information (travel info, availability, etc.) by Tuesday 15th December.

Invited for an interview via email as of this morning (11 December). Anyone else started to hear yet?

Thanks for the well-wishes!

I realized there wasn't any thread for the Marshall, and thought it was worth making one (even if it's a little late, given that most interviews are taking place very soon). Anyone else getting ready for theirs? I go in tomorrow, and I'm really not sure what to expect beyond what I've read online. Best of luck to everyone else getting ready for theirs.

Just to be clear, it's my understanding that @svent is saying this: Your chances at top schools are not great. Your chances are better if you submit your subject test score, because otherwise they'll assume you did worse than you actually did. I know nothing about the programs in question, nor do I know anything about the math GRE. With that being said, I know how challenging the physics GRE is, even three years as a physics major. Given that your background is in engineering, it's impressive that you were able to pull off a score of 49th percentile on the math GRE, especially since you were likely competing against a lot of people who studied math as undergrads.

Does anyone know if it's possible to learn your GRE Subject scores via phone before they've been reported online? Apparently this used to be the case, but it looks like there isn't a number online anywhere currently setup to do this. The September Subject Exam scores are due to be released online to us on Monday (19th October), but the score reports show as "sent" on MyGRE (meaning the scores have been reported to our schools, and ETS is just stringing us out for another two days). Best of luck to anyone waiting on subject scores!

Thank you! I was happy to be done with it... I see! I'm going to get on all of them after the October pGRE and make sure that, if they haven't already taken the General (or don't have a good enough score), they get to work. Your remark about competing against applicants, not standards, is very true and very important to remember – I'll remind them of this, because it's easy to say "oh yeah, I'm safe, cool" when in reality every little bit matters. While I am skeptical of the validity of the "median GRE" range reported for Physics programs at different schools on Magoosh – I remember looking at the methodology and having doubts – the fact that Physics applicants score very highly on the GRE is undisputed. I'm not sure if we have the highest average composite, but it's something like 3rd highest V and Q score and the disciplines ahead in both categories are nowhere to be found in the other. Wow! A 990; that's tremendous, congratulations! Are you a domestic applicant? I would guess that you are, given that you mentioned that you did take the SAT, and if so that's almost a ticket in anywhere! I'm hoping for something 900+, and my practice exams (together with my feeling on the September exam itself) lead me to believe that this is feasible, but I would be very surprised if I was anywhere near 990 – probably 940 or 950 is more realistic, but I would still be happy even with these. Do you have a good feeling about the rest of your profile? If your test scores are any indication, I would wager that it's pretty solid. Personally, I'm both excited and very nervous for the pGRE because it's the last variable in my application – I am very strong everywhere else, including letters, research, SOP, etc. and test scores were the last thing that could go wrong, so I felt some extra pressure to deliver. I'm trying for HEP-th/cosmology. I'm in HEP-ex right now (SUSY research) because my university's HEP-th group is quite small. I want to study BSM physics, inflationary cosmology (and alternative cosmologies), and a bit of pheno to make myself more marketable for post-docs in case the field doesn't evolve in the way I'm expecting it to. I'm also open to something like LQG, string theory, or QFT research but I don't know enough about work in these fields at this point to say whether I'm interested – simply curious. Best of luck in the application process! I'm slightly relieved that you're applying to AMO instead of HEP-th or gravity because it means I won't have to compete with you for a spot... because I have good reason to believe that I would lose that fight!

Congratulations on some stellar scores! Do you feel like your GRE was a reflection of existing ability (e.g. high SAT score, AP scores, etc.) or did your prep significantly improve your scores? Any advice for someone planning to take ≤2 weeks to study for the exam and feeling burnt out from (or potentially still studying for) their Physics GRE? I already wrote both of my GREs, but I'm trying to convince friends of mine to take it seriously and do well (a lot of them have the "as long as I get above a 160Q my scores don't matter" attitude). Unfortunately, I don't have much in the way of meaningful advice to give them. Also, since I'm assuming you probably wrote your pGRE in September, best of luck with scores coming out in a week! Do you know what subfield you're applying to yet?