ScrewLeucite

Howdy, You might get a bit more of a response in the Earth Sciences forum (part of the Physical Science section). I do know that I saw someone had been accepted into a geophysics PhD program at Penn State I think in late January(as per the results search). Haven't seen anything since, and I've routinely searched the results for geology, geophysics, and geoscience. Like I said though, probably more informative people in the Earth Sciences forum. Cheers.

Certainly, I don't disagree. I just mean to say... For example, part of the charm of being at geological conferences was being able to go to presentations from speakers in subdisciplines outside of your own, being able to understand the majority of it, and seeing how it related to the various other subdisciplines of geology. With specialization, we will each more fully understand narrower and narrower topics, potentially isolating ourselves from one another. That is my concern, but again, you are right to say it is a sign of a maturing science. It isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong, and it can certainly be mitigated. I just find the loss of a solid community (as opposed to the very definitely split communities in the life sciences) a bummer.

GeoDUDE!, please don't misunderstand me, I'm not surprised by the facts. I'm surprised that I hadn't realized them. It should have been obvious to me that pure physicists should be best suited for the purely physical aspects of geophysics, for instance. I just find such a distribution fascinating, because it seems so counter-intuitive at first thought. I'm sure other fields (chemistry for example) have similar trends where advanced math and physics necessarily displace pure chemistry undergrads. I agree, that's just the nature of the applicability of mathematics. Likewise, I'm aware of the more quantitative approaches being adopted by the discipline as a whole. (Computer modeling has grown so greatly in the last 30 years...) I'm quite glad for it, but I worry about the effect of such specialization breaking our disciplinary community apart. Those under the umbrella of "Geology" have always been a diverse bunch, but I think part of the charm of geology is it's interdisciplinary (inter-subdiscplinary?) community. Increasing specialization will make that much more difficult to maintain. Small price to pay for the advantages of a more reliable methodology for interpreting the Earth's history, but an unfortunate one. To make cogent interpretations using a variety of data, we will just have to rely upon the expertise of others much more in the future (as you say).

I had no idea that was the case. I knew a lot of people in their undergraduate programs switched into geology from other programs (especially biology and chemistry in my institution), but it is fascinating that so many people without a geology background get drawn to the field for a graduate degree. That isn't to say I couldn't see the application of a physics undergrad background to geophysics graduate program, or a chemistry background to geochemistry, but certainly some backgrounds are not suited for certain geological disciplines. For example, how could anything but a geology undergrad background prepare someone for stratigraphy (well, maybe biology for bio-strat...)? When you say program, you mean your "speciality," and not the entirety of the program at your university, right? Otherwise your experience is more fascinating, as it would be likely that geologists would be less likely to get into certain disciplines, being displaced by undergrads of a less geological background. I wonder how many fields could say that their undergrads get preferentially displaced by relevant but external background-ed candidates. lol That is a drastic difference. Maybe the prior year's applicants were more vocal, but comparable in number? Or maybe fewer graduate schools have made their decisions this year than they did at this time last year? Thanks for the confirmation on that. I wonder if that pattern holds true for all geology programs, or just those (as GeoDUDE! mentioned were routinely applied to) which are oil and gas related? Certainly would expect to see more applicants here, if it were the general pattern, no?

Ah, well, I've known a lot of sociable geologists, but I see your point. Maybe geologists are just less likely to ask for help, or perhaps we are more our own islands, rock-steady and less willing to ask for assistance? Or maybe a lot of us prefer a more "natural" communication method? Who needs technology more advanced than a rock hammer, a pocket transit, and a topographic map? ;D

Thanks for the response GeoDUDE!, and great choice of name. I was unaware of the actual stats on undergrad numbers, but it seems reminiscent of proportions when I was at my undergrad university. I suppose that explains a great deal of it. Likewise, I suppose you are likely right about geology programs being more lax as well. In my experience, most geologists are pretty down-to-earth people. As for the master's degree, I think that's a fair response. I had similar thoughts, but I hadn't thought about the energy expense differential. I suppose PhD applications would necessarily be more competitive and any help would be welcomed. It seems like most application results which get posted (in any discipline or field) are for PhD applications, which might strengthen that idea... I totally agree about rankings being inaccurate. I think some of the smaller and lower ranked schools can have some of the most dedicated professors, and the professors oftentimes are what make a program's excellence. Likewise, I know fit of interest, and thus mentoring relationships, are much more significant than ranking. Rank doesn't mean anything if two people cannot work together or do not share the same interests. Certainly few schools have something akin to my program of choice, regardless of rank, so I understand what you are saying. I guess the small size of the geology applicant pool, coupled with the less likely "reporting/requesting help potential" of master's students(hypothetically they expend less "energy" searching and asking for help), might mean those who report results here are necessarily more informed about what specialties their choices of universities can offer. Ah, oil and gas. You're probably right about that too. A lot of the posted results do appear to come from applicants to Texan universities. I hadn't even considered that factor. Speaking of, I'm interested in how the recent economic oil troubles has affected applications to those programs, and all geology programs in general. I can only imagine the applicant pool is considerably larger this year than the year before last.

Howdy folks, awfully nice to find this place. Checking the results search for applicant acceptances and rejections has become somewhat of an obsession during this wait period. As such, I've noticed a few peculiarities, and I was hoping to ask about them and maybe start a discussion or two. 1) There really aren't that many geology/geoscience/geophysics applicants who frequent this site (or at least there are few who have posted their results). Why do you think this is? Much like our beloved stratigraphic record, I'm sure there are some artifacts and preservational biases, so how reliable and representative do you think this site's data is? Do geologists just not find this place? Do a lot of us just not apply for graduate degrees compared to other fields? 2) It seems like the majority of applicants for geo degrees apply to doctorate programs rather than for a master's degree. Is this likewise representative of our geo graduate degree seekers, or is this again an artifact or bias? Why are there seemingly so few master's degree applicants posting? If the signal is representative of a real pattern, why do so many applicants seek a doctorate over a master's, even when it is the applicant's first graduate program? 3) I noticed a distinct lack of graduate applicant results from big name universities like Penn State University and Arizona. PSU is currently ranked first in geology for the U.S.A, and they've had a great record for years. Surely there cannot be so few applicants to such excellent programs, yes? Or are there real reasons for the lack of application results for such a big name school? How many applicants do you think programs like these (based solely ranking) actually receive from students with a legitimate interest in the programs (rather than just applying based on rank)? Well, that's the extent of what I've wasted my waiting periods pondering. Anyone want to join in? Cheers, -ScrewLeucite