InquilineKea

lmfao this is a wonderful way to distract your competition. also there's http://www.afterwind.com I am certainly NOT going to play any of these until I get in.

Thanks for the replies everyone! Wow, I *really* appreciated some of the personal stories that some of you shared - they really were quite encouraging. At this point, I think I'm leaning towards non-disclosure now. The main thing is this: how would mentioning ADD help when "getting my shit together" could also work as an explanation? The main reason why I'm not disclosing this, though, is because astrophysics grad schools do rely a lot on the Physics GRE, and the adcoms might think I got extended time on the test if I mentioned that (and the problems on that test aren't even that difficult, but the timed nature of it does make a lot of good students do badly on it). Hahaha excellent quote!

*shrug* okay I'll add something. Getting *into* undergrad research labs is FAR easier for theoretical biology+astrophysics+atmospheric sciences+geology than it is to get into undergrad research for other fields, simply because there are VERY few undergrads who are into theoretical biology/theoretical astrophysics/theoretical [other science fields - as long as it's a field that isn't physics/math/CS where all the geniuses go for their ego boosts]. I know this because emailing the professor is actually enough to almost guarantee you a research position in many cases (whereas for other parts of the biosciences, admissions to a lab is often competitive). BUT, once you get in and STAY in, then it's probably easier to get in a bioscience grad school. But if you don't get several years of that type of research, then it seems easier to get in astrophysics, computational biology, and the computational/theoretical parts of many other sciences. Lots of students wait to get more background before doing research in these fields (many strong math undergrads hardly do any math research at all, and many physics undergrads wait until their last couple years). Biology students, on the other hand, pretty much have to get in a research position by sophomore year in order to really be competitive.

How competitive do they all compare with each other? I'm actually an astro/physics/math triple major, but I really love the biosciences too (and I got a 3.7 in a graduate level biophysics of neurons course). And which programs would I have the highest chance for? The main problem is that I only have ~1.5 years of astrophysics research (not that intensive) and a low GPA (3.15 due to untreated ADD combined with early entrance, although it's 3.6 for my last two years). I also have huge amounts of grad-lvl courses in applied math, atmospheric sciences, and a couple other fields. I also have decent grades >=3.6 in a couple of other 400-level biology courses (but I could only take those available to non-biology majors, and there were very few of them). I do expect to get high GRE and Physics GRE scores though. But I really have no clue where I should apply. The advice is so far less clear-cut than the advice you get for physics/astrophysics grad programs. And I'm seeing some discouraging figures of 10% acceptance rates at some programs. Are there any acceptance rates of like 30%? Or are there programs that get huge numbers of mediocre applicants? I know that a lot of people do get in with low GPA but VERY good research experience, but I don't have that type of amazing research experience that others have.

Does anyone know how competitive the program is? And what is the acceptance rate?

I'm inclined to think that they're programs in fields where there aren't a lot of people who go into them due to parental pressure, where the content often forces students to be somewhat masochistic, and where there isn't an obvious route to a job (thus, there isn't as much of a competition). And also, a field that advisers generally don't recommend people to go into. E.g. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063820139-post19.html is a post I found most intriguing. It says that physics isn't a particularly popular field for people, so it isn't that competitive. My impression is that astrophysics, physics, computational biology, and the computational/theoretical parts of many other sciences have the least competitive programs. It is *incredibly* easy to get an undergrad research position if you want to do mathematical biology for example, or the more theoretical parts of any other science. For some reason, all the "hardcore theory" guys all want to do pure math (or computer science or applied math), so this frees up the more theoretical parts of the sciences for the rest of us. Furthermore, they are *cheap* (because you don't need huge $$$ for labs) and in relatively high demand. I'm particularly interested in the theoretical parts of astrophysics. But I also love theoretical biology and atmospheric sciences.

If you're just a lurker, please come in and say hi! And just introduce your background. That's all.

Wait, even master's programs? For international students? Could those be used as reliable safety programs when you can't pay your way through a master's program? Is master's admissions even distinct from PhD admissions?

Of course, you could first ask the question "can you write a strong rec for me?" But sometimes, people still might write about things that might be somewhat negative. I'm neurotic and I've had a meltdown in HS before, and the results weren't pretty. When I was applying for summer programs, my teacher still said that he would recommend me the most out of ANY student he was teaching this year (which is a lot since he taught the entire HS and there was a USAMO qualifier in my class that year). But he still felt like he had to mention that I had a tendency to throw tantrums. Of course, that was back in HS. I haven't thrown any tantrums in my department (thank god), but my past neuroticism has still led to some behavior that has definitely worried people. So I'm sort of concerned that professors might mention it. I'm trying to get better at controlling it, and I'm better at it than I was before. But I'm still a lot more visibly "weird" than most.

Of course, it's preferable that you get your LORs from a prof you did research with. But many people can only get one LOR from research. They still need two other LORs. Of course, those LORs can preferably come from classes where the student did well in. Okay, like, there was one class where I got a 4.0 in, and where my grade was a clear outlier compared to those of everyone else. But I didn't talk to the professor much, and there will be a 2 year-gap between my taking the class and my asking for a recommendation. (although the professor is one of the contributing authors of the famous Cosmic Variance blog - she doesn't have much time for chatting though). There are other professors who I probably fraternize better with, even though they taught classes where my grade didn't swamp the grades of everyone else. Anyways, I really LIKE planetary science, and can chat with professors on hours about it. But I didn't do exceptionally well in those planetary science courses (3.7 in one of them - didn't do better since I was intensely focused on harder classes and was too complacent for midterm [though final was among top scores in class], 3.6 in a grad-lvl planetary atmospheres one). The professors in those courses are also quite famous (one's a member of the National Academy of Sciences), and they seem to have more time for chatting. Alternatively, one could seek for LORs from professors who one didn't even take a class in. So what is the preferred option? You should seek LORs from professors who think that you're exceptional. But it's hard to demonstrate that you're exceptional in a class, unless your grade swamps the grades of everyone else (and that can be said in one sentence), in which case a 4.0 doesn't just say enough.

Just wondering. Has it ever happened?

lol http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_scat_16322001_ln?rh=n:16322001,k:beans&keywords=beans&ie=UTF8&qid=1293165197&scn=16322001&h=b403af92e4e0b3cedd127bb2caf9e83211053e5c I love Amazon prime. I wouldn't mind living on crappy food for many years (I don't have a well-developed sense of taste). But I do look for low glycemic index foods.

And how did it work out in the end? I'm *very* wary about doing this. I've concluded that I probably have to disclose ADD (since there's a sharp GPA discontinuity once I started on medication), which should present the case that my past failures should not apply in the future. Otherwise, I'm probably going to keep my comorbid Asperger's and social anxiety secret (although I always eagerly wait for a moment to disclose them to professors, even though I probably shouldn't).

How competitive are they compared to U.S. schools? Do they guarantee full funding like the U.S. schools in the physical sciences? If your strongest credential is your PGRE score, then will you be disadvantaged in the process? (since Canadian universities weigh the PGRE less).

And do most prospective astrophysics/physics PhDs hang out here? Where else do they hang out? It's hard to find any on Physics Forums, College Confidential, astronomy subreddits, or other astro forums (galaxyzoo, bad astronomy). And phdcomics died. There's physicsgre.com, but so few people post in there. Are there any astrophysics IRC channels? There don't seem to be many, judging by the results from http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=site:thegradcafe.com+"program:astronomy" Anyways - I have lots of questions to ask. My most important questions are these: 1: Are there applicants with *high* PGRE scores who still get rejected by astronomy departments?<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">My impression is that astronomy departments tend to tolerate lower PGRE scores (in other words, you don't need as high of a PGRE score to get in) - but I've seen a student with a high PGRE score (850) get into several astro departments (including Wisconsin), even though he had a GPA of around 3.3 and only a summer of biotech research (no recs from astro or physics professors either). So it might be more that the PGRE distributions of astrophysics students are lower. 2: Do astrophysics professors like students who have significant amounts of courses in math, applied math, and computer science? I don't have as many physics courses as most, but I certainly have far more math/applied math/CS courses than most. And it appears that poor programming skills are actually the key bottleneck in astronomy research (http://weareallinthe...my-bottlenecks/). 3: Is anyone familiar with the NRC rankings for astrophysics? And why some departments have a high score on the regression metric and a comparatively low score on the survey metric?