TakeruK

I think doing research (whether it's through an honours/senior thesis or through some other internship like position) is the best thing you can do to help grad applications (assuming that is your goal). It is "doable" in the limited range because people purposely pick projects to have a small enough scope to finish in time.

Like you said, I don't think it makes sense to say that cutthroat competition/collegial collaboration exists only in one field or another. It's just human nature to compete (or to collaborate, or both), and we will find humans being humans everywhere. I agree also that resources are limited, whether they be funding, audiences, time, whatever. We have no choice but to compete. Right now, I am working on finishing a paper that I know another group is also working on. One of us will finish first and "scoop" the other--for one of us to succeed, the other will "fail". I think it's funny that science is all about replication yet few journals will accept a paper that repeats another person's results! So, despite all of my generosity displayed above in helping out others, I'm not going to be emailing our competitors and letting them know how far we are along etc. At the same time, I'm not going to go and purposely sabotage their work or present incomplete results just to be first. I think there is a lot of ethical gray zones in academia (like any profession, really) and for me, I know where my limits are and I try to do what I'm comfortable with. If it turns out that success in academia will only come to those who are cutthroat competitive, then so be it, I'll have to find something else, or be okay with "losing". I think the "pair up students and see who is better" strategy is super crappy though, and it might not always be effective--a better qualified student might end up leaving. But some would argue that the better qualified student has thicker skin, can "handle it" etc. However, I don't see why this needs to be a pre-requisite for being a researcher and I would argue that we should seek a more secure and supportive work environment. The "macho" old days are history! In my field, programs that "groom" students like that are going out of fashion (but they still exist unfortunately). I don't know if it is the norm for yours still! About the Devil Wears Prada clip...when I saw that part I thought they were just making a mockery/caricature of what fashion people are like the same way the character of Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory is a caricature as well. I didn't know people actually acted like that or that anyone thought it would actually be acceptable to act like that! Hopefully your future experience will be better.

Glad it has been helpful and good luck!!! Have fun at the AAS!!

It might be just differences in fields. But when your LOR requests say "have rec send letter to...", did the program actually want the prof to go ahead and write a real letter on letterhead and mail it in (or do the equivalent via email?). Or, do you register your letter writers via some application system and the system emails your prof the URL and username/password combo to use to submit their thoughts about your application directly. In the sciences, it's almost always the latter, and what seems to happen is the prof first fills in basic details about themselves, then fills out the radio button survey and then if they want (hopefully they do, or it is not going to be a good LOR), they upload a PDF or type some thoughts into a text box. The radio button survey is helpful because they provide a quick way for a prof to communicate some metrics and allows for LORs to be "graded by rubric" if the program gets so many applications that they have to use some filter system (doubtful that they won't at least read the LOR though). In my field, profs will expect to see statements like "This student is an excellent communicator, he/she is in the top 5% of all students I have supervised", or "This student is able to think and solve problems independently, but could use more training in writing for a scientific audience. I would rate his/her writing skill as average compared to all of the students I have supervised." etc. etc. I think that the radio buttons helps prevent profs from having to write (and read) a set of sentences that drone "X is in the top Y% in category Z" for every category, and also prevents the committee from having to digitize these numbers if they want to do some kind of crude ranking. Then, the rest of the letter can be used for things that cannot be quantized, such as the potential of the student in improve in certain categories, or further descriptions of certain examples of success or failures. I think that while the radio buttons/numbers stuff is good for quickly categorizing applications, you really want to read the actual content and words to give the numbers the right context. I am curious what kind you mean by "pulpy emotional" stuff. I can't imagine emotional stuff belonging in a LOR but maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "emotional" stuff at all. I would think that the LOR's contents would be a supervisor's frank and thorough assessment of a candidate's proven success/failures and potential for future success.

I used to think this! I had always used OpenOffice or Google Docs. However, Microsoft Powerpoint for Mac 2011 has really changed my view on Microsoft products. I used to think OpenOffice Impress was all I needed to make snappy presentations. However, OpenOffice seems to have really fallen behind in the last few years and I get much snazzier presentations made when I use Powerpoint compared to OpenOffice. Powerpoint costs a lot though, and I would not even had the chance to try it if my school didn't provide it for free! I also got Keynote with the App Store gift card that came with my Mac and it's pretty nice, but I find the Powerpoint controls more intuitive, for me. I used to think that OpenOffice was good enough that I wouldn't shell out the big bucks for anything that wasn't free/open-source. But in the future, after I graduate, I think I will make the investment in Powerpoint because I think it's worth the money! I still use OpenOffice and GoogleDocs for as well though. GoogleDocs is super useful for collaborating with others! For basic documents and spreadsheets (e.g. making a trip itinerary or balancing my budget), I prefer OpenOffice because it's much less clunky than MS products. I think my overall philosophy is that when it comes to using software to make things that I want to show the public, investing in Microsoft and Adobe (e.g. Illustrator, Photoshop) is worth it to give your presentations that extra dose of professionalism. Edit: Just want to clarify that I am sure it is possible for me to make presentations in OpenOffice that are just as pretty and professional as the ones I have in Powerpoint, but it would take a lot more time. So by "worth it", I mean the extra cost is worth the time I save, which I can spend on other things

Yes, I think your program being a professional one will make a huge difference. Since you won't cost them more money (TA and RA rates are generally the same regardless of where you are from), then you shouldn't have to worry about this factor affecting your chances. Everything I said above about funding only applies to program that fully fund their students (as I also noted above!). So, for you, there may be no real difference between public and private schools in terms of admissions (but it will cost you more!) I was in a similar situation as you -- planetary science is a very small field in Canada, and the specific topic I wanted to cover has only a few professors working on it. In the US, there are many places that do planetary science and there are entire departments covering all aspects of this field, instead of the case in Canada, where we have one professor in a Physics department studying the topic. So, for both of us, I think it makes a lot more sense to apply to the US, because even though chances might be lower (but in your case, this might not even be true), we have a lot more chances, so it's still probably more likely we'll get in a US school. School in the US is different from school in Canada! Not hugely difference but small little things you might take for granted are different. Here are some that threw me off: 1. Canada usually has 12 or 13 week semesters. US schools have 10 week quarters (3 quarters a year) or 16 week semesters (2 per year). I am at a school that does 10 week quarters and boy do they fly by fast!! 2. The US holidays are so weirdly spread out. Rather, they are not spread out, and come in large chunks. 3. Grades are assigned very differently at most places here. In Canada, my programs always had percentage cutoffs for grades and few programs graded on a curve--if everyone got over 90% then everyone got A+s. In the US, the criteria for a A+ or whatever depends on the class performance! Also, while my programs tend to call 80% = A-, 85%=A, 90%=A+, US programs use 80%=B, 90%=A. So, this makes our grades look inflated but I think they just mean different things. Might work in your favour when you apply though (but they probably are used to Canadian applicants and our system). 4. The drinking age makes a lot of on campus social activities a bit different. In Canada, it's not too strange for a research group to go out for dinner and drinks, including undergrads, but most undergrads here are not legal until senior year, which makes social dynamics (and thus some working dynamics) different. In general, there is more segregation between grads and undergrads. 5. There are such things as "dry campuses" where no alcohol is allowed at all (maybe they exist in Canada? haven't heard of one though) School-wise, I think the change from undergrad-to-graduate student is a much bigger transition than the Canada-US change. And then there are all the non-school related things like "zee" and dollar bills and weird healthcare, and different words for things (e.g. pencil crayons = colouring pencils in the US)! I think it's a little irrational but one of the hardest changes was going into the grocery store and seeing all different brands, or same brands but different labels. I don't know why, but that the first time I experienced that, it made me feel really homesick and like a foreigner. Sometimes, I will find something that is normally not found in the US (e.g. a Coffee Crisp chocolate bar at this other grocery store chain with a UK parent company) and feel irrationally happy! I don't think these experiences are any different for any foreign student, but sometimes "culture shock" sneaks up on us Canadians because most of the time, everything in America feels a lot like home, but then suddenly, there will be a big reminder that you're not home!

Wow, that's the worst combination. I know that sometimes, some profs expect international student (who wouldn't be able to travel home for the holidays) to stay in the lab and work during the break while students with families nearby are expected to go home and they're recognized for coming in (hasn't happened to me but I've seen it). I've only remember you describe a few events from your previous grad program (this one, the one where you were mocked for using 'isms', cat-sitting/scone-buying, and the anecdote about the keys) and all of them would point me to leave that program ASAP. Maybe I am missing something, but who would ever want to stay in a program like that? Also, unless there is some extra hatred/tension or whatever between you and guy-with-wife, I think guy-with-wife did a crappy thing as well. Nothing unethical or illegal of course, just bad "sportsmanship" in my opinion. If my colleagues and I got a suggestion from a prof that we had to go get something unnecessary 3 hours of the way, we would have talked with each other to come up with some plan so that everyone benefits. We would probably all agree to not bother at all, or take a road trip together and make it fun, or one person would do it and share with the others (who would share in the cost too), and everyone else can return the favour at some other point in the future. I mean, maybe there is something that would make "guy-with-wife" unwilling to cooperate with you, but I think what he did was pretty crappy. My philosophy is that even though academia is a competitive field, and while we should all strive for excellence ourselves, there is no need to deny our colleagues any assistance that doesn't represent a large cost to ourselves. It's not like guy-with-wife's project would have gone horribly if he had let us you use the magic-whatever-thingy when he wasn't using it or after he was done (or if he offered to pick up an extra magic-whatever-thingy if you had given him money for the thingy and the gas...and maybe take him and his wife out for lunch or whatever). After all, academia is a collaborative field and I view competition as a way of encouraging all of us to be our best so that all of our work is improved, not as a way for one person to be the best and "win".

I've been married/engaged the entire time I have been in grad school and I think it's definitely "give and take" as you said. Obviously it would depend on the nature of the relationship, being in an unhealthy one can cause a lot of extra stress and drain on your ability to work well. Also, I would think that Loric's "guy-with-wife" relationship is pretty abnormal and it sounds one-sided (but then again we are only hearing one side of it). I don't think it would be a healthy relationship if one person is the "dutiful spouse" whose sole purpose is to help the other person achieve things. I think that there is more than one path to happiness/productiveness and I don't think there is necessary an advantage that married people have over single people. I am happy with my current situation and I am not trying to show off nor complain about it, but here are some thoughts in case people are thinking it's all sunshine and roses in married-people-land. Here are some pros, in my opinion, in no particular order: 1. Sense of purpose. I feel like I am working on my career for more than just myself, and it's a good motivator. 2. Reduced cost. As one person says it, "Automatic 50% discount on everything" (such as rent* [but see below], car payments whatever) 3. Reduced housework because we share the chores 4. Comfort/emotional support. I always feel like I have someone supporting me and on my side. 5. Guaranteed awesome "roommate" / never have to worry about finding a compatible one again. Here are some cons, again in no particular order: 1. More responsibility -- there's more laundry to do, more food to cook, more meals to plan (and more diverse tastes to account for), more cleaning to be done, more schedules to meet (spouse's work schedule, your schedule, doctor/dentist appointments) 2. Extra costs -- even with two incomes, the cost for a single bedroom place might still be higher per person than what you normally would have to pay if you were a single student sharing a big house with 3 others, for example [but then you'll have to share with 3 others]. Also, grad programs will pay for your health care costs, but normally not your spouse's and that can be a lot for international students. 3. Finding work/things to do for your spouse -- He/She might have moved to the school with you and it might take awhile for them to find a career/job equivalent to what they left behind. This can lead to some (hopefully temporary) stress when there are extra costs but not extra income. 4. Two people to schedule for. e.g. you might work best after 11pm, but your spouse might have to get up early for work, so it's not fair for you to work all night and disrupt your spouse's schedule. Or, your chore may be cooking dinner, so with two people, that has to happened at the agreed upon time. Single students might have more freedom to choose to give up sleep, or have a late dinner, or end up working late and just choose to eat pizza that night, but with two people, you need to be considerate of the others' preferences too! I think in Loric's case, the advisor is being very unfair because guy-with-wife is able to do all of the things the advisor wants but Loric cannot and the advisor is not recognizing that. But, an advisor could in theory be just as unfair to a married student. The advisor could say something like "student-without-spouse" works late into the night and gives up sleep/dinner in order to meet this deadline, why didn't you?

Disclaimer: This is from my experience in the physical science fields. If someone from the OP's field know this to be wrong, please say so! At most large conferences, like the one the OP is describing, people aren't usually allowed to plug in their own machines to present from. This would take forever and introduce security risks. Instead, there is a "Speaker Ready Room" where you bring your presentation (e.g. on a USB stick) and you upload it to a central network. Good systems will allow you to use Keynote, Powerpoint, Openoffice, PDF etc. and will allow you to preview your slides right there in that room to make sure they show up nicely. Then, your presentation can be broadcast anywhere in the building, on the network. In other conferences, sometimes there isn't a wide network but speakers will still tend to have to upload their presentations into a computer (maybe just a volunteer's computer in that presentation room). I guess my point is unless you want to work on your presentation while at the conference, you can probably get away with putting your presentation on just a USB stick. [okay, end of field specific stuff now] If I could afford one, I would only bring an iPad to conferences. All I really do with the computer while at a conference is check email and facebook, look up yelp reviews of nearby places to eat, and look up travel info/check into flights etc. I try to spend as much of my time interacting with other attendees as possible! One time, when I presented a poster, I wanted to show some animations so I borrowed a friend's iPad and I think that gave a nice "extra" to my poster. So, in my opinion, yes!! Tablets will perform pretty much all the necessary functions and they are so much more lightweight and quiet. It's super annoying when someone opens up their laptop in the middle of a talk and it makes the "startup chime". With a tablet you can discreetly check email if you really need to etc.

In many schools, out of state = International tuition as well. However, in other schools, there is a pretty big additional fee for International tuition on top of the out-of-state tuition. Or maybe I misunderstood your question, here's another answer! Let's compare 3 students wanting to attend a PhD program at UC Berkeley (since we have the numbers above). Student A is from California, so A pays in-state tuition for every single semester ($8000/semester). Student B is from Washington, let's say, so they pay out of state tuition ($15500/semester) for the first year, then they will have to change their residency and pay in-state for the remaining years ($8000/semester). Student C is from Canada, say, so they pay $15500/semester every single semester every single year! I am not sure how many semesters are in Berkeley's year and not sure if you have to pay summer tuition. If we assume 2 semesters per year and a 5 year grad program, Student A costs $80,000. [in-state] Student B costs $95,000. [American, but out-of-state] Student C costs $155,000. [international] I am simplifying things since some schools will reduce the tuition after candidacy where you don't really take classes anymore. But many other schools do not do this, so I think my numbers are still fair comparison. Here, we see that over 5 years, the cost difference for Americans is not very large. However, an international student costs about twice as much as an in-state student, and over 60% more than any other American. For a school that do not have a large budget but needs the personnel, they can get two Americans for the cost of one international student. Thus, I think for a school to take an International PhD student, the international student will have to be worth it, and will be held to higher standards than an American. I think this is completely fair because American taxes are subsidizing the Americans' education and as International students, we didn't pay these taxes. And, in Canada, we do the same to International students, except our tuition overall tend to be cheaper so that "twice the cost" might be something like an extra $20,000 to $30,000, not an extra $80,000. And in response to your question about paying the extra cost yourself, it's probably not possible if your program tend to fully fund its own students. If it's a professional program, then that's another story. I can really only speak for the science fields, but the cost of a grad student is much more than our tuition and stipend. The way American profs explain it to me is that they bring in grant money, which they use to pay for our tuition and stipend. However, the University takes a cut of all the incoming grant money, and that is used to pay for overhead costs like our benefits, electricity, office space, and so on. The cut can be pretty large, like 50%. So, for International students like us, our real cost to the profs is easily over $100,000 per year, depending on your tuition and stipend costs. Edit: Oh also, another reason why it would be harder to get in as an International student is because you generally will be competing with other International students. Like Canis mentioned, there is usually some max quota of International student. I'm not sure about US schools, but in many Canadian schools, no single professor can afford to spend that much on a single student all at once. But if every prof only acted for themself, the whole school won't have any international students, which won't be good either! So, at some places, the profs will put some of their grant money each year into a fund which is used to offset the cost of a good international student each year because a good student for the department benefits all. The University itself will usually provide some help too. So, the amount of money in this fund generally sets the limit on how many international students can be admitted and they will select the best international students out of the pool to fill this quota. However, I think it's true that only the best students tend to apply outside of their own country, since it's a lot of work to move so there is a selection effect. Thus, when you are competing at the International level, your competition is already pre-selected to be better than average students!

Like I am going to write in the other thread, it's a "give and take". Being married doesn't magically grant you all these advantages and solve all of your problems, there are pros and cons. I am definitely happier with marriage but I can see why some people might not be.

Sorry to hear that you are unwell. The above posts have given a lot of useful information!! I am not an expert as I am new to America but I do want to extend on what Gnome Chomsky said--some US grad schools offer pretty good insurance for cheap. But that depends on whether or not your surgery is urgent. If it can wait until you start a US grad program, maybe you can and should factor the health plan included by each school into your decision. For complicated reasons, this was a big factor in my decision too so I looked in depth at all the health care plans at the schools I got into. Overall, I found that most schools will cover pretty extensive coverage (but there were a few that were minimal). I found that these plans will take you even if you have pre-existing conditions (although the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare do this now too, as the others pointed out above) and for the graduate student, most schools will greatly subsidize your plan. For example, my school pays for $6700 out of my $7200 annual health care premium. But waiting up to 9 months to get treatment might not be an option and you might not want to gamble both your PhD programs and your health on the outcome of grad admissions (although you should find out about those pretty soon and be able to make alternate plans if necessary). Just some more thoughts to help, I hope.

Yes, that is more or less the fundamentals of physics being used in this idea, but applied in a different way. That is, it's not exactly the "playing catch" scenario depicted, but there are other ways to use gravity between more than 2 objects to cause changes in orbits! We actually do not (yet) know precisely how the "bang buddy" actually changes the "big puffy planet" orbit to be so close to the star. There are a ton of ideas so far, but no conclusions yet. I am working on looking for these "buddies" in hopes that if we determine when we see them vs. when we do not (i.e for different types of planets and stars etc.) we can maybe narrow down which mechanisms are important. Other people, theorists, are thinking up new and complex ideas involving very subtle effects all the time. I love puzzles like this, and this is super exciting to me because in the 90s, we didn't even know this would be a problem we had to solve! Anyways, I digress! One of my favourites so far is: "All I care about is food and I found a way to make it vaguely sociological"

I also applied to U Toronto, in 2009 and 2011. My experience matches surefire's experience. I also want to add that the LOR deadline can vary depending on department. For example, in my case, I remember the application being due on Jan 15, but my department (Astronomy & Astrophysics) said the LOR and transcript deadline was Feb 1 because they don't start reviewing applications until mid-February. Since LORs are something reviewed by the department rather than the grad school, I would imagine whether or not this separate deadline even exists will depend on which program you are applying to!

Yes. There may be a lot of reasons, but in the sciences, the main reason is cost. PhD programs that are fully funded means that the department must pay the cost of tuition for the student. For many schools, particularly state/public colleges, the tuition for an International student is much higher than a domestic (US) student. For example, at UC Berkeley (http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Default.aspx?PageID=feesched.html), the fees for a California Resident is $7900/semester while an international student costs $15451/semester !! American citizens can establish California Residency after 1 year so this extra burden only happens once but an International student must always pay the higher fee. At (usually) private schools, tuition is the same for all students, residents or not. They are usually much higher but the schools are better funded and since there is no cost incentive to take a domestic student, there is no disadvantage for International students. The stats tell the same story. At UC Berkeley, and most UC campuses, about 10% of the graduate student population (in the sciences) are International. At private schools, like the one I am currently in, this fraction is 40%. My Canadian profs correctly predicted that I would have a better chance of getting into a higher ranking private school in California than a lower ranking public one. This happens in Canada too, but the fee differential is much smaller. I think Ontario schools have some of the highest tuition fees, and when I was at Queen's, my graduate fees (as a Canadian) were $7000/year while my international friends paid something like $13000 or $15000 per year.

Haha, I am glad you find it interesting! I admit it is a little bit of a stretch to make it reference Loric's thread, but here goes: Over the past decade, we have found a lot of big puffy gas giant planets (like Jupiter) around other stars in our Galaxy. But there is one big difference between these "exoplanets" and our Jupiter: the exoplanets are much closer to their star than Jupiter is to our Sun! They are between 10 to 100 times closer, such that one "year" on this planet is only a few Earth days. This separation is so small that there is no way they could have formed where we see them today. Some people, including me, think that these planets formed much further away (like our own Jupiter did) and then through interactions with an extra object (a "buddy" such as another planet or even another star), these planets might have their orbit "banged around" by this buddy and end up much closer to their star than they originally started! Hope that make sense! An interesting postscript is that when these big puffy planets were first found, they were always found alone, so people made the comment that they were "lonely". So I thought it might not be too far of a metaphor/analogy stretch to say that these planets might have some "buddies" after all. Also this research topic is not my idea, I'm just one of the various people working on it!

That's a potentially a great LOR then! I was a bit confused why you said your LORs were from "two professors and a woman", because "professor" is a job title but "woman" is not. Anyways.... This is good then, you're in a good financial position for whatever you choose next. Like the person above, I am not saying you can't ever get in a PhD program, and not even saying you can't get in a PhD program right now (but if you do, it would be really unlikely to get into one that requires the PGRE). I don't know if I can really give further meaningful advice since I don't know all the details and nor should you give all the details. So I will just say this and let you decide for yourself if what I say is useful! 1. I don't think there is any rush to join a graduate program right away. It might be better to take the extra year or two (whether it's in extended undergrad, or Masters, or industry) to get into a program that would be a good fit. Even if you get into a program this year, it might not be the best program. If you take some time to build up your profile better, you can have more options when it is time to start grad school! 2. I am not sure how much an extra year of school would cost you (undergrad education in Canada is really cheap) and I am a fellow poor person, in the sense that my family had $0 saved up for my college fund (not their fault; it's really hard to save when you are immigrants!). I had a small amount of scholarships but I paid for the majority of my tuition and fees from my summer research work. I took 5 years to finish undergrad so that I could have more (paid) research experience, which allowed me to graduate without loans (even a bit saved up!) and a lot of experience to put on my resume. 3. The best way to balance out academics and the GRE scores is to have a very impressive research record. You already have one good one, it sounds like. If you wait a year to apply, you should make the most of your year in between. I think remaining a student will increase your opportunities for research by an order of magnitude. I also think remaining an undergrad is cheaper than being an unfunded MS student (not to mention there are not very many terminal MS programs anyways). Industry opportunities are few in astronomy (but you might go the physics route?). And finally, if you do e.g. a NASA internship, it would be great, but that is one 10-week program or something....if you had an extra year of school, you can really build up your research. I guess I am trying to point out how I think an extra year in undergrad is probably the most efficient use of time towards improving your chances in a PhD program. But I can't know if this is actually the best path for you--I'm just saying what the positives are and you should decide for yourself what you want. I'm not meaning to push one choice or another!! I think one big part of life past college, especially in grad school, is that nothing will go as planned! But as long as we work hard and make smart preparations, we will be ready for any twists! I think talking to profs and also other graduate students at the AAS is a great plan. I think it is even expected. When I applied to UW in 2011, they emailed us around this time to give a list of names of the profs at UW that are attending that year's AAS. I would encourage you to email and reach out to any profs you might be interested in. At the same time, keep an eye out at the conference for people wearing name tags from the schools you want to learn more about. Particularly look for grad students, as you probably know, you can identify them mostly because their badges say "Jr. Member". And of course, attend the talks and look at the posters in the topic of interests and you can get an idea of who studies what in your field I wouldn't say that talking to a professor will directly help your application for sure. But it can give you new insights about different opportunities at each school and it can help you describe yourself and shape your application to be a better fit for that place. Overall, it would definitely be worth the effort, in my opinion, to reach out to people in graduate programs you're interested in.

Agree with this! Very good advice!

One summary of what I'm working on could be: "Some big puffy planets might have bang buddies"

I am not quite sure who you are referring to. But I do agree that getting into grad school is hardly the most vital step. If you get in, then it's what you do as a grad student that will be the most important for whatever your next step is. If you don't get into grad school, or not into the program you want, then some people feel very lost because all their plans might have only involved grad school. But that doesn't mean these applicants are bad/useless people and won't contribute to society, obviously! Grad school is just one thing you can do with your life, it's not any better or worse than many other things you can do. But I don't agree that "half the people are making a mistake" or "the school made a mistake". As I said above, you can still benefit from grad school even if you don't complete. Also, it's not a mistake if you only find out that you don't want to be in academia after a few years in grad school and decide to leave with a Masters. The MS can still be useful, but more importantly, you know what you don't want and you won't wonder what could have been etc. It's far better for a student to realise that they want something else and leave the PhD program than to stick though it just to get a piece of paper. I agree that admissions criteria should be "will this person finish?" because it is a lost investment if a student flunks out. But that's much easier said than done. And I also think that the goal of Graduate Programs should not be solely to churn out future professors. The goal of a graduate program should be to develop the skills and experience necessary for the graduate to succeed as an independent worker in their field, whether it's in academia or industry or whatever. Whether or not the student actually finishes the PhD when they achieve their goal is not too important. As for the last part, if we have unlimited data, we can probably get a pretty reliable model of whether or not an applicant will finish, based on all of the variables you describe. But there are so many parameters and variables (both from the applicant and from the external factors such as the University's culture, what the city is like) and also things that I think schools should not be allowed to ask (e.g. plans on starting a family, or illnesses). I actually don't think there is enough people in many fields, definitely not my own, to generate enough data to make a reliable model. Instead, I think what most schools do is pretty good. It is basically a two or three step process. Admission is the first checkpoint and here, the goal is determine whether or not the applicant can make it to the next checkpoint, because that's easier to do than to see if they can make it all the way to end right away. The second checkpoint is usually the quals exam, which is usually heavy on coursework so admissions is very heavy on background preparation and whether or not the applicant can succeed in learning the foundations of their graduate field. In programs with a candidacy exam, the quals exam may be mostly to evaluate whether or not the student has successfully developed the fundamental skills and is ready for further graduate work leading to the PhD while the candidacy exam may be something to determine whether or not the candidate has a viable study plan and enough background on their particular topic to actually finish on time. Ideally, schools should admit people who they think would pass the quals exam as well as be able to finish. But since passing quals is a pre-requisite to finishing, it is easier to first eliminate applicants who might not pass quals. So I think this is why many programs have academic cutoffs for GPA, GREs etc. At the same time, in many places, these cutoffs are not absolute, in that someone who is below the cutoffs may still be admitted for other reasons, including the reason that they think the person might be able to pass quals and finish the program with good research. This last part is purely my opinion and I don't even know if I can fully back it up. But I really think funded Masters programs would be a good idea in the US, the same way they work in Canada and other countries (i.e. the Masters is the first two years of a PhD). Perhaps it's just me thinking "I like the way I am used to" but perhaps not. After all, I think the difference between someone trained with a BS and a PhD is huge and there are many jobs that could use someone that is in-between. This would help the problem of having "too many PhDs and not enough jobs that actually require PhDs" and allow people who want just a Masters to contribute to the workforce much sooner, instead of spending another 3-4 years in a PhD program where they might not even get training they will later use.

I'd be interested in reading these studies but they are only available to members of the CGS. I don't even know if this is something individual students have or if it is meant for the school's graduate councils. I agree that I'm not certain that a 100% completion rate is what schools should aim for. I think it's certainly true that schools should not accept more incoming students than they intend to graduate--i.e. there should not be processes that "weed out" students partway through a PhD program and schools should only accept students if they have the resources to support all of the matriculating students to completion. So I think it's fair for schools to have a quals exam or similar process near the beginning that evaluates candidates and ensures that they are skilled enough to finish a PhD in a reasonable time. But, it would not be fair to only let the top X% of the incoming students continue on, because of limited lab space or whatever. I am not certain that schools should aim for or be rewarded for high completion rates because this would give incentive for schools to keep students in their programs and consider students who don't finish a "failure" (even more so than they might currently). I think the goal of the PhD program is to produce a researcher who will have employable skills, so if a ABD student already has enough skills to gain employment elsewhere, then I would still consider that a "success". Alternatively, if schools feel pressured to keep all their students, even the ones that would not normally pass quals, then students who may not succeed even with a PhD are forced to waste an extra 3-4 years of their life in a PhD program where they may be better off somewhere else. I don't know what the optimal completion rate would be though. 50% seems to be the current equilibrium value but that doesn't mean that we should necessarily keep it this way. It would be interesting to see the CGS reports, especially what they recommend for increasing this rate.

Here's what I can help you with, as someone in your field, in addition to what m-ttl already said. You will definitely need to redo the PGRE to get into most PhD programs. If you will do a graduate program in a physics-related but not purely physics program (e.g. Astronomy) then you probably won't need as high of a PGRE score as a "pure" physics program because these programs tend to de-emphasize the PGRE. However, if by single digits you mean <10th percentile, then I think this will raise a lot of flags even at schools that might not emphasize the PGRE as much. Generally, a very high GPA is a good way to offset a low PGRE score. So, I don't think it will be worth it for you to apply to PhD programs that require the PGRE score this year. For the LORs, most programs will require 3 but there are some that only need two. You don't have to elaborate further on your letter writers if you don't want to, but here is some advice to help you determine if they are going to be good, and which letters you should submit if you only need to send 2. In my opinion, here is the preferred order of LOR writers, assuming that they will write good things about you in the respective categories: 1. The best letter is one from a a faculty member (with a PhD) that supervised your research. 2. Next is someone with a PhD but not necessarily faculty, that supervised your research. 3. Then a professor who taught you multiple classes and can write good things about you but you didn't work with directly. 3. But, tied for 3rd, I think, is someone without a PhD but established experience (e.g. staff scientist with a MS) that can say really good things about your research ability, and importantly, compare you favourably to other graduates from your program. 5. Finally, letters from someone who you had limited contact with (e.g. just one class) or a non-professor position would be "neutral". Some letters can be better than others if the prof is well known to the faculty you're applying to etc. And for non-traditional students, letters from professionals could also work. I would consider that letters in the first two categories are "strong letters" and the others can be "good letters" or "neutral letters". It's rare for an applicant to be able to get all their letters from the first two groups though, so it sounds like you might be doing pretty well in this department, depending on who the person that supervised your research is (i.e. does she have a PhD?) and whether or not the letters from the two professors can mention your research at all (even research in a term project or thesis would be better than just commenting on your classes). In your case too, if your profs that taught you can write about your strengths at your classes outside of exams, it would help too. They might be able to support your argument that your performance in exams is not reflective of your actual knowledge/ability. If you think it is worth the gamble, like I said above, you can try to submit a few applications to PhD programs that don't require the PGRE. Whether or not you apply to PhD programs, you should also have alternate plans for the next year or two and act on those now too. That is, if you choose to gamble with a few PhD programs, you can and should do one or more of the following too: 1. Improve your PGRE score. I hate the PGRE. I took it twice and did not do well both times (<50 percentile), even with a lot of preparation the second time. But you can't really avoid it for your current goals. You probably do not need to ace it or anything though, but it might help to devote some effort into not just studying for the PGRE, but seek out other study resources to make sure you are studying "smartly". I really think the way to do well on the PGRE is to know how to take the test, not just knowing all the physics. People say that a study group really helped (I was in one but I didn't change my score too much). Everyone I know who did well practiced a lot....like redoing the 5 practice tests over and over until you can solve all 500 questions each within 1.7 minutes (the time you have per question on the real thing). It's hard to find time to do this though, but if you are not aiming for top programs, you don't have to worry about getting the highest scores--probably something in the middle of the pack is good. And the PGRE isn't everything, I was able to get into some top programs that required the PGRE even with scores in the bottom half of people who take the PGRE! But you will probably have to improve a bit past your <10th percentile. It might be a good idea to try to redo the PGRE in April 2014 instead of waiting until Fall 2014 (although depending on what you else you choose to do, maybe the summer is a good time to prepare for it). 2. Stay in your undergrad program for another year and apply for PhD programs starting Fall 2015. This will give you two ways to improve your application, and also give you more time to work on the PGRE. You can use this time to do these two things: a ) Improve your GPA/coursework. Retake classes that you are able to. You can also take advantage of the extra year to take some graduate level courses at your school (if they let you). Just take a couple, don't go overboard though! Admission committees care about undergrad grades because they indicate ability to perform well at graduate level courses. So, doing well at graduate courses now can go far in demonstrating this ability. b ) Maybe more importantly, you can increase your research experience! If you stay another year, you can apply for those paid summer internships. This is usually the perfect time to apply for stuff coming up this summer. Look into REU programs and also programs at your own school. Don't be afraid to look into programs at other places too, but it might be too costly unless the paid positions come with room and board too (some of them are paid like awards and will do this). Also, you should definitely do a senior thesis at your current school in this extra year if possible. If you can get both of these research experience positions, you will be applying for Fall 2015 with 3 different projects, and potentially 3 very strong research based LORs. I would strongly recommend taking only a reduced courseload (maybe just the minimum to maintain full time status) during your 5th year so that you can devote a lot of time to research (and working extra jobs to pay for school as necessary). 3. Alternatively, like m-ttl suggested, you can try to get into a terminal MS program. Do a thesis-based one if possible, which tend to be about 2 years (some are 1 year though). This will also give you chances to prove yourself in graduate level classes. The downside of course is that there are very few terminal MS programs in Physics, and almost all of them will be unfunded. So this option will likely cost more than option 2. But it might provide better access to research opportunities than option 2! 4. Or, you can just work on improving your research experience/ability. You can apply to research associate positions or other full time science research positions for BS graduates. I think it might be hard to find positions, but if you get one, you can then save up money and maybe be able to afford a MS program (option 3) more easily later on. This might also give you more time to study for the PGRE. The downside is that many positions like this might not actually train you in useful research skills and since you are no longer in school, you will have to repay any student loans you may have. Anyways, I hope that is useful. The above options are not mutually exclusive at this point -- you can try to apply to all four pathways (PhD programs, do an extra year in undergrad w/ summer research, MS program, or "industry") now and when decisions come in, you can then decide what you want to do. But that would take a lot of effort now and it's important to maintain good grades in this last semester. So, based on the questions m-ttl pose above, and considering your priorities and resources, you can think about what you want to do and go for it! Finally, as a first generation college and graduate student, I found the whole process really confusing. I think I owe a big part of my success to having very good mentors in my professors and peers / older colleagues. I don't know if you are also a first generation applicant, but either way, don't be afraid to seek out help. Reach out to any professors you have a good relationship with (or people you have worked with that summer) and let them know you are thinking about grad school and ask if they have advice etc. Forums like GradCafe is also a great place. You should also visit www.physicsgre.com if you have not yet, it seems like there aren't very many Physics/Astro types here. Also the other website has a lot of profiles posted every year (since 2008) where people post their stats and where they got in. This could help you decide whether or not you would be competitive. Just remember that the people who post profiles there (and also here, or anywhere) are not a representative sample--generally only people who do well will post. So, it is a good source of information, but don't get intimidated by all of the perfect GPAs and GREs! Good luck!!

50% sounds right for the "completion rate", which to me, is defined as someone who leaves with a PhD in the field they started graduate work in, especially in STEM. In Canada, the 2-year thesis+research based MSc and the 3-4 year PhD are independent program (meaning even if you stay at the same school and with the same supervisor, you have to go through the entire application process again, including LORs from your current supervisor to your new supervisor (which is the same person); also you need a MSc to apply to a PhD program). A MSc degree is a very useful and employable degree in Canada so many students decide that this is enough training for them to go do the job they want (teach at community college, work as staff scientist or lab manager, work as the science consultant for a museum/planetarium, work in industry, etc.) The people that go and finish up the PhD are the ones that intend to remain in academia, and not everyone will decide to do so. Both programs are always fully funded in STEM, so a MSc is often considered a good, low-risk way to see if you are really interested in research for the rest of your career! In the US, there are very few terminal funded MS programs in STEM, so leaving with a MS is almost always considered a "consolation prize" for not being able to get to a PhD. I also think the requirements for non-terminal MS in the US are much lower--it took me 2 years of classes plus full time research, a thesis and a defense to get my Canadian MSc but to get my US MS I will just have needed to complete all my classes (just did!) and fill out a piece of paper and voila! So, I think a MS in the US is worth less and more students feel the need to push through to get the PhD, or voluntarily leave for other interests. So, I would not be surprised to see "completion rates" be lower in Canada, even lower than 50% while they might be slightly higher in the US, maybe 50-60%, because the MS isn't as helpful. In my undergrad program, from observing the number of astronomy grad students coming in and graduating each year (there's not that many, and we attended their defenses), I think about 50% of MSc graduates indeed remain to pursue a PhD at the same school. At my MSc program, out of the 5 of us that came in, only 1 person is now remaining there for their PhD (so officially, the completion rate is 20%), but 2 of us are pursuing PhD's elsewhere (so technically, the "academia retention rate" is 60%). During my time in that program, I witnessed about 30% of all people enrolled in a MSc program graduate and remain in the same program for a PhD. The majority of the graduates decide to pursue other employment with their MSc outside of academia and some of the graduates do PhDs elsewhere. A small fraction of people do not finish MSc programs at all. In the US, when I visited programs, one statistic that every department wants to boast about is their "completion rate" or "retention rate" or whatever word they want to call it. However, this percentage is almost always the number of people who pass the quals and are not asked to leave the program. Every school will boast rates above 90% and many of them say 95% or higher. But they do not include people who decide to leave the PhD program, nor do they include people who are forced to "voluntarily quit" due to crappy conditions (e.g. supervisor assigns them crappy projects that do not work out, supervisor not doing their job and no one catches it until too late, supervisor loses funding and can no longer support students but no one else is able to take them, supervisor moves and student decides to not continue etc.). Finally, perhaps most importantly, this rate rarely includes the students who fail the quals the first time and chooses not to make the second attempt. Or, the student feels pressured to "choose" to not make the second attempt because of extreme lack of support from advisors/faculty, which sends a clear message to the student! So, for prospective students, always be wary of the school's boasted completion rate and other stats (such as which % of graduates end up in certain types of jobs). Ideally, you would want to see these numbers relative to the total number of students that enter the program in the first place!

I honestly think the best way to explain it is for you to just try it out! It is quick to set up and you can just try it on a small sample of your current PDF collection!

At my school, the on-campus housing for grads is small and cramped, but cheap and convenient. I have never lived in it before (no pets allowed and would not be suitable for a married couple) but almost all of my friends spent some time in there. The one consistent thing they all said was that they never saw their roommates. Everyone worked in their office or lab and only came home to cook dinner, relax, or sleep. So, they all say that it is actually easy enough to get work done there (e.g. homework) if they wanted to, because everyone is either in their room or out. For some of my friends, they saw their roommates face-to-face so rarely that most of their conversations were by email.