SymmetryOfImperfection

At my alma mater "upper level" math is: abstract algebra, theoretical linear algebra, complex analysis, real analysis, number theory, numerical methods. These are things like proof of uniqueness, boundedness, continuity, etc. AKA nothing to do with physics. Instead I took 1 course in "math methods for scientists and engineers" beyond the lower division math which is 2 years - calculus, multivariable and vector calculus, ODEs, and intro linear algebra. This arrangement was specifically made so that physical science and engineering majors would get all the math they needed as fast as possible without needing the rigor of a math class (which means no proofs, only learning how to compute things). I understand at some schools they don't offer this sort of class and instead make the physics majors take classes with the math majors. Oh well. Yesterday we got done with the math behind it and started doing real physics. The homework got easier, not because I understand it now but because it is seriously easier and actually physics with less proof based math. I just get the nagging feeling that the proof based math is going to come back on the test.

Here's what I've been told: if you have no publications and are a BS applicant, that's fine. However if you already have your MS, then you should have publications. Also what direction in materials science do you want to do? Synthetic, physical or theoretical?

Is your interest in experimental or theoretical/computational biochemistry? If it is in experimental biochemistry, then is it more physical biochemistry, or more organic/biological based stuff? Is it at the cell level, system level, molecular cluster or single molecule level? If you're doing computational or physical biochemistry then I think chemistry is more suitable.

I don't know about that, but I've heard UCSD is ridiculously hard to get in for physical sciences. Their chemistry ranking especially in biochemistry and related fields is ludicrously high. I think even UCLA might be easier.

UCSD may be a long shot.

Since you are not cool with not being a winner. then reapply. #14 isn't a winner. They give out medals for top 3 at the Olympics. Life isn't the Olympics but you're gonna have a hard time spinning "#14" into "winner".

One of my instructor is also not very optimal. I know grad school is about "teaching yourself" but it should not be a huge jump. It should not be expecting 1st graders to understand abstract algebra, for instance. The material being assessed on the homework is not in the assigned textbook and was not covered in lecture. The methods needed to solve the problems are, after asking others to help me, found in upper division undergrad mathematics texts, which physics majors do not know. The material is also only very tangentially related to whats in the book and lectures. The homeworks take literally days to do a single problem.

Do you think that these people are disproportionately attracted to grad school though?

update: Currently in my graduate quantum class we are doing highly theoretical linear algebra proofs (not matrix mechanics, but actual proofs using linear algebra). None of the stuff is in the book and in the syllabus, its covered under a "review of math methods" section but in undergrad quantum and math methods none of this was covered. I assure you I'm not just whining, if anyone wants to see the questions I can PM them. The math in this quantum is harder than the actual math methods class and is very atypical, since I've seen the grad level quantum classes at my alma mater and other schools and they're not so heavy on the math proofs. I'm just afraid more and more classes are going to be like this: heavy on the theoretical math, light on the actual physics. I spent 6 hours yesterday working on just 1 problem and spent another 5 today working on 1 problem with no result so far. All the time that's going into researching answers on the net and looking at solution manuals to other books (there's no way I could ever figure this stuff out myself) could be going into reading research papers or being in the lab... damn this sucks... I'm always drained and exhausted because of the ridiculous math this teacher makes us do.

I would recommend reapplying. it is clear that your potential is in the top 10 and would be greatly wasted at anything lower. See, winners are picked and chosen. You got chosen to be a winner. Your prestigious undergrad, varied experiences in internships and high GPA prove it. Rank 14, is that a winner? Now I'm personally not a winner, but I'm cool with that. Are you cool with not being a winner?

I was thinking that, but damn, the pay for lab TA is slightly higher!

Sorry I don't mean that they don't participate in activities. I'm just refering to communication skills, like how people talk. Just an example, usually in polite company you don't directly refute people and say "oh no, that's wrong, its this way" especially in non-academic subjects. I mean in physics, ok, sure, its either right or wrong. But when discussing sports? Politics? There's no right or wrong answer, but some push it as if there were and are highly opinionated about their choice. Maybe its just physics. Maybe all the socially awkward people gather in this department, just like the jokes about CS nerds. I mean no offense in this matter, I also have a communication problem.

I don't know about that, it's different from engineering or physical sciences. In engineering and physical sciences the emphasis is on the science and math is just a language. I remember for my undergrad quantum mechanics class, the math on the homework was ridiculously hard, but on the test, there was only 1 calculation and mostly conceptual problems that involved knowing the properties of the equations/transforms and their physical interpretations, but no actual calculating integrals or proving things. Biostats is a degree in math. so there could be a problem. Not just regarding calculations but regarding proofs. I'd suggest asking your advisor about how best to proceed and whether its possible to take classes more slowly. If not the best way to proceed is to buy a semi-introductory calculus based introduction to statistics.

It feels like there is a lack of communication skills among graduate students in general. Maybe its because graduate students are more argumentative and have stronger opinions than average, and don't hide it? In any case, I think I am actually losing my skill in communicating with non-academics. Does anyone else get the feeling?

The way I've seen it done is: "That's a great question but it is out of the scope of this class. If you want to discuss it, talk to me later." Then brush it off when he talks to you.

What are your takes on either? Which one do you prefer?

I emailed a potential advisor about his work and said I was very interested and wanted to join his group. He said "OK, talk to me in a few days, I'm first going to put your name down on the group email listing." I assumed I was in. I waited a few days, then emailed him asking "when can I get started? Can I go into lab and start instrument training?" No response for a week, so I got worried I wasn't really "in". He already has 10 (!!!) students, his group is big and well funded, and so I thought he just was "whatever" about me. So emailed another professor who had a new project that I was interested in and was good for my background. That professor replied very quickly and said "sure. come to my office tomorrow." Did I commit myself to the first professor and must say no to the second? I'm really worried that with 10 students, he won't be able to advise me too deeply. I didn't think it through at first since his research was pretty interesting but now I'm starting to see.

Thank you for the advice.

I'm planning on applying to physical chemistry/chemical physics programs that accept physics GRE results, would their requirements be less rigorous than for straight physics departments? I heard that interdisciplinary programs usually are less rigorous in this regard since people have varying backgrounds; I remember TakeruK saying that Caltech Planetary and Earth Sciences has much lower physics GRE requirements than the actual physics program. No formal evidence though.

Lets put it this way: I'd rather be an early graduating straight A 3 pub student at UCLA, than a B- 1 pub 7th year at Harvard.

I think this may be typical of life sciences. My first undergrad research was also in the life sciences, doing fluorescence microscopy on amyloid protein. My PI was exactly like yours, down to the eye rolling. He also gave me bad grades for the research. I quit and did my second undergrad research in materials chemistry. So it might not be you, or your PI, it might just be your field.

Agreed, I think I did not express myself clearly, so lets just agree to disagree. As it relates to the original topic though, getting a PhD in some fields gives you a heads up on the competition, and in many fields (nanotechnology for instance) the minimum degree is a PhD. Getting a humanities PhD is not a wise choice from a purely economic point of view as 1.) it may not be free 2.) it probably doesn't open any doors except tenure track faculty, which is basically not a door. A social sciences PhD isn't too bad. Economics and finance PhDs are extremely hot right now. Even if you did sociology or anthropology, if you have 1.) programming skills, 2.) statistical skills and 3.) finance/economics related research, I think you wouldn't do too badly. After all, astrophysicists have an unemployment rate of exactly 0% and are heavily recruited by banks. http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=

Let me put it this way: my undergrad institution is top 30 in sciences, and most of my classmates weren't that smart. One guy seriously didn't know the units for velocity was meters/second... as a 4th year chemical engineering major. He just doesn't care about units for some reason and he actually passed his classes. My grad institution has a rank of N/A and my classmates are kicking my ass. There's little correlation between how good your school is and how good your cohort is. If you're really just THAT good, then couldn't you graduate early with 3+ publications and straight As? If not, then appreciate getting into such a good school (and know that it will be a hassle to try elsewhere).

While we know that there's many shadow recruiting systems, let me just point out something: if the number of "open" jobs is more, then there's probably more "shadow" jobs too. Why? If they could fill every position from the shadow recruiting system, they would, and wouldn't post so many open jobs. My undergrad research was in nanoscale fabrication technologies. The supposed "new wave of the future". Stuff that's actually in commercial production. My professor worked as a staff scientist for GE for 20 years and he continued the research he did at GE right at my university. My research was sponsored by a local company and I met their representatives. So this should get you thinking. Hmm, research sponsored by a local company. That means they don't have staff scientists. So where do you go when you graduate? And whatever happened to my professor's old job? I don't see the point of distinguishing between theoretical and applied when the real difference is between "regulated service job" and "free market manufacturing job". Notice how your field is a "services" field, and mine is a "manufacturing" field, and my field competes on the free market, and yours is protected by legislation? If theory was so bad, then what are all the PhD physicists doing on Wall Street? They didn't do applied physics. They didn't do optics or materials science. They did stuff like lattice gauge theory or particle astrophysics. It turns out that you can model alot of the stuff in finance with stuff they use in astronomy or particle physics. That stuff is useless in anything outside of astrophysics or finance. If applied was so good, then what are all the automotive engineers doing? Civil engineers? That's ALL applied. But theres many unemployed. Why? Like I said: 99% of manufacturing competes on the free market, so there's constant pressure on companies to compete. Compete =/= innovate. Instead it means cut costs. Staff is a big cost. However, you can't really compete with EHS or the FDA. They're protected by law from competition. So safety inspectors and the like are guaranteed a job. Personally, I love *applied* sciences. But in the physical sciences and engineering, applied = manufacturing stuff.

indori, don't take it personally. its how they were raised and you can't change them nor should you change yourself. cheer up... it could be worse! there's strength in numbers. see if you can make friends with people of your own ethnicity in your department and join the club of your culture.