How competitive are geoscience grad schools compared to astronomy ones?

[InquilineKea]

So I'm planning on applying to both astronomy and planetary science graduate schools, and I really would like to know how competitive the two are compared to each other. What are some typical acceptance rates for top geoscience programs? (MIT EAPS is the one that I really want to go to, but I'd also be happy with Harvard, Brown, or Penn State).

And also, does a relatively high Physics GRE score help?

Anyways, I'm an astronomy+physics+math major, with a minor in applied math (my knowledge goes much further than that, though, since I'm an interdisciplinary person so I self-study huge amounts of atmospheric science, earth science, evolutionary biology, neurophysiology, and other fields as well => my primary interest is actually computational astrobiology, which practically merges each and every one of them). Unless something goes seriously wrong, I expect my GREs to be well above average. I have several years of research (although none of it is very intense research => but my name is in two astronomy papers that have more than 40 coauthors [one of them has over 100 citations], although I honestly didn't do that much for the project), and I've taken graduate level courses in a variety of fields from applied math to atmospheric science (where the bulk of my grad-lvl courses are). My UG is University of Washington (which is top in atmospheric science). The professors in the atmospheric science department actually know me better than those in the astronomy department, so I expect 2 LORs to come from profs in that department. My only problem, though, would be my GPA. I entered university 2 years early and really screwed over my first two years. It's still above a 3.0 but below a 3.5. But for my last two years, my GPA should be in the 3.6-3.7 range (the same is true for my upper-division physics courses past freshman year). Also, I have attention deficit disorder and only managed to get the meds I really needed 1.5 years ago.

Edited April 13, 2011 by InquilineKea

[mooseundsquirrel]

Well, those school generally have admission rates in the 10-15% range, though it varies year to year. UWashington admitted fewer than 10% of Earth and Space Science applicants this year.

I think that with a strong math/quantitative background to match a strong GRE (and good rec letters, etc.), you'd probably be 'competitive' just about anywhere. I can't speak to astronomy programs, as I'm a geo person, but I think you'd not be shut out of anywhere from the get-go. A poor GPA, while not great, certainly won't keep you out of most programs - and faculty will probably like to see that you've turned things around and are now serious about your education and ultimate goals. The most important factor, in all honestly, is research fit. If your interests and goals match with a department and advisor, you've won half the battle.

I just went through the admission process, and I was accepted and rejected from schools all across the spectrum in terms of 'rank'. But I can honestly say that the places where I was accepted were those that I felt the best about, the ones where I knew faculty were doing exactly what I hope to do and where the department supported my type of research, and where's I'd developed a good rapport with faculty members. The schools where I didn't get in were, by and large, the places where I felt like I was stretching my SOP to fit the department.

All that said, the schools you mention receive an enormous number of applicants each year, and it is in many ways complete luck of the draw. If there are faculty you think you'd like to work with, start contacting them. Set up informal chats via skype or phone, find out what they're up to or if they have any advice - or slots/funding for students opening up (this is, sadly, the determining factor for the majority). Then take it from there.

[InquilineKea]

Wow, so interesting. Thanks so much for the reply!

Are there a lot of "weak" applicants who might just be applying due to a lack of other options? Astronomy+physics grad schools do seem to have higher acceptance rates (gradschoolshopper.com), but they also seem to have somewhat stronger applicants.

Edited April 13, 2011 by InquilineKea

[UnlikelyGrad]

I totally understand the entering-college-early-and-crashing thing, having done that myself.

Are there a lot of "weak" applicants who might just be applying due to a lack of other options? Astronomy+physics grad schools do seem to have higher acceptance rates (gradschoolshopper.com), but they also seem to have somewhat stronger applicants.

I think this is because it's hard to make it through an astronomy (or physics) program as a weak applicant...you have to be pretty tough to graduate with one of those majors! (*cough* tried myself and failed *cough*)

I have nothing real to contribute, I'm just wondering...how do you do computational astrobiology? I'm a wannabe astrobiologist myself--a biogeochemist who could very easily jump the teeny-tiny gap to that field.

[InquilineKea]

I think this is because it's hard to make it through an astronomy (or physics) program as a weak applicant...you have to be pretty tough to graduate with one of those majors! (*cough* tried myself and failed *cough*)

I have nothing real to contribute, I'm just wondering...how do you do computational astrobiology? I'm a wannabe astrobiologist myself--a biogeochemist who could very easily jump the teeny-tiny gap to that field.

Ah okay. Well, computational astrobiology is about things like using models to predict the atmospheres of exoplanets (which I what I hope to do). Or simulations of just about anything (anything can be simulated, really)

Example is here: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/UHNAI/CASS2011/