Before you pick a grad school...

[Cookie]

This application season ended for me mid-Jan, and I have sinced contemplated about how one would pick out just one school.  

I know very well that it is one of the most important decisions I will ever make. 

 

Before you read any further, let me tell you that I have done as much "homework" as I possibly can on picking schools (feel free to advise me on this): (1) school rankings, (2) department rankings, (3) research fit, (4) professors' research background / tenure (or not - how many years left) / publications etc, (5) Their placements (academia and industry), (6) fundings, (7) if they are taking new students, (8) cost of living, weather, quality of life at that area.

 

I thought I knew a lot.  And that has changed completely, in the last few days.

 

I (luckily) got my hands on this source of information which provides me with a much more complex picture of faculty connections, their personalities, their styles of working with students, and academic pedigrees that generally are not available to applicants.  Long story short, it involves a lot of luck, and I have learnt several things that I want to share:

 

1. An adcom picks out applicants based on these factors, in order of importance: (1) rec letters, (2) combination of GPA and GRE scores, (3) statement of purpose, (4) research experience.  Why, you ask?  Name recognition is very important in academia, and if your rec letters come from the big shots in your field, it makes your applications 10x better.  GPA+scores give a general idea of competence.  Your SOP tells them what kind of person you are; how much and how well you can talk about your research experience shows commitment and competence.  If and ONLY if your SOP matches with what were written in your rec letters, then you are in.  From what I heard, generally undergraduate students do not partake in very meaningful research, so adcoms see it as a preparation step of commitment and resilience, rather than looking at the quality of the research itself.

 

2. Keep an open mind:  Do not be obsessed with school rankings.  Be where you feel the most happy.  Be where you feel supported by faculty.  Be where department dynamics and lab dynamics are good. Generally, you have an idea of this during your visits, so do not make any decision before you visit all the schools you are accepted to.

 

3. The most important thing about picking a school, is that feeling like there is more than one person in the department you could be happy working with. Be robust to environmental fluctuations!  It is very possible that you dont end up working for that one person that you wanted to.  Only join a department that you like working for more than person.
 

And there is so much more.  As I come to realize how complex it is, I feel obliged to share what I have learnt.  Good luck with your decision!

[ShortLong]

Thanks for sharing! This is really helpful.  

[Eigen]

I think your second two points are great, but my experience would tell me that your order of importance is off on criteria that admissions committees use. 

 

I'd rank it:

 

Research Experience = Letters (since the letters should emphasize your research experience) > SoP > GRE/GPA. 

 

In short, GRE/GPA can keep you out of programs, but they'll rarely get you in, if you're lacking the first 3. Also, from my experience, letters from "big shots" that don't know you as well are much less persuasive than an unknown or lesser known faculty member that knows you really well, and writes a good letter. 

 

As to general undergrad research experience being low, most of my cohort had 3-4 years of in lab research experience, and several conference presentations and either publications or an undergraduate thesis that showed that they really did know their project. 

 

The same could be said for undergraduates that have worked for and with me at my current graduate institution. Many start as freshmen or early in their sophomore years, and most end up with publication authorship and/or a project of their own that the can present and do a thesis on. 

 

TL;DR: Showing you have research experience will trump almost anything else, imo. Faculty want someone who can come and get started in the lab right away, and has shown that they can solve problems and direct their research. You need to have a base level of competence that shows you'll get through your coursework and can understand the chemistry you'll be working with, but it's a "floor" more than anything else. 

[Cookie]

I think your second two points are great, but my experience would tell me that your order of importance is off on criteria that admissions committees use. 

 

Thanks Eigen! Your points are definitely valid.  That ranking was told to me by an actual adcom member of a school I visited.  It might vary depending on the actual program, and how prestigious it is.  Top programs tend to have more experienced applicants, hence the ranking might be similar to yours.  "But more often than not, undergraduate research quality is not high" - Adcom members and faculty.

[tarrman]

I don't think GRE scores are weighted very heavily in the admissions process, but I do think GPA plays a major role. We're not just talking about grades when it  comes to GPA, but also which classes were taken as an undergraduate. I've taken a few graduate courses very relevant to the field I'm going into, and my interviewers were impressed (somewhat) with my initiative in taking those classes because it shows that I'm serious about the field I'm applying to. As Eigen said, POI's want you to start working ASAP, and my exposure to these highly relevant courses has given me more of an edge and preparation in doing so.

 

But of course, this is all in supplement to a good bit of research experience (although I never felt they were superbly meaningful) and great LoR's and a decent SoP, which I think are the more major deciding factors.

[Cookie]

I don't think GRE scores are weighted very heavily in the admissions process, but I do think GPA plays a major role. We're not just talking about grades when it  comes to GPA, but also which classes were taken as an undergraduate.

 

Excellent point!

[abeilles]

 Be robust to environmental fluctuations!

 so important!

[Andean Pat]

GRE/GPA importance may vary from field to field. Adcoms DO take them into account but, at least in my field, the writing sample (which you did not mention) is far more relevant in the admission process. 

[Cookie]

...the writing sample (which you did not mention) is far more relevant in the admission process. 

 

What I shared is applicable to Chemistry PhD programs only.  Even within Chemistry programs, adcoms value different things, and any outstanding aspect of one's application will affect that ranking as well. Ymmv.

[blackjohnny]

Great points from everyone! Thanks guys

[k3ithk]

I think your second two points are great, but my experience would tell me that your order of importance is off on criteria that admissions committees use.

I'd rank it:

Research Experience = Letters (since the letters should emphasize your research experience) > SoP > GRE/GPA.

In short, GRE/GPA can keep you out of programs, but they'll rarely get you in, if you're lacking the first 3. Also, from my experience, letters from "big shots" that don't know you as well are much less persuasive than an unknown or lesser known faculty member that knows you really well, and writes a good letter.

As to general undergrad research experience being low, most of my cohort had 3-4 years of in lab research experience, and several conference presentations and either publications or an undergraduate thesis that showed that they really did know their project.

The same could be said for undergraduates that have worked for and with me at my current graduate institution. Many start as freshmen or early in their sophomore years, and most end up with publication authorship and/or a project of their own that the can present and do a thesis on.

TL;DR: Showing you have research experience will trump almost anything else, imo. Faculty want someone who can come and get started in the lab right away, and has shown that they can solve problems and direct their research. You need to have a base level of competence that shows you'll get through your coursework and can understand the chemistry you'll be working with, but it's a "floor" more than anything else.

It seems to me that the importance of research experience really depends on the field. I have heard a lot of advice about how important it is and how it is the number one thing that admissions committees look for when reviewing applications. However, I don't have a ton of research experience and when interviewing and talking with people at the schools where I was accepted, many of them didn't even care if I knew what I wanted to do or research (this is applied math, btw). I did have, according to some of the people that I talked to, one really, really good letter of recommendation from a prominent researcher. Probably saved my ass.

Edited March 1, 2013 by k3ithk

[Eigen]

You're in a quite different field than I am, so I can't really comment. 

 

But the discussion here (both the OP and I are in Chemistry) is certainly field dependent. But also constrained to that (and similar) fields. 

[Cookie]

Maybe i didnt make it clear, that my subfield is Theoretical chemistry.  It might explain why theorists have told me that they dont expect the most valuable research quality from undergrads.  But it could just be their own opinions

Edited March 2, 2013 by heartshapedcookie

[DEVGRU]

Thank all of you for sharing!