Geology Graduate Applicant Musings?

[ScrewLeucite]

Howdy folks, awfully nice to find this place.  Checking the results search for applicant acceptances and rejections has become somewhat of an obsession during this wait period.

As such, I've noticed a few peculiarities, and I was hoping to ask about them and maybe start a discussion or two.

1) There really aren't that many geology/geoscience/geophysics applicants who frequent this site (or at least there are few who have posted their results).  Why do you think this is?  Much like our beloved stratigraphic record, I'm sure there are some artifacts and preservational biases, so how reliable and representative do you think this site's data is?  Do geologists just not find this place?  Do a lot of us just not apply for graduate degrees compared to other fields?

2) It seems like the majority of applicants for geo degrees apply to doctorate programs rather than for a master's degree.  Is this likewise representative of our geo graduate degree seekers, or is this again an artifact or bias?  Why are there seemingly so few master's degree applicants posting?  If the signal is representative of a real pattern, why do so many applicants seek a doctorate over a master's, even when it is the applicant's first graduate program?

3) I noticed a distinct lack of graduate applicant results from big name universities like Penn State University and Arizona.  PSU is currently ranked first in geology for the U.S.A, and they've had a great record for years. Surely there cannot be so few applicants to such excellent programs, yes?  Or are there real reasons for the lack of application results for such a big name school? How many applicants do you think programs like these (based solely ranking) actually receive from students with a legitimate interest in the programs (rather than just applying based on rank)? 

Well, that's the extent of what I've wasted my waiting periods pondering.  Anyone want to join in?        

Cheers,

-ScrewLeucite

[GeoDUDE!]

1) in 2010 there were ~24k geology undergraduates. Physics I think is around 6k. By contrast biology and psychology are among the 10 most popular majors.  Geology is small.  Also the geology application process tends to be more lax than other fields, and frankly less competitive (unless you are talking about the top schools)

2) MS degrees tend to be industry oriented, so a lot of people doing a MS degree tend to come from companies. Also, a lot of people do MS degrees at their undergrad institution. PhD people tend to travel, put out more applications, so they are more inclined to seek feedback on them. That's just a guess. Also in the US, you don't need a masters degree before getting a PhD. More people in PhD programs (at least top programs) come directly from undergrad. 

3)Earth sciences is heavy on mentorship, so while rankings might be a general guideline, the actual field rankings are probably inaccurate from US News. There is a heavy bias towards larger programs, but no one would argue that Brown for example isn't one of the best geophysics and best planetary science programs in the world, depending on what you want to do. For example, there is no one who I could have done my PhD with at PSU, and maybe 1 person at ASU. I'm probably in one of the smallest subfields of earth science though. My point is that Earth science has many subdisciplines that really the ranking of the overall program should be just a general guide line.  I'm not really sure there is a quality of education difference between the 1st rank school and the 30th ranked school, but I don't really know. 

I think the programs that get the most applicants are the ones with the best oil and gas connections. Many of these applicants are international. University of Houston gets some of the most applications despite (i could be wrong) its ranked 64th by USnews. I wouldn't be surprised if it got more applicants than ASU or PSU. 

[ScrewLeucite]

Thanks for the response GeoDUDE!, and great choice of name.

I was unaware of the actual stats on undergrad numbers, but it seems reminiscent of proportions when I was at my undergrad university.  I suppose that explains a great deal of it.  Likewise, I suppose you are likely right about geology programs being more lax as well.  In my experience, most geologists are pretty down-to-earth people.  

As for the master's degree, I think that's a fair response.  I had similar thoughts, but I hadn't thought about the energy expense differential.  I suppose PhD applications would necessarily be more competitive and any help would be welcomed.  It seems like most application results which get posted (in any discipline or field) are for PhD applications, which might strengthen that idea...

I totally agree about rankings being inaccurate.  I think some of the smaller and lower ranked schools can have some of the most dedicated professors, and the professors oftentimes are what make a program's excellence.  Likewise, I know fit of interest, and thus mentoring relationships, are much more significant than ranking.  Rank doesn't mean anything if two people cannot work together or do not share the same interests.  Certainly few schools have something akin to my program of choice, regardless of rank, so I understand what you are saying.  I guess the small size of the geology applicant pool, coupled with the less likely "reporting/requesting help potential" of master's students(hypothetically they expend less "energy" searching and asking for help), might mean those who report results here are necessarily more informed about what specialties their choices of universities can offer.

Ah, oil and gas.  You're probably right about that too.  A lot of the posted results do appear to come from applicants to Texan universities.  I hadn't even considered that factor.  Speaking of, I'm interested in how the recent economic oil troubles has affected applications to those programs, and all geology programs in general.  I can only imagine the applicant pool is considerably larger this year than the year before last.             

[Yunix]

Another thought on 1: notice that Humanities has the most posts of all the subforums, followed by Social Sciences. Maybe people in these disciplines are more social and/or more comfortable participating online discussions? Maybe geologists are just shier, so even though a lot of them visit here, they tend to remain quiet.

[ScrewLeucite]

52 minutes ago, Yunix said:

Another thought on 1: notice that Humanities has the most posts of all the subforums, followed by Social Sciences. Maybe people in these disciplines are more social and/or more comfortable participating online discussions? Maybe geologists are just shier, so even though a lot of them visit here, they tend to remain quiet.

Ah, well, I've known a lot of sociable geologists, but I see your point.  Maybe geologists are just less likely to ask for help, or perhaps we are more our own islands, rock-steady and less willing to ask for assistance?  Or maybe a lot of us prefer a more "natural" communication method?  Who needs technology more advanced than a rock hammer, a pocket transit, and a topographic map?  ;D 

[GeoDUDE!]

Another thing is, a lot of people in earth science programs do not come from geology programs in undergrad. I'd say my program is close to 50/50 on that front, so that might have some influence as well. 

[Yunix]

I checked out the "2015 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results" thread just for the sake of it. By Feb. 10, 2015, there're 23 pages of content in that thread. This year at the same period, we have 8 pages...

[zerozircon]

@ScrewLeucite UT Austin got 750 applications this year, which is higher than normal.  When I talked with my potential adviser, he said that there are a higher number of applications this year because of issues with oil.

[ScrewLeucite]

10 hours ago, GeoDUDE! said:

Another thing is, a lot of people in earth science programs do not come from geology programs in undergrad. I'd say my program is close to 50/50 on that front, so that might have some influence as well. 

I had no idea that was the case.  I knew a lot of people in their undergraduate programs switched into geology from other programs (especially biology and chemistry in my institution), but it is fascinating that so many people without a geology background get drawn to the field for a graduate degree.  That isn't to say I couldn't see the application of a physics undergrad background to geophysics graduate program, or a chemistry background to geochemistry, but certainly some backgrounds are not suited for certain geological disciplines.  For example, how could anything but a geology undergrad background prepare someone for stratigraphy (well, maybe biology for bio-strat...)?  

When you say program, you mean your "speciality," and not the entirety of the program at your university, right?  Otherwise your experience is more fascinating, as it would be likely that geologists would be less likely to get into certain disciplines, being displaced by undergrads of a less geological background.  I wonder how many fields could say that their undergrads get preferentially displaced by relevant but external background-ed candidates.  lol 

9 hours ago, Yunix said:

I checked out the "2015 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results" thread just for the sake of it. By Feb. 10, 2015, there're 23 pages of content in that thread. This year at the same period, we have 8 pages...

That is a drastic difference.  Maybe the prior year's applicants were more vocal, but comparable in number?  Or maybe fewer graduate schools have made their decisions this year than they did at this time last year?  

2 hours ago, zerozircon said:

@ScrewLeucite UT Austin got 750 applications this year, which is higher than normal.  When I talked with my potential adviser, he said that there are a higher number of applications this year because of issues with oil.

Thanks for the confirmation on that.  I wonder if that pattern holds true for all geology programs, or just those (as GeoDUDE! mentioned were routinely applied to) which are oil and gas related?  Certainly would expect to see more applicants here, if it were the general pattern, no? 

[GeoDUDE!]

1 hour ago, ScrewLeucite said:

When you say program, you mean your "speciality," and not the entirety of the program at your university, right?  Otherwise your experience is more fascinating, as it would be likely that geologists would be less likely to get into certain disciplines, being displaced by undergrads of a less geological background. 

I've only met 1 person in my specialty that doesn't have a physics or math degree. Some of them are double majors, some of them have engineering degree, but my particular brand of geophysics (and really, any brand other that exploration related geophysics) is not possible to study without the advanced physics/math/compsci courses, and so a geology background tends to make you unqualified for this type of research.  So to answer your question, all the geophysicists in my program tend to be from outside of geology. All the geochemists tend to come from chemistry, ect. Our entire program is 50/50

I think it is very common at the better programs to see many people from outside geology. Though, even sometimes two geology degrees are different. For example, both the asian and european geology programs tend to be a lot more intellectually rigorous than US programs in both field applications and quantitative applications. I think only 3/10 geology majors take calc 3 in the US, and that's something I took freshman year.... that may be a minor quibble, but to really be an effective earth scientist this point, even if your methods aren't heavily quantitate now, you are going to have to at least work with people are quant heavy. 

I think its also important to note, that geology as a pure field is shrinking. Over the last 20 years or so, earth sciences has gone from a very qualitative, descriptive science to a more quantitative discipline. Fewer dissertation every year will be purely based on field studies. My department, most known for its contributions to field tectonics (Moore) has shifted to a more lab and computational based program.  This is a sign of a maturing science, not a bad thing.The same thing has happened in the life sciences too. 

We got more applicants this year than last year. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by GeoDUDE!

[ScrewLeucite]

GeoDUDE!, please don't misunderstand me, I'm not surprised by the facts.  I'm surprised that I hadn't realized them.  It should have been obvious to me that pure physicists should be best suited for the purely physical aspects of geophysics, for instance.  I just find such a distribution fascinating, because it seems so counter-intuitive at first thought. I'm sure other fields (chemistry for example) have similar trends where advanced math and physics necessarily displace pure chemistry undergrads.  I agree, that's just the nature of the applicability of mathematics.

Likewise, I'm aware of the more quantitative approaches being adopted by the discipline as a whole.  (Computer modeling has grown so greatly in the last 30 years...)  I'm quite glad for it, but I worry about the effect of such specialization breaking our disciplinary community apart.  Those under the umbrella of "Geology" have always been a diverse bunch, but I think part of the charm of geology is it's interdisciplinary (inter-subdiscplinary?) community.  Increasing specialization will make that much more difficult to maintain.  Small price to pay for the advantages of a more reliable methodology for interpreting the Earth's history, but an unfortunate one.  To make cogent interpretations using a variety of data, we will just have to rely upon the expertise of others much more in the future (as you say).   

[GeoDUDE!]

18 minutes ago, ScrewLeucite said:

 Small price to pay for the advantages of a more reliable methodology for interpreting the Earth's history, but an unfortunate one.

I just think it means more collaborations on papers, similar to the life sciences (where they often have 10 authors on their papers). 

[ScrewLeucite]

9 minutes ago, GeoDUDE! said:

I just think it means more collaborations on papers, similar to the life sciences (where they often have 10 authors on their papers). 

Certainly, I don't disagree.  I just mean to say...  For example, part of the charm of being at geological conferences was being able to go to presentations from speakers in subdisciplines outside of your own, being able to understand the majority of it, and seeing how it related to the various other subdisciplines of geology.  With specialization, we will each more fully understand narrower and narrower topics, potentially isolating ourselves from one another.  That is my concern, but again, you are right to say it is a sign of a maturing science.  It isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong, and it can certainly be mitigated.  I just find the loss of a solid community (as opposed to the very definitely split communities in the life sciences) a bummer.

[GeoDUDE!]

2 hours ago, ScrewLeucite said:

Certainly, I don't disagree.  I just mean to say...  For example, part of the charm of being at geological conferences was being able to go to presentations from speakers in subdisciplines outside of your own, being able to understand the majority of it, and seeing how it related to the various other subdisciplines of geology.  With specialization, we will each more fully understand narrower and narrower topics, potentially isolating ourselves from one another.

I think that's a valid concern, though, there is a clear language in which earth science is communicated to other earth scientists. So I think your fear might be mitigated by that just a bit. Also, for example, while I don't have a geology background I have to teach geophysics to geologists. Part of being a scientist, and being in a graduate program, is learning that language, or to use a better word, "indoctrinate" .  

The people who do very narrow research tend to be graduate students. Professors, on the other hand, tend to collaborate with many different people, work on different aspects of things all under a research "theme".  

I've never been to a geology conference (unless you count AGU, but geology tends to be small there), so I don't know much of what your talking about. I do know that I attend talks on many different topics, and over the years, it has become easier and easier to understand different types of research.  I think that will be the case for most scientists, the younger they are, the harder it is to wade outside their subfield. As they become more comfortable with the language of research, they can wade out into different waters. 

[Windmills]

On February 11, 2016 at 8:12 AM, zerozircon said:

@ScrewLeucite UT Austin got 750 applications this year, which is higher than normal.  When I talked with my potential adviser, he said that there are a higher number of applications this year because of issues with oil.

Yep, the Jackson School got 667 applications for 2015 (583 for Geology; 84 for Energy and Earth Resources). Acceptance rates were 15% for Geology and 49% for EER.