pro_grad Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Hi, So far, I reduced to three schools that I wish to attend for Astronomy: Ohio State Universtiy, Cornell University, and University of Chicago. I got a full 5-yr funding from Ohio. When I paid my visit to there, I loved it very much. People were nice. The department was running very active. But, the downsides are they have not very strong physics program, and the department size is very small, which might restrict in a number of fields open to me later. I haven't visited both Cornell and Chicago yet. Both offered about 2-yr of funding, but not promising after the second year. Some one I know told Chicago has more graduates than undergraduates, so it could be very competitive when applying for TA or any sort of funding. But, Chicago is one of the best place for physics program, and its department size is huge enought for me to have enough opportunity to choose various fields of studying. I also need to think of the price of living. Cornell is also a good school with a general high reputation. It is quite disturbing that it is located in a very countryside though. They have both good astronomy and physics programs. Not sure which way to go. So far, Ohio has stood up as my choice, but it is also true that Chicago and Cornell are very tempting places to go. I'd appreciate any comments!
rising_star Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 I'm not sure quite what you mean when you say that Ohio State limits your opportunities in a number of fields. It doesn't seem like a good idea to go somewhere without enough funding to make sure that you could finish. What will you do (how will you fund yourself) for the other 2-3 years? Have you asked current students about what they do...
Minnesotan Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 U Chicago is swarming with unfunded (or underfunded) grads. But it's prestigious, so every sucker pics Chicago over any other non-ivy choice.
pro_grad Posted March 15, 2007 Author Posted March 15, 2007 Is that true Chicago is the place where it takes enormous amount of effort and time to get ph.D?
Minnesotan Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 If it didn't take enormous amounts of time and effort, it would be a worthless phd.
Optimistic Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Well, if you go to Ohio, get ready for 80 degree weather one day and then 20 degree weather with snow on the ground the next. Literally. In April.
trendytotebag Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 I would tend to follow the funding, because it doesn't matter how good your grad education is if you can't afford to finish it. That said, don't downgrade a school because it's in the country. There is a certain amount of cultural stagnation, true, but you are going to be spending all of your time working on your PhD anyway. You might even see being in the country as an advantage - there are fewer distractions that way! I've spent most of my undergrad in some very isolated, hick-type places, but the departments I studied with were full of people who were doing interesting and quality work. That's what matters to me. I have my studies and I have my friends.
molly Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 I'm going to Cornell for Biochemistry, Molecular and Cell Biology. Have you actually visited Ithaca? It's freaking awesome.
vertsim Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 As far as the money thing goes, it is real. I know of at least one person who transferred out of UChicago astro due to lack of funding. He also found it crushingly depressing. For Astronomy Ohio and Cornell are both extremely good schools with tons of great people working there. I wouldn't say that either are a step down from U of C in terms of prestige, especially not in the eyes of the astrophysics crowd. Ohio State is an especially good place to be a grad student in astro from what I have heard (Astro coffee!). Good luck deciding, you've got some great options.
Recommended Posts