Applying to Chemical Oceanography Programs

[smallboat]

I'm a third year/junior geology major at UChicago who is interested in applying to a chemical oceanography program this fall. Which ones should I apply to? I'm considering WHOI/MIT, Scripps, Columbia, UW Seattle, and Miami Rosenstiel. I'm worried that not being a chemistry major (I haven't taken ochem, ichem, or pchem) and not being from a school with a background in chemical oceanography puts me at a big disadvantage compared to other applicants, especially because I've heard that the schools I'm applying to are super competitive. I changed my major halfway during my undergrad career so I wasn't able to start geochemistry research until the end of my second/sophomore year. As such, I don't have any publications in geochemistry journals. I've done most of my meaningful geochemistry research over the summer and I've only been on one scientific cruise. Should I take a gap year and do more research? In addition, I'm worried that one of the three recommendation letters I'll likely get will not be as strong as the other two since I've done most of my research in ocean sciences with two professors/scientists, but have not done very much research at all with the third, who is not an ocean scientist. Would it significantly hurt my application if not all of my rec letters are equally strong? My grades, GRE, and other stuff is solid; I'm mostly worried whether I'm competitive applicant for chemical oceanography specifically.

[GeoDUDE!]

Those are the strong oceanography programs i know: You might want to include URI as well if they have research you are interested in. 

Don't worry about your major: I have a masters degree in geology and haven't even taken a coures in it!

Very few undergrads have publications. 

[Usmivka]

What type of chemistry/geochemistry are you thinking about and do you have specific advisors in mind at each of these institutions?

In my opinion Lamont-Doherty (Columbia) doesn't have much breadth in chemistry, but could still be a good fit with a specific advisor in a specific subject. Other (US) chemical oceanography programs to consider are URI (mentioned by GeeoDUDE!), UConn, Oregon State, and perhaps UH. VIMS and Maryland could be good options if you are interested in coastal processes. There are other schools that have what could be the perfect advisor for you depending on your research interests (for example your alma mater).

As for your other questions: I see no reason besides cost not to apply this year (and if it is a hardship you can request a fee waiver from all of these), you can still take a year to do research if you don't get the acceptances you want. Not all your letters need to be from folks you've done research with. 2/3 sounds pretty good--if you think you'll get a better third letter from a teacher or someone you do outreach with, you can choose them. I agree that you shouldn't worry about your major, but I think publications are important and useful. Yes, many undergrads don't have a publication, but many undergrads are not applying to these very competitive programs--I estimate a third to half of my entering class had at least a co-authorship prior to starting grad school, and I think all had presented at a major conference. See if you can shoehorn yourself into an authorship or conference presentation in the time you have.

Also, the biggest reason these programs are competitive is the funding environment. Our class size varies between 2 and 10 based primarily on which PIs have money and whether incoming students have independent funding. The single best way to improve your odds is to win a major national fellowship (NSF, NOAA, DOD, NASA, EPA, DOE, or private foundation). Those primarily come down to writing a strong short research proposal. Proposals are due around the time of grad apps. Even if you don't win, doing the legwork and communicating with a prospective PI will make you more look like a better candidate--you'll show you understand the process and are willing to put in the work, and the experience will improve your proposal odds the following year, which makes you a safer bet for a PI and the admissions committee.

The second most important factor not on your list is having a prospective advisor lined up and advocating for you during the admissions process. I don't think anyone has been admitted to our program in the last several years who applied blindly without significant interaction with one of our PIs--though they didn't always end up working with the person they were mostly in contact with. So you need to be contacting PIs now--with followup, don't just send one email and say "oh well" when you don't get a response. There are threads in the lobby that that detail approaches for this contact. Have your faculty advisors write letters of introduction if it will help. Specifically, you should talk with David Archer for specific ideas about who to contact: He is a chemical oceanographer at UChicago who is well known in the community and his introduction or recommendation of you will carry a lot of weight. Rightly or wrongly, a big part of grad admissions is still who you know.

Shoot me a message if you still have questions. I'm a grad student at MIT/WHOI and am familiar with the faculty at UW ("U-Dub" by the way, never "UWash" despite what some confused souls write in this forum).

Edited June 15, 2016 by Usmivka

[Usmivka]

I didn't cover this above, but think carefully about whether you want or need a PhD prior to devoting much time to the application process. Only 5-10% of natural science PhDs end up in tenured academic positions (see the many recent editorials on this subject in Science). More specific to chemical oceanography, I estimate there are <2000 faculty/scientists in academic or government positions in North America, and that number is if anything shrinking. There are something like 300 new PhDs in this or closely related fields every year, and based on the job postings I see, there are maybe 10 new postings a year for ~permanent positions (I'm ignoring the intermediate postdoc). Many of those are open to multiple fields like PO, atmospheric science, climate, etc., so lets say that generously CO PhDs take half of those openings. Then in any given year, you'd expect ~1.5% of the applicants to land a job. In reality the situation is worse for someone graduating in 5 years, because you are still competing with other PhDs who didn't get a job the first time around and are in a postdoc holding pattern, and most of the retirement ready CO scientists are out or on there way out of the system right now, so I'd expect the annual job openings when you graduate to look more like the 2-3 a year I saw in the late 2000s.

Or, put another way, how many PhD students does the average professor in your subfield graduate before s/he retires? Is the answer more than 1-2?

The great majority of my graduating class is not interested in continuing in academia, even though all but one of us started saying we wanted to be professors. The reasons vary, but are in no small part due to the harsh funding realities and heavy competition (too many newly minted PhDs, not enough moulah). Those of us graduating now are still competing for postdocs and faculty positions with scientists who graduated beginning in 2008 because of the limited number of positions. At some point you have to ask yourself how many productive years of work you'll have left by the time you (perhaps) get to tenure and whether that will allow you to earn enough that retirement is ever an option. If you won't end up in academia (and the likelihood is you will not) where will you be? Please plan ahead and think carefully about your career trajectory and what degrees and skills are actually needed. A PhD should not be the default choice just because it is the next rung on the academic ladder--I'd argue you should have a steel-hulled ego and preternaturally good long term planning to even contemplate taking this step.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Usmivka

[smallboat]

Thank you so much for the great response! I'm in Woods Hole right now trying to meet the faculty and I hope I can get into contact with some. You mentioned that many natural science Ph.Ds don't have good job prospects. What kinds of jobs are many of your classmates who are not interested in continuing academica considering? Nobody in my field has ever mentioned any jobs related to chemical oceanography or geology outside of pure research and its hard to get anywhere beyond vague answers online. 

[Usmivka]

That last on my part came off as too pessimistic--there are plenty of non-academic jobs in the world and a PhD is not a dead end if you don't become a professor somewhere (I'd even go so far as to say good job prospects) . I just mean that many people assume that they are going to become just that going into grad school, and at least some would be better served if they thought ahead a bit about what they might like to do alternatively.

It is really too early to say what will happen with my current peer group, as many are starting postdocs but that can be something of a holding pattern. In terms of recent grads, most are in postdocs too. A handful are getting into policy and management through government internships in DC (most pursued policy certificates or masters while doing their doctoral research). Another small number have joined environmental consulting firms or work on industrial research semi-related to their theses (eg glass manufacturing, laboratory instrument development). Others have taken teaching/lecturing positions at small colleges with, and some are professors at liberal arts colleges. A few more in research staff positions (which I would argue you don't necessarily need a PhD for if that is your goal), and similar numbers are no longer in the science-ish work force. A good number actually are on a professor track at major research institutions or working for government labs (more than the average for oceanography graduates, the MIT/WHOI pedigree seems to offer some cachet), though in some cases that has involved emigration to countries with special financial support for early career scientists (or as a matter of returning back home for some international students).

I don't know if you are spending the summer in Woods Hole as a summer or guest student, but there are a number of resources available to visiting students to learn more (through WHOI, MBL, USGS, or NOAA). If you will be around on the 24th-28th of this month, message me and I can maybe make some introductions.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Usmivka

[shikkui]

Hey guys.  I'm a senior at my undergraduate waiting to hear back from a few chemical oceanography programs.  I was wondering if there were others on this site who were applying to the same program (obviously, the person who made this thread is considering it), and I was wondering if any others have heard back from anywhere.

[Usmivka]

On 2/9/2017 at 3:28 PM, shikkui said:

Hey guys.  I'm a senior at my undergraduate waiting to hear back from a few chemical oceanography programs.  I was wondering if there were others on this site who were applying to the same program (obviously, the person who made this thread is considering it), and I was wondering if any others have heard back from anywhere.

I can tell you that invites for the open houses are already out at UW and Scripps, and at MIT/WHOI plans are in the works for the visiting weekend which implies to me that the list has been selected at least in part (though I have no definitive info on that and historically the invite list is not finalized until late February). Invites and acceptances can be a prolonged process. I encourage you to write (succinctly) to potential advisors you've been in contact with to inquire about whether you're still in the running to work with them--it can't hurt and could help if they decide to weigh into the selection process on your behalf.