<p>I always assumed that a school that was a “reach-for-anyone” at the undergraduate level was a “reach-for-anyone” at the graduate level.</p>
<p>But one of the professors that could write recs for me told me that my file was competitive for graduate programs in schools I always thought of as being “reaches-for-anyone”, Tufts Physics MSc and Brown Physics MSc more precisely. (That statement is, IMO, an extreme exaggeration from that referee’s part, even if I scored 165+ on each sub-segment of the GRE) I knew Tufts and Brown were “reaches-for-anyone” at the undergraduate level but are they "reaches-for-anyone at the graduate level?</p>
<p>In other words, that doesn’t mean a school is a “reach-for-anyone” for undergraduate admissions that it will necessarily be a “reach-for-anyone” as a grad school. Or that a graduate “reach-for-anyone” is not necessarily an undergraduate “reach-for-anyone”.</p>
<p>It all depends on the department of the school. For example, I’m a PhD student in the Materials Science option at Caltech. I have no doubts I would have been rejected from physics, chemistry, or math. And I was rejected by the school for undergrad.</p>
<p>And this is why the whole “chances” meme needs to be taken out behind the woodshed and shot. Repeatedly.</p>
<p>Graduate admissions are highly individualized, department-based processes that work on far smaller scales, with smaller sample sizes and a much more holistic assessment of applicants. Doctoral programs commonly have admission rates in the 10% range. A “competitive” file is nowhere near a guarantee of admission - there are many more competitive applicants than there are slots. Trying to apply CC memes like “reachfitmatchOMG” to graduate school just doesn’t work.</p>
<p>This is very true, for a variety of reasons. As an undergrad you are essentially applying to ALL the majors, and receive much of the same benefits and opportunities regardless of what your actual degree says - same classes, clubs, etc. As a grad student you are applying to one specific department and its resources (human and material), and that is pretty much all you get. If that one specific department has good resources then it is something that will be heavily contested by applicants, otherwise it will not, regardless of how strong those undergrad resources are.</p>
<p>As an example, Penn State is not generally considered a “reach-for-anyone” school for undergrads, but grad students in Meteorology or Geosciences can work with Michael Mann and other very prominent climatologists, making Penn State a “reach-for-anyone” school if you want to pursue those departments. Likewise, Harvard offers graduate degrees in engineering, but there are so many schools doing better work with better labs and better professors that competition for grad spots in Harvard engineering are just not that hot compared to their undergrad admissions.</p>
<p>From what little I know, Brown is okay, Tufts is mediocre, neither is great. But bear in mind that I am speaking overall, whereas the important thing for you should be how good it is for your speciality - it may be that there is an excellent physicist at Tufts doing exactly what you want to do, even of the rest of the department is a little weak.</p>
<p>Of course, I am an engineer with limited knowledge of the field, so hopefully some physicists will come along soon and chime in.</p>
<p>What I do know is that, for at least Rutgers and PSU I covered graduate-level coursework for these schools as an undergrad. </p>
<p>Basically I’m facing the “speciality brand-name vs. school-wide brand-name” situation with having Brown and Tufts as possible choices in the US alongside my local choices.</p>
<p>Perhaps I’m being unrealistic, but here’s my complete list of schools I’d like to apply to:</p>
<p>Canada:</p>
<p>U Montreal (the transcript and recs requirements are waived if I stay at my undergrad school for grad school)
McGill
U Toronto</p>
<p>United States:</p>
<p>Boston University
Brown
Penn State
Rutgers
Tufts</p>
<p>When you say you took those classes as an undergrad, were you taking graduate versions of them, or was it something you took on your way sophomore/junior year? A lot of departments have grads “repeat” topics they took in undergrad, where a much deeper understanding is required (generally, it’s based upon having more mathematical rigor).</p>
<p>As far as my school is concerned, my school does not have graduate students repeat topics taken in undergrad and, as such, there is no graduate version available.</p>
<p>And, since I’m an in-province student, there is no such thing as senior year for undergrads. Second and third-year courses we had. Taking any three of these four courses are a must to apply to a MSc from within the school, and this is a hard requirement:</p>
<p>PHY2813/3813 (PHY3813 if you took that class prior to the Fall 2012 semester, PHY2813 thereafter) Advanced quantum mechanics
PHY3131 Advanced classical mechanics
PHY3214 Advanced statistical mechanics
PHY3442 Electrodynamics III</p>
<p>Here are the syllabi for each:</p>
<p>PHY3813 (the year I took it): Quantum mechanics foundations. Born approximation. Partial waves. Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and addition of angular momenta. Time-independent and time-dependent perturbation theory. Hydrogen atom. Rabi oscillations. Interaction of charges with EM fields. Dirac equation. Fermi’s golden rule. Wigner-Eckart theorem.</p>
<p>PHY3131: Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms. Canonical transformations and Poisson brackets. Hamilton-Jacobi formalism. Rigid motions and Euler equations.</p>
<p>PHY3214: Monoatomic perfect gas at the classical limit. Thermodynamics of Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac perfect gases and applications. Imperfect gas treatment.</p>
<p>PHY3442: Dissipative media, complex dielectric function. Conductor and optical wave guides. Radiation. Covariant formulation of electromagnetism.</p>
<p>Maybe physics is different from math, but in math there’s no such thing as a “reach-for-anyone.” When I was applying to PhD programs in math, there was substantial overlap in the admit list of all the tippy top programs. From the perspective of the admissions committee, there seems to be very little ambivalence about who to admit. That’s also reflected in the admission outcomes of individual students: everyone I met either got admitted to all (or almost all) of the tippy top programs they applied to, or they got rejected from most (or all). </p>
<p>
A “competitive applicant” is not a “sure admit.” If your reference actually used the word “competitive”, I’m not sure why you’d call that an “extreme exaggeration.”</p>
<p>I chanced people for a wide range of schools (from “reaches-for-anyone” to third-tier and fourth-tier schools) so I know that there are people who are “competitive” for a major in a school that are by no means “sure admits”, at all three cycles.</p>
Maybe that explains why you are so fixated on test scores. I raised my eyebrows when I read the comment about GRE scores in your original post. As if those mattered for graduate admissions… </p>
<p>May I ask why you consider the graduate physics programs at Brown and Tufts “reaches-for-anyone”? I am not a physicist, but I am not aware of either of them being particularly strong or popular programs.</p>
<p>All the schools in the U.S. that you mention have strengths in their graduate programs. They will require you to repeat some of the course work that your university will not require but if you show well, then it is likely that they will let you go ahead to advanced or elective courses sooner. It is hard to precisely compare course levels across universities and harder still across countries.</p>
<p>As a physics professor, I can give you my opinion of the schools you mentioned. The state universities are both large and strong and cover the whole range in physics. Boston University is also quite good in physics and has a pretty large department. If one of theses schools have specific areas of strength in your particular field of interest then going there should be fine.</p>
<p>I just looked on some site dedicated to Physics GRE study that there were people with way more research experience than me (albeit with undergraduate GPAs in the 3.6-3.7 range, just like me) that got rejected from Tufts so maybe Tufts isn’t a reachable option for me either, despite the mediocrity of that school’s physics department.</p>
<p>So there you have it. Even if, by some miracle, I got into Tufts or Brown it will most likely be an unfunded MSc which will set me back $50k+.</p>
<p>No one said it was mediocre. If it fits your interests and has active research faculty, then it is just fine. If you look at the National Research Council data summarized at [PhDs.org:</a> Jobs for PhDs, graduate school rankings, and career resources](<a href=“http://phds.org%5DPhDs.org:”>http://phds.org) you will see a more nuanced picture of each of the schools you mention. Even though the data is a bit old (2007), you can get a good idea of how the programs you are interested in rank according to criteria which are relevant to you.</p>
<p>If your professors judge that you have a chance at these schools then I would believe them. It is likely that their letters of reference will reflect what they think of you. When my advisees ask me about graduate programs, I try to be hones about where I think they fit. It does no good to go to a program that is too competitive for you. conversely, if you go to a lower “ranked” program that appreciates you and offers you financial support, then you have a better chance of being successful.</p>
<p>I think I have given up on Tufts… it was just too selective for the overall quality of the department unless Marchesini could actually make up for it, since Marchesini is the one I’d like to work under at Tufts.</p>