<p>I’m inclined to think that they’re programs in fields where there aren’t a lot of people who go into them due to parental pressure, where the content often forces students to be somewhat masochistic, and where there isn’t an obvious route to a job (thus, there isn’t as much of a competition). And also, a field that advisers generally don’t recommend people to go into. </p>
<p>My impression is that astrophysics, physics, computational biology, and the computational/theoretical parts of many other sciences have the least competitive programs. It is <em>incredibly</em> easy to get an undergrad research position if you want to do mathematical biology for example, or the more theoretical parts of any other science. For some reason, all the “hardcore theory” guys all want to do pure math (or computer science or applied math), so this frees up the more theoretical parts of the sciences for the rest of us. Furthermore, they are <em>cheap</em> (because you don’t need huge $$ for labs) and in relatively high demand.</p>
<p>I’m particularly interested in the theoretical/computational astrophysics. But I also love theoretical biology and atmospheric sciences.</p>
<p>I am curious as to where you get your information on Computational Biology and other related fields being easy to get into… these fields are actually very hot right now and extremely fast growing. Computational Biology and Bioinformatics programs are very competitive to get into as this field is in demand and and also the competition is fierce: you are competing against bio, comp sci, and math students for the spots in these programs. I spent the past summer in an NSF funded program for Computational Biology and it had a 4% acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Most of this reasoning is unconvincing. The difficulty of admission in a graduate program is driven by funding as much as it is driven by competition. </p>
<p>Theoretical disciplines receive less funding, therefore they cannot support as many students. (Also, fewer professors!) In addition, a professor in a theoretical area is only going to want to bother with students who demonstrate enormous capability, because otherwise they will be eat up the scarce funding and not contribute anything (whereas in more applied areas they can still do grunt work in the worst case). </p>
<p>It’s true that humanities programs are more competitive (percentage-wise) than science, as the post you links points out. However, this is because humanities receive even less funding (you can think of them as even more theoretical than theoretical sciences, because there is very little concrete gain). Thus they can only support a few, top students.</p>
<p>In my opinion I think pure math, econ, and certain humanities programs (i.e Philosophy) are the toughest for admissions, followed by CS and Physics, followed by other natural sciences, followed by softer sciences and interdisciplinary fields.</p>
<p>Oh okay. Well, it’s much easier to get research with a theoretical/computational biologist than it is to get with a regular biologist (especially one in the health sciences). But that’s also because you’re not competing with the premeds (who will just apply for med schools).</p>
<p>As for the computational biology field though, I’m relying on hearsay from someone I know from another forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that guy is also a premed so he probably gets all his impressions from premeds. So it’s probably unrepresentative.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>But if computational biology is quickly expanding, then doesn’t it mean that more and more slots are being created for it? It’s possible that there might be a time lag between increase in supply and increase in demand - if increase in supply comes first, then these programs might be easier to get into - but it’s the opposite if increase in demand comes first.</p>
<p>Okay, that’s a very good point. You have me convinced there. Good point about students needing to demonstrate enormous capability too. This is definitely true in the <em>most</em> theoretical fields. But nowadays, lots of theoretical research is now computational, so mediocre students can at least do grunt work in the worst case (by coding programs). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, good point about humanities. I’m really not sure if you can say that Physics is harder to get in than other natural sciences and softer sciences though (how does it compare to chemistry, for example?). <em>Especially</em> if you want full support/funding. Maybe social sciences are easier to get in WITHOUT funding, but I’m talking about getting in with the case of funding. And how are interdisciplinary fields easier to get in? Can you name one top-level interdisciplinary program with an acceptance rate that’s at least 30%? Or a program in chemistry, or a softer science? Certainly, few people get the advice to pursue those fields, but they also tend to attract all sorts of majors, and there aren’t very many of them at all. I’ve looked into cognitive science PhD programs, and the top ones are still amazingly hard to get into (based on what someone from reddit says). Meanwhile, some top level physics and astrophysics departments DO have surprisingly high acceptance rates of over 25% (and these departments are the only ones where I can get reliable acceptance rates since a lot of them post them at gradschoolshopper.com).</p>
<p>Sure, a physics PhD might require more raw intelligence than a PhD in another program. But that doesn’t necessarily make it harder to get into, for someone who probably already has that intelligence.</p>
<p>In difficulty. Examine the statistics. You see people with 3.3s getting into top biology programs. Your application in physics at top 40 schools get tossed lol</p>
<p>Where are the statistics? Where can I find acceptance rates for biology grad-level programs? Maybe the guys with 3.3s had PHENOMENAL research.</p>
<p>And yes, people with 3.3s DO get into physics grad programs, and it’s actually not uncommon. The key to that: a high PGRE score paired up with research. Sure, lots of people complain about the PGRE, but it’s incredible how little they study for it. They just convince themselves that their coursework is sufficient enough and put off studying.</p>
<p>Physics might be more “difficult” in terms of the % of students smart enough to do the thing. But again, if you’re <em>smart</em> enough, physics actually isn’t any more difficult than other courses. Some of us learn faster when we actually do things analytically, rather than when we memorize things. Some of us are smart and lazy (well, lazy if we had to do the work in other departments, which often contain more busywork+memorization+class participation), and we might actually find physics programs to be MUCH easier to get into. I don’t consider myself a genius either - genius isn’t even required to succeed at upper-level physics coursework. It’s just that maybe the intelligence required for physics is at the 98th percentile rather than the 90th percentile. Maybe biology programs are easier to get in for people at the 90th percentile of intelligence. But for those at the 98th percentile (who still aren’t geniuses) of intelligence, it may be different. It’s the same thing with college admissions too. If you’re smart enough (you don’t have to be a genius), Caltech is actually the easiest top school to get into, simply because its admissions process is more straightforward (in terms of what it expects out of students) than others.</p>
<p>Anyways, this does get into subjective territory. I’m really only concerned about relative acceptance rates.</p>
<p>Go through the Physics GRE site. Then go through the biosciences chances site. I can assure you that kids get into top bioscience programs with 3.5 GPAs which would be mediocre in physics.</p>
<p>I am not a physicist by the way- just pointing out what I have seen from general observation. In general:</p>
<p>physics>chemistry> biology in terms of difficulty of getting in. Likely biology is based more on research than actual grades, but still some people with amazing physics research have problem cracking top 10 schools.</p>
<p>They have a biosciences chances site? Where is that? 3.5 GPAs aren’t bad for physics if they’re combined with research+excellent PGRE scores. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe they have amazing physics research but didn’t do well on the Physics GRE? </p>
<p>I know a Caltech student who had an AMAZING GPA and AMAZING research, and still got rejected nearly everywhere. His reason: Poor PGRE. He didn’t even bother to study for it. I know fairly mediocre kids with high PGRE scores. You don’t need to be a genius to answer the questions. None of them require any deep analytical ability. </p>
<p>I don’t know, but most people seem horridly under-prepared for the Physics GRE simply because there are no reliable prep books available. But there are still plenty of problems available in the textbooks, and solutions through the torrent sites. People just don’t do them.</p>
<p>The Physics GRE is one of the most important parts of the application, and the part that’s actually the easiest to improve. If someone does poorly on it, they can EASILY improve their application by taking a gap year so that they could take it the next year.</p>
<p>hmm they had good GREs. Seems in physics you need teh whole package- Good GRE/Good PGRE, good everything</p>
<p>how badly did he do though? Like lower than 60th percentile?</p>
<p>I know a Caltech student who had an AMAZING GPA and AMAZING research, and still got rejected nearly everywhere. </p>
<p>Also where did this Caltech student apply to? Probably top 10-20 programs.Knowing students from Caltech, they woudl expect to get a PhD at the best of the best. Well the best of the best want the whole package-grades, test scores and research experience.</p>
<p>Okay I’m looking through the profiles now. The low GPA + high PGRE(>850ish) + domestic + did actual major in physics combo is VERY rare on the forums (I guess more conscientious people tend to post their profiles more, which is funny, since forums also tend to attract lots of easily-distracted people/INTPs/people with ADD/[people who can really only learn for once and for all when they screw-up and thus learn after getting mistakes on tests], but I guess I’m the only one).</p>
<p>But a guy with a 3.5 did get into Berkeley and Columbia for physics. That was the only one with the combo I could find so far.</p>
<p>EDIT: looked for more, almost no more examples. Guy with 3.3 overall GPA and 850 PGRE got into Astrophysics at Cornell and Penn State (waitlisted at Columbia) - Penn State has a VERY high ranking for astrophysics.</p>
<p>Also you posted on thegradcafe.com right? You could also check the results page. Check the number of rejected stduents in physics and compare that to other science fields. The difficulty of getting into a good program can dissuade one from even turning in an application to be honest</p>
<p>Any attempt to determine the ease of graduation admissions in different fields is futile. Too much is subjective. Let’s take computational biology, as was discussed above. That’s a very hot field, with an accompanying demand for students since the funding levels tend to be high. Yes, there’s a lot of money in the field, but there are also a lot of students who are interested in it. If you are a molecular biology student with extensive math and computer training and solid research experience, you might find admission to top programs easy, even though your GPA was a 3.4. You may even say that there’s no reason for anyone to attend a PhD program out of the top ten because you got in everywhere you applied with only a 3.4. But if you don’t have much research, or don’t have a solid bio/math/computer combination background, you might find admissions extremely competitive, even with a 4.0. </p>
<p>Likewise, there might not be many (relatively speaking) students interested in astrophysics. Some will find admissions “easy” while others will think it “nearly impossible,” and it all depends on subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, aspects of the applicant’s background. </p>
<p>Just apply to the programs that promise to challenge you and that fit with your research interests. Some students may have to wait for another application cycle because they don’t get into any programs the first time, for whatever reasons.</p>
<p>Any attempt to determine the ease of graduation admissions in different fields is futile. Too much is subjective. Let’s take computational biology, as was discussed above. That’s a very hot field, with an accompanying demand for students since the funding levels tend to be high. Yes, there’s a lot of money in the field, but there are also a lot of students who are interested in it. If you are a molecular biology student with extensive math and computer training and solid research experience, you might find admission to top programs easy, even though your GPA was a 3.4. You may even say that there’s no reason for anyone to attend a PhD program out of the top ten because you got in everywhere you applied with only a 3.4. But if you don’t have much research, or don’t have a solid bio/math/computer combination background, you might find admissions extremely competitive, even with a 4.0. </p>
<p>Likewise, there might not be many (relatively speaking) students interested in astrophysics. Some will find admissions “easy” while others will think it “nearly impossible,” and it all depends on subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, aspects of the applicant’s background. </p>
<p>Just apply to the programs that promise to challenge you and that fit with your research interests. Some students may have to wait for another application cycle because they don’t get into any programs the first time, for whatever reasons.</p>
<p>Oh really? Wow. <em>shrug</em> If I were smarter, I probably should have done physiology and biophysics instead then. Or theoretical biology. Okay, you have me convinced.</p>
<p>I’ve read thegradcafe results before - but it’s sort of frustrating because you can’t see the stats of the applicant (why do they do this when they don’t even post their GPAs+GRE scores?)</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Wait though, do SOME bioscience programs have higher average GPAs than others? I’m especially interested in systems biology, biophysics, and computational biology. I have a few advanced math bio courses and a senior-level synthetic biology course (and a grad lvl neurobiology course that I got a 3.7 in). I have a math+physics+astro triple major and lots of statistics and programming experience. I don’t have more bio courses since I really do NOT want to go through my university’s intro biology sequence (I did self-study it though, and I self-study massive amounts of biology), and thus, I don’t have the pre-reqs for most of them. Most of my research is in the astro department but maybe they’re willing to take recommendations from people in other departments?</p>
<p>And do most of them require advanced GREs or not? Of the ones that <em>don’t</em> require advanced GREs, do they have higher average GPAs? I really only have time for the PGRE at this point.</p>
<p>It’s also possible that lack of analytical ability is one of the main bottlenecks to a lot of bioscience research (just as lack of programming ability is the main bottleneck to astronomy research).</p>
<p>Which bioscience fields are most willing to take someone with a pure math+physics major who doesn’t even have organic chemistry?</p>
<p>Still though, I’d really appreciate data on acceptance rates, since universities won’t reply to my emails if I ask them for that data.</p>
<p>I’m really interested. I know I’m not focused, because I equally love astronomy and systems biology (well, I pretty much love everything academic). I actually pursued theoretical biology research first, but screwed up my opportunities (due to immaturity) and astronomy professors are more forgiving, so I went into astronomy.</p>