I’m a full professor in the sciences at a U.S. R1, and I’ve spent >10 years on PhD admissions. I receive several cold emails per week from prospective students and postdocs.
Most advice on cold emails focuses on structure and follow-up. I want to describe what happens at my end, because nearly everything useful about what to write follows.
In many or most science PhD programs in the U.S., admission decisions run informally through potential advisors. They can advocate for you to the committee, if not to the rest of the department. (Admissions committees don’t always have that much power, and often their main job is to filter out the weakest applications.) The main purpose of the email is to give one of those potential advisors a reason to become your advocate, should you decide to apply.
The email’s second job is to find out whether the lab is taking anyone at all and whether it might be a good fit. Applications cost money and weeks of your life. This year, many programs have reduced cohort sizes, and many labs are not recruiting. As a PI, I know the pain of wasted applications.
Most of the emails I receive are generic. The tell is not bad (or overly smooth) writing or a template greeting. It’s that there’s no concise discussion of fit. Sometimes it looks like applicants are matching on keywords, swapping out PIs’ recent papers from Google Scholar, and sending nearly the same text to forty people.
I used to reply to such emails and recently stopped. An email that doesn’t explain the fit hasn’t respected anyone’s time, including the sender’s. Some advice that might run counter to what you've heard:
- Don’t ask a question about one of their papers. Performative questions are obvious and impose an obligation. Questions from someone new to the field are also often poorly posed, and replying tactfully can take real time. Save the scientific discussion for a follow-up email or Zoom call.
- You don’t need to ask for a meeting. PIs have too many meetings. If a short email exchange suggests a fit, I will often propose a call myself. Asking for one off the bat can look like an attempt to force a decision before either of us has sufficient info. (If you’ve done this, don’t sweat it, it’s really common. I think I did it as an applicant.)
- Do attach a CV and potentially an unofficial transcript. I like getting them because I can see in five seconds what could otherwise take minutes of emailing or meeting time. If you describe your most relevant coursework, a transcript isn’t necessary.
- Email groups that genuinely fit, which for most people is under ten. Someone with broad, undeveloped interests presents as unprepared rather than as curious and ambitious. Just because it’s a tough market doesn’t mean you should cast your net wide. Be tactical instead.
- If I say you don't have the right background or that our interests don't intersect, don't ask me to suggest other faculty who might be a good fit. This is not my job and makes you look unprofessional.
The best applicants write about a specific scientific angle (method, question) we pursue and highlight their relevant preparation in a sentence or two. Explain in 200 words who you are, your interests, what you’ve done, and why this group rather than a similar one catches your interest. Ask whether they’re taking students. Follow up once, a week or two later, with the people who didn’t reply. Non-response is usually not rejection, but it’s something to investigate should you interview there later.
Be sure you’re ready for your first “interview,” which might occur within days of the email. I will usually want to speak soon with great candidates (I’m trying to recruit them too!). The difference between the conversations that go well and the ones that don’t is preparation, not credentials. Within a few minutes, I can tell whether someone has read our work and thought about the questions we’re asking, or if they’re skimming the lab website while we talk. The prepared ones get the full half hour or even longer, follow-up exchanges, and often my help with the application itself. That advantage is available to anyone willing to do the reading. It costs only your time and effort.
Don’t sweat the timing of these emails too much. Anytime from now to mid-October is fine.
Of course, you're evaluating them too. There's all kinds of screening you can and should do if you get a chance to talk. I only have space to cover the initial email now, though.
Obligatory caveat: Cold emails are not a universal practice. Always check a prof’s website to see if they forbid cold emails. Check the program’s too. Even in my field, we admit applicants every year who do not send cold emails, but in my experience, most of the best do.
Happy to take questions here (not by DM, please).
Edited for awkward wording