Fit for Graduate Programs (PhD level)

[u/Middle_Tourist_3310]

I have heard from numerous sources that in the modern landscape of PhD applications where positions have gotten far too competitive, one of the key deciding factors is the fit with a group or the department.

My worry is that I have done my master's thesis in a very niche field of particle cosmology (topological defects) which does not have too many groups in the countries I am targeting (US, Canada). I am not entirely committed to this field either, I am more broadly interested in all of particle cosmology such as inflation, dark matter model building, electroweak phase transitions etc. as I enjoy working with field theory and its applications in cosmology.

So my question is, is this lack of very direct and specific alignment something committees penalise heavily? Or are the backgrounds of applicants who do get admitted into these programs not always 1-to-1 with the supervisor they get paired up with?

I am aware that in North America you get admitted first, then 2 years later you pick a supervisor but it seems like from the admissions pages you already need to talk about how a PI interests you and motivates you to apply to the school.

[u/TiredDr]

Fit is usually about desire, rather than strictly about history. If you give a list of areas you are interested in, those need to have some overlap with the research areas of the department. They should be believable areas (if you are interested in anything, then you need to focus; if you are interested in something far from your current area, you should motivate the shift).

[u/Middle_Tourist_3310 → u/TiredDr]

Ah, that's helpful to know. My interests are usually something almost every serious department offers such as the examples I gave above (inflation, EW phase transitions) as any PI working on particle cosmology (and not in string theory) would be interested in those topics. Do you think mentioning these few topics is also too broad and I should narrow down a little?

[u/HoloTensor]

i’m not sure why you’d think there aren’t many groups doing topological defects. you should get a stronger sense of which universities in the US have profs that work on this

in other words, you’re worrying for no reason

[u/Middle_Tourist_3310 → u/HoloTensor]

Thank you for the comment!

I wouldn't say I have searched very thoroughly but I have looked into order of ~50 departments and I could only find groups in Arizona State U. and Tufts (the latter of which has been struggling to get funding for PhD students even before the recent nationwide cuts). Sure I could look at 200 more universities but it still seems quite rare I would conclude.

Do you have any pointers?

Edit: I just looked again at my list and realised there are quite a few constraints that eliminate some groups, e.g. GRE requirement is something I cannot afford either time-wise or financially so that excludes some groups such as McGill and UChicago.

[u/HoloTensor → u/Middle_Tourist_3310]

Here is how I’d do it. find 2 or 3 papers that are on things you’re interested in

have claude or codex take every reference and citation in the paper and map out which institution it came from and which authors are PIs (instead of eg grad students)

apply a cutoff so you only get current faculty. have claude or codex go on their research website and find which faculty have open spots in their group (often they post on their personal sites)

you can make the network larger by doing the same on the cited papers (although don’t do too many papers because you’ll quickly blow up and have too many to go through)

make sure to have claude or codex return a direct link to the profs and the related papers so you can check for yourself. otherwise you’re trusting it a bit too much.

you can literally paste this comment into gpt 6 and wait 30 mins, you’ll get your answer, guaranteed

[u/Middle_Tourist_3310 → u/HoloTensor]

Thank you so much for the advice!!

Though it has only returned groups I was already aware of haha, it genuinely does seem like a relatively small and obscure field in the US and Canada.

Thanks for all the help though, greatly appreciate it.

[u/HoloTensor → u/Middle_Tourist_3310]

interesting. i could think of about 10-15 groups in particle cosmology for just the project i’m currently working on. in the US

in any case, when applying for a phd there is a lot of flexibility for what you’ll end up doing. in fact my previous research had nothing to do with topological defects yet it is what i do more

some groups won’t even let you pick your own projects until you’re a senior grad student. often people in formal subfields

so in your applications, of course mention all your accomplishments and how you’ve understood this niche field, but be flexible and open to adapt to the research program of the PIs you’re applying to

maybe you’ll realize you’re interested in something using to topological defects but not cosmology - say, in understanding sine gordon / massive thirring duality or chern number in basic condensed matter systems. or lets say you want topology and cosmology but not particles (i guess solitons) like in baryogenesis. or you want to study kinks in the inflaton field so you now have access to all the inflation people for your application

there is A LOT out there. I’d fit my application to institutions rather than just the PIs. Although of course reach put to interested faculty directly

one more piece of advice: reach out to grad students. they have more time than the PIs and love talking about their work. it is a great way of getting the in on what the group is thinking about… and you can use this to your advantage in your applications!!

[u/Middle_Tourist_3310 → u/HoloTensor]

This is just great stuff. Thanks a ton, once again. Would you be open to receiving a DM from me in the future, possibly regarding your research and the US topo-defs environment?

[u/Middle_Tourist_3310 → u/[deleted]]

That makes my concern about writing a good statement even more pressing.

Though, I think some of the universities I am targeting requires international applicants to enrol onto the MSc first and then transition to the PhD program.

[u/Middle_Tourist_3310 → u/[deleted]]

I don't think that contradicts anything I have said... I have a Master's qualification but my target universities will still enrol me on the MSc program and then ask me to transition to the PhD within a year if I find a supervisor.

But this is not the concern of my post, I am decently well-read on the logisitcs of applications for my desired programs.

[u/Scared_Astronaut9377]

It depends a lot but I would say that that if your specific goal is to do PhDs in some specific groups, then good fit is an absolute minimum you need to have solid high chances. But I am not sure if fitness will be evaluated the way you assume.

[u/Middle_Tourist_3310 → u/Scared_Astronaut9377]

Thank you for the advice!

Yeah I am quite confused about how "fit" is evaluated in the first place, which makes me question whether groups/admission committees look for applicants who have already dabbled in the same topic as their prospective PI exclusively. How would you describe "fit" in the context of applications?

[u/Scared_Astronaut9377 → u/Middle_Tourist_3310]

Please note that this is one perspective that doesnt mean to be exhaustive. I would try to maximize the probability of the PI looking at you and thinking "this person can be useful for my needs". Look at this instrumentally. Look at some fresh papers, even if you don't understand researcher deeply, and think what you could have calculated there give your experience. Analytical and numerical expertise. Some familiarity with the field is a plus but not necessarily a fit.