A math PhD story

June 16, 2008 1:50 PM

Should I apply to math PhD programs again?

I've finished a MS in math at a big state U this spring, and I will not continue for a PhD here. Last year I applied for PhD (for the third time) to a bunch of places (all top 20 in math), and got in only one of them. This is an Ivy League institution and all that, and even though it's math program is very good, it's not top 10 calibre. Ever since I accepted the offer, I kept wondering whether I should push myself and apply a fourth time, trying to get to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, etc. For me, the most important factors are everything associated with such places: faculty, the quality of the students and the places they go after the PhD.
I am going to this place in August, I'll not quit, but I'm dying inside wondering what to do next. I don't think it'll be Ok in my new place to ask for LORs, but here with the letters I got, it only helped me to have this one offer (I don't know what else to do, I have a 4.0 GPA and a perfect math GRE subject. What I lack is "formal research experience", because in my country there are no REU's and such).
I really, really know that Harvard, Princeton and MIT could offer a similar experience to what I was used to in my undergrad, which is the best place in my country. In contrast, the place I'm leaving was really down, intellectually speaking. I just don't know what to expect from where I'm going.
Truth is, I'm the most academically oriented person I know (no joke), and I live for what I do. And up to this time, I haven't found people as academically motivated as I am, and if you know what I'm talking about, it's really frustrating to be surrounded by people who is conformist, and some times mediocre.
I feel embarrased asking my professors for letters again, as I know they will not be Harvard calibre. Should I ask them? Should I try to explain my dream is to get into top places? Or should I do that in my new place?
Even though there's almost nothing I could do here, as I'm leaving in couple of weeks, I know if I don't do something at least, the ghost of "what if" will haunt me forever.
What a long story...

posted by ja15 to education (26 comments total)

I must say I had some trouble following your post with all the "here" and "this place" and "this institution" and "the place I'm leaving". So I'm going to rename them to Undergrad U, MS U, and PhDaccepting U.

Makes your post look like this:

I finished a MS in math at MS U this spring, and I will not continue for a PhD here. Last year I applied for PhD (for the third time) to a bunch of places (all top 20 in math), and got in only one of them - PhDaccpeting U. PhDaccpeting U is an Ivy League institution, and even though it's math program is very good, it's not top 10 calibre. Ever since I accepted the offer, I kept wondering whether I should apply a fourth time, trying to get to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, etc. For me, the most important factors are everything associated with such places: faculty, the quality of the students and the places they go after the PhD.

I am going to PhDaccepting U in August, I'll not quit, but I'm dying inside wondering what to do next. I don't think it'll be Ok in my new place to ask for LORs, but here with the letters I got, it only helped me to have this one offer, despite my 4.0 GPA and a perfect math GRE subject. I lack is "formal research experience", because in my country there are no REU's and such.

I really, really know that Harvard, Princeton and MIT could offer a similar experience to what I was used at Undergrad U, which is the best place in my country. In contrast, MS U was disappointing, intellectually speaking. I don't know what to expect from PhD U.

Truth is, I'm the most academically oriented person I know (no joke), and I live for what I do. And up to this time, I haven't found people as academically motivated as I am, and if you know what I'm talking about, it's really frustrating to be surrounded by people who are conformist, and some times mediocre.

I feel embarrased asking my professors at MS U for letters again, as I know they (the letters or the professors?) will not be Harvard calibre. Should I ask them? Should I try to explain my dream is to get into top places? Or should I do that in PhDaccpeting U?

Even though there's almost nothing I could do here at MS U, as I'm leaving in couple of weeks, I know if I don't do something at least, the ghost of "what if" will haunt me forever.

Would you say that's an accurate bit of substitution?

Also, am I right in thinking that while PhDaccpeting U is not top 10 in math, it is ivy league and top 20 in math?
posted by Mike1024 at 2:12 PM on June 16, 2008

Could you clarify what happened in the three previous tries to get into the institution of your choice? In any of those times did you get into programs that you decided to turn down to try again? Or is PhDaccepting U the first acceptance you've received in four rounds of applications?
posted by vincele at 2:23 PM on June 16, 2008

I guess if you've applied three times to Harvard etc and not been accepted you're unlikely to be accepted on the fourth application unless something about your application has changed.

Furthermore, being at a top 20, ivy league university is nothing to sniff at. Of course, where ever you are you want their research areas to match your desired research areas. I assume doing a PhD at Undergrad U isn't what you want, as you want a brand-name American institution on your resume? Nothing wrong with that, of course.

A PhD takes a while, but not forever; you could showcase your ability with a top quality PhD and several peer-reviewed publications while at PhDaccpting U, then apply to Harvard etc after completing your PhD. If the people reviewing your application recognise your name from publications of yours they've read, that's going to help your application a lot.

I would have thought it would be difficult to get letters of recommendation from PhDaccepting U without spending at least a few months there - you need to give people the ability to recommend you before you ask them to do so!
posted by Mike1024 at 2:30 PM on June 16, 2008

Assuming that Mike1024's translation is correct, if you really feel that getting your PhD from a top program is crucial to your career plans, then yes, by all means, go for it. However, keep in mind that if your current credentials didn't get you into top-10 programs the first three times, then you probably won't get accepted next time, either, unless you can do something in the meantime to add to those credentials. If research experience is the key, then could you defer the PhD for a year and try to snare a job working as an assistant for a professor in your field? The extra work/research experience would probably be a great addition to your resume, and you could get the prof to write you an extra recommendation at the end.

With that said, though, you may be fixating a bit too much on the value of going to a top-10 (as opposed to a merely top-20) school. Institutional reputation counts for a lot, but your chances in the post-PhD job market will almost certainly be influenced far more by (1) the particular professor(s) who advise your dissertation, and (2) the quality of work you yourself produce. And chances are that your fellow-students at PhDAccepting U will be every bit as "academically motivated" as those at Harvard-- if not more so, because they'll feel the need to prove themselves to a greater degree.

Lastly, have you asked your advisors at MS U to comment on your predicament? They might have some useful perspectives on the issues you're facing.
posted by Bardolph at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2008

What rankings are you relying on for these judgments? I hope not US News and World Report. Very few fields except philosophy have anything like reliable rankings (and these are done internally, cf. philosophical gourmet), and in most fields dept. rankings for top schools aren't really as important as rankings for more specialized subfields. I am finishing in a highly ranked program in my field (not math), and have a pretty good sense of what the top departments are and why, and some of the things USN&WR says about the field are, frankly, crazy. It seems that as outsiders they just aren't in a position to evaluate any of the data they are getting.

There are also a host of individual factors that are a lot more important than ranking in the long run. Some of these factor into "official" rankings and some do not, and I don't think you can just look at rankings and evaluate these. What is your funding package like? (If you had to choose an advisor/subfield already) do you think you can get along with your advisor and get a fair amount of time from them? (This is by no means guaranteed to happen at a top 10 school, and is, if anything, less likely.) As Bardolph says on preview, is your advisor well known, with a history of graduating successful students? If it is appropriate for math, does your advisor have a history of collaborating with students? Are there other faculty you could potentially start working with if you have issues with your advisor? What is the placement record for academic jobs? What is the attrition rate of PhD students (low is not necessarily good, by the way)? Do the faculty members in your department get along? To my mind good answers to these questions will outweigh simple ranking. I know someone who just switched from what was ranked as a really top program in her field (not math) into a different program (still up toward the top, though) because her advisor was crazy, and the department was a disorganized mess.

Also, I don't think you need to worry about not having academically motivated people around you. In fact, the odds are (and I say this because it is true of just about everyone who ends up in any kind of good phd program) you are in for a shock in this respect, and will suddenly find yourself rather overwhelmed by the other people in your program.
posted by advil at 2:40 PM on June 16, 2008

philosophy have anything like reliable rankings (and these are done internally, cf. philosophical gourmet)

Oh, and to head off a potential derail, I realize and acknowledge that some people find these rankings controversial and problematic in various ways as well.
posted by advil at 2:42 PM on June 16, 2008

It is difficult to start a Ph.D. at one institution and finish it somewhere else. If someone does this, it is typically in not-good circumstances, such as, they are having a lot of trouble getting along with their advisor (and sometimes it is easier to change schools than change advisor), or their advisor is taking a position somewhere else and they are moving with them. The reason it is so unusual is that is it very taxing. Unless things work out just right, you have to start almost entirely from zero at the new school. You will perhaps need to start a new research subject, find a new advisor, build a new committee, take the introductory classes, secure funding, everything all over again.

With this in mind, I suggest that you defer at PhDaccepting U for one year. Most schools do not have a problem with this. Find something else to do for this year that will be seen favorably at the schools you really really want to go to. Call or visit the schools now, while they still may remember your application, and talk to the chair/head of the dept. and ask what you could do to make your application stronger. For example, it may round out your capabilities nicely if you volunteer as a Mathletes coach at a local high school for a year, or you could find a teaching job at a community college in Math to show you will be an excellent TA. Maybe you could work on publishing some work from your Masters. Reach out to specific professors that you want to work with and ask what you could do to work with them in a year. Depending on your situation, there may be visa problems with this approach, but going on the information you provided this would be the least stressful and most productive option for you, I think.
posted by Eringatang at 2:42 PM on June 16, 2008

My assessment, as someone who has attended both a top-ten program and a lower-tier program, is that the rankings mean very little compared to the quality of the work you do. The better program will give you name recognition outside of academia -- but that name recognition, especially overseas, maps very poorly onto which places are actually really good in the field. I was talking about this just the other day with a friend from India, who was saying that at home there is a lot of pressure to get into a small set of schools like MIT, Harvard, etc, because everyone has heard of them. But in many fields, and particularly in specialized sub-fields, the really exciting work is being done elsewhere -- often, indeed, at a BigStateU. If you really need name recognition at home, that is one thing, but if you envision a career in the US, then these distinctions you are making are completely unimportant.

Now, it can be easier to do your work at a top program, because the professors have fewer obligations on their time, there is lots of money for research support, and there is money to send you to conferences. At an underfunded second- or third-tier program, you will probably be teaching twice as much for half the money, get no conference support, etc.

But the difference between a top-ten and a top-twenty program in most fields is totally trivial -- both will have plenty of funding for students, both will have adequate name recognition in the field, both will give you a solid education.

My last comment is that your assessment of yourself ("the most academically oriented person I know") and the assessment of you by the programs you are applying to are not agreeing. If they all thought you were the most academic person in the world, you would have had a bunch of acceptances three years ago. Something isn't connecting, and my advice to you is to be cautious about rejecting this acceptance because there is no guarantee of another one next year. Better to go, kick ass in the program for two years, and consider whether to stay or transfer at that point. You will likely be a stronger candidate for other top programs after pulling down a 4.0 and getting glowing letters after a year at the Ivy program.
posted by Forktine at 2:57 PM on June 16, 2008

Hey, thanks for the comments!
Thanks Mike1024, I should have thought to be more concise involving all those institutions!
And PhDaccepting U is Ivy League, and top 20, but not top 10 in math.
Other points to clarify. The first time I applied was from my country, when finishing Undergrad U, following suggestions of my profs I tried the US (other route was France). I totally made a fool of myself applying to top 10 (and two other top 40 places, accepted at both, one was MS U), as I had a horrible GRE scores, etc. Second time, applied to four places, top 20 range, none in top 10. I had no acceptance from any (I had better GRE score now, not excellent letters). Third time, last December, applied to top 20 places (two top 5, five top 10, but not Harvard). This time had a perfect math GRE score, letters, GPA, etc. Had acceptance from only one.
To sum up, I've applied to Harvard (and most top 5) only once, the first time, when now I realize I shouldn't have done it.
And I conclude that the letters I sent this last time were not Harvard calibre, even when a top 10 place that rejected me said the LOR's were excellent (if not, what else explains that I had acceptance from just one place, out of eight?)
So, PhDaccepting U is the first institution to accept me after MS U. And, I know the least I want to do is ask for letters at PhDaccepting U, even after some months, that'll be very akward.
In math at least, you get only one PhD, so applying after PhD means apply as Post-doc, or similar. What I think, and maybe I'm wrong, is that between your PhD and Post-doc, it's more important the place of your PhD. It's the one that last forever in your CV.
posted by ja15 at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2008

What lasts forever is the quality of your published work. If you have a degree from an Ivy which is top-20 and you do first-rate work you should not have a problem. Connections matter, but you can build these up by going to conferences in your sub-area and doing really impressive work.

What on earth do you have to lose by going to the place that has accepted you? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Go there, and work your ass off your first year. Then if you decide that it's not working out for you in the field you want to be in, you will speak to faculty members there about writing you letters to transfer to a school that is first-rate in your sub-area, or where Faculty Member X works who you passionately want to work with.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:30 PM on June 16, 2008

Well, the idea of deferring a year crossed my mind, but I didn't actually take it for one simple reason: I will have to continue at MS U for a year, with the same conditions as usual: an environment I don't like, and a huge teaching load, having to take courses just for having the minimum credit hours, and having little time for research. The place I accepted and going in fall, offers first year teaching-free, as most private universities do in my field. I want to immerse myself in research there, and I know that maybe after the first year I will not want to leave. Age in math is a factor, and already in my entering class I'll be one of the oldest students. It really is frustrating the academic climate and the structure of the program at MS U, so I'm leaving. At MS U, they don't expect you to do any research the first two years, just teach. Besides MS U, I have no other options in taking a year off, due to visa restrictions.
And yes, I still consider myself academically motived, as I wrote it, the first time I had poor GRE, because of test taking problems that I tried to overcome. Now I see as obvious they rejected me the first time (or second), but not so this third time, that's still a mistery for me, besides the inherent randomness involved, I don't know.
posted by ja15 at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2008

Also, IME, the difference between non-elite big state U programs in the US, and Ivy (and other elite) programs is striking.

You say you've gotten in to an Ivy that's not Harvard or Princeton. This leaves: Yale, Cornell, Brown, Penn, Dartmouth, Columbia. I know the math departments at two of these places pretty well, and you've got nothing to worry about as far as academic quality: the faculty are great, the students are smart and motivated, the funding and facilities are as good as anything outside MIT, the placement records are very good.

If your sub-area is number theory, Memail me and I may have more specific advice for you. Otherwise, I think your best bet is to go into this year determined to work like crazy for a year and re-evaluate next summer, then if things are really unsatisfactory apply again the following fall.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:39 PM on June 16, 2008

Just to add to some guessing here, it's top 20 in math, so it's not Dartmouth.
And the ranking I'm relying on are those of National Research Council (in math US News rankings are somewhat close too). I still expect the new rankings to be released in September, supposedly they'll be more specialized.
posted by ja15 at 3:46 PM on June 16, 2008

Also - General advice about doing a PhD:
Try to contact the faculty member(s) at the school who you think you might like to work with. Get a sense by email of whether you get along, etc. (Or get in touch with current grad students there, to see if they faculty member/s you want to work with are good to work with!)
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:46 PM on June 16, 2008

Rather than rankings I suggest you look at the faculty you'll be working with at PhDaccepting U. If you haven't already, get to know them and their work. Your relationship with them will count a lot more than the ranking of the institution or department.

The whole ranking business is suspect and not at all a reliable indicator of the quality of the program, its faculty, or your ability to fit into its culture. (I say that as someone who went to the top-ranked program in my field.) You're much better off at a "top twenty" school with an advisor you click with than at Harvard with an advisor you don't.

Please think dispassionately about why you're not getting into the programs of your choice. My understanding (and it could be wrong) of a field like math is that most applicants have top-notch GPA and perfect test scores. That alone doesn't set you apart, that's taken for granted. Strong candidates have coauthored articles and worked on research projects. Even BA applicants have these research credentials. It sounds like you might not be competitive in that area.

Finally, it sounds as if you have seen the letters written by your professors at MSgrantingU. That's a little unusual, I think, but if you know for a fact that they have written you lukewarm letters, you need to realize that their estimation of your potential and your own estimation do not match. Perhaps you could meet with them for an honest discussion of where you could expect to land.

My advice is this: get to know the opportunities at the PhDacceptingU between now and August, and the people you'll work with. See if you click, and go from there. If you can't figure it out between now and August, defer for a year, but don't spend any more time chasing after the school deemed #1 by a cheesy US newsweekly.

You got into a strong program; congratulations and good luck!
posted by vincele at 3:48 PM on June 16, 2008

I have sent you a Mefi Mail. Look in the top right corner of your screen, next to your user name, and you will see a tiny little envelope icon. Click on that icon to retrieve the message.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:51 PM on June 16, 2008

There is a lot of good advice here for you already – I'd especially endorse the comments from LobsterMitten, Forktine, and advil – but I don't think any of the answers so far have pushed you enough to articulate why you are so sure that the program you've been accepted to is not the place you want to do a doctorate. I haven't seen you provide any specific reasons that the grass actually would be greener on the other side of the fence (a good reason would be something like "I want to work with Professor Smith at MIT, the expert on my favorite subfield, whom my master's advisor worked with"). You may have such reasons and not want to provide them in public, but what I see here leads me to believe you're chasing brand-name prestige, not quality of graduate education.

In fact, I think you should go into the new program with much more of an open mind than you've shown here, and make an honest attempt over several years to be a great Ph.D. student in that department. I don't know math well, but in all the fields I do know (as advil said), it's at best a crazy oversimplification to talk about "top-10" rankings for whole departments, and people who talk like this are often just betraying their own insecurities. Don't go in having already decided to transfer away; try to spend at least the first couple of years of the program as if you were planning on staying and completing the Ph.D. there – that should mean that you make yourself more of a full-time participant in the department, build more relationships with friends and colleagues there, as well as producing good work in order to make your name there. After a couple of years you may find that it's easier and more congenial to stay.
posted by RogerB at 4:04 PM on June 16, 2008

To vincele: No, I have never read my letters of recommendation. The only (premature) conclusions I have are from what few grad schools have said about my letters. But again, there's a difference between "excellent" and "excellent for a particular school"
posted by ja15 at 4:04 PM on June 16, 2008

Well, there's actually a couple of persons at Harvard and MIT (very specific), whose research I'd like to pursue, and some professors at PhDaccepting U do something similar. It's now almost clear I can't ask for letters at MS U, and I'm going to PhD accepting U but not with the transferring thing in mind, that's the least thing I want to do. I actually talked a bit of time ago with some professors here at MS U, to work with, but they couldn't to work with me for a variety of reasons, and so I decided to not stay summer here (and I have no financial support either).
posted by ja15 at 4:12 PM on June 16, 2008

At the risk of repetition, here's my take on the situation and what has been said here:

1. Rank of program means very little, compared to the reputation of your adviser and the quality of the work you produce;

2. Your current university and most of the programs to which you are applying are not ranking you highly as a prospective student, for reasons that are not completely clear in this question and are not clear to you;

3. Deferring for a year is not easy because of your visa situation;

4. Continuing to apply to new programs is difficult if you cannot ask for letters from your current program;

5. Top 20 and Ivy League (with funding, etc) is a very attractive offer, as long as there is someone good who is willing to work with you.

All of this, taken together, suggests to me that you should embrace the program to which you have been accepted, rather than hope for something better which may not happen. But it's your life, and you have to live with the consequences.

I would also strongly suggest that you read a couple of books like Getting What You Came For -- there are a lot of details about "how things work" in US academic culture that you may not be fully catching; fortunately, few students arrive knowing them, and so there are a lot of books, Chronicle columns, and the like that seek to explain the "hidden transcript" of how academia functions.
posted by Forktine at 4:34 PM on June 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

The fact that you have don't have much research experience, even after an M.Sc, is likely going to be a serious impediment. Even if you didn't have research opportunities during your undergrad, if you didn't make up for lost time at MS U, it's questionable if you have the research potential that the best Ivies are looking for. Could you stick around as an RA at MS U for another year to strengthen your application?
posted by thisjax at 4:42 PM on June 16, 2008

To Forktine: About your point 2, my current MS U and future PhDaccepting U do rank me highly!. At both I was one of the first accepted (from what they told me). From two other places I actually got in the so-called waiting list. But still, other places were less communicative, so not many clues.
I do acknowledge how little I knew (and I know) about US academic culture. If have had known better, I should have waited the first time for a year to work on my application.
Still, I'm more than thrilled to have been selected by PhDaccepting U. Maybe I'm too rooted in my country's academic system, which is definitely not as holistic as the US'.
posted by ja15 at 4:44 PM on June 16, 2008

To thisjax. Yes, I realize I tried too late in the game to start research at MS U, and they won't work with an student unless is on the way of the PhD, which after first year at MS U, I knew I didn't want to pursue here. And, unfortunately, I could call MS U, a factory of TA's, so if you're here, you're teaching. Well, after all they need a tremendous amount of TA's to fill in spots, due to the huge undergrad population. No prospects of RA.
posted by ja15 at 4:49 PM on June 16, 2008

Ok, sorry for the miscommunication. Just so you know where I was pulling this from, here is what caught my eye:

It's now almost clear I can't ask for letters at MS U, ... I actually talked a bit of time ago with some professors here at MS U, to work with, but they couldn't to work with me for a variety of reasons,

"Can't get letters" and "professors won't work with me" is usually secret code for "they don't love me but they won't tell me so directly." Obviously, every case is different, you know your situation better, etc.

Good luck!
posted by Forktine at 6:20 PM on June 16, 2008

Well, I mean, I could get letters, the professors have been nicer than expected, they sort of understand that I wanted to transfer, but those letters won't mention much besides excellent performance in class, etc. Not at the level Harvard wants them. The reason they won't work with me is because I will leave the math dept.
The grad coordinator at MS U has told me that I could apply for a year for a RA-like position, but it has never heard of a situation like that, he doesn't know of any case, and that I'll need a faculty member to support me financially for a year. So, if I read correctly, almost zero chances. And I really won't continue teaching, the other possibility.
posted by ja15 at 7:42 PM on June 16, 2008

You don't need to be an RA to do research.

You first few weeks of your new PhD program, the faculty will likely be introduced to you. Take notes on all of them, especially those that you like.

Set up a meeting with them in the first month, ask if you can work on anything. Chances are that you will be able to.

And maybe math is different from my field, but isn't there something you can publish? Even in a crappier journal?
posted by k8t at 8:50 PM on June 16, 2008