<p>Probably not a problem if the recommender notes that a paper is under preparation.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s good to take advice from Professors who will be writing your letters. If professors are telling you to apply to the best places, you can be sure they want to write you a great letter to help you out.</p>
<p>For UPenn and for UChicago (astro), what my primary recommender actually has to say when I mention these places is that I should be aware that it’s not easy to get in even though I could say that it is not easy for just about anyone (and that he hasn’t <em>discouraged</em> me directly), although he feels I stand a better chance at UPenn than at UChicago, now that there actually is a publication under preparation. But, before the final authorships are announced, the PI asked us to make an inventory of one’s contributions to the project.</p>
<p>If I’m not mistaken, since theoretical particle cosmology is a field that requires an extensive theoretical background for someone to contribute in a meaningful manner, to have an authorship in that field as a first-year graduate student is a good thing.</p>
<p>My recommenders (especially my secondary recommender) do not seem to have a high opinion on how I fit in at some of my backup plans (Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, UNC-Chapel Hill) even though, in my mind, Vanderbilt and Dartmouth would be safeties (as much as I could call a school a safety at the PhD level) and UNC-Chapel Hill would be a good fit (Erickcek, Mersini) but I wouldn’t put any of these schools on my current 10-school-long list without first checking if there are profs I could see myself working under.</p>
<p>UPenn
UChicago (astro)
Tufts
Ohio State
Penn State
UMinn
Carnegie Mellon
UNC-Chapel Hill
Vanderbilt
Dartmouth</p>
<p>Are you looking for funding or scholarship for your Grad School Program? I heard if you want some sort of funding, and you’re an international student, the game is way tougher. </p>
<p>I made my (hopefully) last round of adjustments, because my recommenders found UNC to be questionable (since Frampton has retired), while still recommending me to keep Tufts, Vanderbilt and Dartmouth (the bottom 3 in my context). My recommenders have seen a few people (in fact, pretty much everyone that tried their hand in the US from my undegrad in the past few years) in the past few years neglect to find “easier” programs in the US, presumably because the “easier” programs were at home. </p>
<p>However, when I talk to them about Columbia or Michigan, they said that they were on a tier below Princeton and, while they didn’t discourage me to apply there, they did warn about the difficulty of getting into either school. Is simply being warned about the difficulty of getting into a given school a bad sign? </p>
<p>They also said that, in the event a school had separate physics and astro departments, check which of the two departments is the better fit. Of course, I do not expect to get in everywhere, just to get in somewhere. Here’s my (hopefully final) list, just the right size. The departments applied to are physics unless otherwise indicated.</p>
<p>UPenn
Princeton (astro)
UChicago (astro)
Michigan
Ohio State (astro)
Columbia
UMinn
Carnegie Mellon
Tufts
Vanderbilt
Dartmouth </p>
<p>Know anything about a website called PhysicsGRE.com?</p>
<p>The impression I have from this website is that it is the physics PhD equivalent of CC… sometimes it gives nonsensical advice, sometimes it doesn’t. </p>
<p>I have seen that site before. It is primarily populated by Ph.D. students and those who are applying. CC has a broader range of posters. It is always good to get as much information as possible and filter it accordingly.</p>
<p>Here’s the conundrum I’m facing: I do not want to apply to any more schools than 11, but now, after emailing profs and inquiring to them, I am not so sure about Ohio State anymore. WUSTL and Notre Dame seem rather appealing now… but I can only apply to one of WUSTL, Ohio State and Notre Dame for budgetary reasons.</p>
<p>Now I removed Vanderbilt and Ohio State from my list; WUSTL and Notre Dame are on my application list. WUSTL I must admit was more the idea of my secondary research-based recommender (I refer to them as “primary” and “secondary” based on how much they worked with me) for whom a careful choice of non-reaches would make a happy ending more likely. And the “secondary” has, in fact, a connection at WUSTL: Bender (I am not sure whether the coursework-based recommender knows Bender, despite that coursework-based recommender being well-known in mathematical physics, and Bender being a mathematical physicist).</p>
<p>As for Notre Dame, I received the email through the GRE Search Service and then proceeded to email profs after checking their publication lists. And what additional factor that could help me at UPenn is that both research-based recommenders have the same connections: Trodden, Khoury, Cvetic.</p>
<p>The reason why I seemingly look like I am casting an overly wide net is because my undergrad, while well-reputed in a few areas of physics (astro, plasma and, to a lesser extent, condensed matter) sends very few students to US grad schools; it’s either zero or one a year. And most of them aim for the top schools; in my case it is OK to aim for top schools but I stocked up on non-reaches.</p>
<p>UPenn
Princeton (astro)
UChicago (astro)
Columbia
WUSTL
Michigan
UMinn
Carnegie Mellon
Tufts
Notre Dame
Dartmouth</p>
<p>For this reason at least six schools on that list are schools that no one applied to before from my undergrad: WUSTL, Carnegie Mellon, UPenn, Tufts, Notre Dame, Dartmouth (not sure about Columbia, UChicago and UMinn). Maybe some of these schools would be more hesitant to admit me because no one ever applied there from my dept before and that they could possibly hear about only through research articles or conferences at best.</p>