I am about to graduate (Bachelor in Science in Physics), from a European Institution. I am a student at EPFL and is this moment of the year when I have to decide what the next step would be. I was considering to apply to US universities for a graduate degree. Likewise, I have a GPA 5.42/6 with maths and physics courses GPA rising above 5.6/6. We don’t have a classification among students in Switzerland, but let’s say that I am in the top 5 percent. Two internships at university labs at EPFL, a medal from IPHO etc., a GRE score of 169 Q and 164 Verbal etc. Now I have my masters offer from EPFL, and I have very good chances at ETHZ. Nonetheless, I would like to apply to US institutions as well. What makes me hesitant however, is the fact that I’ll be part of a graduate PhD degree, having only 3 years of university experience. And even though my courses, were pretty heavy, maths wise, I feel that the fact that US universities offer a 4-year program, would undermine my candidature, but above all would make my transition hard, and I would not be able to contribute 100% to my lab. Unfortunately, no US universities offer a Master-PhD option. Should I give it a try in the US ? (My best option and where I would really love to study is Princeton and then MIT, Caltech etc.)
Most importantly, you need to be talking to people in your university about this. They are much better connected to US PhD programs than a bunch of strangers on the internet. Wherever you are getting your information from now is suspect: " no US universities offer a Master-PhD option" is completely wrong - pretty much every US university does.
Next, the problem isn’t 3 years vs. 4 years. It’s 2.5 years of grades vs. 3.5 years of grades (at time of application). Spurious grade trends are easier to come by in smaller data sets.
Next, the general GRE is pretty much irrelevant. The Physics GRE is all that matters. Since you didn’t post scores here, I assume you didn’t take it. This will not help.
Finally, MIT, Caltech and Princeton are very different places, with very different strengths. The one thing they have in common is perceived prestige (and it is definitely “perceived” - I can think of subfields where the State University of New York at Stony Brook is head and shoulders above Caltech) and grad schools know taht students who are chasing prestige don’t tend to finish, so that’s a big red flag when it comes to admitting them.
You don’t mention what subfield you are interested in, and that is also a warning sign. The places that are best inb astronomy are not necessarily the best in biophysics, which are not necessarily the best in thin films, etc.
So, to answer your question, “maybe”, but it doesn’t sound like the reality of US programs matches your expectations.
Universities in the US will certainly know how strong EPFL is. This is also true of ETHZ.
When I was a master’s degree student at Stanford, I knew at least one European student in the same program. I only remember him vaguely (this was a long time ago) but my recollection is that he was quite a good student (who also brewed interesting beer, which is part of why I remember him).
The one thing that I am not sure about is whether you will be able to get into a PhD program, or if you would need to get a master’s degree first. Master’s degree programs in the US are typically not funded – you have to pay and the cost is quite high at this point (it was much less expensive back when I did it). Your internships are likely to help you. Having only 3 years of university experience probably will not help. Getting funding for a master’s is probably more likely in Canada but I do not know how certain this would be for an international student .
Getting your master’s in Europe and then getting a PhD in the US is another possibility. PhD programs at top universities in the US typically are funded.
Taking the time to get your master’s degree in Europe and then applying for a PhD program in the US will also give you more time to think about what subfield of physics you are most interested in. Another option would be to work for a year or two or three and then apply to graduate programs.
So we have a little bit of background on this. We did a comparison of Physics courses / majors between 2 universities in different European countries and 2 US universities for one of the collegekids. She ended up choosing one of the US options, but a couple of her pals chose European options.
When that same group were all applying to grad school the differences in their level of preparation for grad school in terms of coursework were not meaningfully different. There were bigger differences in research experience, as our collegekid had 3 summers of internships behind her and the European-based students had either 1 or 2.
Neither the general nor the Physics GREs are required this admissions cycle, so no worries there.
So, in those terms, I think you are good to go to apply to US PhD programs: you have meaningful research experience and all the academic background needed.
BUT: I agree with the others: besides their brand recognition, why these three? What is your area of research interest? On either side of the Atlantic, the question will be the same: how do you fit with their program? If you don’t have a pretty clear area of interest then staying and doing a Masters in Europe makes sense. If you are ready to write Statement of Purpose, and have done enough related work to make that sound plausible, then go for it- but also do some research as to what other unis you should be looking at.
ps, no way some of your profs at EPFL don’t have meaningful contacts at various US unis. Get talking to them! Physics is a very small world, and contacts mean a lot
I think you overestimate how much depth a US undergrad achieves in their major. For a three year degree course in Europe, every single course is typically part of your major /degree subject, say 30 out of 30 courses. A major in the US is somewhere between 40% and 60% of your courses over four years, ie 16 to 24 out of 40 courses.
So a US BA/BS graduate will typically have less depth in taught courses (and hence the first two years of a PhD includes taught courses to make up that deficiency). Where US applicants have an advantage is that they have three summers to do research as an undergraduate, whereas in Europe this is much less common (and you only have two summers anyway). So they often have a better sense of what they want to research during a PhD.
The programs are different. If you look at the minimum requirements, the difference is that there is a LOT more general education requirements at a US school, so the physics content is about the same. That’s the “yes”.
The “no” is that a 4th year =- and often a 5th - allows the student to go moderately deeply in graduate level work, take more classes in related majors (like chemstry for chemical physics), spend more time in a research lab, etc. This is often where identifying the great students from the merely pretty good students is done. So it’s a ‘no’ as well as a ‘yes’.
The OP has left me with the impression he is prestige-chasing, and if so, he will quickly discover the best programs are not the big names. To take an example from a related field, the best nuclear chemistry programs in the country are Berkeley and…drum roll please…Mizzou.
I know that at Caltech, the GA’s are expected to run labs, create tests and grade them and have office hours. It doesn’t provide for a whole lot of time to:
I also agree that this person appears to be chasing prestige. Funding should also be a concern? Why should this Ph.D. be funded without research experience?
At ETHZ there are different labs that combine both theory and experiment. In fact, the one that I am mostly interested about is quantum magnetism, with regard to theory. My current project as a 3rd year student is based on a new model that would describe the magnetic properties of materials at different temperatures. Now I mentioned those 3 unis in the US but the one I am really interested is Princeton and their quantum technologies’ department (Not quantum technologies with the essence of quantum computing though).
Well, if you are seriously interested in Princeton, I hope you took the PGRE.
As far as QIS, MIT’s and Caltech’s programs are very, very different. MIT’s is more interdisciplinary, at least organizationally, and more scandal-ridden.
But if you are interested in QIS, why not Berkeley? Why not Chicago? Why not Maryland? And why Caltech, unless you want to do exactly what John Preskill is doing.
Well, there’s “required” and there’s “required”. They won’t reject a student outright for no PGRE, but the class may fill up with people who took it and scored well. How a lack of GRE is handled depends on who’s on the graduate committee this year at any university.
IN the category of unintended consequences., the GRE is unpopular because of various population biases in the scoring, but with that poece of information, departments are finding their admits are actually less diverse: coming from fewer undergrad institutions. They know what an MIT diploma means, what a Brown diploma means, what a Wisconsin diploma means, but don’t know what an East Cupcake College diploma means.
Some departments are happier with this state of affairs than others.
But what will the application say? “I think I’m in the Top 5%”?
The committee will get this information from LOR’s. The problem here is that every student asks the professor they think will right the best letters, so we get a lot of letters that say “Best student this year”.
It really is ihe OP’s best interest to take the PGRE and to do well.
Princeton is competitive. The must get 500-1000 applications, and must accept somewhere around 60-75. So, maybe 10%. Everything the OP can do to raise thgat fraction matters.
Princeton Physics states on their PhD admissions website
Each year we receive more than 600 applications and send out admissions offers to roughly 50 – 60 applicants. The typical class size is 20 – 30 students, roughly half of whom are international students.
Their GRE/PGRE policy states:
For the 2022/2023 admission cycle, both the General GRE and Physics Subject exams will be optional.
If you want to know if your degree is equivalent, Caltech publishes on their Physics PhD admissions website the minimum level of preparation they expect
What level of undergraduate preparation is necessary for admission?
Mechanics at about the level of Goldstein’s Classical Mechanics
Electromagnetism at the level of Reitz and Milford’s Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory Atomic and Nuclear Physics at the level of R.B. Leighton’s Modern Physics
Introductory Quantum Mechanics at the level of Dicke and Wittke’s Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
Advanced Calculus at the level of T.M. Apostol’s Mathematical Analysis