harvard phd physics application

• Introduction

Harvard Griffin GSAS strives to provide students with timely, accurate, and clear information. If you need help understanding a specific policy, please contact the office that administers that policy.

• Application for Degree
• Credit for Completed Graduate Work
• Ad Hoc Degree Programs
• Dissertations
• English Language Proficiency
• African and African American Studies
• American Studies
• Anthropology
• Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Urban Planning
• Molecular and Cellular Biology
• Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
• Biological Sciences in Public Health
• Biostatistics
• Business Administration
• Business Economics
• Byzantine Studies
• Celtic Languages and Literatures
• Chemical Biology
• Chemical Physics
• Chemistry and Chemical Biology
• Comparative Literature
• Division of Medical Sciences
• Earth and Planetary Sciences
• East Asian Languages and Civilizations
• Engineering and Applied Sciences
• Film and Visual Studies
• Germanic Languages and Literatures
• Health Policy
• History of Art and Architecture
• History of Science
• Human Evolutionary Biology
• Inner Asian and Altaic Studies
• Linguistics
• Mathematics
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy and Government
• Population Health Sciences
• Public Policy
• Quantum Science and Engineering
• Religion, The Study of
• Romance Languages and Literatures
• Slavic Languages and Literatures
• Social Policy
• South Asian Studies
• Systems, Synthetic, and Quantitative Biology
• Secondary Fields
• Year of Graduate Study (G-Year)
• Master's Degrees
• Grade and Examination Requirements
• Conduct and Safety
• Financial Aid
• Non-Resident Students
• Registration

Questions about these requirements? See the contact info at the bottom of the page. 

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

The graduate program in physics accepts applications only for the PhD degree. Although many graduate students earn a continuing AM (Master of Arts) degree along the way to completing their PhDs, the department does not accept applications specifically for terminal AM degrees.

Incoming graduate students are not technically candidates for the PhD degree until they have completed a set of candidacy requirements. Before obtaining a PhD, students must satisfy two sets of requirements—one for official doctoral candidacy and another for the PhD degree itself.

Although no two PhD students follow precisely the same path, students should keep in mind the following general timeline, with details to be explained in later sections:

• During both terms of the first year, students’ tuition, fees, and stipends are covered by either Harvard’s Purcell Fellowship or outside sources of funding, and students should devote their attention to coursework and getting acquainted with research groups. All students should consult regularly with their individually assigned academic advisors in planning a program of study and research.
• In the spring term of the first year, as part of their training in teaching and presentation skills, students are required to enroll in Physics 302A: Teaching and Communicating Physics.
• In the summer after the first year, students arrange for their own funding. For those without external fellowships, options include research assistantships (RAs) with research groups, teaching fellowships (TFs) with summer courses, or attending summer schools and conferences.
• For students in their second year who do not have an external fellowship, the department covers tuition and fees but not salaries. Therefore, starting in the second year, a student without outside funding should plan on securing either a research assistantship (RA) or a teaching fellowship (TF) each semester. Students typically use their second year to complete their required coursework and transition into a research group.
• During the second year, students should make sure to complete most of their required course requirements. They should also organize a three-member faculty committee—ideally chaired by their prospective thesis advisor—and take the qualifying oral examination. After completion of the examination and acceptance by a thesis advisor, the student has fulfilled the requirements for official candidacy for the PhD degree.
• For students in their third and later years who do not have an external fellowship, tuition and fees as well as salaries are covered by research assistantships (RAs) or teaching fellowships (TFs).
• Once the student has completed the requirements for candidacy—ideally by the end of the second year but certainly before the end of the third year—the student should proceed with a research program that eventually culminates in a thesis. Toward the end of each year, following the qualifying exam or after the third year (whichever comes first), students should submit annual progress reports to their faculty committees for review.
• After joining a research group, students typically receive their summer funding by working in a research assistantship (RA) with that group.
• Each student is required to serve as a teaching fellow (TF) at least one fall or spring term during the course of the PhD program. Note: To fulfill this requirement, the TF position should consist of at least 15 hours per week (three eights-time) and involve a teaching component and not merely grading.
• After writing a thesis under the guidance of a thesis advisor, typically by the end of the fifth or sixth year, the student presents the thesis to a dissertation committee of three faculty members in a final dissertation defense. Once the completed thesis is submitted, the student has fulfilled the requirements for the doctoral degree.

The First Two Years

The department assigns each incoming graduate student a faculty academic advisor to help the student make decisions about coursework and research opportunities. Each student is free to choose a new advisor at any subsequent time, but should inform the graduate program administrator of such a change after obtaining the new advisor’s consent. In particular, by the end of the second year, the student should choose an advisor who will supervise the student’s thesis.

In planning a program, students should study the catalogue of  Courses of Instruction  offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, as well as the description in the Programs of Study. After drawing up a tentative program, students should discuss it with their faculty advisors. Students are also welcome to discuss their plans at any time with the Director of Graduate Studies.

Course Record

Students who propose to present theses in experimental fields should demonstrate promise in experimental work and a satisfactory understanding of theoretical physics. Applicants for candidacy in theoretical physics should demonstrate strength in courses of a mathematical nature and a satisfactory acquaintance with experimental aspects of physics. Detailed course requirements are given below under Program of Study. Note that awarding of the continuing AM degree does not automatically qualify the student as a candidate for the PhD.

Program of Study (Credit and Course Requirements)

Each student is required to accumulate a total of sixteen four-credit courses of credit, which can include any combination of 200- or 300-level Harvard courses in physics and related fields, graduate-level courses taken by official cross-registration at MIT, and units of Physics 300r (research time) or Physics 300c (course time). These sixteen four-credit courses may overlap with some of the eight required four-credit courses for the optional continuing AM degree.

In fulfilling this requirement, students must obtain grades of B- or better in eight four-credit courses specified as follows:

• Four   mandatory   core courses:  Four mandatory core courses: Physics 251A or a qualifying alternative from the department's official list, and Physics 251B, and Physics 232 or Applied Physics 216 or Engineering Sciences 273, and Physics 262 or Applied Physics 284.
• Four elective courses:  Four additional four-credit courses drawn from the  department's official list , with, at most, two four-credit courses in any one field. Note: Not all courses listed are given every year, and course offerings, numbers, and contents sometimes change. Students therefore should confer with their advisors or with the chair of the Committee on Higher Degrees about their program of study.

Course Descriptions:   Courses of Instruction

Other Fields:  With the approval of the Committee on Higher Degrees, a student may use 200-level courses or fields not officially listed. In place of demonstrating proficiency by satisfactory course performance, a student may also demonstrate proficiency by an oral examination, by submitting evidence of satisfactory work in appropriate courses taken at other institutions, or by other means deemed satisfactory by the Committee on Higher Degrees. Students wishing to utilize this option should submit a petition to the Committee on Higher Degrees before the end of their first year of Harvard graduate school.

The general requirements outlined above are a minimum standard and students will usually take additional courses in their selected fields as well as in others. A student need not fulfill all course requirements before beginning research.

As a result of an exchange agreement between the universities, graduate students in physics at Harvard may also enroll in lecture courses at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The procedure is outlined under “ Cross-Registration "

Physics 247, equivalent laboratory experience, or an oral examination on an experimental topic is a required part of the PhD program for all students who do not submit a thesis that demonstrates experimental proficiency. Students who wish to fulfill this requirement by equivalent laboratory experience or an oral examination should obtain approval of the Committee on Higher Degrees no later than the end of their third year of residence. Students planning on submitting a thesis in theoretical astrophysics may instead satisfy this requirement by taking Astronomy 191 with the approval of the Committee on Higher Degrees.

In addition to research assistantships (RAs), teaching fellowships (TFs) are important sources of support for graduate students after their first year. Because of the importance of teaching skills for a successful physics career, two terms as a TF are required of all graduate students, generally within the first five years of study. This teaching experience provides an opportunity for students to develop the communication skills that are vital for careers in academics and industry.

To fulfill the teaching requirement, students must serve as a teaching fellow at least two fall or spring terms for at least 15 hours per week (three eights-time). The TF position should involve a teaching component and not merely grading.

There is no formal language requirement for the PhD in physics. Students are nonetheless advised that knowledge of certain foreign languages is extremely useful in many fields of physics.

Faculty Committee

By the end of the second year, each student is required to select a faculty chair for a committee to advise the student on the student's research progress. The committee chair is normally one of the department members and, when feasible, a prospective thesis advisor. Under the advisement of the faculty chair, the student should also select two more faculty members to bring the total to three, at least two of whom should be members of the Department of Physics. Selection of the committee, as well as subsequent changes to the committee, require the approval of the Director of Graduate Studies.

Qualifying Oral Examination

Each student is also expected to pass an oral examination given by the student's faculty committee, ideally by the end of the second year, and certainly by the end of the third year. The purpose of the examination is two-fold: The examination aids in estimating the candidate’s potential for performing research at a level required for the doctoral thesis, and also serves as a diagnostic tool for determining whether the candidate requires changes to the program of research and study.

For the examination, each student is asked to select, prepare, and discuss in depth a topic in physics and to answer questions from the faculty committee about that topic specifically and more broadly about the student’s larger subfield. Originality is encouraged but not required.

The student selects the topic—preferably, but not necessarily, related to the proposed field of thesis research—and then submits a title and abstract together with a list of completed course requirements (described above under Program of Study) and a decision as to whether the prospective doctoral research will be experimental or theoretical. The student then confers in detail with the committee chair about the topic to be discussed and concrete expectations for the examination. The committee chair provides approval of the topic, and the overall composition of the examination committee must be approved by the Director of Graduate Studies. To ensure adequate preparation, this conference should take place at the earliest possible date, typically one to two months before the examination.

Oral examinations are evaluated on the knowledge and understanding students demonstrate about their chosen topic and their general subfield. Students are also judged on the clarity and organization of their expositions. The examining committee may take into account other information about the candidate’s performance as a graduate student.

The student will pass the examination if the committee believes that the student has demonstrated adequate comprehension of physics in the area of the chosen topic and in the larger field, as well as an ability to perform the thesis research required for the doctoral degree. Students who do not pass the qualifying oral examination on their first attempt will be given instructions for improvement and encouraged by the committee to take a second examination at a later date.

The committee may, upon petition, grant a deferment of the examination for up to one year. Students who have not passed their oral examinations by the end of their third year of graduate study must seek approval from the Committee on Higher Degrees prior to being allowed to register for a fourth year of graduate study. If satisfactory arrangements cannot be made, the student will be withdrawn by the department. A student who wishes to change from an experimental to a theoretical thesis topic, or vice versa, may be required to pass a second qualifying oral examination.

Acceptance as a Candidate for the PhD

The final requirement for acceptance as a doctoral candidate is the formal acceptance by a suitable thesis advisor who should be a faculty member of the Department of Physics or a related department. This requirement should be met soon after the oral examination is passed.

Sometimes students may wish to do a substantial portion of their thesis research under the supervision of someone who is not a faculty member of the Department of Physics or a related department. Such an arrangement must have the approval of both the student’s official departmental advisor and that of the Committee on Higher Degrees and the department chair.

Year Three and Beyond

In order to become acquainted with the various programs of research in progress and promising areas for thesis research, students should attend seminars and colloquia and consult with their faculty advisors and upper-level graduate students. A list of the current faculty and their research programs is available  online .

Academic Residence

Ordinarily, a candidate must be enrolled and in residence for at least two years (four terms) of full-time study in the Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS). Ideally, the PhD is completed within six years. The student’s committee reviews the student's progress each year. For financial residence requirements, see Financial Aid .

Criteria for Satisfactory Progress

In addition to the guidelines specified by Harvard Griffin GSAS, the physics department identifies satisfactory progress for graduate students by several key criteria.

Upon successful completion of the qualifying oral examination, the student must arrange for the appointment of a faculty committee that will monitor the progress of the student thereafter. The student must be accepted by an appropriate thesis advisor within eighteen months after passing the qualifying oral examination.

During each subsequent year, the student must submit a progress report in the form specified by the Committee on Higher Degrees. The progress report must be approved by the student’s faculty committee and the Committee on Higher Degrees, who will evaluate the student’s progress toward the completion of the degree. The Committee on Higher Degrees will examine with special care students beyond their fifth year.

For other types of extensions or leave-of-absence policies, consult the Registration section of Policies.

Dissertation Defense

Toward the end of the student’s thesis research, the student should arrange a dissertation committee, which consists of at least three faculty members and is chaired by a member of the Harvard Department of Physics. At least two members of the dissertation committee, including the chair, must be members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS). A non-FAS thesis advisor should be a member of the dissertation committee, but cannot serve as its official chair.

The dissertation defense consists of an oral final examination delivered to the dissertation committee that involves a searching analysis of the student’s thesis. If the student’s coursework does not indicate a wide proficiency in the field of the thesis, the examination may be extended to test this proficiency as well.

The candidate must provide draft copies of the completed thesis for members of the dissertation committee at least three weeks in advance of the examination. See the Dissertation section of Policies for detailed requirements.

Master of Arts (AM)

The Department of Physics does not admit graduate students whose sole purpose is to study for the Master of Arts (AM) degree. However, the AM degree is frequently taken by students who continue on for the PhD degree. For those who do not attain the doctorate, the AM degree attests to the completion of a full year’s study beyond the bachelor’s degree.

Program of Study (Credit Requirements)

Eight four-credit courses taken while enrolled at Harvard are required for the continuing AM degree. At least four must be physics courses, and ordinarily all must be in physics or related fields like applied physics, applied math, chemistry, biophysics, engineering, or astronomy. Not more than two four-credit courses may be from the 100-level listing, “for undergraduates and graduates,” and ordinarily not more than one four-credit course may be from the 300-level group, “Reading and Research.” The remainder must be from the 200 level, “primarily for graduates,” or graduate-level courses taken by official cross-registration at MIT. There is no limit on the number of the eight four-credit courses taken at MIT.

With the permission of their advisors and with the approval of the Committee on Higher Degrees, students may substitute 300-level courses for more than one of the required eight four-credit courses. For students who were previously undergraduates at Harvard College, only bracketed courses taken as an undergraduate can count toward the AM degree. Courses counted toward the AM degree are also counted toward the PhD.

All four-credit courses counted toward the AM degree must be passed with a grade of C- or better, and a B average must be obtained in these courses. (In calculating the average, a grade of C is offset by a grade of A; no account is taken of pluses or minuses.)

No thesis, general examination, or knowledge of a foreign language is required for the AM degree. The minimum residence requirement is one year.

Students in Harvard College who are pursuing the AB/AM degree must complete the advanced laboratory course, either as Physics 191 for the AB degree (if fulfilling the honors physics track) or as Physics 247 for the AM degree (if not fulfilling the honors physics track). For students pursuing an AB concentration other than the Physics concentration or the Chemistry and Physics concentration, seven of the eight courses for the AM must be physics courses.

Contact Info 

Physics Website

Department of Physics Harvard University 17 Oxford Street Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected]

Explore Events

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Universities /

Harvard University PhD in Physics: Application, Stipend, Acceptance Rate, Requirements and Deadline

• Updated on  
• Feb 3, 2024

If you are passionate about physics and want to pursue a doctoral degree at one of the world’s top universities , you might consider applying to the Harvard Physics PhD program. It offers rigorous, comprehensive training in theoretical and experimental physics and opportunities to collaborate with renowned faculty and researchers across different disciplines. In this blog, we will cover all about the PhD program in Physics offered by Harvard, including its acceptance rate, stipend, requirements and more. Let’s get started!

This Blog Includes:

Why pursue harvard physics phd, harvard physics phd: acceptance rate, harvard physics phd: stipend, harvard physics phd: entry requirements, documents required, application deadline.

Several factors make the Harvard Physics PhD program a highly attractive option for prospective researchers. They are as follows:

• The department boasts a world-class faculty of Nobel laureates, Fields Medalists, and MacArthur Fellows, providing unparalleled mentorship and research guidance.
• Students gain hands-on experience with cutting-edge research facilities and participate in groundbreaking projects across various subfields.
• The program encourages interdisciplinary collaboration with other science and engineering departments.
• Students engage in an intellectually stimulating environment with fellow researchers, attending seminars, workshops, and discussions.
• The program offers dedicated career services to support students in securing positions in academia, industry, or government research labs.

The Harvard Physics PhD program has an acceptance rate hovering around 5-7% . It varies from year to year, but it is generally very low and competitive. One source states that the department usually receives more than 1,000 applications and admits around 90 applicants, indicating an acceptance rate of about 9%. Another source reports that the department receives nearly 400 applications and offers admission to about 6% of applicants, which suggests an acceptance rate of about 6%. 

A third source gives an acceptance rate of 13% for the physics PhD program in 2009. These numbers indicate that the Harvard Physics PhD program is highly selective and requires a strong and well-rounded application to stand out. 

The stipend support for the Harvard Physics PhD program is $45,696 ($3,808 per month) . This stipend covers tuition, fees, and living expenses. The stipend is adjusted each year to help meet increases in the cost of living. It is independent of need and is guaranteed for all students as long as they remain in good standing and complete assigned duties satisfactorily. 

Assuming a similar rate of increase, the estimated stipend support for the academic year 2024-2025 would be around $47,040 ($3,920 per month) .

To be considered for admission into the Harvard Physics PhD program, applicants must possess the following:

• Master’s degree in Physics or a closely related field with a strong academic record.
• Excellent GRE scores (in the 80th percentile or higher) in the quantitative and physics sections.
• 3 letters of recommendation from research advisors or professors familiar with your academic abilities and research potential.
• A well-written statement of purpose outlining your research interests, career goals, and motivation for pursuing a PhD at Harvard.
• Evidence of research experience through publications, presentations, or participation in research projects.
• Demonstrating English language proficiency (through TOEFL or IELTS scores) if English is not your native language.

Application Process

The application process for the Harvard Physics PhD program follows a standard format. 

• Begin planning and gathering materials well in advance of the application deadline (usually in December).
• Identify faculty whose research aligns with your interests and contact them to discuss potential research opportunities.
• Ensure you have all the necessary documents, including transcripts, test scores, letters of recommendation, and a statement of purpose.
• Submit your complete application online through the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences application portal.
• Shortlisted applicants are invited for interviews with faculty members, typically conducted between January and March.
• Online application form
• Official transcripts from all universities attended
• GRE scores (quantitative and physics sections)
• TOEFL or IELTS scores (if applicable)
• Three letters of recommendation
• Statement of purpose
• Curriculum vitae

The application deadline for the Harvard Physics PhD program is typically in December. For 2023, the last date to apply for the program was 15 December 2023 . Be sure to check the official program website for the latest deadlines and application requirements.

Ans: While competitive scores and GPA certainly strengthen your application, remember the holistic review process. Admissions go beyond numbers. Strong research experience, compelling research interests, and a well-articulated statement of purpose can elevate your application even with slightly lower scores.

Ans: Absolutely! Research internships, independent projects, or even involvement in lab work during your undergraduate studies demonstrate initiative and research aptitude. Highlight transferable skills developed through such experiences in your application.

Ans: The program provides a generous stipend, but additional funding opportunities exist. Explore teaching assistantships, research fellowships, and external scholarships to supplement your financial support. Don’t hesitate to discuss funding options with the program coordinator when needed.

Related Articles: 

We hope that this blog gave you a complete overview of the Harvard Physics PhD program. Stay tuned to Leverage Edu for more updates on courses and destinations to study abroad. Thank you for reading!

Disha Kaira

Disha is an electrical engineer turned writer passionate about bringing a spark (and accuracy) to whatever content she comes across. Whether it's UI/UX Design or writing blogs on abroad education, she relishes every chance to learn and test the limits of her creativity.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• Crimson Careers
• For Employers
• Harvard College
• Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
• Harvard Extension School
• Premed / Pre-Health
• Families & Supporters
• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• First Generation / Low Income
• International Students
• Students of Color
• Students with Disabilities
• Undocumented Students
• Explore Interests & Make Career Decisions
• Create a Resume/CV or Cover Letter
• Expand Your Network
• Engage with Employers
• Search for a Job
• Find an Internship
• January Experiences (College)
• Find & Apply for Summer Opportunities Funding
• Prepare for an Interview
• Negotiate an Offer
• Apply to Graduate or Professional School
• Access Resources
• AI for Professional Development and Exploration
• Arts & Entertainment
• Business & Entrepreneurship
• Climate, Sustainability, Environment, Energy
• Government, Int’l Relations, Education, Law, Nonprofits
• Life Sciences & Health
• Technology & Engineering
• Still Exploring
• Talk to an Advisor

Leveraging Your PhD: Why Employers Value Your Skills

• Share This: Share Leveraging Your PhD: Why Employers Value Your Skills on Facebook Share Leveraging Your PhD: Why Employers Value Your Skills on LinkedIn Share Leveraging Your PhD: Why Employers Value Your Skills on X

Guest post by Heer Joisher (Griffin GSAS Candidate in Developmental Biology) for MCS.

Harvard’s Mignone Center for Career Success recently hosted an insightful discussion spotlighting the remarkable journeys of a select group of GSAS alumni who have masterfully leveraged their Ph.D. degrees to forge unique and gratifying career paths. Their experiences not only illuminate the expansive landscape of career possibilities for graduate students but also stand as beacons of inspiration for Ph.D. students and recent graduates navigating their own professional journeys.  Here are some reflections I’ve summarized from the panel discussion on exploring non-academic career paths: the motivations, the timing, and the process.

Why? – A Multitude of Motivations

Dean Emma Dench’s opening remarks for the panel, noting that approximately 50% of Harvard PhDs become intellectual leaders outside academia, set the stage for a discussion on the motivations driving individuals to explore non-academic career paths. These motivations are as diverse as the individuals themselves, ranging from financial considerations to differing interpretations of job satisfaction and expectations.  Moreover, panelists emphasized the presence of abundant opportunities available beyond academia and the importance of gaining a comprehensive understanding of the broader professional landscape. Embracing this perspective involves stepping outside the traditional academic paradigms, challenging preconceptions about career paths dictated by one’s degree or department. Instead, it involves introspectively questioning what truly fosters personal fulfillment and utilizing one’s unique background and expertise to craft a career trajectory that aligns with individual aspirations.

When? – The Sooner, the Better

The panel collectively emphasized the importance of early exploration into non-academic career paths, highlighting the immense value in stepping beyond conventional trajectories and embracing diverse experiences. Their insight underscores that this journey isn’t solely about finding a different career path; it’s about broadening perspectives and building a vibrant professional community, irrespective of the ultimate career trajectory.   While transitioning out of academia may be smoother for some fields or labs compared to others, actively delving into learning about alternative career paths enables individuals to challenge norms and foster connections with mentors who can offer invaluable support along the way. The environment at Harvard, with its diverse peers and alumni network, facilitates this exploration and openness to new opportunities, acting as a catalyst for personal and professional growth.

How? – Navigating the Process

Drawing from their diverse career paths, the panelists offered valuable strategies and frameworks to guide individuals through the transition process. Each insight struck a chord with attendees, offering relatable anecdotes and invaluable guidance. Below is a compilation of key takeaways distilled from the discussion:

• Embrace Career Exploration and Experimentation:
• Explore diverse opportunities and pathways even if they seem unconventional or outside your comfort zone
• Recognize that your first job doesn’t have to be perfect, and that career progression often involves trying different roles and industries
• Utilize resources like alumni and LinkedIn to learn about different careers, and experiences
• Identify the transferable skills gained during your academic journey and identify your strengths. Introspect on how your strengths align with roles outside academia, consider doubling down on skills you excel in and enjoy.

• Cultivate Meaningful Professional Relationships:
• Approach networking with a mindset of curiosity and growth, fostering genuine relationships that support your career development.
• Articulate your accomplishments and expertise with confidence to bolster your credibility and draw opportunities towards you.
• Engage in informational interviews to gain valuable insights into various job responsibilities, organizational cultures, and career paths, allowing you to assess your fit within different professional contexts.
• Take a proactive approach to relationship-building by categorizing connections based on shared interests and goals. Remember, networking is a two-way street; look for opportunities to offer support, share insights, and connect others within your network.

• Invest in Your Professional Growth:
• View informational interviews, hands-on learning opportunities and internships as pivotal investments in shaping your future career path.
• Proactively seek out opportunities that foster continuous learning, cultivate enduring professional relationships, and steer your career in desired direction.
• Hone the art of articulation and effective communication to confidently convey your skills, experiences, and achievements, aligning them with the needs of different roles and organizations.
• Conquer decision paralysis by taking action: apply for open positions and initiate conversations with new connections. Embrace the interview process as an opportunity for growth and learning, gaining valuable insights along the way.

In conclusion, the panel discussion offered profound insights into navigating non-academic career paths. These key takeaways underscore the significance of charting one’s unique path with confidence and purpose in the dynamic landscape of non-academic careers.

Meet the Panelists:

• Elias Bruegmann, PhD : Head of Product Data Science at Stripe
• Victoria Tillson Evans, PhD : Founder & President of Distinctive College Consulting
• Marinna Madrid, PhD : Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer at Cellino
• Jessica Paige, PhD : Social Scientist at RAND
• Paul Schwerda, PhD : Investment Manager at Baillie Gifford
• Roger Vargas, PhD : Computational Scientist at Moderna

Quotes from Attendees:

“As an upper-level PhD student, the seminar provided valuable information and insights on careers outside of academia. It was great to hear from a diversity of people with different perspectives and who followed various career paths.” – Stephan Foianini, G5, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University

• What Can You Be with a PhD
• Beyond the Professoriate

Welcome to the Physics Department at the University of Florida.

Research programs in the department.

Graduate and Undergraduate Programs.

The Department of Physics at the University of Florida is making strides toward becoming one of the premier physics departments in the United States. We have active groups in astrophysics, biological physics, condensed matter/materials physics, and elementary particle physics. Our faculty are internationally renowned in their areas of expertise at the various frontiers of physics. Our undergraduate and graduate students participate in cutting-edge research that prepares them for successful careers in a wide variety of fields, many in of them pure or applied sciences but others drawing on the broader problem-solving and communication skills fostered by an education in physics.

Administration:

Steve Hagen, Chair Dmitrii Maslov, Associate Chair Yoonseok Lee, Graduate Coordinator Selman Hershfield, Undergraduate Coordinator Jacobo Konigsberg, Graduate Recruiter

Selman Hershfield Honored as Distinguished Teaching Scholar

Pierre Sikivie Honored as Lifetime Fellow

Physics Undergraduate Students receive NSF GRFP Awards

Physics Undergraduates Attend Lake Nona Impact Forum

Kathryn McGill is featured on AAPT April Spotlight

Physics Graduate Students receive UF Graduate School Teaching Awards

Upcoming events, qualifying exam – kyle tregoning.

View All Events

Centers & Institutes

Center for Condensed Matter Sciences Institute for Fundamental Theory High Energy Theory Condensed Matter Theory Institute for High Energy Physics and Astrophysics Quantum Theory Project Center for Molecular Magnetic Quantum Materials

Facilities & Support

Lightboard Physics Computing Electronics Shop Machine Shop Demonstration Lab Cryogenic Services

Vol. CXXVII

Pasadena, CA

You Can and Should Do Better, Faculty Members - A Commentary on the Reinstated SAT/ACT Requirement for Undergraduate Admissions

Written by: A friend of the students

Editors’ note: The author requested that this piece be published anonymously, for reasons described within. Given the sensitivity of the topic and the nature of the views expressed, we determined this to be acceptable in line with the Tech’s Journalistic Principles .

Undergrads, you might have noticed in the past edition of The California Tech a small section on page 2 that the Faculty Board had passed a resolution reinstating the SAT/ACT requirement. Or in the February 27th edition, an article titled “ Faculty Petition Speaks to Broader Implications for Undergraduate Admissions ” describing a petition circulating amongst the faculty that the Tech editors report they were repeatedly denied a copy of. I would like to make public the text of the petition. You can find it in full below. (jump to petition)

I expected better from the members of the faculty who signed this petition, who not only ignored the truth of the matter while writing this petition, but repeatedly denied current students access to it. In addition to the Tech editors being denied a copy of the petition, I have been told that members of ASCIT have been repeatedly uninvited from the monthly Faculty Board meetings where discussion of this is taking place and that undergraduate student leaders’ direct lines of access to administrators and faculty members on campus have been uniformly shut off to any information about this petition. (If you don’t believe my word on this, feel free to contact the current student leaders, whom I am certain would be happy to explain their side of the story better than I can). I also find myself disappointed in the Faculty Board, whose committee to collect and present evidence on this topic attempted to find a correlation between SAT math scores and first-year (shadow) grades. Attempting to use first-year (shadow) grades when those students are told to focus on their transition to college and not worry about grades, rather than say sophomore year grades or cumulative GPA, seems misguided to say the least. Perhaps more worryingly, despite this lack of conclusive evidence, the Faculty Board passed the resolution reinstating the SAT/ACT requirement almost unanimously.

As a University whose motto is, “The Truth Shall Make You Free”, in what sense do the actions of the past few months live up to this? In what world does hiding the evidence and covering up the dialogue about current (and future) students help you, or them? Would it have been impossible for you to share your concerns with them directly as I have, instead of gossiping about them behind their backs? How does casting off entire classes of current students as effectively ’too dumb to succeed at Caltech’ encourage them to make up lost ground and perform better in your classes? So students, in the spirit of our shared motto, I believe you should have access to this petition, even though you may find the text itself and the commentary surrounding it painful to hear. You should also know that not all members of the faculty believe in the spirit behind this petition, and hopefully you will be heartened to know that many refused to sign it.

I am choosing not to publish the names of the 150+ faculty members who signed this petition for a few reasons. First, I do not want this article to be used as a personal attack on any one person who signed the petition, but rather as an inspiration for reflection on the state of our campus community. Second, public comments attached to the petition reflect that some members of the faculty only signed the petition to encourage the Faculty Board to investigate the correlation between SAT/ACT scores and academic performance at Caltech, as a request for more evidence on this topic, without buying into the rest of the discourse surrounding this. While I disagree with their decision to sign this flawed document, I do not think that publishing their names alongside those who are fully buying into the idea that current students are fundamentally un- or under-prepared for Caltech academics will be productive.

I publish this anonymously for fear that this discussion will hurt my career and threaten my current employment. For a community that prides itself on freedom of intellectual thought and objective review of the available data, it is shameful that we cannot have an open dialogue about this. Faculty members, you can and should do better. I urge you to engage with and discuss this with the undergraduate community in a meaningful way, instead of continuing to deny them a seat at the table.

The text of the petition is printed on the opposite page of this issue of the Tech.

In addition to my rebuke of the actions taken by some faculty members in the past few months, I would like to provide a critical analysis of the petition and some context that it is lacking.

First, the data from two electrical engineering courses (EE 44 and EE 55) are not representative of the entire student body, and certainly faculty members who pride themselves on their ability to carefully analyze data in their professional capacity should know better than to take a non-representative sample as proof of anything.

Second, even if you did take the data of the two electrical engineering courses to be representative of the student body as a whole, the analysis does not take into account that each year of students has had substantially different high school and core curriculum experiences. The core curriculum has undergone substantial revision between 2019 and now, and it is not inconceivable that different teaching styles and curricula for math and physics core courses could have impacted scores in EE 44 and EE 55. [I might even suggest the Faculty Board investigate how well the core curriculum has prepared students for sophomore year courses and beyond during each iteration of the past few years]. Additionally, while the current undergraduate seniors had only their final few months of high school online, and presumably took calculus and other math and physics courses in person, a substantial portion of the current undergraduate juniors, sophomores, and first-year students took calculus, trigonometry, and physics online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous recent studies [1-4] have shown that students perform poorly on objective high school math standards when taking courses online compared to in person, despite their grades in those courses being comparable. I believe that the undergraduate Academics and Research Committee (ARC) went so far as to collect and present data on this very topic at last year’s Student Faculty Conference and presented this data again at a Faculty Board meeting last spring. In conversations with undergraduate student leadership in the past few months, they have lamented the fact that the Faculty Board has not only failed to take these data into account when making decisions about current and future students, but has also denied them a seat at the table where they could have brought this up directly. Members of the faculty should know better than to conclude that this change in a non-representative sample was caused by the lack of SAT/ACT requirement, when differential math and physics preparation due to a worldwide pandemic could just as easily explain the effect.

Third, the brief paragraph within the petition on the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on academics fails to take into account the reality of the situation. More than a few students lost parents and other close family members, lost regular access to school-provided meals, and lost access to academic support and extracurricular opportunities during the pandemic. To expect them to master calculus and other math topics that are tested by the electrical engineering “basic math test” during such a tumultuous period is almost absurd. Furthermore, the SAT and ACT do not test calculus or physics topics and thus are not indicators of whether students have mastered these topics. Additionally, AP tests were administered online in a shortened format over the pandemic and the reports from both students and high school teachers from that period indicate that they were not representative of students’ true grasp of these concepts. Moreover, widespread high school grade inflation, especially during periods of online learning, makes it almost impossible for the admissions office to discern which students have actually mastered calculus and other math topics based on their transcripts. As none of these metrics can serve as appropriate measures of student learning over the pandemic, it would be worthwhile for the members of the faculty who signed this petition to take this into account when suggesting that the lack of the SAT/ACT requirement is the sole reason the admissions office is admitting “D & F students” instead of “A & B students”.

While there are many more points I could make about the contents of the petition, hopefully I have demonstrated that it is poorly thought through. The public comments attached to this petition clearly show that many members of the faculty believe that the solution to this “problem” of students un- and under-prepared for their courses is to admit “better” students in future years. What, I ask, is your plan to support the current students whom you have an obligation to teach, to the best of your ability, right now ? It is easy to point fingers at the admissions office and at students. It takes much more initiative to help the students you believe are not ready for your courses to succeed, or as an Institute, to not only notice there is a “problem” but actually help resolve it. Members of the faculty, I implore you to do better.

[1] American Economic Association, 2023. The importance of in-person schooling.

[2] Binkley 2022. Associated Press. COVID grads face college

[3] Locke et al. 2021. Learning loss in reading and math in U.S. schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic

[4] National Assessment of Educational Progress 2022

Editors’ Note on the faculty petition below: This petition was written several months ago (dated January 16) and may not reflect anyone’s current views or facts. It is provided only for context to this article. It was also written for an audience of only the President, Admissions, and other faculty — i.e., not the broader Caltech community. It has not been edited or abridged in any way, except as noted in the article.

Faculty petition

January 16, 2024

Dear faculty colleagues:

Over the past few years, faculty colleagues across campus have noticed and commented on a sharp decline in the quantitative skills of our undergraduate students. In particular, although many of our undergraduates are of the same caliber as in the past, there has been a concerning drop in preparedness at the low end of the distribution. This decline has worsened with recent changes in our admissions practices, and is particularly acute for the current sophomore class. An inordinate number of students are failing courses, honor code violations are on the rise, and requests for tutors and extensions have substantially increased. Some faculty report having to adjust grading practices, as well as course content, to the change in student population.

We fear that this decline will have disastrous consequences for our students’ training and career outcomes, for Caltech’s educational mission, and for Caltech’s reputation at large.

The goal of this letter is to initiate discussion and action on this critical and urgent matter.

Below we consider possible causes for the decline. Based on these reasons, we believe that the problem requires both immediate action as well as longer term improvement and monitoring in admissions practices.

In the immediate term, we ask the institute to:

• Reinstate the SAT/ACT as an admissions requirement for the next cycle. This should be announced in March 2024, so students can start testing in the spring, preparing for applications in the Fall.
• Form a faculty-led committee to study the effectiveness of current admissions practices on student outcomes and to make recommendations about how to improve the process. Such a longitudinal study was promised to the faculty (see Faculty Board meeting of 6/7/2021), but no such report has been released. This committee should report its findings sometime in Fall 2024 so that it can help shape next year’s admission cycle.

In the longer term, we ask the institute to:

• Establish a faculty-led standing committee whose charge is to regularly gather data on student learning outcomes and use them to evaluate and guide our admissions processes. This is important because so far our admission policies have not been informed by this essential exercise, in contrast to peer institutions like MIT.

Why do student STEM skills matter?

Many of us are committed to Caltech because of its unique place in the higher education landscape, as reflected by the “There is only one Caltech” campaign motto. We view our educational mission as recruiting, educating, motivating, and empowering the next generation of top scientific, engineering and mathematical talent. Our comparative social contribution is to provide a niche for individuals with an extreme passion and talent for these fields. We give those students a protected environment to develop their talent and passion at the highest levels of science and engineering. Then they go and establish the semiconductor industry or find a cure for AIDS. Historically, Caltech has produced one of the highest rates of future STEM PhDs and the highest rate of Nobel laureates. If we give up on the goal of educating students with this unusual intensity and talent, then we lose our raison d’etre, our unique and essential educational contribution to society.

As faculty, we also need to acknowledge the limits to what we can do. The historical greatness of our undergraduates has been largely due to them, not to the faculty. To train top-flight scientists and engineers we have to start with top-flight high school graduates. Our skill is in designing a curriculum of courses and research that challenges these students beyond their comfort zone. But we have no special skills that would bring the median high-school graduate to that level. There is nothing magical about Caltech that turns someone into a successful scientist just because they spent 4 years here. Furthermore, unprepared students struggle here even though they would have thrived at other top schools like Stanford or Harvard. This is why the STEM skills of our entering first-years continues to be crucial to Caltech’s unique educational mission.

Two examples: Student performance in EE44 and EE55

The drop in STEM skills has been observed by many faculty who teach first-year and sophomore courses.

A concrete example is provided by Ali Hajimiri, who analyzed grades in EE44 (Deterministic Analysis of Systems and Circuits). EE44 is the introductory circuits course taken by all EE sophomores, and it uses basic complex number, linear algebra, and calculus concepts. Ali has taught EE44 continuously for the past 12 years. Each year, he administers a basic math test on day 1 to get a baseline on the students’ math competency. He also administers a midterm and final exam. This fall, he reused the 2020 final exam to create a control comparison.

Consider the scatter plots below, which show the relationship between the score in the initial math Quiz 0 and the midterm exam (red dots) and final exam (blue dots). Each dot represents one student. There is a stark difference between the grades of 2020 sophomores (left plot) and 2023 sophomores (right plot). Whereas the top of the class in 2023 (green ellipse) looks similar to the entirety of the class in 2020, the class of 2023 has a sizable cluster of students (the red ellipse) that did not exist in 2020 and who enter the class with weak math foundations and in turn performed poorly in the course.

Another data set is from the EE55 class (Mathematics of EE) taught in alternative years by Victoria Kostina. This data compares the final exam scores of the students taking the exam in 2021 versus. those taking it in the fall of 2023. It again shows a noticeable drop in the performance of the class.

Although this is data from only two courses, it is consistent with the classroom experiences of many other faculty at Caltech. If, as we suspect, the data from other classes at Caltech match these observations, then we are facing a major challenge to our educational missions that requires urgent action. First, a substantial fraction of the current Caltech student population is not well matched to our educational program and not served well as a result. Second, the experience of all students is impacted, for example, by lowering the level of our course offerings. Third, our reputation, and thus our long-term ability to attract Caltech-caliber, students are at risk. Eventually, this could affect recruitment of graduate students and faculty as well.

Decline of Caltech’s performance in prestigious student competitions

Historically, our students have had an outsized presence at the Putnam math competition, with multiple Putnam Fellows (top 6 finishers), and topping the competition more than any school other than Harvard and MIT. But since 2010 there has been a steady decline in Caltech’s showing. Over the past few years, Caltech’s performance fell precipitously: since 2019 we have had zero students in the top 100. This is distressing for a school that touts itself on being a destination for top STEM talent. MIT, on the other hand, is sweeping the top spots.

A similar decline relative to other universities has been seen in coding competitions, such as the ACM-ICPC, where in the past few years Caltech has even failed to qualify for the international competition (before that it was a contender for the top spots).

While we are not suggesting all Caltech students should be top math or coding competitors, our performance in these competitions provides an informative signal about the quality of our student population, and gives us visibility to help attract top high school talent.

Potential causes for the decline in student STEM skills

Several hypothetical causes for the drop have been proposed. We hope that the faculty-led committee that we propose will carry out an immediate quantitative and systematic evaluation of these issues to inform our admission practices.

Here we provide an initial discussion of two of these causes.

Is it fully attributable to COVID? This explanation fails on two counts. First, the top half of our student population performs as well as the pre-pandemic students. Given our large pool of applicants (~16,000), and low admission rate (~2% for non-athletes), it defies reason to think that we cannot find more A & B students and have been forced to admit D & F students to fill the class. More likely, our admissions process is failing to spot the D & F students. Second, the COVID hypothesis does not explain the differences in top achievers across schools. COVID or not, top Putnam performers still exist. They are just not at Caltech.

Is it caused by changes in admissions practices? Our admission criteria have changed in the past few years and thus deserve scrutiny. Starting with the class entering in 2021 (today’s juniors), as a response to Covid, we stopped requiring applicants to take the SAT/ACT test, which in the past was used as an indicator of math and verbal proficiency. Furthermore, we introduced a number of non-cognitive criteria alongside academic merit. In the process, we seem to have lost focus on the need to choose applicants who have acquired in high-school the skills needed to thrive in Caltech’s rigorous and fast-paced academic training.

Why bring back the SAT/ACT as soon as possible?

The case for using the SAT/ACT in our admission process is that it provides a necessary, but not sufficient, signal for success in our challenging educational program. These test scores are unlikely to be predictive of outcome differences at Caltech among students who perform above a high-threshold, as has been the case for our historical student population. However, based on years of experience in the classroom and the lab, we believe students who are not able to score highly on the math sections of those tests are not likely to perform well at Caltech.

Consistent with this view, in March 2022, MIT brought back the SAT/ACT as a requirement [ ref1 , ref2 , ref3 ]. The report from the MIT dean of admissions is well sourced, and — given the similarity of MIT’s mission to our own — makes for useful reading. Here are some relevant quotes:

• “Our research has shown that, in most cases, we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test results alongside grades, coursework, and other factors. These findings are statistically robust and stable over time, and hold when you control for socioeconomic factors and look across demographic groups. And the math component of the testing turns out to be most important.”
• “It turns out the shortest path for many students to demonstrate sufficient preparation — particularly for students with less access to educational capital — is through the SAT/ACT, because most students can study for these exams using free tools at Khan Academy, but they (usually) can’t force their high school to offer advanced calculus courses, for example. So, the SAT/ACT can actually open the door to MIT for these students, too.”
• “[T]here is no pathway through MIT that does not include a rigorous foundation in mathematics, mediated by many quantitative exams along the way. So, in a way, it is not surprising that the SAT/ACT math exams are predictive of success at MIT; it would be more surprising if they weren’t.”

Similar results have been found by several recent studies at other institutions [ ref4 , ref5 , ref6 , ref7 ]. For example, a study by Opportunity Insights looked at admissions records and student outcomes at multiple college Ivy-Plus colleges between 2017 and 2022 and found that “[e]ven among otherwise similar students with the same high school grades, we find that SAT and ACT scores have substantial predictive power for academic success in college,” even after controlling for high school grades. As shown in the figure below, “[s]tudents opting to not submit an SAT/ACT score achieve relatively lower college GPAs.” A related earlier study by Opportunity Insights also found that SAT/ACT scores are substantially more predictive than high-school grades of the likelihood of attending an elite graduate school or working at a prestigious firm.

In stark contrast, three months after the MIT announcement, Caltech announced that we would extend the moratorium by three years. In fact, the press release from admissions making this announcement stated: “…standardized test scores have little to no power in predicting students’ performance in the first-term mathematics and physics classes that first-year students must take as part of Caltech’s core curriculum. Further, the predictive power of standardized test scores appears to dissipate as students progress through the first-year core curriculum.” This claim refers to an internal report that has never been released to the faculty for evaluation and discussion.

In fact, the predictive value of the SAT on Caltech student performance had been studied in the 1990s by Dave Rutledge and colleagues. They found that students with a Math score below 700 have a high chance (larger than 50%) of dropping out. In the wake of that study, the admissions office set 700 as the minimum Math score for admissions.

As recently as 2019, all of our admitted students had an SAT Math score above 700, with the 25/75 percentiles at 790/800. In fact, historically, Caltech students had the highest SAT scores of any university. Now our admission process dismisses the SAT as a useless metric. One of the tenets of empiricism is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Given that this claim goes against a practice that has served Caltech and MIT well for decades, that MIT recently looked carefully into this issue and brought back the SAT/ACT, that recent studies have found that SAT/ACT are predictive of student outcomes at Ivy-Plus colleges, that the 1990s Rutledge study found similar conclusions at Caltech, and that the report cited by the Admissions Committee Chair has not been shared with the faculty for evaluation, we are skeptical of the claim that it is not a useful metric on admissions.

• Utility Menu

Apply   |   Contact Us   |   Carol Davis Fund   Anonymous Feedback to the Physics Chair

Cold Facts about Global Warming

Kara Hartig applies physics to the study of the Earth’s climate

The Best Qubits for Quantum Computing Might Just Be Atoms

Haim Sompolinsky awarded Brain Prize

Pioneering neuroscientist honored for theories of brain function

Under pressure

New tool for precise measurement of superconductors

Harvard physicists make a new phase of matter

Georgi elected AAAS fellow

Congratulations to Noah Toyonaga, a 2024 Harvard Horizon's Scholar!

L. Mahadevan Awarded Oxford's Weldon Memorial Prize

Calendar of events, 00e9d2624451cbceaf1ca8b35ffd5fc5.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Two from MIT awarded 2024 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

MIT graduate student Riyam Al Msari and alumna Francisca Vasconcelos ’20 are among the 30 recipients of this year’s Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans. In addition, two Soros winners will begin PhD studies at MIT in the fall: Zijian (William) Niu in computational and systems biology and Russell Legate-Yang in economics.

The P.D. Soros Fellowships for New Americans program recognizes the potential of immigrants to make significant contributions to U.S. society, culture, and academia by providing $90,000 in graduate school financial support over two years.

Riyam Al Msari

Riyam Al Msari, born in Baghdad, Iraq, faced a turbulent childhood shaped by the 2003 war. At age 8, her life took a traumatic turn when her home was bombed in 2006, leading to her family's displacement to Iraqi Kurdistan. Despite experiencing educational and ethnic discriminatory challenges, Al Msari remained undeterred, wholeheartedly embracing her education.

Soon after her father immigrated to the United States to seek political asylum in 2016, Al Msari’s mother was diagnosed with head and neck cancer, leaving Al Msari, at just 18, as her mother’s primary caregiver. Despite her mother’s survival, Al Msari witnessed the limitations and collateral damage caused by standardized cancer therapies, which left her mother in a compromised state. This realization invigorated her determination to pioneer translational cancer-targeted therapies.

In 2018, when Al Msari was 20, she came to the United States and reunited with her father and the rest of her family, who arrived later with significant help from then-senator Kamala Harris’s office. Despite her Iraqi university credits not transferring, Al Msari persevered and continued her education at Houston Community College as a Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) scholar, and then graduated magna cum laude as a Regents Scholar from the University of California at San Diego’s bioengineering program, where she focused on lymphatic-preserving neoadjuvant immunotherapies for head and neck cancers.

As a PhD student in the MIT Department of Biological Engineering, Al Masri conducts research in the Irvine and Wittrup labs to employ engineering strategies for localized immune targeting of cancers. She aspires to establish a startup that bridges preclinical and clinical oncology research, specializing in the development of innovative protein and biomaterial-based translational cancer immunotherapies.

Francisca Vasconcelos ’20

In the early 1990s, Francisca Vasconcelos’s parents emigrated from Portugal to the United States in pursuit of world-class scientific research opportunities. Vasconcelos was born in Boston while her parents were PhD students at MIT and Harvard University. When she was 5, her family relocated to San Diego, when her parents began working at the University of California at San Diego.

Vasconcelos graduated from MIT in 2020 with a BS in electrical engineering, computer science, and physics. As an undergraduate, she performed substantial research involving machine learning and data analysis for quantum computers in the MIT Engineering Quantum Systems Group, under the guidance of Professor William Oliver. Drawing upon her teaching and research experience at MIT, Vasconcelos became the founding academic director of The Coding School nonprofit’s Qubit x Qubit initiative, where she taught thousands of students from different backgrounds about the fundamentals of quantum computation.

In 2020, Vasconcelos was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford, where she pursued an MSc in statistical sciences and an MSt in philosophy of physics. At Oxford, she performed substantial research on uncertainty quantification of machine learning models for medical imaging in the OxCSML group. She also played for Oxford’s Women’s Blues Football team. 

Now a computer science PhD student and NSF Graduate Research Fellow at the University of California at Berkeley, Vasconcelos is a member of both the Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research Lab and CS Theory Group. Her research interests lie at the intersection of quantum computation and machine learning. She is especially interested in developing efficient classical algorithms to learn about quantum systems, as well as quantum algorithms to improve simulations of quantum processes. In doing so, she hopes to find meaningful ways in which quantum computers can outperform classical computers.

The P.D. Soros Fellowship attracts more than 1,800 applicants annually. MIT students interested in applying may contact Kim Benard, associate dean of distinguished fellowships in Career Advising and Professional Development.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• P.D. Soros Fellowships for New Americans
• MIT Career Advising and Professional Development

Related Topics

• Awards, honors and fellowships
• Graduate, postdoctoral
• Immigration
• Biological engineering
• Electrical Engineering & Computer Science (eecs)

Related Articles

Six from MIT awarded 2023 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans

Five MIT students named 2020 Rhodes Scholars

Nine MIT students awarded 2021 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Exploring the history of data-driven arguments in public life

Read full story →

Three from MIT awarded 2024 Guggenheim Fellowships

A musical life: Carlos Prieto ’59 in conversation and concert

MIT Emerging Talent opens pathways for underserved global learners

The MIT Edgerton Center’s third annual showcase dazzles onlookers

Seven from MIT elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences for 2024

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram