I think the gre does test some kind of intelligence, but it seems to me that the skills required are very different than the thinking required to do research (month long vs. 50 second problems). I disagree with AOJ; I think that if you have very good gre scores and high gpa and everything good, then you will most likely be a very good theoretical physicist. For people who are less than perfect in any of these categories, it is more unpredictable, but you may also be just as good a researcher. It is kind of like a one-way arrow (good => good researcher, bad \neq bad researcher).

Is it harder to transfer to top schools now that I’ve already spent some time here? (Or maybe it’s easier? O:-)) Will faculty be a little reluctant to write recommendation letters for me (and will the feeling be a little awkward, since I guess I’ll probably be spending the next academic year here since I’d be re-applying in the fall)?

I’m actually a graduate student in theoretical computer science, by the way, not sure if things are different between fields.

I think of the GRE as a mildly valuable contra-indicator. A 900 doesn’t mean that you will be good at anything, but a 700 indicates you likely won’t make it in theory. I don’t put much stock in the GRE as an indicator of anything. Sadly, many of my colleagues think it’s a great metric, even when presented with strong evidence to the contrary. Of course, research experience and good letters matter the most.

Also, for anyone who may have taken the physics GRE more than a few years ago, the scoring has changed. (I’m not sure when this happened exactly.) In the past, a 750 meant you scored in the 75th percentile. Today a 750 is mid-60′s in percentile (apparently it changes a bit from year to year)

Based on QFT and GR, it sounds like you want to do theory. Very few schools will take you in theory with mid 700 physics GRE scores and a 3.6 GPA. I’d suggest looking into another line of work.

No US citizen I knew (late 90s/early 2000s) who went into grad school wanting to do GR ended up getting an academic job in the end. It took them forever to get their Ph.D.’s (6-9 years), and they went into finance, consulting, or the tech industry in the end. QFT wasn’t a whole lot better.

Isn’t that kind of… depressing? I mean, I’m not a theorist, but I know a lot of folks who are much better at theory than me and just can’t break through; it feels like the choice between whether one does or doesn’t get the spot is basically a coin-flip with no really good rationale behind it. Is the physics GRE so absolutely reflective of one’s ability to be a good theorist that a mid-700s score (which, really, is pretty damn good!) is not good enough to be considered?

Based on QFT and GR, it sounds like you want to do theory. Very few schools will take you in theory with mid 700 physics GRE scores and a 3.6 GPA. I’d suggest looking into another line of work.

No US citizen I knew (late 90s/early 2000s) who went into grad school wanting to do GR ended up getting an academic job in the end. It took them forever to get their Ph.D.’s (6-9 years), and they went into finance, consulting, or the tech industry in the end. QFT wasn’t a whole lot better.

I’d suggest just skipping right to the tech industry.

Interestingly, this is the reason Feynman decided to leave Cornell for Caltech.

In fact, often you can’t know if you want someone to be your advisor until you’ve worked with them for a while. The interaction of both your personalities is as important as their research interests.

“I just find it difficult to imagine myself considering my life well spent if I never get out of the academic world.”

I wouldn’t recommend a PhD, then. No, it wouldn’t last your whole life, but it would feel like it. You might consider a masters program. That will be much shorter, and is often what industry is interested in anyway (and would give you a head start if you decided you did want to continue to a PhD).

The rotations make me feel like I can focus more on the school and department itself, rather than worrying about specific advisors. I spent some time talking to professors, but mostly with the goal of picking a specialization rather than picking a research group.

I’m actually getting ready to start making these kinds of decisions (junior in undergrad). At the moment I’m trying to figure out if I want to go to grad school at all. I guess as time has gone on I’m realizing more and more that I don’t want to end up in academia, but I’m not sure that the career opportunities are there for someone with just a BS degree in physics who wants to work in astronomy/aerospace (and maybe others can correct me if I’m wrong). Is it common to just assume that those who go to grad school are aiming to end up in academia somewhere afterwards? From those previous discussions it sounds like most people didn’t stay there, but what was the motivation?

I guess we’ll see. I’ve got a few months left to decide before the fall, but I just find it difficult to imagine myself considering my life well spent if I never get out of the academic world.