Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Similar is said about the U of IL, though for different reasons, mainly "hazy, hot and humid" for at least 4 months a year, bitter cold for at least two months, and flat and boring all the time. Sorry to go off topic but my DH's advisor at UI said that.
Now, I'd go with CMU for the reasons that SDPMiami gave.
You make it seem as if Pittsburgh is shrouded in an ideal climate. Don't forget to mention how cloudy it is. It's the trade-off for a more moderate climate.
The primary outstanding question is whether Olive/Peloso are better than Holman/Flauger (in short, the potential advisors) to the point of outweighing the municipal advantage Pittsburgh has over Minneapolis.
As I said, Minnesota and CMU both care about physics PhD students' well-being because they are located in somewhat isolated and/or unappealing, if cheap, cities and they are not that prestigious in-field; the caliber of students that attend either school are about the same (how many Minnesota/CMU cross-admits there are this year remain to be seen) I would expect to get similar challenges out of my classmates.
My professors claimed that, as far as the gauging of institutional reputation is concerned, if the research one intends to do crosses over multiple subfields (here particle physics and cosmology) one has to balance the schools' reputations in all the subfields involved. Minnesota is better on the particle side, CMU on the cosmology side, but when both are put together, it is a non-factor.
Or SDPMiami somehow weighs cosmology more heavily than I do (or have Holman/Flauger in higher esteem than Olive/Peloso) when considering both sides of particle cosmology.
If you think Pittsburgh or Minneapolis are isolated and/or unappealing then I can't help you. I think both are very appealing. Yes, the weather can suck in both...few places in this country have little/no uncomfortable months of the year.
As far as which city/program to pick, I'm sure you'll do your research on both and make a smart decision. Few of us will be able to offer you more than booster call-out for their city, and as a Minneapolis representative, I really don't feel the need to. You should really visit both on your own and make an objective decision. It sounds like this is a very important decision for you to make, so I'd think it would be worth the relatively small cost of doing so.
You make it seem as if Pittsburgh is shrouded in an ideal climate. Don't forget to mention how cloudy it is. It's the trade-off for a more moderate climate.
Ha, Ha, is that a joke? Over on the Pittsburgh forum, I can't even bring up the weather any more b/c they all think that I think Pittsburgh's weather is the pits (pun intended). I was making a comparison between Minneapolis and Champaign, both lousy climates that encourage people to work more, play less.
Who is your adviser going to be? That's what it comes down to for a PhD. How is the PI? Will you get along with him? Is he too intense or too hands-off? Which lab will give you more opportunities to pursue your area of interest? Are both profs equally respected and well known?
Ha, Ha, is that a joke? Over on the Pittsburgh forum, I can't even bring up the weather any more b/c they all think that I think Pittsburgh's weather is the pits (pun intended). I was making a comparison between Minneapolis and Champaign, both lousy climates that encourage people to work more, play less.
The links apparently only get you so far. Here's the 2013 data (for Per capita real GDP by metropolitan area (chained to 2009 dollars)):
Pittsburgh: $52,053
Minneapolis-St. Paul: $61,711
PLAY, not pay! And the comparison I was making was not between Minneapolis and Pittsburgh, for the second time. The sister of SDPMiami was told by someone at the U of MN that the lousy weather encourages people to work more there. My husband's PhD advisor said the same thing about Champaign.
Sorry but? Somebody's sister's friend said (probably jokingly) that the cold winters encourage people to work more and we're just going to take that as like, an established truth about the area? Really? I mean apart from the fact that it's literally not true, there's more activity, including outdoor activity, in the winter than lots of Southern and Rust Belt cities have on the mildest, sunniest day of the year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
