Let’s talk about a hidden crisis in the world of physics: the way we pick PhD students is broken. It’s not just about fairness—it’s about survival. Imagine a system where the most brilliant minds are excluded not because they lack talent, but because they don’t have the right pedigree. That’s the reality for countless aspiring physicists, and it’s a problem that’s quietly choking the future of science.
I’ve long argued that academia’s obsession with prestige is a self-defeating loop. We preach that creativity and resilience are the cornerstones of scientific discovery, yet our admissions processes reward those who already have access to elite networks, mentors, and resources. It’s a paradox that’s easy to ignore until you look at the data: the UK’s tech sector is struggling with diversity, and physics—a field that should be at the forefront of solving global challenges—is complicit in perpetuating the same exclusionary systems that plague other industries. What makes this particularly fascinating is how deeply entrenched these biases are, even among well-meaning academics.
Take the case of two equally capable students. One comes from a top-tier university with paid internships, research opportunities, and a network of advisors. The other has the same potential but attended a less prestigious school, worked part-time to support their family, and had no access to the informal advice that often determines success. When admissions panels look at their CVs, they see a stark contrast. But what they’re really seeing is a rigged system that privileges privilege over potential. This isn’t just unfair—it’s strategically suicidal for science. If we keep relying on these outdated metrics, we’ll continue to miss out on the diverse perspectives needed to tackle complex problems like climate change, AI ethics, and quantum computing.
Here’s where the DiveIn program in Glasgow offers a glimmer of hope. Instead of focusing on where someone went to college or their GPA, they’re asking the right questions: Can they think critically? Are they curious? Do they thrive in collaboration? Their approach is radical—de-anonymizing applications, testing analytical skills with shared datasets, and emphasizing interdisciplinary thinking. It’s not just about changing the rules; it’s about redefining what success looks like.
But let’s be honest: this isn’t just about physics. It’s a microcosm of a larger issue in academia. We’ve built a system that rewards conformity and gatekeeping, not innovation. The EDEPI framework, which DiveIn leans on, is a blueprint for dismantling these barriers. It’s not perfect—no system is—but it’s a start. What I find especially interesting is how this model could ripple into other disciplines. If we’re serious about fostering creativity, we need to stop treating admissions like a ritual and start treating it like a design challenge.
The results from DiveIn’s first cohort are promising. A more diverse group of students, with varied backgrounds and experiences, are now part of a program that values curiosity over credentials. This isn’t just a win for equity—it’s a win for science. When you bring in people who think differently, you get breakthroughs that wouldn’t happen in a homogenous group. Yet, the bigger question is: why does this feel so revolutionary? Shouldn’t this have been the norm all along?
If we want to build a future where science reflects the diversity of the world it seeks to understand, we need to stop pretending that prestige is a proxy for potential. The stakes are too high. From my perspective, the real test isn’t whether DiveIn’s model works—it’s whether we have the courage to scale it. Because if we don’t, we’ll keep producing the same narrow, exclusionary generation of researchers, and the problems we face will only get worse. The choice is ours: continue the status quo, or finally admit that the system needs a complete overhaul.
