Climbing the ∞ university well - Theoretical Physics I'm an MPhys student who almost finished his undergraduate. I'm doing a masters in theoretical physics next year, probably at Kings College London. I have been rejected by Imperial and Cambridge(Part III). 

Keeping in mind that theoretical physics is one of the most competitive academic fields, is there any chance of being accepted in top universities(UK or US) with such a masters degree? How high should my grades be in order to have a fair chance of being accepted at top 10 universities?

I would really like to do my Phd in a top university so that I could maximise my chances of getting a good postdoc position. More than that, I really love theoretical physics and I'd be VERY happy if I could contribute in world leading theoretical research in fundamental physics.

Edit: Especially for people with similar past experience, I would really appreciate your input.
We get this question a lot.


I don't think elite Ph.D. programs look at master's programs as a positive, per se.  For instance, if you aren't as sharp (or diligent or whatever the metric), I don't think they trade that off with your experience.  IOW, they don't trade capability for experience.  If anything on the experience level, they prefer "fresh meat".
All that said, if you think you are of the caliber that you SHOULD have gotten in, but didn't (e.g. because of grades), than fine.  There is a natural breakpoint with the masters.  I have seen one good friend (sharp as heck, but was at a so so Canadian Ph.D. school move to JHU, doing theoretical physics).  

It ended up being a win win.  JHU got someone who was towards the top of his grad school class.  But note, this is very different from experience trumping skill.  More like he really should have been at JHU all along and then things got corrected.  So I would look at yourself and how you compare to the average person in the grad school classes at your target universities.  It's probably not all about brains, but really...brains (particularly mathematical aptitude) is a big part of the equation for theoretical physics.


P.s.

(1)  I am trying to be truthful and analytical to help you.  Versus telling you something that makes you feel good, but is not most insightful.

(2)  In general, "elite" programs (Julliard, Harvard physics, Goldman, McKinsey, NFL) tend to value "horsepower" over experience. One can argue if this is rational or not for them (probably it is), but in any case, it is how they behave.  Note that vast portions of the business world actually don't make the tradeoff as strongly or even make it the opposite.  All that said, in academia, really you are better off going to the best brand (people will hate on me for saying it...but it's the dirty insight).  School tends to be much more about head of the class, than the working world is.

(3)  You might also think about other areas of science where your skills could have more relative advantage...not everyone needs to be a theoretical physicist.

(4)  I checked on some of your physics questions.  Very detailed questions and I want to give you an attaboy/gurl for the effort you took into making sense of tensors.  Good drive.