idiochromatic

Late to the party, but I met all of my potential PIs at GSA or AGU the year I was applying. I disagree that there's a stigma to going and not presenting (I was working in an unrelated field for 1.5 years at the time of my application so it wasn't strange that I didn't have research to present); IMO it shows seriousness. The only thing is weighing the costs of attendance; if those are a non-issue, it's always best to build an in-person relationship with a PI.

Agree that you should not apply to so many schools. I think 6-8 is the sweet spot. There is also the risk of seeming unfocused or like a prestige-obsessed applicant when asked where else you are applying, and the schools don't have much in common beyond a ranking. Have you contacted PIs at those schools yet? They are really the ones who determine if you get in/will need to advocate for you given your GPA.

So, you can certainly get into grad school without a full year of both calc and physics (I had calc but no physics; I'm at a great program now). What you did or didn't do in undergrad (so long as you got good grades on what you *did* do) doesn't condemn you as much as others might think. Here's what I suspect is difficult in your situation. 1) It sounds like you have a lack of quant classes altogether--no calc and no physics makes me wonder what classes you might have taken--geo classes can be more or less quant and if you were in a department that let you graduate without calc or physics, my guess is that your undergrad program was less quant than many grad programs want you to be. Vs my situation, I had taken a year of calc, some chem, etc., and had a job history and a GRE score that made it clear I could do quant work. Figure out a way to show that you can do quant work. 2) Applying without a year of physics wasn't a huge deal for me because I do geochemistry work; physics is certainly relevant and it's a gap I need to fill, but my ability to do the work I applied to do was not in doubt. As Geodude points out, your lack of calc/physics may be more of a red flag because that background may not be consistent with your stated plans. 3) In your application, you should acknowledge what you need more of and state how you plan to do it. My personal statement acknowledged my course deficits and discussed what I was doing to rectify it before I would even step foot on campus. This shouldn't be a long thing, just 2-3 sentences, but it displays maturity and self-awareness. It also gives your PI something to point to when the adcom brings up your background. 4) If you think you can't work and take classes at the same time... well, that's what grad school is, like Geodude says, it's basically a fulltime research job with classes on top of it (if you're doing it right). Community colleges frequently have evening courses. If your difficulty is purely scheduling, see if you can negotiate a late start/late exit 2x a week or something to permit you to take classes.

I don't think this is true, though. It might be the biggest reason people above a certain threshold don't get into grad school, but it's not the reason some programs have a <20% acceptance rate. From professors on admissions committees I've talked to, a large portion of applicants simply don't have the qualifications to succeed in grad school.

Get in touch with your advisor. I don't think it really happens very often that a student proposes a project and the advisor signs off on it completely, it's usually more of a negotiation between student and advisor based on funding and other resources. Follow your advisor's lead

Former ibanker here Banks don't really recruit from non-MBA master's programs. They recruit out of undergrad and out of MBA programs. There are exceptions, but they are rare, and due entirely to the networking of exceptional candidates. For that reason, given your plans, you should go to Columbia as it will give you the best chance to network with bankers. And to be clear, you will need to network your ass off.

Calc III (if it's vectors and multivariable) is a very visual/spatial math class. Lots of topics with direct relationships to things you've already encountered in your geology studies, eg, topographic maps/traces, thinking about spaces and surfaces in 3d, forces in 3 dimensions... I think it's a fun class and the visual element may make it easier for you than you expect. You should review Calc 1 derivatives and limits. Most of the mistakes I made in Calc III were really Calc I mistakes.

Where do you want to live long term? An MSW generally ties you to the area. But be wary of taking out more debt than your first year's salary after graduation.

I'm in EAPS! Excited to meet you this fall! I went to undergrad in the area, so I was able to join an off-campus lease with some friends who are still in the area. I definitely prefer to live off campus but it's very tough to apartment hunt long distance. I'm sure you guys will have a much easier time of it once you're there, if you decide to move off campus.

I don't think switching advisors is the difference between a five year and a seven plus year PhD. It seems like it might be the difference between a PhD and no PhD. Not to stress you out, but don't fall victim to the sunk cost fallacy with your current, unsupportive advisor.

For what it's worth, people on both ends of the spectrum end up successful in grad school. If I were doing undergrad over, I would take more quant classes than I did, because my interests have changed. But I don't regret my more qualitative experience--I got to do a lot of cool things in and out of the classroom. An undergrad reading this thread shouldn't lose hope if they are coming from a more qual program.

I'll be in EAPS! See you around Cambridge!

This isn't completely true and depends, I suspect, where you went to undergrad, and what opportunities were available to you based on recruitment at your school and proximity to urban centers. A lot of bio and chem majors I knew from undergrad are now making great money working for healthcare consulting firms or other for-profit businesses; I worked on Wall Street with only a science bachelors. Having a bachelors in a science is pretty marketable for positions outside of research. To have a research career you need more grad school, but a bachelors degree in science doesn't doom you to a miserable career. So for folks who are opting out of further grad school--you'll do great as long as you think creatively about what to do next.

I'm heading to MIT this fall unless something changes before I submit my confirmation. Looking forward to it!

Word. I don't think I declared my geos major until junior year. I also didn't get the chance to take as much math as you. I am going to MIT. You'll be fine.