GeoDUDE!

Talk to your advisors at school, they will know better than anyone else! I'm not sure.

I did (3.05) , but the program was not even close to as competitive as the one's you are applying to, you have probably never even heard of the department. I also was in a different field, known for being a bit more rigorous than geology. Its also important to note that 3.05 is above the minimum requirements, where as a 290 is considerably lower than most cutoffs. I'm not saying you won't get in, I'm just saying that you would have been a no brainer for a lot of schools without that blemish. Be at least prepared to have some sort of explanation for it. Its certainly something worth asking.

For MS its a bit different: how to determine which MS student should get a TA? GRE scores and GPA are usually done so that the process is objective as possible. Another thing to consider is that you are probably below the minimum requirements for the university, in regards to your GRE. Its like having a 2.8 (or lower) GPA. While departments may not publicly list requirements, graduate schools (which have to accept you even if the department wants you) don't like taking students with less than 300 (less competitive schools) and 310 (more competitive schools) as a general rule. Stanford, Rice, VT, Wisconsin, and UT austin are what i would call "top teir" level programs. Its very possible, because your GRE is so low, that no one will read your application unless you have a PI that really wants to take you on as a student and you have contacted beforehand. If you do contact him/her before hand, and you guys talk about research, you should let him/her know before you pay the application fee that you have a devastatingly low GRE. Perhaps you should talk to your current LOR/Advisor about this. To give you perspective on how competitive earth science programs are, a top 20 program in geosciences might have 10-20 open spots and receive 250-300 applications. The bigger programs (stanford,UT Austin) might have more applicants but also take a few more. Your from Penn State, so that will carry some weight, but I wouldn't disregard your GRE problem. Do your LOR writers know how bad you did? ask for their advice, as they take on graduate students. Another thing is that it should be pretty easy for you to raise your GRE above 300, which might go a long way. It seems your application is competitive without that GRE score, and if you can get past the cutoffs you would have a real good shot in my opinion. Remember the things that you can control right now: GRE, Statement of Purpose, who writes your letters, and who to apply to work with. Get those right.

unless you are an esteemed alumni of this course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_55 then the real analysis us mere mortals take is a cake walk for them. Of course, as long as you have good grades in tough courses, a C will not harm you. Though, getting an A in Real analysis is something i'd bet mathematics adcoms look for.

I do not. I had a 3.05 GPA when I left undergrad. If you are willing to apply to masters programs in the US, that might be an option. Some of them are funded! (mine was). Also, its important to note that my name is not latte, Latte Macchiato refers to my post count title. I am GeoDude!

If you do not do well o nthe GRE, harsh as realities are, there are many people with your stats + higher GRE. 148 on both sections is below the minimum for most schools (300) and top schools tend to want 315-320. While there are a lot of care bears, if you really are as talented as you say you are, you can retake it again and see if you do better. Sometimes people do have bad tests, and while the GRE isn't a measure of intelligence, there is a lot more correlation between doing well on the GRE and finishing graduate school than you'd think. There are plenty of statistics online, and while there are many exceptions, a strong polarity of people who finish school score in the top 75% of the GRE. I think because you are an international student, its somewhat expected that you do well on the GRE. 2 of the schools you listed are public schools, and to bring on an international student the costs are much higher than an american who can establish state residency, therefore it makes it much harder for you. I would certainly apply, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had a long application season with GRE scores like that, which, as you pointed out are atrocious. I'm sorry i'm not being positive, I hope you get into graduate school, but you should also be realistic.

Here are the things I want to work on. Here are the things that i'm interested in the department. Oh look, they overlap. Looks like my interests and your interests are the same, we make a good fit.

I think that its incredibly immature to place some kind of value judgement on why someone goes to graduate school. This person wants to go to graduate school, who are we to tell them why they should or should not go? This person obviously wants to go, so it's important that we give advice that can actually help. For those who aren't in graduate school, but are stating some universal reason why someone shouldn't go, citing that its hard to be successful, there is something you should know: Promising students fail all the time. Students who were almost on the reject list rise up. Graduate school is as much as a grind as it is about brilliance or hard work. Sometimes something traumatic happens and you drop out. But this is life, and as we become educated, what we need and want changes. Why is it wrong for someone to commit to something that they are unsure about to only find they might love it? Why is it wrong to be in love with something, or someone, and then quit when you grow tired of it? Why should we be able to define what some else's values should be? I know it is impossible to view the world from any reference frame other than the one in which you are the center, but the true power of education is that for moments we can project on those reference frames. It takes work, it is not easy, but it is something we should try and do in all our posts and lives.

They all ask for that.... but thats just a general prompt to stop people from asking them endless questions about it. I've heard from multiple graduate programs (head of committees, committee members, ect) say that the best SOPs are ones which eloquently display a vision of the future worthy of gaining a PhD, as being able to do that says much more about your educational past then anything else.

I disagree that I haven't given you feedback. I hope you find what you are looking for, I'm sure the way you post will be productive in that regard. Cheers.

I've seen you've posted this a bunch of times. Are you sure you are going to get helpful answers after 3 times? Perhaps grad cafe does not have what you are looking for, or perhaps, you need to talk through this with someone in real life.

How does talking about your previous research experience and personal history state the purpose in which you are applying to graduate school ?

Geopraphyrocks, the distinction is huge: for example, if you fund the person, that person can bring money with them where ever they go. If you fund the project, the project pays for overhead (thinking of different NSF Grants), and most if not all that money is immobile. Thats why professors who bring in money have to think very carefully about jumping ship, and why its often a big financial commitment to steal a professor. It is nothing to take lightly. On the other hand, I do not think the length of the project (in terms of time) matters. What the NSF GRF must be is a well constructed plan to fill a meaningful gap in literature. If that takes 3 years, so be it, but its much easier to write a 2 page proposal that outlines half a year to a year, in my opinion. Seeing as most people who apply for the GRF haven't even worked on a project for that long.

Who said graduate admissions was meant to be fair, or even wants to be? I think most people over estimate what accomplishments their professors have done. Here are some examples of "super stars" in my field: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TF4tdPcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao http://scholar.google.no/citations?hl=en&user=dcaSek8AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate Notice that both of them have 5 figure citation numbers. These are professors that are known in all of Earth Science (and outside, to some extend) no matter the diversity of subfield. While professors might be famous, the people who wrote my letters have around ~2k citations. They are also much younger than these professors, and they are well known, but I wouldn't classify them as "super" stars. That being said, if a super star throws his support behind you, why wouldn't an adcom take you? Reputation is worth so much in academia. You don't need to have superstars write your letters, or even well known professors, just ones who are good researchers who can attest to your abilities. If a well known professor writes you a letter, chances are the adcom will read it very sparingly because the name matters more than the content. if its an unknown professor, they will read it carefully, because the content matters much more since they are trying to build a baseline. It's an attribute of the system.

I think the 4 points of Q are more important that the 1 point of V, even in a literature program (though I don't know). I think there is very little difference between a 168 and 169, but a large difference between a 158 and a 162. 330 is an impressive score.

Your CV and SOP are two different things: a CV is a historical record of your achievements and skills. A statement of purpose is an essay which states the reason why you are applying to a graduate program. One is a vision of the future, the other is a record of the past. I would not put this experience on my CV or in my SOP. General events, in my opinion, waste space in a statement of purpose. In a statement of purpose, you want to focus on specific times where you solved problems, Either way, I don't think the adcoms will care if its on your CV, but I have always been of the opinion that undergraduate research experience is weighted much less than people here want to believe. This is coming from someone who got into graduate school because of his research experience. There are more people with reasonable amounts of research experience than people who can write an eloquent and logical vision of the future. You want to focus on why you want a graduate degree, what problems you want to solve, and how the program you are applying to can help you accomplish this. Unless the research you did before graduate school was exceptional, professors know what undergraduate research is like, why waste space? They are not stupid. They work with undergraduates all the time.

My advisor was on maternity leave while I was applying: she still worked and went into the department ever so often (or adcom meetings ect) so it was just fine. There is nothing to worry about.

Your going to have to work your magic with your company's funding. I suggest contacting your MS advisor, asking him what connections he has (or perhaps your company directly funds some professors you are interested in working with). Perhaps your research/ experience along with a stellar GRE can overcome your horrible grades (3.3 in MS is not very good at all, and of course 2.8 UG gpa is below the minimum for most graduate schools). good luck!

I tied my relevant research experience into the narrative of problems I wanted to solve: "I enjoy solving these types of problems because they are complex, for example, when i was researching X I had to solve Y and Z to resolve X."

I think there have been plenty of chances for people to lecture LD over why she wants to get married ect... and at this point i think its extremely immature to continue to lecture her. People's voices have been heard. The core of her question is an ernest one: how to be friends with someone you are jealous with. I think we should be focusing on answering that one.

I'd also suggest that even though you might complete a PhD in 3 years; you might not be intellectually ready for the rigors of what comes next. Doing and PhD and running your own research program both have their difficulties, but its important to remember that you will not have your advisors guidance when running your own program. Often, advisors at my school(earth science) will offer their students a 1 year research assistantship after the end of their 5 year degree to let them work on getting top post docs/ faculty positions. Its important to remember that the progress/intelligence/craftness of a PhD student over the years does not increase linearly, but exponentially: students who spend 5 years in graduate school will tend to be better trained than students who only spend 3. Of course, there are exceptions (and you may very well be one, I am not placing any kind of value judgment), but think about what you want to do at the end if raise this concern with your advisors/future advisors.

Its likely that not many people know: The campus has been only open for a few years and it is a very small compound with about 5k facutly,students,staff. The chances that someone here would know much about Kaust is higher than normal, but still not very high.

this isn't true. Tablets have great editing software, and matlab is for ipad.

Buy an ultrabook with great battery life. Typing on an ultrabook is infinately better than a tablet: even if you add a keyboard to the tablet, its not as stable as the traditional laptop/ultrabook when typing on your lap (bus,airport,train,seminars). This is something that you will find annoying over the years. Tablets aren't as future proof as laptops: their thermal design is similar to cellphones which are designed to be replaced every 2 years (not everyone does, but thats what they are designed for). Overall, you wont be saving much money because you will have to replace the tablet much earlier than the ultrabook (probably). Also, its just more powerful.