GeoDUDE!

I'd think you would want a safer plan B; they don't accept everyone to Peace Corps either but I'm not sure what the application process is. Anyway, you seem to have a level head...so you will be fine.

Hello, I got into a geology MS program 2 years ago (fully funded) with a 3.05 GPA in physics, though my GRE scores were a bit higher than yours. You can see my profile I got into an unranked program; masters programs with funding are competitive. I don't know if geology departments and resource departments are the same, but I would think you would be very lucky to get into any of those schools; "a lot of research experience" really means some research experience unless you have a publication. Those programs are more competitive than you think. I don't want to discourage you from applying. If you do apply to 13, you might get into one. You never know, but the people at my unranked masters program had very high undergraduate GPAs and mediocre GREs. I think there are probably ways to make your application more competitive, though, if you do get shut out. So as you prepare yourself for this upcoming cycle, remember that not getting accepted isn't the end and having a plan B often makes you more prepared to be successful in plan A.

This post might wander beyond the scope of the question asked, but I still think its relevant. People who have low GREs are often dismissed on the basis of low GREs. This is 100% true, especially at top tier programs. Many Adcomms process applicants like so: 1. Impressive Applicant: Has High GRE, GPA, Lots of experience ect 2. Strong Applicant: Has two of the three: GRE, GPA, Experience 3. Average Applicant: Above minimum requirements, maybe has some research experience, but nothing too impressive. 4. Admissible Applicant: Meets minimum requirements 5. Inadmissible Application: Does not meet minimum requirements A high GRE would be considered between the 325-340 range at top 20 institutions. Professors are encouraged to pick students from the 1 and the 2 range because they are generally very easy to get through the adcom and they are impressive on their own right. Who wouldn't want to pick someone with high GRE barring everything else. What people often don't realize is that there are more 1 and 2s at competitive schools than there are spots: places like MIT and Caltech will have more 1s than open spots. There are ways to get your application to stand out, like having a POI go to bat for you, but the POI wouldn't have to go to bat for you if you were a 1 or a 2, he would just have to call your name to the committee and they would approve it. Most students are admissible when they apply to schools, but really only 1s or 2s have a legitimate shot of getting in. And really, you want to be a 1. As for ETS admitting their is no correlation with graduate success and GRE score, that is also false: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-46.pdf study by ETS clearly shows that the highest polarity of success in graduate school comes from students in the top 25% of GRE scores. This shouldn't be shocking: students who tend to score high on the GRE also tend to be smart. It is by no means a perfect test, but it does have some predictive qualities. It's like saying don't draft a quarterback in the first round when you can get someone like Tom Brady in the 7th round; Sure, there are outliers, but doing poorly on the GRE (or less than impressive) requires you to make an additional argument. Often this argument is harder to make than a low GPA because you can take the GRE as many times as you want and only send your very best score: GPAs are much harder to correct. A lot of advice in this forum comes from people who try to rationalize the faults in their application, but I find that to be the wrong attitude. If you are someone who is used to doing excellent things, and then write a GRE score that is not excellent, you should be embarrassed about it. Just like GPA. Or a research paper which was written poorly. Its surely possible to get bad stats past an adcomm, but again, you have to make an argument that people who have good stats do not have to make. and FWIW, you can find my stats on this website: I have a very low undergraduate GPA.

If you are lower than the average, it means you have scores similar to the bottom half of who they admit. You can take that for good news or bad news, but it stands to reason that the acceptance rate of people who get scores like yours is lower than the acceptance rate of people who get above the average. If I was willing to reapply to graduate school next year on the event I didn't get in, I wouldn't retake the exam. If I was set on getting in this year, i would retake it.

Why doesn't that make sense? Perhaps you have published a paper, but in general publishing a paper (say from your undergrad thesis) doesn't necessarily mean that you came up with the idea on your own; thats what advisors are for! Often times, young STEM majors are largely 'technicians' doing all the programming, mathematics, data collection, statistical analysis ect, but the advisor often has to come and give context to the project. Even on your first (and maybe 2nd) first author publications during a PhD this is true, where the third (and often final) publication tends to be derivative of the first two but totally original with less input from the advisor. In the stem field, and you are a professor, and your student spent many hours working on a project, it is immoral to not give your student first author. Even if much of the intellectual direction is controlled by you (the professor). This is an unwritten rule about being a good advisor. What is important, is that you can develop original research topics (fully developed) at the end of your PhD. Not before you even start it. Long story short, young scientists who publish first author even in high impact journals still probably need help coming up with a well developed topic. That being said, it is important to show POIs and the adcomms that you are thinking about potential topics. Perhaps even reading papers in potential fields. But your PhD is likely going to be funded by an NSF grant, and complete that grant you will. You cannot research elementary particles when your grant funds you to research the behavior of quadriplegic cannibals with ebola. What is important is to show promising thoughts, not well developed tops for your dissertation. That would be absurd for a very strong majority of PhD students.

You need to do what is best for yourself; If you need funding he will understand. Remember, he was a graduate student once too, and he will remember the hardships of finance during this time. Though, I think it is alarming that you are in a stem field and you are not fully funded for your phd.

Hello, I'm just copying a post I made on a similar subject: I would wait a month; I have had someone respond to me in that time. Professors are very busy right now, especially in the sciences when they are planning on what NSF grants to write/ turn in as they are generally due in october/november/december. You should say that you were in his course... of course!

How can they predict how many quality domestic (or close) applicants they have in a given year? This seems pretty standard to me. And where does it say the application fee is for review of the application, and not just the processing (which is being accepted by the program coordinator)?

To discuss research ideas, what the POI might want the student work on during the PhD. Perhaps there are other funding options, like departmental fellowships that the POI would be willing to help you get. Perhaps, you have a question about one of your POIs paper. There are probably more I'm missing.

There are a few questions here, so lets take them step by step. I think the first question is, since you don't have a formal computer science education, is do you have the prereqs to get into a program? If you don't, it might be good to ask a program you are interested in what classes you might take so they would consider your application. Then take undergraduate courses part time, (a few) and get As in those classes. That will go a long way to help build your application. The second is can you get into graduate school with a low GPA? The answer is unequivocally yes. Jeff Erickson (http://web.engr.illinois.edu/~jeffe/) at UIUC is one of the most famous cases, where he is now a full tenured professor at a top 5 computer science school and his undergraduate GPA if I remember correctly is a 2.4. He has written a blog post about it: http://3dpancakes.typepad.com/ernie/2005/03/re_phd_with_low.html Good GRE scores will help, Good letters of recommendation will help, taking those prereq courses and getting As will help . The point is to be so strong in all the other aspects of your application that they will not worry about your GPA. You are only applying to a masters program correct (assuming from part time and no formal education)? MS programs that are professional programs are less rigorous to get into because the university makes money off them. I wouldn't be suprised, depending on your GRE scores, letter, your industry experience and maybe a few As in some undergraduate computer science courses that you do get into an "ivy" program. Schools like people like you because they wont give you financial aid, and you have earned money so you can pay your bills. So while I would apply to lower ranked schools, don't shy from the higher ranked ones. Having money (or being able to finance your education by getting a loan) is an advantage that not everyone applying to graduate school has.

Why not both?

I think the idea of UBC is that its reputation is so much higher than the US schools that it would negate the disvantages you would face going to a Canadian school: I personally have only heard of UBC in that list and I have lived in the united states my entire life, including the west, mid-west, and east coast!

Another thing is you might find that you like Canada and you may want to stay there after you complete your PhD and thus going to UBC would probably be advantageous!

I disagree, it would not be "completely moronic" to turn down oxford: being a grad student isn't glamorous. Even the highest prestige places dont have 100% matriculation rates, and he sounds interested in the job. The fact that he's given weight to should say that much. You are going to get biased opinions here: this is a graduate school website. The real question is: do you see yourself going to graduate school in the future even if you take this job. If the answer is yes, then you should probably just go to oxford, since its one of the best schools in the world. But if the answer is maybe, the answer becomes a bit more muddled. Can you see yourself happy without this Job? Can you see yourself happy without going to graduate school? The question isn't Oxford or job, the real question should be graduate school or job. I hope that this helps you think about it.

If we like it or not, its my observation that the GRE is very simple material and you have plenty of time to study for it. If you can't study enough in a few months time to get 6-7/10 questions right on both the quant and the verbal then there is one of two things: 1) you have some learning disability 2)major flaws in your education. The things you will learn in graduate school are much harder, but, you will be expected to do simple tasks in a timely manner. People often say the GRE has nothing to do with what you will learn in graduate school, on the contrary, in graduate school you are expected to do basic things with ease so you have more time learn the harder stuff. I am not saying a bad GRE score means your dumb, that isn't true. What it really means is you are lazy. There is no such thing as a 'math person' when it comes to the GRE, the GRE is high school level math if you weren't good at math in high school. If you were good at math in high school, you took geometry in 9th grade and pre calc in 10th and took calculus the remaining years. So its not even hard high school math! The truth is that what 'math people' study you really have no idea if you are using that phrase. What you must believe is that your intelligence is malleable by the act of studying, you can get better at math! The only one you are fooling is yourself. Grow some balls. Good luck.

If this is common practice in the humanities no wonder the graduate rate of PhDs is so low. Absolutely unethical, in my opinion, considering the dissertation is the most important thing of the doctorate.

Why wouldn't you waive your rights? Its meant to give confidence that the LOR are truthful. You should ask your professors directly if you want to see them.

I think it really depends on how strong your thesis is: I would still retake the GRE. 320 is a competitive score.

Depends; i wear a button down almost every day i teach, t-shirts when i just do research. If i'm presenting i wear nice slacks. You can really wear what ever you want tbh.

getting a cheap tablet (like a nexus 7 or ipad mini) for text books is also a good idea! Personally, I dont like physical text books because they are big and i bike everywhere. I am someone who generally only uses textbooks if they have problem sets, the rest of the stuff you can learn on your own from my experience (online, from publications, from wikipedia).

No amount of note taking will prevent you from rereading the important papers to your research. The one's tangentially related you will not reread because you will not have time. This is just something you have to accept: when doing academic writing you must be careful and thus your instinct will tell you to reread it just to make sure.

Actually, its important to get an IPS display vs a TN panel: IPS displays maintain color accuracy and vibrance longer than TN panels, and have better viewing angles. TN panels are generally used in cheaper monitors (or, on the other spectrum, fast refreshing gaming monitors):

I signed an admissions contract which guaranteed me an RA/TA for 5 years. If you have something similar to that, you might be able to fight it. If you do not, then there is nothing you can do.

Its one thing to say you want to do one thing, circumstances change, and you do another. Its another thing to say you intend to one thing with out having the intention of doing so. You always intend to go to your top choice, so list it. Failure to do so is dishonest, however harmless. Encouraging others to lie is another moral quandary all together! You might want to game the system (not really sure of what the consequences are of not putting your top choice are), but some of us like to do things as honest as possible. After all, the stakes are high for all applicants, its only fair that we make this competition honest.

Yes.