GeoDUDE!

Yes.... i graduated in early may (from semester based) and don't start until late september (quarter based!). Its been a long break!

why dont you just ask them ?

If you plan on graduating in spring of 2015, apply for fall 2015. Submit the application on or before the deadline.

Memory.

retake the test.

Say, Hello officemate, I know you are really social, and I appreciate that, but I really need to get some work done. Perhaps we can get coffee later and chat. -iphi

I don't think there would be much difference, and in fact, the quality might be higher at a university where they don't use TA's or have as many students taking the classes. In fact my friend is doing Columbia's post bacc and hates her classes there (though she came from a small liberal arts school). Especially at the undergraduate level, the chemistry, physics, and biology are very introductory and curriculum doesn't have super high variance from place to place. from Intro Physics to Quantum mechanics, at the undergraduate level, the classes are more or less the same anywhere.

You should PM me an example email you send: if it looks like a flyer they wont respond. I found it the other way my last application cycle: 95% do respond.

I'm not in biology. I would take the introductory science courses(physics, chemistry, and biology), calculus 1 before I thought about trying to get into a masters class. Not to be crass, but its hard to tell if you can really handle a science program if you have only taken 1 science class (and one for non majors). There is the reason why science majors on average have lower gpas.

If # of applications and # of acceptances were the only factors of admissions your answer would still be wrong. Lets brake this down in to variables: if the goal is B and to get B you must do A, then every time you do not do A you are missing out on the opportunity to get B. There might be side consequences, C and D, but the pathway to B is always A. IE, to get into graduate school, you must apply. Not applying guarantees that you will not get accepted, and if what you want is to get accepted into a graduate school, then not applying forces you to miss out on that acceptance. That isn't even taking into account what spots are open with each advisor. Perhaps his potential POIs are looking for students next year, but not the year after. There is so much to consider. The downside to applying is learning more about the application process and spending a lot of money. The upside is achieving your goals. There might be reasons to have a gap year, and "wanting one" is a good reason. But make no mistake, the obvious career choice is to try and step it up your junior year no matter what you decide. If you are highly successful, it would be a waste of one's time to wait a year when you could easily fit the standards of what you said an "ideal" applicant. But there are other factors than just getting into graduate school, obviously. If you have burnout, ect. But make no mistake, next year the strength of the applications could be weaker or stronger than normal. We cannot predict the averages perfectly.

If its good you probably just got scooped by someone lurking the forum.

The OP would be applying either next year or the year after that, not this upcoming application cycle (Notice that the OP isn't a senior, but a junior). So you are correct, if the OP applys this fall it will be pointless, because the OP wouldn't graduate in time! The opportunity to get into graduate school. Perhaps the OP could get in if he/she committed themselves to getting the grades and a years worth of research experience. But we will never know, and the risk is pushing it down further and further. If the OP doesnt get in, the plan stays the same right? No harm no foul expect now you have an entire application season of experience! You cant really know what positions are open when, so not applying means you miss out on potential graduate school spots! Those same spots may not be open the next. Really? I disagree, I have found that grades are mostly a choice. I think its very unwise to suggest someone should not apply just because of GPA. Especially if someone can have a strong year and really elevate their profile. If you can't get the grades, then there is something to fall back on, waiting a year. But why limit yourself? Why go in with the mindset that you arent going to get straight A's (and you could probably get a 3.7 (A- average) and still do very well)? It's totally restrictive and unproductive. Furthermore, as you mentioned, JR and SR level classes are the most important, and should be treated with care when you want to apply to graduate school anyway! This person is applying to masters programs, which often for people, are specialization discovery programs. This isn't PhD, and even then I would still encourage the OP to apply to maximize their opportunities. If money is a concern, that is a different story. But we have no mention of that.

Your GPA might be a problem for top schools (probably will be). Apply to a range. While you do have some research experience, it seems pretty typical of top applicants who will have higher GPAs than you. This is especially true if you want funding: some departments accept masters students who can fund themselves. At places like those I think you will be able to get in (like colorado school of mines). If you want to do a PhD eventually, consider looking at research fit and not school rank: I recently did my masters at a relatively undesirable location but had a good academic experience due to my advisor.

Two things: Ebola has been in the united states for a very long time; just controlled in laboratory environments. This is true of other countries. How do you think we study it? It's a hot news topic just like the radioactive waste in Japan from the 2011 tsunami, no need to get hysterical. Finally, and there is no offense meant by this comment, but its as a Jew it is very hard to take you seriously when you have a screen name like that.

Why not use this year to do that? Why should you wait a year? I'm not sure that makes any sense at all; you are potentially missing out on opportunities that way. Get straight As this year. Talk to professors, ect. A lot of can happen in a year. for the sake of argument: 3.18*(2/3) + 4.0*(1/3) = 3.45 gpa. If you get straight As this year, you totally have the profile. Step it up!

I agree with Takeruk but chances are most places in USA may not take you as a masters student, as in my opinion in terms of skill set you seem to be ready for a PhD easily. I don't know if doing a masters is really the best option for you if the only reason you are doing it is to "see if you like physics". Perhaps see if you can get a research position at some school without having to attend a degree program. This is rare, but its still possible. Most people in masters programs (like myself before I completed one) do not have the amount of research you have. You might also apply to the English schools as a sort of compromise: UCL, Oxford and Cambridge are just as well known as the top US schools but also allow you to stay in Europe (and they will accommodate your desire to do a masters). Please do not see this as me "trying to tell you what to do" but just trying to give you ideas. The plan you laid out is a good one.

If you want to do a PhD eventually, my suggestion is to come to the united states (if you are open to it) and apply to top universities. My feeling is they would be more than happy to give you the maximum stipend. You should not worry about getting into graduate school with that many publications.

Some of it anxiety, other parts of it are worthy. Students pursuing and MSc and applying for a PhD are expected to be better than students who just have a BA/BS. So while you have more, the weight is higher. Graduate level classes are easier than undergrad classes, not in concept, but in amount of material. The reality is if you screw up undergraduate GPA no matter what you will have an incredibly up hill battle getting into top 20 programs. Tons of research experience does not mitigate this: the best way to improve an application is to publish in a high impact factor journal or develop a skill that few have. There is also a small bias against MSc holders: may professors would rather work with a very strong undergrad than someone who has done their masters because of a weak undergrad. They get the students typically longer; The MSc student has that bad gpa mark on their record where the undergraduate is a clean slate. You might be asking, well, I see a lot of students with MSc's do very well here in admissions processes. There are examples sure, but the majority of students in many fields in top PhD programs come straight from undergrad. That being said, getting good grades after you have gotten bad grades helped a lot. My undergraduate GPA was 3.05 in Physics and I applied to Earth Science programs. Getting ~3.80 in my MSc helped. Even in undergrad, I had tons of experience including a REU at a top 5 Earth Science school thats an Ivy League. Btw, Im a white male, which already made it difficult to get an REU in the first place since they tend to target women and minorities. So suffice to say, top teir students from top ranked schools in undergraduate will generally be the best candidates for graduate school in the admissions committee eyes. The next tier of students are people who have really good grades, great research experience, and have some sort of special skill Where MSc students fit in is hard to tell, but they could be below the 2nd tier of students or above them depending. Kicking ass in an MSc program isn't just getting good grades, but having a novel thesis. The requirements for a thesis based masters is fairly low in most programs: most don't have to do publishable quality work. Thats where this anxiety comes from. In my opinion, if you took a few courses but had a GPA ~3.0 or under, that would help but it would not be anywhere close to a slam dunk that you would get into any of the graduate schools you have listed unless you had a solid publication under your belt. The biggest misconception is overvaluing publications: they are important but only if they are solid work. Many undergraduates publish mundane work and overvalue their impact on admissions: you bet they actually read the publication. That being said, I am not on an adcomm, this was just the analysis my masters advisor gave me when we were working on my PhD applications. But this also does reflect my experience. Much of the anxiety comes from how much is out of our control in the admissions process, just like everyone else.

The talks are around 15 minutes total (including questions)

By doing something other than moping.

What Takeruk said..... if you are presenting research that is funded by a grant... the grant should have money for you to go to a conference and present it and eventually publish it. I think it would be very hard to get a grant funded if there wasn't money allocated for that expenditure, which most scientists think crucial to the scientific method.

To piggy back what Monochrome spring said, as a moral human being, you should put down your top choice school; that is the school you intend to go to if you are admitted.

If you are flying in, definitely go for the full week. Its great, especially since its your first time. SF is one of the great cities of the world; even if you attend for a few days stay the week in SF. I might only go for a few days since my school is very close to SF. I'm not sure what I'm doing; I definitely have 1 poster, but the other abstract I submitted might be a talk depending on what the session conveners decide. the subject matter of my maybe talk i've presented in a thesis defense so I am pretty comfortable with it. Besides, posters are so much more work because you have to talk to so many people (i've lost my voice a few times doing so). Getting contacts and listening to people talk in your subfield can help you with ideas for your dissertation/proposals. AGU is what converted me from pure physics to Earth Sciences, the community is awesome!

I've decided not to do the WoW events; I'll just be one of those assholes who doesn't know how to do simple stuff and have to ask in the future =). I dont really think ill be using the library anyway!

I read on my computer mostly: desktop and laptop. Its worthwhile to invest in a nice large screen for this type of reading, especially one that has a reading mode. The reason I do it electronically is because of Melendy, which organizes all my papers. Eventually, you will could have hundreds of papers that you will have to navigate through. There are very few papers in graduate school you need to read heavily, in my opinion. To be honest, with the exception of 5-10 papers that were vital to my thesis, I didn't know the ins and outs of the 50 or so I cited. I think this is fairly common. If you are doing close readings of all the papers you read you will not have enough time to complete all your tasks, probably. I am willing to bet your advisor will give you the same advice.