GeoDUDE!

No I am domestic.

I got funding, but it was pretty lucky and I think it depends on the department. Many departments only give funding to PhD students, some even though they say Masters gets funding, still only give it to the masters students as leftovers from PhD students, and sometimes only give you 1 year so they can try and cull another PhD student. I think it really is just situational, i was not a particularly expectational candidate (which is why I am doing a masters in the first place)

I see, so in my SOP i should say i am instead in a general form of these kinds of problems instead of a specific form of this problem , IE modeling melting processes in the mantle instead of "specific" melting process in the mantle. Also, a reason why I want to do it for my PhD, so to speak, is because I'm already a year into my masters thesis.... and it will require writing EXTENSIVE code to explore. Thanks for the advice... it seems very sound, I'll focus on making sure that my SoP conveys that I am interested and have explored the types of problems that are currently being researched without being too specific. Some advice that was given to me mentioned that most students put "buzzwords" in their SOP like "I am interested in exploring plate tectonics" when a better answer would be, "I am interested in developing geodynamic models that couple ridge, hotspot, and subduction zone interaction" so to speak. Or do you think that is too specific .

This is a variation of a post I made in the Earth Sciences forum, but I realized I might not get enough traffic on the SoP part of the original question as I would here, so I am posting a new version of it here. I recently thought of an interesting topic to research, that has strong ties to my masters thesis but also pushes me to new ground. I feel very very encouraged that I could think of something like this, but something occurred to me, as this would be the biggest academic risk I think I have ever taken: If I purpose research like this on a SOP for PhD admissions, and it turns out that while I show I clearly put a lot of thought and background research in it, that the question isn't very significant, will that hurt my admissions chances? Or will the fact that I tried to frame a question, and am applying to work with people who work in a similar field be encouraging to them ? I am going to talk about the project with my thesis advisor, but I probably wont have much time to develop it significantly while I'm working on my masters thesis and teaching classes.

I recently thought of an interesting topic to research, that has strong ties to my masters thesis but also pushes me to new ground. I feel very very encouraged that I could think of something like this, but a few things have occurred to me: 1) I have done maybe 10 hours of journal reading on the topic to try and figure out of a)the idea is relevant and b)if it hasn't been done. b seems to be true, by my estimation, but what if i am making something big out of something trivial, and thats why no one is obvious. To me, i am kind of surprised that it hasn't been done. It seems like it is very ripe for the picking. 2) If i purpose research like this on a SoP for PhD admissions, and it turns out that while I show i clearly put a lot of thought and background research in it, that the question isn't very significant, will that hurt my admissions chances? Or will the fact that I tried to frame a question, and am applying to work with people who work in a similar field be encouraging to them ?

I think the only school that might worry about your quant score would be UC boulder. you probably want over 160 for a dept like that, as they tend to be very mathematical in their research That being said, i've seen people get into MIT with worse scores.... your work experience should help you.

under 3.0 is probably a 99% failure rate. Apply to programs that get very few applicants. Your GPA needs to be addressed in your SOP. I would call a relatively low gpa a 3.0, because thats the lowest GPA that is required for graduate school. 2.6 Is horrendous, unless you have your degree from Caltech or some other school that is known not to have grade inflation.

I only know Earth Sciences, not much about forestry. From an earth science perspective, you have a good (not great) application with a mediocre GRE score. An MS program is easier to get into than a PhD, and i'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of funding, but Yale, Berkeley, UMich, and University of Washington are all hyper competitive programs that Even the strongest applicants have trouble getting into. I suggest you apply to some schools with less of a name in addition to the reach schools. My feeling is that you will be lucky to get acceptance into one of these programs, meaning its possible, but not probable. The only applicants who almost 100% of the time get into these programs is if they have something like a "Best Student Paper Award" from a international conference. My overall suggestion is to apply to 10-12 schools total. I think you have a shot, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if you got into all of them, but on the converse it wouldn't surprise me if you got into none of them either.

That should be explainable, but being upfront with these things is better. Just do it tastefully.

I just want to point something out: Unless they ask for your GPA over the last 3 years... the actual gpa is going to be over all 4 years. I'm not sure if freshman year lowers your gpa, my feeling is you posted 3 years because full is lower. If you handed me a cv with ONLY your 3 year GPA, I would think you were trying to deceive me. Put both down, there is no reason to lie here.

UT is a very competitive program, at least in the geosciences. I'm not sure if the admissions there is done separately between geosciences and EER. That being said, in science graduate school, especially ones like the one you are applying to, Research Experience and fit is key. I don't know about what UT's statistics are like, but I know that Columbia's acceptance rate is ~ 10%, and those are simular sized and ranked programs. My guess is UT's is around the 10-20%, but a lot of people apply there because of all their private funding. I would definitely have a back up...

Your LOR are going to be HUGE. They need to speak about your ability to learn Advanced Technical knowledge. From your description, you haven't really taken a very intense science course. If you can prove that, at least to PI's through interviews or LOR, I think you would be a strong candidate for a masters program. I think a straight shoot to PhD would be difficult. Depending on what types of energy you want to research, you are going to have to take geochemistry or geophysics courses that will require higher level math and physics or chemistry than you have seen in your coursework. Most first year geology graduate students have trouble with them even if they do have a geology background. That's just my opinion, I think contacting professors you want to work with is the first step. If you don't get good responses for at least some of them, you may have to rethink your strategy. Geosciences is definitely the field where a lot of people just "fall" into so to speak, but generally those people come from the natural sciences, math, computer science, and engineering. Though I do know of a philosophy major who is doing a PhD in environmental geology.

From my experience I have seen a lot of Mac/Linux in geoscience with very few windows based labs.

Do you have an Iphone ? get an ipad. Do you have a Android device ? Figure out which is the best andriod tablet and get that.

If the publications are good, I think it can make up for bad grades... I WOULD WAIT until you have all 3 of those publications.

Was this a thesis based masters ?

It largely depends if your real analysis is just an advanced treatment of calculus or an investigation into manifolds and quadratic forms. The latter make it more difficult.

I was a Physics BA with a minor in math/comsci, having taken 0 geology classes and I am doing fine. I think i am probably the only one who has gotten A's in all of the geophysics grad classes here, though I got a few Bs in normal geology classes. Don't worry about your background. Its much easier to make a mathematician a geophysicist than a geologist a geophysicist. The people I know with pure math backgrounds went into atmospheric sciences, but i think its the same case. Most of your geophysics classes will only touch on Linear Algebra, V-Calc, and PDEs. They probably won't even have you solve them, just want you to be aware of the ideas ( such as tensors/focal mech) ect. Most of the advanced stuff you do will be in your research, where you should be able to pick up anything you know. I even taught Intro geology without taking the class before.... its really NO BIG DEAL. It sounds like you have a stronger geology background that I have (i doubt i could identify rocks, minerals, though I know there properties and how they interact with tectonics n such). Suffice to say, I found that my MSc coursework has been significantly easier than the upper level physics and math courses (such as real analysis, complex, Advanced Linear). I am sure you will do fine, most geology students aren't as strong as they need to be in math and physics until later on in their career, and thats basically what the MSc is designed to do; teach you some technical stuff and adress the weaknesses in your education while giving you research experience That way it provides you a good background to A) Go into industry or Go to PhD.

Yes... most industry jobs don't care what your research is as long as its technical.... you'd be better off doing research in modeling and presenting at AAPG conferences and the like. Recruiters are there, if that is what you desire. You will need to be trained no matter what, all you must do is demonstrate adequate ability to handle highly technical things such as modeling, seismology, programming, ect. I would also look at resource engieenering programs, enviormental engineering, enviormental geophysics, ect. But seriously consider Geodynamics, as that is the field that deals with modeling Neotectonics and the like. of course this is all different if you plan on going to PhD and teaching this in academia.

almost any MSc in geology/geophysics that involves some sort of modeling will prepare you for that. Think about working in Geodynamics if you have a strong background in physics, chemistry, math and computer science.

I think you would be competitive for masters programs... would surely get funding at most schools that offer it for masters students. My ugrad profile was a lot worse than yours and I found a place that fully funded me for my masters. I Think your math skills would prevent you from going to a top 5-10 school, but i am not too sure as I came from physics to earth science.

I've TAed geology for a year, and i think it depends on the subject. For example, at AGU, the biggest conference in my field, people giving talks wear jeans and hikingboots, and maybe a dress shirt. So for teaching, jeans and a T-shirt are fine. For my last class I wore rolled up black jeans, a blue v-neck and a pair of chaco sandles. IT just depends on where you are. When I was an undergrad studying physics, I wore a dress shirt everyday to class. Thats the way my school was, so i followed it. SO my advice ? Ask your advisor!

That is probably something you should ask graduate students who go there; I am not really sure many people here will know a lot about those kinds of programs. It is also helpful to know what type of geology you are going into. Are you going for an MA or an MSc? all these things are important.

Well that's somewhat assuring. It's weird as I am just getitng to the point where I am starting to get results (going to have to work hard this summer to get good results) and am already starting to do the application process. I haven't even defended my research propsal( though that isn't my fault, the head of the dept is taking forever to give me my comittee). I guess everyone who starts out in an MS program goes through this weird stage. I was thinking about approaching him after the semester is over. I am staying here, forgoing a summer job, and working on my thesis. I dont think I will be able to get it published until the summer after I apply, unfortunately. Anyway, thanks for the advice. I guess that I am a bit jaded since when I applied for PhD last time, I got 3 waitlists 2 rejects and 1 acceptance into an MS(the one im attending).

Hello all, I'm currently in need of some advice. I know this is a bit early, but I'm starting to prep for FALL of 2014 admissions cycle. I have a BA in physics from a high ranked liberal arts school(top 50), but with a low gpa (3.08). I am currently in a MSc program (funded by TAship), doing research in my field, at a pretty terribly ranked school(not ranked on US news) but with an advisor with good connections. My expected GPA for when I apply will be in the 3.7-3.8 range for my masters, tanking graduate level math(I got an A in graduate level real anaylisis !) , geophysics, and geology courses obviously. My GRE scores suck. I am planning on retaking the GRE, but honestly I never do well on standardized tests. My theisis work is going really well (if everything continues to plan I will be presenting it at AGU). Its very applicable to all the places I have been thinking of applying to, and furthermore I am using one of the most diffucult/useful standard modeling codes in the field. I did tons of undergrad research, including prestigious internship at a top 5 school(not like that matters anymore), and two poster sessions at AGU (my guess is all my undergrad work doesnt matter). Anyway, now that my background is taken care of, I would Like some advice on some things: 1) I am pretty sure my advisor took me on with the intention that I would become his PhD student. Most of his students are seismology, but his speciality is Geodynamics (which is related, but slightly different) and I have been his only Geodynamics student since he started teaching, 4-5 years ago. I am wondering how I approach him, as I would really like to go to a better program for my PhD, with this school being my fall back( he really is a GREAT advisor, and I have no dobut that i would publish atleast 2-3 times with him If i did my PhD here). Part of the reason I came here, is he went to grad school with my undergrad advsior and his PhD advisor was someone I wanted to work with at a much much better school. I kind of feel bad using this school as a backup. Should I make that clear to him? How do I do this. 2)What level schools should I realistically be applying to? I think my GPA and GRE held me back (also the fact that I took 0 geology classes in undergrad) last time. I know my masters GPA will be much higher (as stated) but its from a much weaker school AND my gre scores probably wont be much better. They could be. Am I a candidate for a top 10 school? I am not really sure how many people have the expierence that I have, From what I have been told by a few people, including the people who have written the code, is that my work generally is more suited for a PhD student given the difficulty of understanding how to run the model. That being said, I am not sure how much I believe that as more and more geology students know C++ from the get go. I guess I am rambling. 3)A very big up and comming geodymanicst gave a talk here and after that we talked about my theis and we have been in email contact; he has been helping me with understanding my work. I am wondering when it is appropriate to contact him about doing PhD work with him. I have a little anxiety about asking other people about doing work with them, because I haven't really talked about it a lot with my advisor. He mentions things like "when you do your phd, perahps we can look at this deeper, but this is outside the scope of your masters thesis". When is it appropriate to contact people in general? Perhaps I am just being neurotic, which in that case you can just tell me to take a chill pill. thanks for your guy's time.