GeoDUDE!

fwiw, imo, even if they did offer planetary science or oceanography, from what you've told me, being a physics major is better for grad school ^_^.

Generally not: and most places I applied to had me upload unofficial transcripts only requesting official ones once I finished my degree and accepted to go to their program.

that sounds so good.....

I think you should be applying to programs where professors are doing the research you are interested in. Earth Science programs tend to want you to have an advisor already picked out before entering, be it MS or PhD.

Contacting potential advisors will not lead to even weekly correspondence. I talked to my current PI 3 times before getting accepted, and I think that is a lot, and it was her contacting me. Most professors that I've talked to keep a list of people that have contacted them and look for their applications. Getting on that list is important, but your application is still going to determine if you get in or not.

Why don't you get a LOR from undergrad ?

School's definately want to accept as many graduate students as possible: instate students are cheaper for the first year (compared to both out of state and international), so they will be more likely to accept instate students to help with budgets. Especially in masters programs that only last 2 years.

You are always going to get harsh reviews, especially from students who think they deserve a higher grade. It would be one thing if you got mostly average and bad reviews, but from the sound of it, you got a nice gaussian distribution. Forget about it and move on.

I don't think being an SLP is any more difficult than any other subfield. For example, most people, to get into graduate school in my field, need a 3.5+ GPA and 320 combined. There are people who get in with less, but that tends to be close to the average.

In my opinion, you aren't going to be able to hide your GRE scores. They are either going to be too low or they won't matter enough to sink your application if its strong enough. You should be writing about the research you want to do in your statement of purpose, and not about the past. Listing tutoring, qualifications ect will be on your CV. Why waste space? You need to show why what you want to do in the future fits well with what the department wants to do in the future: there are very few applicants (in general) who can eloquently describe that. It is much harder to do that than get a perfect GRE or high GPA. If you are below the cutoffs, nothing you do will matter anyway.

I don't know, perhaps. What would be more affirming of its quality is a publication in a respected journal.

Generally we don't have marks for our masters thesis in the US. When applying to science programs with a masters degree I was asked to talk about my research. That's how they understood the quality of it. If the quality of your work is "low" then it will show. I'm not sure how the mark will be looked at, but if the low marking represents some sort of quality of research, that is far more troubling in my opinion.

This is not a good idea with Real Analysis, unless you have taken many analysis courses (doubtful, considering the sequence) or a very advanced student. At least for me, Real Analysis was the hardest course I took in undergrad. That being said, I wasn't a mathematics major, but a physics major. I haven't checked, but I'd be shocked to see an online real analysis course....

This is good advice. Can you do this while being ABD? Not to come of like a hardass, but again the math you have taken is nothing like linear alegebra with math majors. Plenty of people get As in math in HS. I think its a bit premature to be considering a graduate degree in math when someone hasn't taken any college math to begin with.

You haven't taken trig and you want to get an MS in statistics? What makes you think you can even handle a MS in stats let alone do one during a PhD ? What does doing an MS get you that self learning doesn't ? What you call advanced math most people take in High School (if you consider trig and calc 1 and intro statistics advanced). Wouldn't you be better spent developing and working on your dissertation? These are some questions/comment you should be answering and thinking about

Why don't you ask your PI or other graduate students in the lab?

If you contribute money to a school, and then your kid is rejected, are you more or less likely to keep contributing to that school? Also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedman/2013/11/14/the-farce-of-meritocracy-in-elite-higher-education-why-legacy-admissions-might-be-a-good-thing/ vhttp://www.businessinsider.com.au/legacy-kids-have-an-admissions-advantage-2013-6 This isn't empirical proof, but the logic is sound. I'm not sure that universities would want to release this information. I think the proper solution is to make sure that there are elite public schools that can help upward mobility. The problem is these public schools are now becoming just as expensive as the elite private schools, but that's for another thread.

It isn't. Legacies are more likely to contribute to the alumni fund, and admitting a legacy student is makes it more likely that that family will contribute. There are plenty of things that keep people from different backgrounds out of college, but this really isn't a big deal. (fwiw, my parents went to Cal State LA, so its not like I really have a stake in this).

I think its funny that you guys are trying to argue about this as if there are objective qualifications beyond GPA and GRE scores (and one could argue that those aren't objective either). Deserving, by definition, is subjective. What if one of the qualifications to be "deserving" of something is to be part of a legacy. You may disagree with that value, sure, but you aren't the ones who get to decide that. Therefore no one gets into college that is less "deserving" than someone who doesn't, they just fit different criteria than what you judge on.

I don't even think you can claim legacy for graduate school, unless your kid wants to go to that specific graduate school. IE, harvard law is a legacy at harvard law, but not for harvard undergrad.

I think you will have a very hard time getting into even an unranked program, unfortunately. Even the GPAs at mid-tier programs have above 3.0 (probably above 3.5). For example, the program where I did my masters (funded) accepted people into the program that weren't competitive enough to get funding in our program, and they have 3.8 GPAs ! While a lot of earth science programs are forgiving of GPA, your GPA is actually below the minimum for graduate school (not departmental, university wide) at most places! This means that for the department to accept you into the program, you will need someone on the admissions committee to appeal the graduate school in most places. This is possible, but you have to give them something to really make it worth their while: your statement of research (or purpose) must be immaculate. I say this as someone who has a low undergraduate GPA (3.05) (I was also a physics major) but had a great deal more research experience than you at the time of applying. Think about what you can leverage: do you have strong skills in your desired field? What about professors, who are writing your letters, do they know anyone who might be interested in speaking with you? I think the key is getting the people you want to work with to want you as a graduate student so they can vouch for you on the admissions committee and then appeal to the graduate school. Of course graduate schools have their own process, but this seems like a common path. Your GRE should be as high as possible yes, but it won't make up for the fact that you have a below than required GPA. It seems silly, but even the .23 increase in GPA would have made getting your app into a MS program a lot easier. You might get lucky and find funding, but I'd expect to pay for a MS program, even at an unranked school. Goodluck. Edit: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/324/how-do-you-get-a-bad-transcript-past-ph-d-admissions has good advice

you do not have a "lowish" gpa, you have the minimum GPA for graduate school (at least at USC). Your target GRE should be 320+ combined.

Have you read journal articles on these topics? Who wrote them? They are probably who you want to work for when you do your phd, so apply there!

just to put numbers in a category, my 8 page double spaced prospectus (which is less than a proposal in my dept) cited ~50 articles. I probably read 300 to get to that point.

Here's the thing - Girl Talk