panicking
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by panicking
-
-
This had always bug me. But according to my information, Ivy League is just an athletic association, and have nothing to do with academatic excellence at all. Of course, there are plenty of high ranking (for undergraduate) schools in the Ivy League, but then there are also virtually unknown school such as Dartmouth. And then there are strong school that frequently was mistakenly thought to be in the Ivy, like MIT and Stanford. So I understand that the line is somewhat blur between "ivy" being used to refer to an athletic association and being used as a stamp of academic excellence.
However, that's for undergraduate. Now when it comes to graduate school, there are way way too many field, too many different specialty, so a general ranking is already impossible. This make the word "ivy" even less clear on what exactly what kind of quality are people talking about.
Given this, I still see the word "ivy" get thrown around when talking about which graduate school to go for. So what do you think it means in those context? -
Are you talking about GRE AW session? Isn't it graded by machine though (e-rater or something)? So it's important to have all the keywords in, and write something long.
-
Your math background is lacking. Any school which funds students by TA positions is going to expect you to have completed the calculus sequence. I have no idea how your school let you do, for example, complex analysis before calculus or multivariate calculus, but that will be something that needs to be explained to any program. A bare minimum of the basics is going to include calc 1-3, linear algebra, and differential equations. This is why your transcript is so strange, how did you do topology, measure theory, and differential geometry without calculus? How did you do topology without linear algebra? I guarantee you every admission committee is going to be highly skeptical of such a transcript.
Pardon my confusion, but you were able to take higher level math courses without taking the basics first?
But wouldn't the very fact that I took maths courses (and physics courses) that are dependent on both calculus and multivariable calculus, and did well in almost all of them, show that I know calculus? I don't understand why would anyone be skeptical about that. As I mentioned, the professors let anyone in. Yes the course did in fact have those as prereqs, but I was let in anyway. Of course, I still have to know those stuff (from physics classes, and self-study). Just because I don't have the class on the official transcript does not means I do not know the stuff. The prereqs are merely suggestions than rules, because otherwise classes won't fill up to minimum, and the students might not see that course ever get offered again. I'm not sure why would the transcript look strange. I'm sure there are non-math major who apply too, and thus they can expect some classes to be missing. I don't really miss out on anything except for set theory (which you did not mention as being important), since maths for physicists course cover pretty much everything. I'm not sure how to even explain why some classes are missing, I meant I didn't take them, what else can I say?
If you can explain the strange lack of basic math courses, and can demonstrate research potential you may be able to gain admission into a masters program. In terms of funding though, it is cutthroat. There are a lot of people with more classes, more research, and better grades looking for the same positions you are.
If you want to be a mathematician that is great, and you can get there. However, the path you want to take will very likely not work for you. I would really recommend post-bac or trying for a masters.
Is there anything I can fix without using a post-bac or a masters? I tried applying for REU multiple times but never got any. Now that I'm about to graduate, and since REU is usually for current undergrad, I think that options is pretty much non-existence now. I don't really want to do a post-bac (cost money, and don't show research potential) or a master (cost even more money). Surely there are way to show that I am capable of a PhD despite the lack of maths course right? In fact, since I self-studied many of those stuff, wouldn't that means I have even better research potential than those who have to take the classes? Can I turn that into an advantage? My maths grade is extremely good, as long as you ignore that one C. And my general GPA is still very high as long as only 2nd and 3rd grade are counted. Most of my fail come from 1st year, and this year I only failed 2 courses so far in completely irrelevant classes.
Hopefully you can understand these concerns, but as the poster above me said, your current application package is not good enough to go to a top program, and you would have a hard time at some of the low ranked PhD programs.
So which PhD programmes would be more feasible? Would top 25 more viable? Top 30 guaranteed? What about small programmes vs big one? Perhaps small programmes are more understanding of lacking of basic courses, or perhaps big programmes admit a lot more people. Is there any programmes that is meant for say, "late-bloomer", like they have for undergraduate?
I think the general consensus that with your current application there's no way that you can get into a PhD program not to mention tier 1 program. I think you need to move beyond your mistake and accept the flaws that you made. Stop giving excuses about your mistakes because what's done is done. Because right now I feel like the committee can see not just the lack of ability but also the lack of dedication to the subject. You talk about how much you love the subject but from the application it doesn't even show that you are dedicated to academia at all (i'm not saying that you are not but your application doesn't show that's the problem)
I think that excuse is pretty much the only way I can explain those bad grade. It's done, and is on my record, so there is nothing I can do about those bad grade except explaining why it happened. For example, I could request one of the professors to explain in the LOR that I actually did very well on the complex analysis course until the final blunder (not sure if it's a good idea, just a thought, did not try).
Sorry if I am somewhat agitated. I just got another rejection. But I think for the rejection to come so late it does means for a long time I was on the table. Now I just need a bit more of something to stand out.
-
No I'm not saying it's some sort of chaotic night of urban violence. An analogy is like this: living in a small town is like owning a pet rat, but a big city like yours is like owning a pet boa constrictor. Sure, if you are careful, no harms would come to you from owning a boa constrictor. And even if you are not, usually nothing bad happen either. But occasionally, the situation is just right and suddenly you're dead. If you own a pet rat, the worse would happen is the rat die. Would you rather have a pet boa constrictor or a pet rat?
Yeah, no. Again, I live in Chicago and you do not have to be "constantly sharp" all the time, you just have to not act dumb. It's really not that much of an effort.
"trap"-- what does that even mean?
what you mean by carrying "a bag of money" with you
Here are some of the precautions they warned me to take:
-If someone ask you to buy food for them at a nearby food place, they are luring you through an empty place to rob you.
-Do not use ATM to withdraw money inpublic place, people will know you are carrying bag of money, follow you to rob you.
-Do not make eye contact with youngster, they will think you are provoking them and beat you.
-If a beggar as for money, they are just trying to figure out where you put your money to pickpocket you.
-Do not come in close proximity to youngster, they will bump into you and claim that you hurt them, to beat you.
etc.
Of course, this is Philly and NY, I can't say much for Chicago, but considering the similar murder rate, it's probably just as violent.
Again, since I've lived here for years I walk home alone, in the dark, all the time. I stay over at people's places sometimes too-- because it's late and sometimes I want to.
And since I love my home enough to be pretty insulted by your ignorance, I can assure you it's not at all tiring to live here. It is tiring to constantly explain to ignorant people that I don't live in some chaotic nightmare of urban violence.
Geez, I don't know. Chicago is a big place, perhaps there are part that's super violent, and there are part where you are safe if you are careful. Those headline sure don't help matter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/18/fbi-chicago-passes-new-york-as-murder-capital-of-u-s/ for Chicago, and this is for Philly, which make the nonhomogenous aspect clearer http://www.philly.com/philly/news/159543995.html
Maybe you just happen to live in good place. Maybe you're used to it and thus have never noticed. But from my point of view, in the place where I lived, the thought of "if I go here, I might get rob, so better not" have never come to my mind, as in, it's not even a concern, so big city can be quite tiring.
Freedom goes both ways. You may say that living in big cities is more restrictive, however big cities provide way more opportunities for leisure and job opportunities than smaller towns so I would argue that it's small towns that are more 'restrictive.'
The difference between small town and big city is not as wide as you believe. And the fact that you have no experience living in one is probably why you have this perception.
First of all, half of safety is 'fear.' If you are afraid of things, places seem a lot more dangerous than they are. What's the worst thing that is honestly going to happen to you? That you get robbed at knife/gun point? Even then, the chances are extremely low and the outcome is you are out 20 or 40 bucks. You could get raped? I would imagine the rape stats are probably pretty similar in rural vs. city atmospheres. The chances of any serious crime, ie. murder, happening to you randomly are slim to none.
Considering that this is about going to that city for PhD, I would consider leisure and job opportunity issue irrelevant. The only question is whether the programmes there is good enough to worth the risk.
My main worry is personal harm of course. I would rather not get robbed at all, because who know maybe they would simply shoot me anyway. Perhaps I might accidentally witness a murder and get killed so that no witness will live. Or simply getting stuck in a middle of a drive by shooting. Or get revenge for imagined slight, such as say talking to someone who have a rather jealous love partner. You might argue they could have happened anywhere, but I think that those with concentrated gang members and a violent culture would be more prone to such a thing. Or perhaps just a place where guns are easily available.
-
Thank you for the detailed reply pazuzu, which is especially useful coming from someone in a tier-1 programmes also in the same subject.
I should also say, my observations are assuming that your application had all of the issues from your initial post. If that is incorrect, let us know.
Yes, almost all of them are there. Except for the GRE general test. I took it, but obviously, it was not part of the original application, but it could go in for next year. Both math and verbal are >95%, but I am somewhat worried about writing which I got merely 3.0. If needed for retake, I still have plenty of chance to do so.
To be quite blunt (and to repeat others above) it seems like you do not have the background necessary for a PhD in math. Let's look at what you have done, but it sounds like a post-bac may be the best place to start if you want to pursue a PhD.
I really would also be curious to know why you want a PhD in math. I don't mean this to sound belittling, I am genuinely interested.I love maths, and I want to study more, learn cutting edge research, and solve problems. I thought that's pretty much apply to everyone wanting to do PhD in maths isn't it? I am pretty sure I have a good background in maths (I just attempt Berkeley prelim exams on my own as practice; not sure how much time do they gave, but it took me 8 hours to solve both part, but remember that this exams have 3 optional questions each part, so it should be within time limit assuming that they give out a reasonable time limit; and got almost every question (once again, there are optionals)). Now I just need to convince people that I am capable somehow so that I can get in to prove myself.
I am not currently on the job market, but I have had many friends apply this year. The academic job market for mathematicians isn't great, but you don't need to go to a top school to find a position. Likely you will be doing a (even up to three
) post-docs, but there are jobs out there. Tier 1 schools may make this job easier, but you need to have done meaningful research wherever you go to find a position. So, why do you want to be a professional mathematician? What other positions with a mathematics PhD would be of interest to you (always good to know your options)?I believe that tier-1 programmes give better connections (make it easier to get job) and also the strong research program mean I would have better chance of producing amazing work that can give me job. I read some statistics somewhere that claim that half of position in top 100 are occupied by those with PhD in top 10, and it's evident when I look through a number of faculty list. Which was why I picked to go with only tier-1, even my "safety" are still tier-1.
Failing several classes even in non-math is a huge red flag- especially so late in your degree. It says something about your ability to complete coursework. There really isn't a way to hide this from your application. The best bet would be to take another year of classes and absolutely rock them all. Remember, the top programs have really good applicants (of course other programs do too!). If you have poor grades and are otherwise equal to the other applicants you are not getting in. You need to be very strong in the other parts of your application to make up the difference. Realize that most tier 1 acceptances go to people with stellar understanding of mathematics and demonstrated research experience- any major flaw will be very difficult to overcome.
If only I can just give out grade from my 3rd year. I got straight A in 3rd years in every single courses. It helped that most of them are maths.
The problem is, even if I take 1 more year, I'm not so sure how well I would do, whether I can rock them all. I am somewhat unstable, and tend to crack under exams condition. Also, for subjects I don't like but have to take for requirement, I pretty much do no works (I can't even push myself to work when I'm bored, especially if it's a subject that make no sense like international relation). But that won't apply to PhD because I would get to study what I like all the time, and of course there is no exams except for a few formality.
Not getting rejected out of hand is a good thing, but you would have to ask if you were waitlisted. Have you contacted the schools that rejected you and asked them what you can do to improve your application in the future?
I am thinking of waiting until after Apr 15th, so it does not look like I'm haggling. I think subject GRE for maths is after that, so I should still have time to apply if they reply sufficiently fast and indicating that GRE score is a problem.
You should mention what you study in your free time. They will believe it if it is true and you can demonstrate the knowledge you have gained from self-study. I mentioned relevant papers that I read (not related to my undergrad coursework) in my application. Showing the application committee that you are self-motivated is great, and will really hone your research statement because you will be reading enough to know what you want to work on.You mean solve a grand problem in spite of your application to gain admission? This really really really doesn't happen. Math doesn't work as a start-from-nothing-and-get-a-big-result process. Lots of undergrads have some results from REUs or directed studies. These show you have the potential to be a researcher, but even with this experience they are unlikely to be solving massive open problems. I can come back to this question when you have a chance to post your course work, but if I had a big important unsolved problem that I thought could be done by an undergrad, I'd be working on it.
The real question is what are you interested in/good at? What kind of math can you stare at for five years and still love (most of the time)? My suggestion would be to read some research papers in fields you are interested in and see what mathematical research looks like- you definitely need to have some idea of what you are getting into.
But people have managed to solve amazing problem as undergraduate right? I means, like Galois for example. Or for more modern example, those guys who proved that PRIME is in P, or Matiyasevich (Hilbert's 10th problem). Surely there is something within grasp, and it might just be in a somewhat less popular part of mathematics and so few are working on them. It does not have to be super important, just difficult unsolved problem that stand a long time.
I'm interested in number theory and algebraic geometry and discrete maths. I have read a number of paper, such as the above mentioned PRIME is in P, proof of Hilbert's 10th problem, and more. There are even more which I attempted, but can't because they are too hard or too long. I could mention those paper in SOP, and should have in retrospect, but I am afraid that they won't believe it and think I'm just overblown it (perhaps they might think that I only know the paper exist and not actually have read it through).
It doesn't hurt. You still must meet some minimum standards, but bringing in a full fellowship would be a great boon to your application. You definitely can try for outside funding. Be aware though, the outside funding sources will have the same concerns that the application committee may have with your application.I think so, this is the route I went. I earned my masters (funded) at a good tier 2 school before moving on to my PhD. I would not have gotten into a tier 1 without the research experience my master's thesis afforded me. Math research skills take a long time to develop (I'm still working on it myself!). I definitely was not ready for a PhD right out of undergrad, though others may certainly have been.
Would it be easier to apply for outside funding for PhD next year, or a funded master? I assume that as long as money is involved, they would scrutinize my application, but which tend to be more lenient?
However, the next statement really worries me, you should be well past the calculus sequence if you are applying for a PhD (if you are in your last year now- which I am assuming). Can you provide a list of the math classes have you taken? This would really help everyone understand your current standing. You will not get into a math PhD program without skills in at least abstract algebra and real analysis. A tier 1 PhD program will expect much much more. Also, if you do not have a terrific foundation in writing proofs, you will not be able to pass the coursework- let alone do research.
I answer this last because it's gonna be rather long. I did not put these details into my first post of this thread, partly because of that and also because I was panicking back then. Anyway...
My school is a small college, so obviously there are no graduate classes. The maths department, especially are tiny; there are 3 professor (not counting one who was just hired this calendar year) (so just enough for LOR), and 1 is visiting, and 1 is on tenure track but not full professor yet. Maths department tend to have to teach important basic classes frequently as well as those that are required for major, so pretty much the professors are tied up doing those classes. Classes like Calculus, Stats, and so on. There are still advanced classes almost every term, but each particular classes get offered rather rarely. Another problem is that if there are too few people attend a class (typical problem with advanced maths classes, since there are few maths major in the first place) the class is cancelled. Some of the classes I took was because friends are asking me to get in.
Now the worst thing is that due to sharing space, classes of one department tend to clump together into a few time slot. What this means is that very frequently, advanced classes conflict time with basic classes. Since advanced classes get offered so rarely, I always pick the advanced classes when it is offered. The professors are understanding enough (and also some time to just fill up the class) so they pretty much throw the prereqs into the wind and let anyone in.
So my list of class goes like this:
Intro to number theory
Classical & differential geometry (though it's more like 80% classical, 20% differential)
Complex analysis
Abstract algebra 2 (ring, field, Galois)
Measure theory & Lebesgue integration & probability theory & stats theory (yeah it's 1 class)
Topology (metric space & point-set topology)
A class that is just a bag of unrelated topics (a bit of dynamical system, some advanced point-set topology, some optimization, some set theory, a bit of group theory, and some generating functions); the name of this class is literally just Advanced Topics in Mathematics, and I don't think they even have a consistent syllabus each time this class is taught (but then again, it's only offered once during my time here)
Theory of computation (we don't even have a Comp Sci department or the major, but this is mathy enough, classify as computer science course, but taught by maths professors)
Numerical analysis (also classify as computer science, but taught by maths professors)
So these classes are available, and I think I should had took them, but I really have no clues how important each of these are. It's too late now anyway, the only thing that's available next term are either one of the 2 calculus classes, or some stats classes which are clearly irrelevant:
Calculus
Multivariable calculus
Elementary set theory
Abstract algebra 1
Real analysis
Linear algebra
Ordinary differential equation
Partial differential equation
Optimization theory
(except for linear algebra, optimization and set theory, the rest is offered every year; single variable calculus even every term)
But...my school have a much better physics department with many more professors. I have been taking classes from them, and might graduate with a physics degree if I don't do those calculus classes and just finish the requirement for physics. I hope that the following classes in physics could help:
Advanced electromagnetism
Quantum mechanics (heavy on linear algebra)
Mathematics for physicists (have all sort of stuff, from Fourier transform to various ODE and PDE, and some linear algebra too)
Thermodynamics
Fluid dynamics
And next term if I don't take the calculus class, I can take instead:
Particle physics and gauge theory
From philosophy department there are:
Logic (first order logic and lambda calculus)
As for grade, I got C on complex analysis because I partied too hard the night before the finals and overslept. Adv electromagnetism got B because I took it in my freshman year and get basically no preparation. Maths for physicist got B+ because it have some oral speaking component and I got stage fright. Logic I got F first time because I never come to class (too early in the morning), and naturally fail the finals; but got A on second try. All other maths/physics classes are A.
So yeah, I'm very sure that I have a rather strong background in maths. I just need to convince admission committee, somehow, that please give me a chance to prove myself.
-
Panicking, you are mistaken. If you read the thread, people who commented talked almost exclusively about the areas they know. They aren't deciding whether to live in those areas for years-- they do live there or have lived there.
I know many people who replied lived there. My response was toward the original poster (who is planning to go there), since many people are essentially giving advice to her that it's safe if you use common sense. My response is that do you want to have to deal with such issue in the first place.
Maybe it's just where I lived, a small city, that make me feel those big cities are rather restrictive. I can walk home alone at night safely. I can carry bag of money. I don't get drunk, but my friends frequently did and got home alone just fine. If I run out for some quick errand, I don't even bother locking the door. I can help random people on the street. It's the kind of freedom I would certainly miss if I get accepted into any of the programmes I want.
I have been to Philly and NY to visit relative. I can tell that it's much different there. People have to lock door carefully. When my relative friends went out for drink (without car naturally), they have to escort each other back, and still some time people would just have to stay over, because it's not safe just walking out at night. When a poor guy as our group to buy food for him, I was told to not do so, because it might be a trap. So that's a lack of freedom. Basically, would you rather go to a place when you can relax and nothing bad will happen, or a place when you have to stay sharp everyday? Sure, using common sense (ie. figuring what you should do) is not a huge burden, but following it (ie. refrain from doing certain thing) can feel rather restrictive.
-
Actually, at low crime area, you are safe even with while walking alone at night carrying a bag of money (in fact I lived in a small city and I had done that a number of time). The crime rate there is so low that pretty much the only way to witness one is to commit one. There are only a handful of crime over a year.
Sure, you may claim that you just need to use common sense to be safe. But think of it this way, are you willing to live 4-5 years in a place where you're forced to use your common sense everyday, or would you rather live in a place where you can get drunk at midnight carrying a bag of money alone through a dark alley and have not work out for years and are still safe? You should remember that grad school is probably very stressful so you might want some fun at night. You might also have to work all the way till the late hour on something and have to come home after it's dark. Since you probably will work alone on a lot of stuff, you won't be going home with anybody. And obviously, there is probably no time for work out. And you are unlikely to be able to afford a car either.
I just search online for crime stats, and I think the number collaborate on the ordering except for Manhattan given by Gnome (though I look for murder not shooting). But then again, these stats are for the whole city, while the region around the university is only a small portion of it. Luckily, Philly have a nice website where you can choose which area to look at (I draw a quad around the univ region and surrounds, and got >1000 crimes, mostly thief which distributed pretty evenly both inside and outside the univ, no murder); but have a hard time finding such website for other city.
Now all we said so far is for violent crime only. But when it come to financial crime, I do not think geography matter all that much.
-
Oh well, I got rejected from every places. Well, will eventually get rejected at least, there are still those that have not replied, but I don't think these would go any better now that it's almost April. Thanks you who had replied, especially ratlab and smootie who give detailed information. I would like to ask a few questions to prepare myself for next year, since it's now a near certainty that I won't get in any programmes.
-Which aspects can be improved that will help the most that don't cost much money? (e.g. I can't afford to go for another year in college, unless somehow getting a full scholarship)
-My philosophy this time is that if I go to a non-tier-1 school, I will never find a job even after I got a phd; which was why I only apply to those: I would rather retry than to go to a programmes that won't guarantee me a job (esp. research position). How true is that philosophy? Should I have some safety school next year?
-By next year, would grade after Dec this year get counted (it obviously cannot count for this year application). If I wait for 2 years, would the "last 2 year GPA" information that you need to provide in most application no longer applicable? If no longer applicable, is it good or bad? Because I just failed 2 classes this term (not in maths though, and are only D fail, not F fail).
-Despite getting rejected from everywhere, over half of them did not reject me until last week. Does that means I was actually on some waitlist, and could be almost good enough to get in? They are not strong tier-1 program of course (which reject pretty much as soon as possible), but weak tier-1 programmes such as Columbia.
-How much can connections help? I just learnt recently that one of my distance relative (but not even share last name) was one a phd student of a professor in a tier-1 programmes. Should I do any nudge nudge on my personal statement?
-If I claimed that I self-studied something on my statement, would they believe it? I can't figure out how to fix the lack-basic-maths-course problem now otherwise. I can at best take on Calculus next term, but not much more.
-Programmes frequently claimed that the chance of getting in won't improve with outside funding, but somehow I seriously doubted that (e.g. admitting a student with outside funding means they can still get all the student they want, and that extra one who have outside funding, which means more people doing research which is even better). How true is that claim? Should I try to get some outside funding?
-Would getting a master improve my chance at all? Just hypothetical, since I doubt any programmes give out master with funding, and I can't really afford it myself. But in case I can get some outside funding, or found a programmes that give out one.
-If I manage to solve an amazing unsolved problem, I should have no problems getting in to any programmes right? Anyone give enough maths expertise, can point me out to a big unsolved problem that have a chance to be solved by an undergrad like myself please?
Thank you for any helps.
@RedPill: I'm not sure how they are easy A, at least not in my college. Over half of my philosophy class (on first order logic and lambda calculus) have to drop the class for example; I did not drop and end up with an F.
-
Thanks for at least pointing out that certain factor, which are very hard for me to change, are not importance. But still, it is possible that thing work differently between your field (behaviour neuroscience?) and maths, so I still held some hope. Maybe there are just too few people here for more to reply.
"Not important as long as you have research experience elsewhere" : I'm not sure what you meant by this. How else can one get research experience?
"Most schools only require 3" : I know, but lots of peoples send more, and I am afraid they would have an advantage
"How does the committee know that you can do a math PhD if you haven't done math?" : But math-heavy course such as some computer class or physics class count right? I meant, they can probably be classified as applied maths.
"Again, very important. Undergraduate is easier than Graduate school. Coupled with these others weakness it proves that one isn't ready to enter a PhD program. Really address why you didn't do well in undergraduate - try to gain some insight." : Even if the low GPA are due to failure in classes completely unrelated to maths? I meant it's undergrad, there are all sort of random classes totally unrelated to your major you have to take to fulfill requirement, which I assume you no longer need to deal with in grad school. Classes like foreign policy, or anthropology, or literature are pretty easy to fail.
"There is no way a perfect statement of purpose is going to make up for this list" : how much do you think the SOP would weight in the committee's eyes then? Especially one that boast all the intangible qualities?
-
Uh I am not asking whether the whole thing is a failure. I am asking how important each of these factors are, as in how much weight do they carry. If I fail, at least I know what to fix first. There is no way I am going to be content with just a master.
-
I just apply for a bunch of tier-1 Maths PhD program, so I guess it's kinda late to ask this. But I'm panicking right now, because my application is not strong at all, and I already put all my eggs in this tier-1 basket (ie. I don't have any safety school). So can someone tell me how important these factor are for the admission committee. If possible, provide also example of successful applicant that get into one of the tier-1 school (esp. MIT since it's my #1 right now) while being weak at some or many of the factors.
Here are the factors I find most worrying, so it's much better if you can address one of these, but feel free to add your own. Please don't just say that it's certain that I will fail; if you think a factor is intolerably weak, address other factors instead.
-Whether the application is submitted on time.
-Whether GRE general test have been taken.
-Not stellar GRE maths subject test.
-No REU.
-Only have 3 letters of rec.
-Whether recommenders are strong researcher.
-Undergrad is in liberal art instead of univ.
-Lacking graduate level maths course.
-Lacking basic maths course.
-Low cumulative GPA.
-Failed/low grade in many non-math course.
-Some maths course with not perfect grade.
I am pretty much banking on a perfect statement of purpose right now...except that they do not address specific school (I wrote it right on Dec 15th, did not have time) and I just found a grammar mistake. I have some hope that my letters of rec would not be too bad, but considering that the same letters was used on my latest failed REU application I have little faith in them.
Please give me some information. I'm panicking right now, and anything to end this uncertainty would be helpful.
Apply for tier-1 Maths PhD: what factors are important?
in Applications
Posted
Well thanks everyone for your comments. I'm still at a loss at what to do. I just realized that many top school don't even have Master programmes, and those that do (such as Berkeley), it seems like they have the same deadline as PhD. So it's pretty much a non-options for now.
Just wondering, are we talking about the same thing when we say "tier-1" programmes. Because everyone seems to make it sounds like it's something super super impossible to get to, so I was wondering if you are thinking of something very high at the top. Just want to clarify this so that we're on the same page, since I may have had a lower expectation of what "tier-1" means. For me, tier-1 programmes is just have to be in top 15. On average each programmes probably accept 20 PhD students per year. That means 300 spots. Let's say only 5000 students (count by number of actual human, not number of application) apply in total to those programmes (I can't imagine more than that many students have good enough application to even bother applying in the first place), then the competition is more like 5%. Sure it's still hard, but isn't all that impossible.
I was wondering if this is a good strategy. Applying but do not ask for financial support to get in. Borrow some $$$ for the first year. In first year, show great ability. Then ask for financial aid for 2nd year onward. Do you think it would work?
I only got 1 F fail, and 3 D fail. Now I was wondering if I could spin this around on a SOP, or ask a recommender to write this on the LOR. For example, I could say that the fact that I failed show that the school is extremely rigorous, and so the fact that I got an A on maths course means a lot more than someone else's A when they got perfect grade in every course. After all, grades ARE relative.
Almost. There are some exception, all happened in my freshman year, which I hope they do not mind as much consider I was taking upperclassman courses as a freshman. The rest of them are all A.
But I like maths. There is no ways it's going to be boring for me. Very different from those classes which I clearly don't like at all. I means, part of why I don't care is also that I did not thought it would come back to bite me now. If people can forgive criminal after merely 2 years (statute of limitation expire), surely adcoms would not dwell on something happen long ago and I can do nothing about right? As for the recent fails, well I thought that doesn't matter either since I think I'm going to grad school.
No I means if I ask my recommender to give excuse for me, it won't come across that I was giving excuse, but rather it will come across as the recommender think I'm good enough that he will explain it for me. I means, one of my recommender taught complex analysis, and he still remind me of that blunder.
Well for most of my rejections that is indeed the only fact. But for this particular latest one, I find certain encouraging thing about it: (a) I was reminded (through email, and it appears to be a rather personal letter since it addressed exactly whose LOR is missing and contains typos) that I am still missing a LOR well into early Feb, which means that I already got throw enough hoop and it come down to the point where everything is needed for tie breaker; (
there are already rejections posted up on the result page long before mine, but after some acceptance; and © the rejection letter mentioned "difficult decision", something which is not seen in any rejection emails I have seen so far.
Well currently Philosophy, but if I finish the requirement for Physics next term I would get that too. Yes I do agree that there are no guarantees, which is why I want to mention an earlier question which people seems to have neglected:
-Would my application be guaranteed if I had connections? Specially, one of my distance relative was once PhD student of a professor in tier-1 school. Is there anyway I could exploit that?