jaesango

Thanks for the congratulations. And that was what I was banking on as well, but since you go to Harvard maybe there's some slack in your GPA haha. But no really, I think a lot of these "chance me" questions are kind of too superficial, so if someone posts it, there's really no use in putting someone down.

A - men
While it's perfectly fine to have conservative views on the admissions process (we really don't know what's going on at each institution!), we should be supportive of each other, especially since waiting to hear back is so nerve-wracking. I personally don't have good grades either but I'm hoping my GRE and my research experience/letters make up for it. 

A - men
While it's perfectly fine to have conservative views on the admissions process (we really don't know what's going on at each institution!), we should be supportive of each other, especially since waiting to hear back is so nerve-wracking. I personally don't have good grades either but I'm hoping my GRE and my research experience/letters make up for it. 

Aren't you applying to PhD programs? Shouldn't you know that correlation does not imply causation? It seems very likely that the most qualified applicants (great research experience/LORs etc.) also happen to have higher GPAs and GREs on average. You know absolutely nothing about those distributions and what adcoms are actually looking for, yet you still choose to discourage someone whose GPA isn't half bad -- you should stop doing that.  

Your confidence in me is uplifting.  I waver between "Don't worry, you can't do anything about it" and "OMG will I get to see these amazing schools???" 

Talked to a professor on the MCO committee last week, it appears they're not reviewing until after finals (late December early January)

Just got a call from WUSTL Molecular Genetics and Genomics!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Was too nervous to answer but voicemail had invite!

Congrats! that's awesome, take a moment to celebrate 
Meanwhile I'm at my cubicle pigging out on holiday cupcakes our Department ordered... x_X

Hi guys! 3rd year PhD student in Molecular Bio, here. I lurk this thread each year to add my 2 cents or help out when you guys get lost or are freaking out.

What Azia said is very true. I'm lucky to be in a place where there are several graduate institutions close together, so I get to see not only students that come into my own program, but also those that come into other programs. GPA and GRE are important, but only to a degree. The things that seem to be most important these days are your ability to show that you know what you're in for in a research PhD (aka, you've done real research for more than 6 months), that you're a good person, and that you have people who can vouch for all of this and that like you (letter writers are possibly the MOST important). There is rumor that some adcoms which remove the school names, and gender/other identifying information from applications before they submit to the committee, though I haven't seen evidence of that with my own eyes. I think it is a positive step for the future of science that they're focusing more on you rather than your numbers; some people don't test well, but you put them in the lab and they solve huge problems.
I've seen students, and actually interviewed with some of them, that had beautiful applications as far as the numbers go, but when they interviewed, the person in their personal statement didn't match with the person. They were not good fits as they essentially lied, and I wouldn't have wanted to be in a program with students like that. When I got here, they were not. Then there are applicants with mediocre scores who accidentally gave a muted version of themselves in their personal statement, but their letter writers gave them their due credit. Then when they interview, you see how amazing they really are, and they get in. They go on to do wonderful science.

I am an example of a student who came from a state school with a mediocre GPA and GRE scores, and I am doing well in my PhD studies. I won't comment on my application essays as I can't ever compare my own work to others. I'm biased. I passed my qual at the end of my first year and will soon have a paper out. I have no doubt that I will graduate. Yes, I came in with 6 years research experience because I worked in labs all of undergrad and MS, but that didn't teach me to survive in a PhD program. Why am I successful? I work hard, just like the other students in my program, which come from varying backgrounds from all types of different schools. Your previous experience may help you a little, but you all start on square one, no matter where you came from, and to me this makes it even more essential to pick a place where you feel comfortable. I did NOT choose my program based on rank. I chose programs to apply to that had research I was interested in and appeared to have an environment I wanted to be in. Some were top 25, some were ranked below 50. For me, rank doesn't matter. I also chose a mentor who doesn't only focus on the success of the research, but also focuses on my career development and my progress as a student. This is important; many a PhD student has gotten lost because their PI can't be there for them when they are needed.
Okay, end rant. Message me or reply to this if you have questions.

For those of you worried about interview notifications. In fall 2012, I got my first invitation and rejection on December 20. Then I didn't hear from anyone else until the second week of January. My last two schools didn't send invites until February. You've got time. Try to relax.

Besides agreeing that you sound incredibly snobby and pretentious with this comment (there is no saving yourself now), I think you are forgetting, or maybe just naive to the fact that admissions committees don't only care about your grades. There is a huge push in many of these programs to stop accepting the top 4.0 ivy league students because this limits the diversity and experience of the incoming class. Now many schools are looking for a significant commitment to research (more than just 2 years) and individuals that have had to overcome adversity to get where to where they are.
I'm not saying those top students aren't going to get in, but you have to realize adcoms are also interested in the personality and drive of those they admit. Often times individuals who have dealt with set backs and difficulties along the way are more likely to persevere in a doctoral program. You would be surprised to know how many people don't realize what they are getting themselves in to and end up mastering out because they can't hack it.
There are so many qualified candidates on this forum that come from "state schools" with average GPA's but who are likely to be amazing research scientist. Grades aren't even half the story.

I think that the important thing to remember is that every undergraduate school has its advantages and disadvantages, and there are many reasons to choose which college to go to besides prestige and SAT scores/high school GPA - reasons including cost, size, location, etc. For example, I chose to go to a small liberal arts school close to home for all of these reasons.  My school isn't well known nationally or anything but it has been a great fit for me and I have had to work hard for my grades.  I am sure that grade deflation and inflation are real issues, but I don't think that a 4.0 from an Ivy should be valued more than a 4.0 from my school just because it's from an Ivy.  Yes, I assume it can be hard for ad-coms to compare GPAs if they don't know the schools, but if you are from a well-known school they probably know if your school has grade deflation.  Besides, GPA is only one part of the application and, from what I have heard, your research experience matters more.  Coming from a prestigious school, you likely have more opportunities for cutting-edge research.  
Regardless, all of this trying to compare schools is besides the point.  We should focus on the benefits of our chosen institutions and use the resources we have.  

The thing is adcoms actually do consider where you come from! Regardless, I would really like to know where you're getting these statistics from because this all sounds like bs to me. 
Besides, why are you complaining?! Going to a top 10 schools already gives you a lot of privilege.

If they are not applying to graduate school because they have a 3.0 GPA from Harvard or whatever, then they probably aren't actually that interested in going to graduate school. Tons of kids get into graduate school with lower GPAs, and they get into all types of graduate schools. If they quit that easily, then I'm sure the admissions board would pick up on that during an interview anyway.