BiochemVitD

So, having not heard back from any of my schools yet, I'm probably going to send out a few more applications to less competitive programs. I know it's not a nail in the coffin at all, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.
So I know University of Oregon Biochemistry and University of Arizona Biochemistry have Jan. 5th deadlines, does anybody else know of any decent schools whose programs in Biochemistry have later application deadlines?

As the individual whose profile sparked much of this debate about low GPA, I guess I'd like to say a few things.
First off, there's no offense taken from any criticism here. Frankly, if somebody gets hurt because of an individual pointing out an obvious weakness or being critical, then they probably don't belong in the sciences. I'd rather take his arguments as they stand and comment on the issue directly.
PlanB, you are right to acknowledge that a low GPA is a concern for any application. This should be obvious. However, as has been pointed out and is explicitly stated on the websites of multiple top tier programs, applications are graded holistically. I would argue that the correlation of high GPAs with qualified applicants is no surprise, but from my discussion with advisors and a few adcom members, I don't think they weigh GPA nearly as heavily as you suggest. In particular, for a candidate with research experience and strong LORs with a convincing SOP, GPA becomes a non-issue.
I'll elucidate some of the thought process that went into my application. At the very least it will be useful for future applicants or make for interesting discussion. I knew that my GPA was shit going into the application process, which is part of why I waited until I had an additional year of full-time industry experience post graduation to apply. This gave me the opportunity to take graduate level classes my senior year (so that adcoms would actually see those grades), perform very well in them, and bolster my research experience. 
My GPA also resulted from a few extenuating circumstances, namely my diagnosis with cancer during my sophomore year, and one year after my recovery followed the return of my father's cancer for the third time. During these next two years I worked part-time, did well in my classes, all while assisting my father through a slow decline. My advisor (who wrote one of my LORs) was explicitly aware of all of these facts, and I left it up to him to address that in his letter. I didn't want to make any excuses for my early years, so in a supplemental statement for most schools all I said was this, verbatim
" I will keep this short as I also address this in my statement of past work. Although a number of circumstances led to a GPA that does not represent my potential, I have no desire to make excuses for this fact. Instead, I will reassert that the process I went through led to great personal development in terms of both maturity and motivation, and I would not change this experience. The ability to learn from my missteps, and then move forward constructively has played an integral role in my success in other areas. This is evidenced by my GRE scores, academic improvement, and my professional and research achievements. These factors are much more indicative of my dedication, as well as preparation and potential for graduate study. "
The point I'm trying to make is that PlanB's criticism isn't unwarranted, but I think the broader message should be that if somebody with a low GPA wants to apply to good programs then they have to make up for that in other areas. For me, it wasn't a concern I just brushed over, but my choices and approach was very calculated around this fact. I would expect the same for anybody in my shoes if they want to have any hope of being successful.
Anyways, I say all of this with the full acknowledgement that my choices were ambitious, but intentionally so. As far as my approach above, I acknowledge I could just be blowing hot air out my ass, and may not be successful at all. That will play out in the next month or two, but I appreciate the discussion people are having and hope it continues.

So what you're saying is the admissions committee looked at their entire application and didn't discount them simply because of a low gpa? Weird.

So what you're saying is the admissions committee looked at their entire application and didn't discount them simply because of a low gpa? Weird.

So what you're saying is the admissions committee looked at their entire application and didn't discount them simply because of a low gpa? Weird.

As the individual whose profile sparked much of this debate about low GPA, I guess I'd like to say a few things.
First off, there's no offense taken from any criticism here. Frankly, if somebody gets hurt because of an individual pointing out an obvious weakness or being critical, then they probably don't belong in the sciences. I'd rather take his arguments as they stand and comment on the issue directly.
PlanB, you are right to acknowledge that a low GPA is a concern for any application. This should be obvious. However, as has been pointed out and is explicitly stated on the websites of multiple top tier programs, applications are graded holistically. I would argue that the correlation of high GPAs with qualified applicants is no surprise, but from my discussion with advisors and a few adcom members, I don't think they weigh GPA nearly as heavily as you suggest. In particular, for a candidate with research experience and strong LORs with a convincing SOP, GPA becomes a non-issue.
I'll elucidate some of the thought process that went into my application. At the very least it will be useful for future applicants or make for interesting discussion. I knew that my GPA was shit going into the application process, which is part of why I waited until I had an additional year of full-time industry experience post graduation to apply. This gave me the opportunity to take graduate level classes my senior year (so that adcoms would actually see those grades), perform very well in them, and bolster my research experience. 
My GPA also resulted from a few extenuating circumstances, namely my diagnosis with cancer during my sophomore year, and one year after my recovery followed the return of my father's cancer for the third time. During these next two years I worked part-time, did well in my classes, all while assisting my father through a slow decline. My advisor (who wrote one of my LORs) was explicitly aware of all of these facts, and I left it up to him to address that in his letter. I didn't want to make any excuses for my early years, so in a supplemental statement for most schools all I said was this, verbatim
" I will keep this short as I also address this in my statement of past work. Although a number of circumstances led to a GPA that does not represent my potential, I have no desire to make excuses for this fact. Instead, I will reassert that the process I went through led to great personal development in terms of both maturity and motivation, and I would not change this experience. The ability to learn from my missteps, and then move forward constructively has played an integral role in my success in other areas. This is evidenced by my GRE scores, academic improvement, and my professional and research achievements. These factors are much more indicative of my dedication, as well as preparation and potential for graduate study. "
The point I'm trying to make is that PlanB's criticism isn't unwarranted, but I think the broader message should be that if somebody with a low GPA wants to apply to good programs then they have to make up for that in other areas. For me, it wasn't a concern I just brushed over, but my choices and approach was very calculated around this fact. I would expect the same for anybody in my shoes if they want to have any hope of being successful.
Anyways, I say all of this with the full acknowledgement that my choices were ambitious, but intentionally so. As far as my approach above, I acknowledge I could just be blowing hot air out my ass, and may not be successful at all. That will play out in the next month or two, but I appreciate the discussion people are having and hope it continues.

As the individual whose profile sparked much of this debate about low GPA, I guess I'd like to say a few things.
First off, there's no offense taken from any criticism here. Frankly, if somebody gets hurt because of an individual pointing out an obvious weakness or being critical, then they probably don't belong in the sciences. I'd rather take his arguments as they stand and comment on the issue directly.
PlanB, you are right to acknowledge that a low GPA is a concern for any application. This should be obvious. However, as has been pointed out and is explicitly stated on the websites of multiple top tier programs, applications are graded holistically. I would argue that the correlation of high GPAs with qualified applicants is no surprise, but from my discussion with advisors and a few adcom members, I don't think they weigh GPA nearly as heavily as you suggest. In particular, for a candidate with research experience and strong LORs with a convincing SOP, GPA becomes a non-issue.
I'll elucidate some of the thought process that went into my application. At the very least it will be useful for future applicants or make for interesting discussion. I knew that my GPA was shit going into the application process, which is part of why I waited until I had an additional year of full-time industry experience post graduation to apply. This gave me the opportunity to take graduate level classes my senior year (so that adcoms would actually see those grades), perform very well in them, and bolster my research experience. 
My GPA also resulted from a few extenuating circumstances, namely my diagnosis with cancer during my sophomore year, and one year after my recovery followed the return of my father's cancer for the third time. During these next two years I worked part-time, did well in my classes, all while assisting my father through a slow decline. My advisor (who wrote one of my LORs) was explicitly aware of all of these facts, and I left it up to him to address that in his letter. I didn't want to make any excuses for my early years, so in a supplemental statement for most schools all I said was this, verbatim
" I will keep this short as I also address this in my statement of past work. Although a number of circumstances led to a GPA that does not represent my potential, I have no desire to make excuses for this fact. Instead, I will reassert that the process I went through led to great personal development in terms of both maturity and motivation, and I would not change this experience. The ability to learn from my missteps, and then move forward constructively has played an integral role in my success in other areas. This is evidenced by my GRE scores, academic improvement, and my professional and research achievements. These factors are much more indicative of my dedication, as well as preparation and potential for graduate study. "
The point I'm trying to make is that PlanB's criticism isn't unwarranted, but I think the broader message should be that if somebody with a low GPA wants to apply to good programs then they have to make up for that in other areas. For me, it wasn't a concern I just brushed over, but my choices and approach was very calculated around this fact. I would expect the same for anybody in my shoes if they want to have any hope of being successful.
Anyways, I say all of this with the full acknowledgement that my choices were ambitious, but intentionally so. As far as my approach above, I acknowledge I could just be blowing hot air out my ass, and may not be successful at all. That will play out in the next month or two, but I appreciate the discussion people are having and hope it continues.

So what you're saying is the admissions committee looked at their entire application and didn't discount them simply because of a low gpa? Weird.

So what you're saying is the admissions committee looked at their entire application and didn't discount them simply because of a low gpa? Weird.

Just wanted to add that when I first started reading through this thread back in July/August, I was SO discouraged by the amazing stats that everyone had posted. I think it's easier to agree that applicants with 3.8+ GPAs, 1st author pubs, etc etc stand solid chances when applying to top tier schools. That being said, I think one of the most important things to take away from reading through this forum is the fact that GPA is not the end all be all factor in the admissions process. Letters of recommendation, research experience, and statement of purpose (including extenuating circumstances or challenges) ARE huge factors that come into play. And this sentiment has been reiterated over and over again in this thread...
Applicants with stellar stats may be easier sells to top tier schools, but that doesn't mean that you don't stand a chance if you have a 3.2 or 3.4 GPA. Duh, it's obviously more difficult - but to just shoot down an individual's profile solely on GPA is not something any of us are qualified to do. The overall process of graduate school applications is nerve wracking and depressing at times - we should be supporting each other rather than dealing out "reality".
 

As the individual whose profile sparked much of this debate about low GPA, I guess I'd like to say a few things.
First off, there's no offense taken from any criticism here. Frankly, if somebody gets hurt because of an individual pointing out an obvious weakness or being critical, then they probably don't belong in the sciences. I'd rather take his arguments as they stand and comment on the issue directly.
PlanB, you are right to acknowledge that a low GPA is a concern for any application. This should be obvious. However, as has been pointed out and is explicitly stated on the websites of multiple top tier programs, applications are graded holistically. I would argue that the correlation of high GPAs with qualified applicants is no surprise, but from my discussion with advisors and a few adcom members, I don't think they weigh GPA nearly as heavily as you suggest. In particular, for a candidate with research experience and strong LORs with a convincing SOP, GPA becomes a non-issue.
I'll elucidate some of the thought process that went into my application. At the very least it will be useful for future applicants or make for interesting discussion. I knew that my GPA was shit going into the application process, which is part of why I waited until I had an additional year of full-time industry experience post graduation to apply. This gave me the opportunity to take graduate level classes my senior year (so that adcoms would actually see those grades), perform very well in them, and bolster my research experience. 
My GPA also resulted from a few extenuating circumstances, namely my diagnosis with cancer during my sophomore year, and one year after my recovery followed the return of my father's cancer for the third time. During these next two years I worked part-time, did well in my classes, all while assisting my father through a slow decline. My advisor (who wrote one of my LORs) was explicitly aware of all of these facts, and I left it up to him to address that in his letter. I didn't want to make any excuses for my early years, so in a supplemental statement for most schools all I said was this, verbatim
" I will keep this short as I also address this in my statement of past work. Although a number of circumstances led to a GPA that does not represent my potential, I have no desire to make excuses for this fact. Instead, I will reassert that the process I went through led to great personal development in terms of both maturity and motivation, and I would not change this experience. The ability to learn from my missteps, and then move forward constructively has played an integral role in my success in other areas. This is evidenced by my GRE scores, academic improvement, and my professional and research achievements. These factors are much more indicative of my dedication, as well as preparation and potential for graduate study. "
The point I'm trying to make is that PlanB's criticism isn't unwarranted, but I think the broader message should be that if somebody with a low GPA wants to apply to good programs then they have to make up for that in other areas. For me, it wasn't a concern I just brushed over, but my choices and approach was very calculated around this fact. I would expect the same for anybody in my shoes if they want to have any hope of being successful.
Anyways, I say all of this with the full acknowledgement that my choices were ambitious, but intentionally so. As far as my approach above, I acknowledge I could just be blowing hot air out my ass, and may not be successful at all. That will play out in the next month or two, but I appreciate the discussion people are having and hope it continues.

As the individual whose profile sparked much of this debate about low GPA, I guess I'd like to say a few things.
First off, there's no offense taken from any criticism here. Frankly, if somebody gets hurt because of an individual pointing out an obvious weakness or being critical, then they probably don't belong in the sciences. I'd rather take his arguments as they stand and comment on the issue directly.
PlanB, you are right to acknowledge that a low GPA is a concern for any application. This should be obvious. However, as has been pointed out and is explicitly stated on the websites of multiple top tier programs, applications are graded holistically. I would argue that the correlation of high GPAs with qualified applicants is no surprise, but from my discussion with advisors and a few adcom members, I don't think they weigh GPA nearly as heavily as you suggest. In particular, for a candidate with research experience and strong LORs with a convincing SOP, GPA becomes a non-issue.
I'll elucidate some of the thought process that went into my application. At the very least it will be useful for future applicants or make for interesting discussion. I knew that my GPA was shit going into the application process, which is part of why I waited until I had an additional year of full-time industry experience post graduation to apply. This gave me the opportunity to take graduate level classes my senior year (so that adcoms would actually see those grades), perform very well in them, and bolster my research experience. 
My GPA also resulted from a few extenuating circumstances, namely my diagnosis with cancer during my sophomore year, and one year after my recovery followed the return of my father's cancer for the third time. During these next two years I worked part-time, did well in my classes, all while assisting my father through a slow decline. My advisor (who wrote one of my LORs) was explicitly aware of all of these facts, and I left it up to him to address that in his letter. I didn't want to make any excuses for my early years, so in a supplemental statement for most schools all I said was this, verbatim
" I will keep this short as I also address this in my statement of past work. Although a number of circumstances led to a GPA that does not represent my potential, I have no desire to make excuses for this fact. Instead, I will reassert that the process I went through led to great personal development in terms of both maturity and motivation, and I would not change this experience. The ability to learn from my missteps, and then move forward constructively has played an integral role in my success in other areas. This is evidenced by my GRE scores, academic improvement, and my professional and research achievements. These factors are much more indicative of my dedication, as well as preparation and potential for graduate study. "
The point I'm trying to make is that PlanB's criticism isn't unwarranted, but I think the broader message should be that if somebody with a low GPA wants to apply to good programs then they have to make up for that in other areas. For me, it wasn't a concern I just brushed over, but my choices and approach was very calculated around this fact. I would expect the same for anybody in my shoes if they want to have any hope of being successful.
Anyways, I say all of this with the full acknowledgement that my choices were ambitious, but intentionally so. As far as my approach above, I acknowledge I could just be blowing hot air out my ass, and may not be successful at all. That will play out in the next month or two, but I appreciate the discussion people are having and hope it continues.

As the individual whose profile sparked much of this debate about low GPA, I guess I'd like to say a few things.
First off, there's no offense taken from any criticism here. Frankly, if somebody gets hurt because of an individual pointing out an obvious weakness or being critical, then they probably don't belong in the sciences. I'd rather take his arguments as they stand and comment on the issue directly.
PlanB, you are right to acknowledge that a low GPA is a concern for any application. This should be obvious. However, as has been pointed out and is explicitly stated on the websites of multiple top tier programs, applications are graded holistically. I would argue that the correlation of high GPAs with qualified applicants is no surprise, but from my discussion with advisors and a few adcom members, I don't think they weigh GPA nearly as heavily as you suggest. In particular, for a candidate with research experience and strong LORs with a convincing SOP, GPA becomes a non-issue.
I'll elucidate some of the thought process that went into my application. At the very least it will be useful for future applicants or make for interesting discussion. I knew that my GPA was shit going into the application process, which is part of why I waited until I had an additional year of full-time industry experience post graduation to apply. This gave me the opportunity to take graduate level classes my senior year (so that adcoms would actually see those grades), perform very well in them, and bolster my research experience. 
My GPA also resulted from a few extenuating circumstances, namely my diagnosis with cancer during my sophomore year, and one year after my recovery followed the return of my father's cancer for the third time. During these next two years I worked part-time, did well in my classes, all while assisting my father through a slow decline. My advisor (who wrote one of my LORs) was explicitly aware of all of these facts, and I left it up to him to address that in his letter. I didn't want to make any excuses for my early years, so in a supplemental statement for most schools all I said was this, verbatim
" I will keep this short as I also address this in my statement of past work. Although a number of circumstances led to a GPA that does not represent my potential, I have no desire to make excuses for this fact. Instead, I will reassert that the process I went through led to great personal development in terms of both maturity and motivation, and I would not change this experience. The ability to learn from my missteps, and then move forward constructively has played an integral role in my success in other areas. This is evidenced by my GRE scores, academic improvement, and my professional and research achievements. These factors are much more indicative of my dedication, as well as preparation and potential for graduate study. "
The point I'm trying to make is that PlanB's criticism isn't unwarranted, but I think the broader message should be that if somebody with a low GPA wants to apply to good programs then they have to make up for that in other areas. For me, it wasn't a concern I just brushed over, but my choices and approach was very calculated around this fact. I would expect the same for anybody in my shoes if they want to have any hope of being successful.
Anyways, I say all of this with the full acknowledgement that my choices were ambitious, but intentionally so. As far as my approach above, I acknowledge I could just be blowing hot air out my ass, and may not be successful at all. That will play out in the next month or two, but I appreciate the discussion people are having and hope it continues.

As the individual whose profile sparked much of this debate about low GPA, I guess I'd like to say a few things.
First off, there's no offense taken from any criticism here. Frankly, if somebody gets hurt because of an individual pointing out an obvious weakness or being critical, then they probably don't belong in the sciences. I'd rather take his arguments as they stand and comment on the issue directly.
PlanB, you are right to acknowledge that a low GPA is a concern for any application. This should be obvious. However, as has been pointed out and is explicitly stated on the websites of multiple top tier programs, applications are graded holistically. I would argue that the correlation of high GPAs with qualified applicants is no surprise, but from my discussion with advisors and a few adcom members, I don't think they weigh GPA nearly as heavily as you suggest. In particular, for a candidate with research experience and strong LORs with a convincing SOP, GPA becomes a non-issue.
I'll elucidate some of the thought process that went into my application. At the very least it will be useful for future applicants or make for interesting discussion. I knew that my GPA was shit going into the application process, which is part of why I waited until I had an additional year of full-time industry experience post graduation to apply. This gave me the opportunity to take graduate level classes my senior year (so that adcoms would actually see those grades), perform very well in them, and bolster my research experience. 
My GPA also resulted from a few extenuating circumstances, namely my diagnosis with cancer during my sophomore year, and one year after my recovery followed the return of my father's cancer for the third time. During these next two years I worked part-time, did well in my classes, all while assisting my father through a slow decline. My advisor (who wrote one of my LORs) was explicitly aware of all of these facts, and I left it up to him to address that in his letter. I didn't want to make any excuses for my early years, so in a supplemental statement for most schools all I said was this, verbatim
" I will keep this short as I also address this in my statement of past work. Although a number of circumstances led to a GPA that does not represent my potential, I have no desire to make excuses for this fact. Instead, I will reassert that the process I went through led to great personal development in terms of both maturity and motivation, and I would not change this experience. The ability to learn from my missteps, and then move forward constructively has played an integral role in my success in other areas. This is evidenced by my GRE scores, academic improvement, and my professional and research achievements. These factors are much more indicative of my dedication, as well as preparation and potential for graduate study. "
The point I'm trying to make is that PlanB's criticism isn't unwarranted, but I think the broader message should be that if somebody with a low GPA wants to apply to good programs then they have to make up for that in other areas. For me, it wasn't a concern I just brushed over, but my choices and approach was very calculated around this fact. I would expect the same for anybody in my shoes if they want to have any hope of being successful.
Anyways, I say all of this with the full acknowledgement that my choices were ambitious, but intentionally so. As far as my approach above, I acknowledge I could just be blowing hot air out my ass, and may not be successful at all. That will play out in the next month or two, but I appreciate the discussion people are having and hope it continues.

Weird that your PI would be upset, I know most profs at my undergrad encourage students not to pursue a PhD at their bachelor's institution. You would hope she would not be petty enough to sabotage you.
That being said, I think your research experience should speak for itself! Plenty of students produce no papers during their undergraduate work, so it's hardly expected to be published. Even having a paper in production, especially contributing to a thesis, is a huge leg up. I'm sure the duration you spent in one lab will be looked upon positively as well, as it speaks to your ability to commit.
 

Just wanted to remind people about a few things as this thread gets heated, spammed, and becomes quite unhelpful for people that will read this in the future.
1. Keep it positive, but that doesn't mean criticism isn't allowed. I won't reference a recent post, but, yes, people should avoid talking about things they are not experts in. Unless you're a student on an admissions committee, please don't make it sound like your comments are fact. There is a lot of nuance to PhD admissions.
2. Yes, people are getting interviews. Calm down. Some schools utilize rolling interview invites. Most programs that have umbrella biosciences also have direct admit programs that send invites earlier. Other school graduate admission policies send out invites for all departments at the same time. The larger the application pool, the longer it will take. Us overachievers applying to top 20 programs should not expect to hear anything back until January. 
The best thing you can do is to just double check that all your official transcripts and test scores are in, and contact departments as needed to make sure a mistake wasn't made. I recently contacted a department that said I had only submitted an unofficial transcript, but found it that status was made in error and promptly changed it to official.
3. Instead of coming here every day and asking whether anyone has gotten an e-mail/invite/notification from X University's Y program, let's be more constructive. Here are a few time points people should consider.
a. Wait until the Week of Dec 21 for programs that historically reply earlier. After that, most programs will be on holiday breaks, and they will ask professors to read applications over the holiday break and get back to the admissions committee by the New Year.
b. Week of January 4 will be the next round of contact/interviews, but that is not the end-all, be-all. After this point, based on whether people decline interviews or not, there will be rolling communication with applicants that had not been contacted. 
c. Week of February 1: By now, most people will know whether they have already been rejected, or have an interview. A low percentage of people will not hear anything until after some other interviewees have had interviews. This is usually for schools that have multiple interview weekends. If you applied to a good swath of schools, you should be content with having heard positive things from a few schools by now.
d. Week of March 14. Most interview weekends in the top 20 programs are done. If you haven't heard back from them by then, it's most likely a No. 
e. April 15. Deadline for people to accept program offers, as long as programs are part of the Council of Graduate Schools (which pretty much 99% of accredited programs are).
4. Breathe. Binge on Netflix. Find something to take your mind off the process. Pick up a new coding program. Send your LoR writers cards. Check out the Waiting It Out forum for more lovely Grad Cafe support HERE.

5. Post your stats on this thread. Especially if you've been lurking. This will be great for next year's round of applicants. And remember, as you hear back, or at the end of the cycle (which I intend to do after I get accepted to programs), post to the Grad Cafe Survey.
Other than that, post away. And try to keep off-topic things restricted to private chat or another forum <3

Dude.  You're speaking kinda out of your butt.  I think it's horrible to tell the people that they should go for a masters instead of a phd for something such as GPA.  I mean, I'll always encourage people to apply widely because you hardly know what will come through in your applications, but what you said about that person's GPA was mean.  If I remember correctly, they had held a research job all the way through undergrad.  I mean when I first read through it I missed that and thought that maybe their record wouldn't show the aptitude for grad school, but it really does.  Maybe no one else will agree with me, but I think you're trying to make yourself feel better by saying this stuff about other people.  Go look at the results board; people get rejected from all kinds of schools with a 3.9.

I disagree with bichemgirl67. You GPA is obviously low but you did significantly better your jr/sr year. The fact that you don't have academic research experience isn't that  big of a deal. There are plenty of people who get into top grad programs with only industry experience. Hopefully you have highlighted the fact that your project resulted in a new product that make $$$ for your company. How many of us have had research experience as an undergrad that didn't result in anything. You getting interviews will depend on how well you wrote your SOP and your LOR. 
 When I applied to grad school I had a similar GPA (3.16) my major GPA was much higher (3.73) but I had worse GRE scores than you. I had 3.5 years of research experience without publications. I interviewed and was accepted at some of the schools you applied to (granted the programs were different). 

@BiochemVitD My 4 cents:
1) The GPA is low, but not extremely low, for two reasons: No one in that class had a GPA > 3.7, and since both your GPA and the GRE stats are looked upon together as qualifying stats, your strong GRE score should, should help your application in atleast not being instantly filtered.
2) Your GPA + GRE combo is further not a concern for your choice of schools, excepting UCSF, they're kinda picky there. Also, I don't know if you took a subject test, but UCLA goes all ga-ga over a strong subject GRE score. Something you should've done with an okay GPA.
3) Lastly, I myself have extensive industrial experience, but also some strong academic experience, but my industrial easily overshadows. But this can all very easily be turned into/against your favor in your SOP, hoping you did a good job there.
4) Lastly, recommendation letters can seal all doubts if they come from a professor/scientist, speaking to your potential to hack research and your promise as a candidate. 
 

So here's my 2 cents... your GPA is extremely low AND you do not have any academic research experience.  I think the caliber of schools to which are applying is high, especially considering these 2 things.  jThe grad committees want to know you can hack it both research-wise and in classes, and your record doesn't necessarily indicate that for the schools you've chosen.  If you want to be certain to get in somewhere, you should apply to 2-3 more schools.  It's not that industrial experience doesn't matter, it's that it is different.  If you really want to get into one of these schools, it might be a stretch, but remember I'm one of the more conservative members on this board stats-wise.