emmm

Your prof sounds like an idiot. You do have some work to do, though. Research schools you might be interested in applying to (you could apply to both MA and PhD programs). You can call schools for information. Most are helpful about providing information to prospective applicants. Start working on your SOP -- mine took me forever to write. Get the GRE out of the way. Good luck!

That's not a whole lot of information, but you seem to be in good shape. You need to find people doing work that interests you, apply, and see what happens. There's really not much else you can do. If you apply widely enough, you should be able to find a spot (or several spots, and then you'll have a happy decision to make). Good luck.

If you have no other options ... I had 2/3 CC LORs for my applications, but it had been MUCH longer since I'd been an undergrad (~2 decades). One interviewer did say it was a problem (I was not accepted there). On the other hand, I did get accepted, so it is not impossible to do with CC LORs.

Is there anything useful that can be learned from your negative results? In other words, can you change your focus somewhat to try to salvage the situation. It's hard to speak in such generalities, but there must have been something of value that you were trying to determine when the experiments were first designed. It's hard to believe your negative results are completely devoid of any useful information -- again, I don't know details, but is there something you can grab onto, even if it's not as significant as what you were initially trying to achieve?

Well ... I guess there are programs out there for all types. Since you have mentioned you are not going to a top school, maybe you'll be able to get through, even with your less than optimal attitude towards your studies. Good luck, anyway.

The subject test seems to be pretty important (just the impression I've goten from reading these boards). The quant score is not that low (would have looked like a better score in the old system).

The GRE is more a filtering tool -- you must get above a certain minimum, but after that, it really doesn't help you much to get a high score. The test is not really thought to measure much beyond basic skills in math and (asnoted above) the verbal need not be super high for non-native speakers. However, the "minimum" cutoff varies depending on your field (and is generally higher than the overall school minimum for grad admissions), and certain technical fields rightly expect pretty high quantitative scores.

If you are going for an MPH, maybe you could concentrate on a quantitative topic for your thesis and get more computational/bioinformatics skills that way. Or through electives, if your program allows you some. You could ask some of the programs you're interested in for advice -- usually the DGS will respond to emails from prospective students in a helpful manner.

Why do they want you to have a PhD in economics? So they can say they have an economics PhD (i.e. you'd be a figurehead?) Or because they actually need the skills an economics PhD would normally have? Which you seem determined to avoid getting ... I'm sorry, but your post reads like a joke. Is it one? I really hope you are not serious ...

If you have good relationships with your profs now (as you should), schedule appointments to meet with them to discuss your future plans. Let them know what your post-graduation plans are. Say that you plan to apply to grad school after you're done with the Peace Corps assignment. Discuss your interests and see if they have any program recommendations for you. Stay in touch with updates while you're in the Peace Corps -- especially mention if something you learned in a class ended up being helpful. They won't forget you in 1-2 years, if you have established a relationship (and even if you did nothing, they'd probably still remember you if you weren't at a huge school). It should be fine. I went back to school for some classes to get letters, but I was applying 20+ years out of undergrad. Even if they remembered me, they would be remembering a me I barely remember! When I applied for something 2 years out of undergrad, however, I had no trouble going back and getting recommendations -- and I hadn't made any effort to stay in contact with anyone.

That was the same thing that jumped out at me. Who's paying? If it's your supervisor, and he's not willing to fund you anymore -- I think you're out of luck. It certainly looks like a convenient out for them. It is pretty lousy, though.

I was out of school a long time (over 15 years) and took classes at a CC that led to me wanting to go on for more education. So 2 of my letters were from CC profs. I was told in one interview that that weakened my application, but they were the only people who knew me and they wrote great letters and I got in! So, they were my best/only option. I think your plan of 2 and 1 sounds fine.

It is a shame that a poor GPA from when you were young and clueless can follow you around forever (or at least much longer than it has any right to). At some point, provided you have more recent coursework demonstrating your academic abilities, it really should be disregarded. However, I don't get to make the rules.

So -- it's slightly borderline. Provided the rest of your application is strong, I don't think it would be a problem.

What would you want to study? One of my favorite math teachers had a PhD in Math Education. Programs like that would, I think, be easier to get into than pure math or applied math PhD programs. Also what level do you want to teach? Teaching HS or CC would not require as "high-powered" a degree as teaching at the Uni level.

No matter what you choose, the recommended stats class is a good idea. I have a friend doing an epidemiology degree right now, and her program has a fair amount of stats. Also, she has had to use a number of statistical software packages and is now planning to take a basic programming class to help her use them more effectively.

If you have the opportunity to get funding for a master's, then I would suggest not worrying about the ranking too much. You will get an opportunity to study and obtain more research experience and would be able to position yourself well for PhD applications. Just my opinion, but perhaps something to consider.

But not impossible -- see threads discussing "non-traditional" students. It's not easy, but it's worth it :-)

If you don't need it, why pay for it? I'm in the US, so all the programs I applied to required it. Unless you actually want to apply to a school that requires it, I'd say don't bother. But the basic skills it tests are probably good to have. You'll need that level of math for stats and epidemiology, and you will most likely be doing a lot of reading and writing as well.

Is the quant score low for your programs? The verbal is obviously fine, and the writing doesn't seem to matter much to anyone - 4 should be ok, I think.

Except that with the amount of work you'll have and the amount of sleep you (won't) get, you probably WILL look haggard much of the time ;-)

Your scores look OK -- if you want feedback, it might be a good idea to post your percentiles as well (for those of us who took it before the switch to the new scoring system).

Yes, you actually do sound quite well positioned -- good luck :-)

You won't know unless you try, but my guess is it will be harder this time 'round. However, you were obviously a strong applicant, so other schools that you do not have a history with will likely be interested in you as well. Good luck. I did the school with kids thing years ago, and it is neither easy nor fun.

I guess it depends on the size of the class. I have never been in a large ( >10) person class where everyone got an A, but I have been in smaller classes where everyone got As, and they were generally wonderful classes where everyone was involved and enthusiastic (small, seminar style classes). They were a lot of work, though.