emmm

Agreed -- your program does not sound like one that would overlook a dismal Q score. Anything relating to management or development sounds like it would involve budgets etc.

It may be different for your program, but I also took several community college classes concurrently while I was in high school before attending my four year institution and everywhere I'm applying now has required that I send my 4 year transcript along with my CC transcript, even though those courses are represented on the 4 year. Some schools consider it "academic dishonesty" to withhold this information, though people have several different opinions on the matter. I always err on the side of caution and say just go ahead and send them anyways. It shouldn't hurt you in the process and its better to provide them more information than not enough.

Agreed -- your program does not sound like one that would overlook a dismal Q score. Anything relating to management or development sounds like it would involve budgets etc.

I had to work 100+ weeks in my past life as a resident (worst period of my life), and while it is *technically* do-able, it is not in any way, shape, or form healthy. I had to learn how to keep compulsive checklists because my memory was unreliable due to exhaustion and my mind tried to play tricks on me to convince me my work was done when it wasn't. It was really weird feeling as though I could not trust my "memories" and it's something I never experienced before or since that period. When your mind and body desperately need sleep, I guess weird things do happen. Also, I frequently had trouble staying awake while driving home, and I switched my route to one that was pretty deserted (country backroads), so that if I hit something, it would most likely be a tree and I hopefully wouldn't kill anyone other than myself. I was too caught up in the residency "experience" to realize that this was not a healthy solution to the problem. So, ANY program that thinks you should be there 80-100 weeks or more is insane and abusive, in my opinion.

Agreed -- your program does not sound like one that would overlook a dismal Q score. Anything relating to management or development sounds like it would involve budgets etc.

No. As a minimum, it would behoove you to review general algebraic expressions, number properties, and geometry formulas (e.g. lengths of 45-45-90 right isosceles triangles, area of a parallelogram, etc.). If you go over some basic principles, it's at least something to draw on when you're taking the test.

Good job in getting in! I checked out this post because a similar thing happened to me. Graduated from a decent school, but things didn't go my way, got distracted and had a low GPA to show for it. I decided to take another 2 year undergrad (lots of carried over credits) and managed to do really well. Unfortunately, I think my poor showing at my first degree - regardless of how admissions usually ask for your last two years - was always coming back to haunt me. I applied to a high standard of grad programs, feeling ambitious, and surprise surprise, I didn't get in anywhere.

The blow was hard to take. I felt like shit. I moved back home. I then turned my sights on getting a job, any job. Just to pay the bills and possibly switch careers. I didn't get anything I wanted to work in, and although I was offered basic level jobs, nothing really made me want to pursue it as a potential career-changer.

I think the big gamechanger happened because of advice I got from my brother. He said something on the lines of....even if you can't find work in fields related to your interests, look to volunteer or intern. *BING*

I started off doing minor volunteer jobs at a major non-profit related to my field of interested, and then through that position - found an opening in a field which gave me a 9-5 internship position, and hands-on experience in the organization that would usually be cutoff from non-staff. I'd been there from August - Feb, and during that time, asked my supervisor to be one of my references for my prospective degree. He happily obliged.

Just after sending my personal statement to my top school, I contacted prospective supervisors directly (it's a research degree) and they were curious to meet with someone who was highly recommended from a well-known non-profit, where they happened to also have an association with. I met with each of the three individually, and two of them agreed to supervise me on a prospective project, provided I get in first.

All I needed now was to get an interview. I waited and waited. I knew that all the adcomms had to work with were my grades and my 2 page LOI....so I was nervous. I called in to the course secretary, and she informed me that they were already interviewing! I was shocked, so somehow I went into survival-mode and blurted out that two of their faculty had already agreed to work with me. She was curious, and I don't know how much weight she had, but she asked me to send her an e-mail with the names of those who had agreed. I did.

About a week later, I was contacted by the program for an interview. Phew!

The interview was great, and they did ask "THE QUESTION" of why my first grades were so poor. I answered honestly, without being too honest...and told them that being an unpaid intern while gaining first hand experience showed that I worked very hard to get here. I believe they also contacted my potential supervisors to validate their opinion of me.

Its been a long journey, but I'll be starting in the fall at my top choice program, that accepts about 20 students a year, after a mediocre first undergrad, a second undergrad, and full rejections in my first year of applying to grad school.

Lesson of the story.... there's always a way to get in..provided that you're committed to make it work.

I had to work 100+ weeks in my past life as a resident (worst period of my life), and while it is *technically* do-able, it is not in any way, shape, or form healthy. I had to learn how to keep compulsive checklists because my memory was unreliable due to exhaustion and my mind tried to play tricks on me to convince me my work was done when it wasn't. It was really weird feeling as though I could not trust my "memories" and it's something I never experienced before or since that period. When your mind and body desperately need sleep, I guess weird things do happen. Also, I frequently had trouble staying awake while driving home, and I switched my route to one that was pretty deserted (country backroads), so that if I hit something, it would most likely be a tree and I hopefully wouldn't kill anyone other than myself. I was too caught up in the residency "experience" to realize that this was not a healthy solution to the problem. So, ANY program that thinks you should be there 80-100 weeks or more is insane and abusive, in my opinion.

A good way to see if your scores fit the institutions you are applying to is to explore their websites and find some sort of student profile. You can normally find one that highlights the middle 50% or the average GRE score for the incoming class. If you can't find that you could always ask as well. That way you you have a better handle on what your specific institutions are looking for. I took the old GRE but I would agree that if the percentiles reported by dendy are correct you more than likely would need to retake the GRE. Good luck!

Get out now. Find out how the others did it, and follow in their footsteps. If you are afraid that she is manipulating data, there must be others outside of your lab who worry, too. This is not the kind of thing you can hide for ever; people talk, if only in hushed voices behind a person's back. You don't want your name or your work associated with that kind of reputation. It could sink your career before it even starts.

I doubt anyone legitimately puts in 100 hours of productive work week after week. It's just not possible given the human body's need for rest. So, that point in the letter is ludicrous. Seriously ridiculous. And, as Sparky points out, there's no legitimate reason for it. The author even indicates that when s/he says that they recognize that not everyone can commit to 80-100 hour work weeks but that productivity is what matters most.

The part about needing to read is a legitimate one. I try to read at least the abstract and conclusions of an article every day, though this doesn't always happen for any number of reasons. But yes, we need to read to know what's going on in the discipline and stay current.

So, to translate:

"We give you so much work that you don't have time to do your own research. The problem, of course, is that you are not working hard enough. Moreover, we do not trust that you are actually working all the time when you are at home, so you need to be spending 16-hour days in the lab. Every day. Every week. Never you mind that everyone exaggerates how much work they do/how little sleep they get in retrospect, because we live in an effed-up culture where it's cool not to sleep, to be a workoholic, to brag about how horrid your life is, to brag about how horrid the weather in your city is, etc. And fat chance we will raise your stipend! Also, we have entirely forgotten that when you are a graduate student, the stress level of any interaction with a faculty member at your school is multipled times a GAZILLION. We have forgotten what it is like to be smooth and confident with people you may never see again or who have no power over your immediate or intermediate-term fate, but feel like the gum on the bottom of the shoe of the people who hold the power of life and death and doctorate over you."

I am suspicious in general of "you must be miserable because we were miserable" arguments. As a medievalist, I see very very many reasons universities should adapt to new ideas and knowledge about stuff like, oh, how much sleep the human brain needs to function semi-properly, instead of doing what has always been done. Or perhaps you physical science people would like to begin your graduate careers by teaching Bible study?

On the other hand, I think a lot of the points *could* actually be quite good ones, but the method of delivery (a mass letter to all the students in the dept? the Voice From On High?) sort of shifts it from the well-intentioned mentor voice that I assume its author thinks s/he was assuming, to the patronizing "kids these days" tone that yields my 'translation.'

I don't see why they WOULDN'T accept an LOR from his personal email post-retirement. Why would they doubt he is who he says he is? It would still be something they could easily verify, IF they had any concerns.

Unfortunately, it really depends on the school. Some schools discard application information after an application season and for those schools you will need to resend your scores. Other schools keep app information for a year or two, and in this case you will not have to resend your scores. For what it's worth, most of my schools require that I resend my scores. If you are not sure, email the school and ask.

I would also recommend avoiding the for-profit school route. They are not generally well-regarded.

I really don't see why you would be worried about it. Your verbal score is 89th percentile and your quant score does not matter for history programs. While it would be helpful to have a somewhat higher verbal score, you should be above any department cut offs. This is a rough estimation, but your score translates to approximately a 1280. People have gotten in with lower scores I assure you. Also, I don't know about history, but in my discipline teaching is not something to be emphasized, the focus should really be on research.

It is not necessary to have started the application at the time you send the GRE scores. I took the GRE in June and sent the scores then. The applications did not open online until September. I started them as soon as they opened and the programs were able to match my scores to my application with no problems. The scores are sent electronically, and just saved until they are needed. I am pretty sure I filled in the date I took the exam on my online application, and that seemed to be enough for the programs to locate my scores.

Consider this discussion on this topic. There's no substantive reason why you shouldn't be able to teach with a MA/JD:

If you are applying to/hoping ot get into a top program with decent funding and placement records, I would say definitely re-take. Not only that, I would respectfully, but honestly, suggest that you appraise your math score for what it is: Poor...and well below where it needs to be. The cold hard reality is that for many top programs, your present GRE will land your application on the "dont read" pile. This is not say that no adcomm from a top program will consider your (generally impressive) overall resume, but that many look at the GRE as the first, impersonal way to whittle down a stack of 200 apps to the 30 or 40 they will thoroughly review. Given your record of acheivement, I am assuming that you are ambitious and are looking forward to a successful and rewarding career in marine biology. If this is in fact the case, why limit your opportunities with the inferior GRE score...if there is time (based on your app. deadlines) to schedule a re-test 4-5 weeks out, I would DEFINITELY do it...

I'm not trying to preach, and I don't know it all, but I am pretty familiar with this process and (since you solicited advice from strangers) I just want to make sure that are looking at the question realistically...

Good luck and I'm curious to know what others think and what you decide to do...

I got through first year reasonably OK, but now I am looking at switching research groups and all those feelings of inadequacy are surfacing again. I'll bet that even though everyone else APPEARS to be doing just fine, they are going through confidence struggles of their own. We all seem to have them. Just keep trying and you'll get to where you want to be.

You have a chance. In my (admittedly more open-minded than most) program, in a cohort of 5, we have 2 in their 20s, 2 in their 30s, and 1 in her 40s. Good luck!

Thanks! Everyone in my program is so young, and though they're all really nice, I just feel like we have different interests and the thought of being here for five years with only people 7-10 years younger than me to socialize with makes me a little crazy. I'll have to find some other things to do, at the moment, I'm so busy that adding other things to my schedule would be difficult, but I think I might look into that.

167 is about 97th percentile -- I don't think your verbal score needs to be that high to get into any program anywhere.

This should probably be in the Math&Stats sub-forum, but in any case, I think you will find it tough sledding to get into the PhD programs at most of the places on your list with the possible exception of Iowa, Pitt, and BU. Your best bet might be to start in a good Masters program (where your chances of admission are better) before moving on to the PhD.

The first semester is the hardest.

For short-term survival: don't read every page of every assignment. Book reviews (H-Net, JStor, Cambridge etc) are your friend. Read a couple of reviews, read the book's intro (and if it has it, conclusion), read the beginnings and ends of every chapter, skim at least one chapter to see how the author uses the evidence.

You're not supposed to be able to handle 100% of the assigned reading plus 100% of all your papers plus putting 100% into all of your own research. Grad school is the art of learning what you don't actually have to do while still getting what you need to out of the material.

Does the counseling center at your school have a grad student support group? My school runs one each semester, and it definitely saved my academic career and possibly saved my life my first year! I highly, highly recommend you check into that, especially if you are having trouble making connections in your cohort.