Kitkat

graduate student

So do people have good news to report about their attempts for this year? I have been nervous about asking ...

chronic disorder

I doubt that I can visit all the schools that I want to apply to, but I want to get as many in as I can possibly afford to. Part of the reason I want to do this is so that I can get a feel for what the climate is like, get a feel for the environtment of the school as a whole, take a look at the school, and the department. It will cost money up front, but at the same time will save me the time and stress of applying to schools that in the end I might not want to apply to in the first place. I am wondering what the best way to set this up is. Some of the schools are very nice and I have started setting up visits to them and to meeting faculty, but I guess what I am looking for here is, is there any advice to go about this and what to do when I get there, and any ways to maximize these trips.

I don't think it would be a huge issue if the bad grades were early on and you have shown that you can do better since then. As to your title for this thread, I might think that they might trust you less if you do not trust them with this information and then they find out about what your GPA is in another fashion. If you are really that concerned, show them a copy of your transcript with an explaination of why it is the way it is. A lot of people applying to grad school screw up when they are 18. Many adcomms understand that. If you have other things that show that you would be a good grad student, then it should out weigh a less then stellar transcript. I think that if you show that you are mature to your LOR writers that you know you understand you screwed up with these classes, that it messed up your GPA, but have since improved, and you have stuff to prove it, then the sad state of GPA will be a hurdle but less of one. I think they are more likely to write a better LOR if you are up front about it. Or have people had experineces that say otherwise?

personality change

hard worker

outer space

I think that is perfect for what you are going into. Good luck. I hope your hope is well served. Fearing the best, fearing the worst.

At RGGS they have more funding options for their students, and more options for assistantships for what I want to go into. There is also better access to the collections that they have, and I think what I would be going into would be more collection heavy. There would also probably be less travel time involved with going there rather then Columbia(going back and forth from there to RGGS the first couple of years). Also I know that RGGS says that they try to graduate students within 4, maybe 5 years, which is faster then what Columbia says. I know that every student and thesis is the same, but I still like the idea in my head. But Columbia has more fincial resources independent of the department that I would have acess to. But less in respect to assistanships and the like that I would want. But Columbia has more influence as an already established program, as well as having some of the same faculity. But the chances are that I will talk to the POIs that I am looking at to see if it is worth while to apply to both, considering the fact that then they will be looking at me twice if I do.

flare gun

It took me a while to realize as well that what I wanted was a Ph.D. I tried working in an office for a while, and found my self growing restless. Not that what I was doing was boring, just not what I want to be doing. I realized that I would rather be doing research, and working in a museum. And considering the field that I would want to go into for this, I would be best off getting the Ph.D.

raise roof

Does it look like anybody else might be going to this years AGU meeting? hopefully I will be there presenting this year, during the processes of applying! I know that it will be in Dec.

First, I am doing this just to bump up this thread because I have been finding it useful, and two, I have new questions along this line and dont think a new thread should be started. So I am about to start emailing POI's for this falls application season. The main thing that I am curious about is a couple of the POI's I am looking at working at two schools that I am considering applying to. Should I mention that I am looking at both schools? Would it be reasonable to ask them what they think makes each program strong/weak? One of them got accreditation for the program I am looking at just a few years ago, but like I said same adviser and the program looks interesting, but the other one is Columbia U, so well established school and program.

I agree with that. I would also say to the OP that I don't think people here over all say that GPA, GRE and all of that don't matter, they do. It's just that for so many programs, most of the people applying to any given program, already have good GPAs, GRE scores, and so on that, that the deciding factors come out being the SOP and the letters of Rec, if just to see if that person 1) will actually be able to do grad level work as judged by other PhD's and 2) if you would actually fit well in the lab. Just because you have a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 on your GRE does not mean your as good a fit for that lab as some one with a 3.7 and 1400 who has a better fit, and better research skills for that lab. With these two examples, they both have good numbers, but SOP and recs decide who will get into the lab. And if the whole applicant pool is full of people like them, then yes, the SOP and recs might be seen as more important, because they distinguish between them all.

That is similar to the situation that I am in. I am getting ready to apply to schools this fall and I know that fit is important. But the research I am doing currently is close to the field I want to go in, but is not the field itself. I am still waiting to hear back from other places for this summer, in the field I am interested in, that I could use as a better example for fit, but it is not definite. So if that does not work out, I still have the issue of demonstrating how I would fit well into a lab or department, based on my interests, and experience in a lab in a different field( I am currently in paloeclimatolgy, I want to go more into paleobiology/biostratigraphy). So I am hoping other people have advice on how they went about switching from one subfield into another, when you are trying to go into grad school. Part of my problem is that there is currently no one at my school who is working on something closer to what I want to do in grad school. And it's not that what I am doing is uninteresting, its just not something i see myself doing for the next 5 or 6 year, let alone the rest of my life.

suburb sprawl

Same thing with the physical sciences, at least the earth sciences. The last time they updated it was 2010. While rankings are useful and all as a good starting place, I dont think they are the best for final decisions for where you are going to apply. Phds.org seems better because you can search based more on what qualities are more important to you, but their data is much less frequent, and still doesn't cover all the schools you might look at.

Academically, I am assuming they are on par with Columbia, otherwise I doubt that they would send students over there to work, despite the good collections and all. Placement is what worries me. As for awkward website and the whole application being annoying, I'm sorry. Thats not always a good sign, but it might just be that this is still a new process for them (not a great excuse for them I know), but I have also heard that complaint for other more traditional schools as well, both good and bad. I mean, I find going through the UT - Austin website to be much more awkward then this one, although yes, it is annoying here at some points as well. Did you not have as much of a problem at the other schools that you applied to? Part of what I am wondering here is if it is worthwhile to apply here as well as Columbia, if the people I want to work with would be my adviser either way? There would be a difference somewhat in resources, and time scale on when getting a degree finished, but not much else as far as I can tell. Probably access to certain resources would be better at one then the other depending which one a person ends up at.

I guess what I am wondering if there is anything that you think would help you prove that you would be a good fit for the group that you are looking at. Fit in the program, and with advisers is always important to prove, and important to do so in the space given in SOP's and the like, but how are people going about doing so? Other then saying so, I get this feeling like many programs like to see something to back it up. Not that it is impossible to do so without something.

I'm hoping to get in for paleonology/ geobiology/ biostratigraphy. Like waddle, I'll let you know, I'm applying this fall.

So everyone knows to try to have the best GPA, GRE, SOPs/Personal statements and recs possible, when trying to be competitive when applying to grad school. That is a given. But it is also true that those are not the only necessary things that adcomms are looking at your application. Everyone has heard stories of how some one without the best numbers did something(be it research, publications, anything along those lines) that helped convince a school to let them in, and I was wondering if there are any cases of that recently, or if you are doing something now, that you hope will help you get into grad school. My case is I have middle of the road numbers, lower end for the better schools, but not impossible. What I am hoping will help me is the research that I am working on. I am hoping to get a poster in for AGU this fall(big confrence for geo people), about the same time I'm applying to grad school, as well as being a published author not long after that.

Since your research is relevant to what you want to do, then thats a good thing, and I would emphasize that in your statements. It will help with your recommendation letters. As for geo classes, like I said, email the schools and see how important geo classes are in their consideration for this subfield. Is there any time for you to take some before you apply/ start? If so, then you can at least cover some bases before you start, and can let them know that when you apply, or let them know before they make final decisions.

There are several points that I want to cover here. First, I'm interested in geobiology just like you, and its great to see another one(come on over to the earth science forum, you'll be very welcome). Now getting into what you were asking, my first question is what part of geobiology do you want to go into? A lot of the programs that I have been looking at, they specifically say that depending on what you research you might want to focus on, having either a bio or geo degree would be fine. So, generally it should not matter that you don't have any geo classes, but it depends on the schoo. What I would say is go look at schools, see which interest you, see if they say anything about classes that they think that you should take if any, (I know that UChicago does), and if not, you can always email them. Getting in contact with schools early is good from what I heard. Basically, which ever way you go, you might have some course work to catch up on, and that you are at no real disadvantage there. Your GRE scores are really good, but not necessarily perfect, but I think that they are high enough for you to not have to worry about it. I think that the biggest hurdle that you are going to have to get over is explaining why you would want to go into geobiology, mainly because of the research that you are doing is in astronomy. It is good that you have experience in research and will get is published, but they might wonder more about the subject, and how you ended up being interested in geobiology. But since I don't know why you did, you might have a very good reason, and have it covered in your statement of purpose and/or personal statement.