waddle

In case you haven't found the official interpretation yet, it's here: http://www.ets.org/gre/subject/scores/understand. TL,DR: "Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of examinees who scored below your score and may differ between testing years as annual updating occurs."

As bhmlurker said, you should get in contact with faculty, admissions officers or staff at the schools to which you're applying. If you give them a brief idea of what your profile looks like and a few specific research topics faculty at those schools are pursuing that you are interested in, they may be able to give you a good idea of where you stand in relation to other applicants.

http://www.rachelcsmith.com/academics/nsf.htm Yes. Yes. Refer to the NSF GRFP application to find instructions on formatting.

I'm just registering myself with each school's application server, and keeping login info in a (bloated and horribly disorganized) spreadsheet. I'll probably just do each application all at a time. Yeah, I feel ya.

Thanks all for the advice. I figured 10-20 hours was unrealistic, but that might be the time frame with which I have to work (at least, to meet the earlier deadlines). I had actually planned on weaving the "fit" ideas into the entire document, rather than just writing a "fit" paragraph and inserting that into the SOP--i.e. writing a different SOP from scratch for each institution--but judging from this forum, this doesn't seem to be a good way to approach the SOP.

Hi all, I'm planning on spending 10-20 hours on my Statement of Purpose; I just haven't yet had a large block of time to actually sit down and write the thing. (Yes, I know, it's really late in the game to be getting started.) I keep seeing advice that one should spend a great deal of time on writing the SOP, but does anyone have a quantitative estimate for how much is recommended? (I understand that it obviously differs from person-to-person, but I'd just like to get a sense as to how long these things really take to write. I've only written a couple of personal statements in my life, so I'm very inexperienced when it comes to writing about myself.) Thanks! waddle

Your profile looks pretty sound. But if I were you, I wouldn't bank on pushing your ability to fund your graduate study. Save your money--you'll no doubt need it later, and blowing it off on tuition probably isn't the best way to go. Schools should pay for your graduate study--after all, you'll be their slave for ~5 years; would you really want to pay a school to allow you to work 60-80 hours a week in the lab? I sure wouldn't. That said, your choice of institutions seems very geographically limited. Is there a particular reason you don't want to apply outside of California? Many great Midwest schools are hurting for good applicants (e.g. Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska), and with your profile, you'd probably stand a good chance of being admitted. (In my opinion, but I'm just an undergrad.) And why not apply to UCLA's ACCESS program (<puts in a plug for ACCESS>)? Can't hurt to toss in your application, and from what I've heard, your GPA & GRE are almost irrelevant (especially since you can explain some deficiencies away). Besides, your professors even told you not to worry. You've nothing to worry about--many applicants are in worse shape than you are. You should also consider what you can (or cannot) do with a M.S. in genetics. I'm not too well versed here, but a lot of jobs (even in industry) tend to require a Ph.D. as the entry-level qualification. Good luck! waddle

It'll definitely be easier for you to write on a topic with which you're familiar. Since you've done work in the area, you'll probably be able to draw much more from your biological modeling experience than delving into a wholly-unfamiliar topic. I'm pretty sure the NSF just funds the researcher, not the research, so you should be fine if you end up getting the grant. I'm just an undergrad in a somewhat-similar situation, so take this with a grain of salt. And good luck! waddle

I wish I could be psychic too, Kitkat. But I'm probably more lost than you are right now in regards to admissions and whatnot. But I'm pretty sure the percentages are the least significant of all the numbers. For example, UCLA's geochemistry PhD program has a yearly average (over the previous 5 years, or so they say) of 3 acceptances (out of 11 applications). I'm almost positive the three students accepted (on average) had already established good connections with their potential advisor prior to applying. I don't know anything about U. Chicago's earth sciences programs, but I'm assuming most schools have a cohort of <30 new students per year, so connections really do matter in the geosciences. (Alas, I have none.) This stands in contrast to the life sciences, where umbrella programs and rotations are common, and in which a grad student decides who their advisor will be (out of the 200 or so faculty participating in these umbrella programs) after a year of rotations. So what I'm trying to get at is that you probably won't have any "safety" schools unless you already have contacts at the graduate program you consider to be a safety. Since nobody knows who I or my advisor are, I really don't have any safety schools this application season.

I don't quite understand where you're going with the last sentence there. But I don't think acceptance rates (which obviously reflect only populations of applicants) are applicable to any one particular applicant (i.e. you), especially since geoscience programs are so small. The numbers won't tell you as much about the programs as a qualitative description will (e.g. talking with people). And Kitkat, since you have a year left before you apply, don't sell yourself short by deciding already what your "safety" school is. Just focus on boosting your credentials; the rest of us can only wish we'd figured out what we'd wanted to do as early as you did. waddle P.S. Just as an answer to your question, I'm thinking <15% would be highly competitive, >30% would be not very competitive (for what I know of your credentials from your posts, at least)

I believe many schools have opted to receive scores from ETS in electronic format. I don't think an early December testing would be cutting it too close. Also, just to give you a sense of where you are in relation to the applicant pool, MIT/WHOI's Joint Program website gives these statistics for admitted applicants in 2010: Verbal: 640 (88%); Quantitative: 750 (84%); Analytical/Writing: 5.0 (68%). I do not know what subfield of the earth sciences you are interested in, but those schools you listed are generally very competitive for many subfields (especially UCSD, MIT & Columbia). Also, I would not assume UCSC and UCSD have similar admissions criteria; Scripps is much more oceanography-oriented, and the cultural aspects seem to be different as well (just from what I've heard, take my advice with a few grains of salt). Just to clarify, MIT is not an Ivy League school. The Ivy League is nothing more than a sports association of eight East Coast universities; the label has little-to-nothing to do with their research capacities. Good luck, fellow applicant. Keep us updated. waddle

I hear the beer is flowing freely. Not by any means a surprise, but I felt like I should add something, too.

I am under the impression that letters from postdocs carry little weight during admissions. You may want to find another recommender.

Did you focus on answering the first ten or so questions correctly? Answering one of the first questions incorrectly (even if you answer most/all other questions correctly) may drop your score by ~20-50 points.

Definitely agree with this recommendation. I went through all of the words in the list linked above in the last week before my GRE exam. Based on PowerPrep and my actual exam scores, memorizing ~2000 or so words I didn't recognize in that list (there are 3000 words in the list) in the 3 days leading up to the exam boosted my Verbal score by 50-100 points (from somewhere in the 600s to mid-700s). I reviewed the words anytime, anywhere the day before the exam (and up to 2 minutes before walking into the test center!). Definitely saw a few of these words on my actual exam. Your mileage may vary. At least your GRE score isn't the strongest part of your application. If all other components are solid, no reason to worry, right?

Hope this works. If your TOEFL score is good, this should compensate (at least, in my view).

Don't have anything to add here, unfortunately. I'm just starting to cram for the Chemistry subject test , and have the same question (except I'm competing with chemistry PhD applicants on the test, but applying for biogeochemistry). And wow, you're taking it early! If I were you, I'd study for another year and retake then.

Hi DRT, Your verbal score is on the low side, even for an international PhD applicant. Many programs seem to have a soft cut-off between 1100 and 1300 (depending on the competitiveness of the program), so your GRE scores will be cutting it close, especially for fellowship considerations (or so I've heard). If you have the time and money, you should retake the GRE and try to raise your verbal score (a good reference for words is http://supervoca.net/grelist.cgi). Good luck! waddle

I am just an applicant, too, so all I've said is based on my understanding of the records of some of my acquaintances who did end up going to UCSF, Harvard, etc. As such it may not be complete, but their numbers were ~3.8 (from No Name State U.) with ~3 years research experience (one did an Amgen program). I do not have an estimate for their GRE scores, so can't help you there. But all in all, I think their records are not nearly as impressive as yours, so you should have a good shot.

I think you should go all-out for Harvard, MIT, Stanford, WUSTL, UCSF. Just based on people I know who got into some of these schools for biomedical graduate programs, your chances should be very good. I don't think you should be worried about your GPA or GRE, everything else seems to far outweigh these deficiencies. I figure that given a choice between those with phenomenal research experience (but who come up short on numbers) and those with great GRE/GPA (but less research), neuroscience PhD programs would definitely take the applicant with better research experience (especially since neuroscience programs will have a very specialized applicant pool, unlike Tetrad et al.). Good luck!

Hi randy, Just another undergrad here (and not even in geology!) so don't take my words as gospel. Depends on what you mean by a 'decent school'. If you mean a reputable school that everyone's heard of (i.e. not No Name State U.), then you will obviously face some competition. But since nobody really cares about the GRE or GPA, I'm guessing you'll only need ~1350 and ~3.5, respectively, to be competitive, assuming you have some experience in research or have had some exposure to industry (e.g. via an internship), and come from a well-known school. Off the top of my head, UT Austin and UCLA have nice M.S. programs in the geosciences. Do you have a potential advisor with whom you've already gotten in contact at your current institution? If you haven't made any inroads into your own department's work yet, now's the time to do so. Also, there would be no point in constraining yourself to the same school if you didn't already have an idea for a Master's thesis topic with a professor at your school (unless you have other reasons--financial, family, etc.--for staying where you are). Try consulting with the faculty in your department. I'm sure they'll be much better resources than Google searches. waddle P.S. Moderator, please move this thread into the Earth Sciences subforum--now that it has a proper home, I think it'd be much more appropriate located in that subforum.

I'm going! (I'm supposed to be presenting a poster there, but I'll need to whip my data into shape real fast ... ) I've never attended a real academic conference before--and I don't mean those poster sessions they have on campus--let alone presented at one, so I'm going to be pretty nervous. 16,000 attendees is a big number. waddle -- EDIT: katerific, did you just ask potential advisors if they were planning to attend AGU, and if you could meet with them then? -- Yes, please do keep your hair. Hope it goes well, UnlikelyGrad! And alas, won't be able to attend GSA. (Actually my school's so poor (read: *expletive* budget cuts) we don't subscribe to GSA journals, so I'm not in tune with the GSA side of the earth sciences.)

Hi bansky, I'm just an undergrad, so take my words with a ladleful of salt. From my time doing cell & molecular biology wet-lab work, I can tell you that your application will be a tough sell with UCSF, Berkeley or Stanford (but you know that already). If I were you I'd apply elsewhere around the nation, endure 5 years, and return to the Bay Area to work with your PhD. (From what I hear, Genentech's a nice place.) But if you only want to stay in the Bay Area, more power to ya. I'd apply to these programs you mentioned, see what responses you get, and if they're negative, just try again next year (hey, at least you're employed!). I, too, have no idea what "highly recommended" means (neither, apparently, does my PI). But you should probably take the GRE tests again to improve your score. Your GRE scores are the only numbers you can change at this point, and you'll need to have something numerical to make up for the lower GPA. I recommend checking out http://supervoca.net/grelist.cgi for a bunch of GRE words. I printed sheets of these words, wrote definitions in the margins, and took them with me wherever I went. Won't take you long to work through these words (I memorized ~2000 of them in the 3 days before my exam), and it'll probably significantly boost your score (my estimate is +150, your mileage may vary). Good luck! waddle

Speaking of visits, one of the professors (Professor Y) I've contacted invited me to visit X University (I haven't applied yet). The coordinator of the graduate program at X U. was able to arrange a visit day (next week!--I'm in the area, though) with this professor and a few others (Professors L, M, N). I had mentioned to Professor Y that I was also looking into the a couple of the other professors' research groups, but I have not yet made initial email contact with them. If anyone could fill me in on the protocol, that'd be great. Should I send an introductory email to Prof. L, M, N (with whom I've got an appointment), or should I just show up? This is somewhat of an awkward situation, and I should have emailed Prof. L, M & N earlier--just didn't get around to reading their papers yet.

Thank you, katerific! Hopefully I can find a way to make this application work. But it's all relative, right? So not publishing will hurt if a lot of other applicants have published? I'm interested in using isotopes to study biogeochemical processes at the molecular level (e.g. redox cycles, fractionation mechanisms, maybe some paleo- stuff); this basically falls out of my research training, so these interests may (will?) change. I don't have a defined research interest, other than that I tend to shy away from Earth system-level processes (I've never managed to read one of those atmospheric modeling papers all the way through). Thanks again! waddle