TypeA

^ Yeah, keep going with the "It's not me, it's them" storyline.

I am getting angry with the long line of posters who demand to see their LORs. I think complaining about the content of a good LOR is just completely on another level of being spoilt. I am really not a mean spirited person but you have to let go the things you cannot control(and you are not supposed to control it only with your excellent work !) and have to concentrate on the things you can. And I would thank my coworker the effort he/she made for me.

To the OP: I'd let the letter stand as is, and if anything, solicit another letter to augment your application. I had something somewhat similar happen, and it didn't seem to really hurt my admissions chances. My mentors told me that committees often expect to see a dud or two mixed into packets and know that sometimes things fall through with letters and that it doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate. If your other letters look good, you'll probably be fine.

To the forum: Most of my letter writers asked me to look at my letters after they'd written them, and give them feedback/corrections. This seems to be normal with other friends of mine who've gone through the application process, as well. I don't see anything wrong with this, unless I'm missing something here that makes this case unique?

My understanding of the LoR waiver is that applicants waive their right to review the letter—that is, I've never equated "right to review" with "I promise not to look at my letters, even if they're offered." My understanding is that applicants simply relinquish the right to read all LoRs, with or without permission (and instead can only view letters the writer decides to make available).

People are going to disagree with blanket statements, whether they're "don't study" or "study 20 hours per week for three months." The people this forum are too intelligent and too motivated to go "Welp, some stranger on the internet said not to study. I think I'll ignore everything I know about how I best prepare for things," so I don't think that this thread is worth the umbrage it seems to be causing (if the down-votes are any indication).

OP's post serves to illustrate that some people don't need to study to do well on standardized tests, and that point has merit. I tend to fall into that category, and the multitude of study-strategy threads on this forum caused some serious GRE neuroticism. I did study, and I'm glad for it--I hadn't had a math course in four years--but seeing a thread like this might have allayed some of my stress when I started studying with less than a month until my exam.

Also, slacking during GRE prep and playfully labeling oneself a slacker doesn't automatically mean that OP slacks in all domains of life.

For those keeping score, I studied 5-8 hours a week for a little less than four weeks. That worked for me (1430/6.0), YMMV.

People are going to disagree with blanket statements, whether they're "don't study" or "study 20 hours per week for three months." The people this forum are too intelligent and too motivated to go "Welp, some stranger on the internet said not to study. I think I'll ignore everything I know about how I best prepare for things," so I don't think that this thread is worth the umbrage it seems to be causing (if the down-votes are any indication).

OP's post serves to illustrate that some people don't need to study to do well on standardized tests, and that point has merit. I tend to fall into that category, and the multitude of study-strategy threads on this forum caused some serious GRE neuroticism. I did study, and I'm glad for it--I hadn't had a math course in four years--but seeing a thread like this might have allayed some of my stress when I started studying with less than a month until my exam.

Also, slacking during GRE prep and playfully labeling oneself a slacker doesn't automatically mean that OP slacks in all domains of life.

For those keeping score, I studied 5-8 hours a week for a little less than four weeks. That worked for me (1430/6.0), YMMV.

People are going to disagree with blanket statements, whether they're "don't study" or "study 20 hours per week for three months." The people this forum are too intelligent and too motivated to go "Welp, some stranger on the internet said not to study. I think I'll ignore everything I know about how I best prepare for things," so I don't think that this thread is worth the umbrage it seems to be causing (if the down-votes are any indication).

OP's post serves to illustrate that some people don't need to study to do well on standardized tests, and that point has merit. I tend to fall into that category, and the multitude of study-strategy threads on this forum caused some serious GRE neuroticism. I did study, and I'm glad for it--I hadn't had a math course in four years--but seeing a thread like this might have allayed some of my stress when I started studying with less than a month until my exam.

Also, slacking during GRE prep and playfully labeling oneself a slacker doesn't automatically mean that OP slacks in all domains of life.

For those keeping score, I studied 5-8 hours a week for a little less than four weeks. That worked for me (1430/6.0), YMMV.

I think you have an incredibly strong profile, with the possible exception of your GRE quant score. That might be mitigated by your courses; I'm not very familiar with those programs, so I don't know how heavily the GRE is weighed/if it's used for preliminary weeding.

I do know that the UMich Ford School--which is less competitive, but may consider the GRE differently--advises "in general, the incoming class has GRE scores in and above the 75th percentile." If I remember correctly, a 720 is about 75th percentile for quant. The consensus around here seems to be to shoot for 700+.

I think you have an incredibly strong profile, with the possible exception of your GRE quant score. That might be mitigated by your courses; I'm not very familiar with those programs, so I don't know how heavily the GRE is weighed/if it's used for preliminary weeding.

I do know that the UMich Ford School--which is less competitive, but may consider the GRE differently--advises "in general, the incoming class has GRE scores in and above the 75th percentile." If I remember correctly, a 720 is about 75th percentile for quant. The consensus around here seems to be to shoot for 700+.

I do not consider the X program at the School of Awesomesauce a convenient means to an end—I believe it is the best path to my academic and professional goals.

Except, you know, using real names and words and such.

I wonder how adcomms would react to the use of "School of Awesome" or similar derivatives...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 2:1 is upper second class honors in the UK system. Roughly translated, I would say it falls between A-/B+, based on my semester abroad. So, 3.5ish?

I do not consider the X program at the School of Awesomesauce a convenient means to an end—I believe it is the best path to my academic and professional goals.

Except, you know, using real names and words and such.

I wonder how adcomms would react to the use of "School of Awesome" or similar derivatives...

My suggestions are these:

Before the assignment
Give students as much guidance as you can on what they need to do to earn high marks.
Provide study questions that help them focus on the relevant course materials.
If you're the one writing the assignment, use these discussions to figure out the class's overall strengths and weaknesses.
So if you realize many members of the class don't understand G, you can either provide additional instruction or decide not to put G in a graded assignment.
(You can always circle back to it in a subsequent assignment.)
Expand office hours so students can get guidance
Facilitate the formation of study groups.
If possible, go the these study groups and provide additional tutorials.


During the assignmentDevelop rubrics that you'll use to evaluate the students' performance.
If the assignment is an exam, observe the students as they take it.

If students are really struggling, you may be in for a long couple of nights.
[*]Discuss with the professor the guidelines for evaluation he or she has in mind.
[*]As students hand in the assignment, provide them an opportunity to complete an evaluation form.


When grading the assignments
[*]Figure out how you want to approach the work.

[*]Do you want to grade one assignment from beginning to end?
[*]Do you want to look at everyone's' response to Part I before going on to Part II? (I recommend this method.)
[*]Another method is put aside assignments that are proving difficult to evaluation. In my experience this category includes work that is going to fall between a -/+ for a B or a C.

[*]Resign yourself to the fact that you've got some grinding to do.
[*]As much as possible, pay attention to how you feel. Do not take out your anger over the situation on your students.


In my experience, the pre assignment prep work was the most helpful. It helped students to get focused on the assignment and to allay some of their concerns. It helped me to understand where they needed additional support and to get a good sense of how they'd respond to specific questions. When it was time to pitch questions with my boss for the exam, I would offer a bunch of fastballs, but no curveballs. (And certainly, no softballs.)


HTH.