I feel that my college history has tainted me.

[GradHooting]

This was posted in the applications thread, but, after two months and a few bumps, it got no reply. I'm seriously concerned about this, since I am in a bit of a complicated situation, and I do not fit into any standard box that people are used to. The problem is, the very nature of grad school applications attempts to standardize people where 90% or so fit into those categories.

I've been to three universities and two community colleges, two internships after college, etc etc. It's a mess, and I've no idea how to keep the admissions committees from freaking out at the complication, because I am almost certain that it is the reason why I have been rejected from everywhere after two application rounds.

So, I've had about two years sprinkled with sleepless nights over this. I'm tired of asking "what are my chances" and getting rejected from everywhere I apply. I need to ask myself: What school would be best for me?

If I get admitted in Fall '13, I'll have a full year of experience as an intern at NASA, a summer internship at Northrop Grumman, a year of research experience in a physics lab at U of Colorado (papers still being worked on, they haven't been submitted yet, that part's out of my control), teaching experience as a tutor and lab assistant for a year, and a few smaller things.

I currently live in the bay area, and I love it here. I'd love to continue living around here, but I fear that there might be a lack of schools with good aerospace programs that would keep me competitive to employers and to investors (in the distant future, what a vain thing, a grad school name can be... I'm speaking from experience with small business owners on this aspect, many investors seem to be blind to alma maters that aren't dazzling in their namesake)

GRE: 800/630/5.5

GPA: 3.57 (maintaining a 4.0 taking graduate math and physics courses at a different university)

I've been mulling over what the schools didn't like in my application, and I think, despite everything else, it's boiling down to GPA. Over and over, it's something that I cannot go back and time and change, it seems. Not only that, but, after the first year of undergrad, I withdrew mid-semester on my second semester, due to a death of a family member and the ensuing chaos that resulted from it. So, my transcripts are from numerous schools, littered with a less than stellar GPA, and a semester of W's. I am, in no way, shape, or form, fitting into any sort of nice package that seems appealing to graduate schools. On top of that, with my crazy transcripts, I'm paranoid that I'm setting off a myriad of trip wires in their auto-filtration systems. I just don't know what to do from here, but I feel that I'm just tainted, and should just be happy that I managed to get out of undergraduate school unscathed, and just find a job somewhere. I'd really *love* to continue to a great grad school, but I cannot go back in time and fix things, and it's blowing my mind trying to figure out how I can explain all the weirdness. In this economy, with grad programs filled to the brim with students who struggle to find employment, and have few slots available, I get the feeling that they're being risk-averse, and there are more than enough students out there who are a nice, clean, low risk package to accept.

I suppose I'm just worried. Everyone who's worked with me thinks I'd be a fine candidate for grad school, even at a top program, but those are just words. The evidence is showing me otherwise.

Any thoughts?

[Sparky]

While I'm not in anything resembling your field, I don't think a 3.57 is a Mark o' Doom in any subject, and especially not if your undergrad was in engineering as well. Especially your GRE score should be enough to get adcoms to look beyond the GRE/GPA entryway--that is, at statement of purpose and letters of recommendation. The SOP seems particularly important in your case. That is where you explain your supposedly abnormal (I don't think your record is anywhere near as unusual as you do, based both on what I've seen here and the people in my dept) academic history. And, critically, why your past problems are no longer a factor and will not affect your future work. In your case, it seems like it was a pretty time-specific thing, so you shouldn't have much trouble with that.

The other thing is LORs. I imagine you are being modest for the sake of TGC, but fwiw, having people say you would make a "fine candidate" isn't going to cut it. You want your LOR writers to attest that you are the second coming of Bernoulli and von Braun.

I don't know much about AE programs. I think in a lot of cases, companies actually fund degrees for their employees (this is how it works for my friends at Boeing and at various NASA contractors), and have contracts with specific universities to offer company-sponsored funding packages if the person gets admitted. So if that's a factor for you, check with your company.

Another thing might also be fit with schools. Maybe you've applied to programs that are particularly keen on producing students who stay in academia, but you indicated an interest in industry work? Vice versa? Or just, no match of research interest with professor? There is always a certain amount of randomness, probably the biggest factor, that means even awesome applicants get passed over because That Professor just wasn't taking students this year, or Other Prof got all the funding.

There were a good number of third-time successes last year. I think most of them also worked with a prof from undergrad to improve their applications as much as humanly possible for the third go-round, so that might be something else to consider. Someone with an idea of what grad programs in your field are looking for. Good luck!

-Sparky, who had to send in transcripts from four undergrad schools plus an MA transcript

[emmm]

I sent in transcripts from 7 schools... but I did do undergrad in 4 consecutive years in 1 school. Still, I was not a nicely package-able applicant, and I had 10+ years of stay-at-home-mom on my record. You just have to find the one program that will take a chance on you (but it can be tough to find that one). Good luck!

[fuzzylogician]

I really don't think this is about your GPA. A 3.57 is no where near any cutoff I've ever heard about, so I don't think your applications get automatically disqualified. Rather, this seems to be an issue with the next step in the process - your SOP and LORs. You need to be extra-careful with your SOP - you need to explain your past and alleviate adcoms' concerns that whatever caused your unusual background is still a problem. Adcoms want to admit students who have a good chance of finishing the program in a timely fashion and be successful. You need to demonstrate that you can be that student, and if your past makes it seem less likely then you need to clearly address it and explain how things are different now. The other potential issue is LORs - you want strong academic LORs that can attest to your abilities and preferably address your commitment level and follow-through on projects. Your research background sounds relatively strong, so it's probably these other issues that are holding you back.

[GradHooting]

I guess I will just give a lot more attention to my statement of purpose. Regarding recommenders, I will need to find some people who can attest to me being more than just "really good." Maybe, something with specific examples that are more vivid. Perhaps, I will have to be more up front when asking them what they can say. I have about a month to network and get everything squared away, though I have been practicing with my statement of purpose for a few months, now.

[practical cat]

I second what the above posters have said but I want to address tone. There are aspects to the application that you just can't change (GPA, transcripts, etc) and those facts absolutely must be accepted. You cannot approach a SOP with an attitude of "I know this looks bad, but" because you don't want to be the person that gives the people reading your application a reason to think you look bad. I would only address the positive aspects of GPA and I would explain my academic history in a way that was honest but confident. (It's possible, even, to get one of your letter writers to do this on your behalf.) You do have no way of preventing admissions committees from finding fault with any aspect of your application but you can prevent yourself from raising red flags for them.

Plenty of people get into grad school who don't fit into some sort of magical numbers box and plenty of people get rejected who do. The battle is in presentation.