Preparing Myself for Grad School

[earlybird94]

I am new to this forum, so forgive me if I break any rules, both spoken and unspoken, and also for this extremely lengthy post! The topic of grad school has been on my mind a lot recently, despite being a sophomore in undergrad, and I was hoping to get some advice as to what things I'm doing wrong, or right, in terms of preparing myself for grad school and grad school admissions, so here goes.

 

About me:

As I said, I am currently a sophomore studying Materials Science and Engineering at a very highly ranked (depending on who you ask) school in my field. I am also pursuing minors in Computer Science and Electronic Materials, both out of personal interest. Here are some of my relevant stats:

 

GPA: 3.80/4.00

GRE: 157 V, 168 Q, 4.5 W

 

Important to note is that my GPA is only for freshman year, so it probably isn't a good indicator for anything right now. My GRE score is also official, not a practice test score. I took it freshman year to see if it was something I would need to focus on later, sort of also for fun as well, but I did decently well and am wondering if I should take it again in a year or two. I can probably do better, as I didn't do any prep whatsoever beforehand, but I'm wondering whether I should bother spending time and energy on the GRE if I don't have to. 

 

I have been involved in research since fall of my freshman year regarding hard drive disks. I also spent this past summer in a different lab at a different school working on 3D printed architectured ceramics. No publications yet, but I very well may have one by summer time.

 

In terms of research topics for grad school, it is honestly too early to tell, as I have yet to take the bulk of my core classes, but I am heavily leaning toward topics involving nanostructured materials or are related to semiconductors, hence my second minor.

 

I will have to admit that I do not have much of any relation, positive or negative, with any professors at school beyond my faculty advisor (who, luckily, also happens to be my PI), and is an area that I know I will have to work on, as I know letters of rec are extremely important.

 

I know that most of the people here resent ranking grad school programs by the universities they are a part of, but in terms of my goals I would have to say that I am just aiming as high as I can right now. 

 

I should also mention that I am an international student who has gone through K-12 in the US, but I do not have a green card or citizenship. There is a possibility that I may have a green card by the time I graduate, but I don't know if I can count on that happening. I know that it is especially hard, in most cases, for international students to be admitted to grad school, so I am hoping to counter that by preparing early and maximizing my potential in any areas that I can.

 

I do a fair share of extra curriculars as well, but the only relevant ones are probably that I tutor physics and calculus for my school and am an RA (resident assistant).

 

Going to grad school has been always been long term goal for me, whether that be for a Masters, PhD, or both, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism or advice! I can provide any additional, relevant details if needed.

 

Thanks again in advance!

Edited October 24, 2013 by earlybird94

[Usmivka]

I'd suggest reading all the pinned threads, including in this forum if you are concerned about what and where to post.

A few thoughts:

 

If you take the GRE too early, the scores may be deleted before you apply to grad school. You have good scores now--if you decide to work for a year or two after school and your score expires, you may have to retake it. So consider applying before that happens and deferring admission if need be. Don't waste time retaking it just to improve a few percent, which is all that most people accomplish with focused study prior to a second round.

 

Research and publications are good. If you can focus on a topic for a year or two, aim for a first author publication. Maybe work on a project involving two profs, hence two LORs.

 

The consensus on the forum isn't that ranking programs by university name should be resented (which implies some injury to those who disagree with the practice), but rather that focusing on brand over program, advisor, and research fit is dumb in the context of a PhD. Lots is written on the forums about this elsewhere, backed up with scholarly articles, statistics, anecdote. The search function is your friend, but summarizing what you'll find, this really shouldn't matter much relative to other components of your decision unless you are doing a professional degree or hoping to work in certain industries that care about branding over qualification.

 

Without a green card you will find the bar is set significantly higher in terms of admission, if for no other reason than the increased cost of supporting international students (higher tuition and health care costs) and decreased eligibility for fellowships. All qualifications being equal, a US permanent resident or citizen will be preferred because they have some shot of defraying their cost with, say, a GRF whereas you will have none without further steps towards naturalization. You say you know it is hard, though, so this is probably nothing new for you.

 

Extracurriculars matter little, except insofar as you can use them to demonstrate that you are a strong candidate, eg showing how self-directed you are, leadership or teamwork, ability to contribute to the broader impacts requirements for a potential advisor. Some advisors may view extracurriculars as a liability if a student is determined to spend time on them in grad school--not a good viewpoint for fostering a healthy work/life balance, but a reality nonetheless.

 

There are a number here who argue that a graduate degree should not be a goal in and of itself, but a necessary stepping stone to some larger career or life goal. Others will argue the point more eloquently I'm not going to get into it. I will point out that your goal most likely will not be a satisfactory motivation as far as an admissions committee is concerned.

[earlybird94]

Thank you, I have read through parts of the pinned threads but will look through them in greater detail later.

 

My current plan is to go to grad school directly after graduating, and the test scores last for five years, but of course, my plans could easily change within the next few years. 

 

Good advice, hopefully I will be able to have worked on two good projects, published or not, by the time I apply for grad school.

 

I apologize, that is closer to what I intended to write than what I posted is and I agree, in the end, the program, advisor, and fit are much more important than are rankings.

 

Yes, this was my experience applying for undergrad as well. The bar is definitely set higher for admissions for international students, and I am not sure if the fact that I was completely educated in the US matters at all. I know that funding is a huge part of the decision making process for grads. Are admissions chances changed at all if an applicant could pay for tuition/a program without funding? Or is admission based solely on your application? It is often the case for many undergraduate universities to give no financial aid for international students, although whether or not it affects admissions is questionable.

 

I will keep that in mind then, as I move on from here.

 

I apologize again, I did not mean to imply that my life goal was to obtain a PhD, but it is indeed an important stepping stone to what I hope to achieve afterwards.

[hikaru1221]

Many points have been well made. I would want to point out a few details, although I'm still in the process of applying:

 

1/ If you have thought this far ahead (and are sure of what you're aiming for), I think you should really aim very high for top schools where you have to worry less (much less) about funding (as well as GRE). If a professor wants you, he/she will find all the ways to recruit you.

 

2/ If possible, it might be good to settle with one project that you really like and can work on throughout the undergrad years under a dedicated professor. This means: 1 - an excellent LoR is guaranteed, 2 - you have far more experiences than many applicants who research experiences are scattered (which gives you an edge since PhD research should be concentrated), 3 - your chance to be allowed to do independent research, and thus produce your own publication, is higher. The drawback might be that you are less aware of other areas. Taking some graduate courses, which require you to read papers or do course projects at the research student level, can well compensate for that, and you can find good LoR writers from those.

 

I cannot stress more on how important having a dedicated supervisor is. This is because if you really aim high, say, for publications during undergrad, then a good supervisor would pay more attention to what you're doing, give you more chance to explore independently, and ultimately provide you suggestions on the possible directions that can lead up to publications. By independent, I mean you're in charge of your own research direction, where you start to discover new things. Yet from my own experience, not all new discoveries can be published. And when you publish once, you know what is publishable. Going from no publication to publishing something that's worth people's attention for the first time is a big step and there you need a really good supervisor.

 

Now having publications is good, but that's not the ultimate goal. The caveat is, looking at one's paper, the adcoms may understand how much efforts and dedication have been put into it; but at the same time, if the paper does not reach the standard quality expected in the school he's applying to, then regardless of efforts and dedication and whatsoever, there is simply no fit and thus no admissions. It is not uncommon that applicants with a bunch of publications at hand get rejected by all the top schools. All what these mean is, the paper you publish is a tangible piece of evidence of the level of research you can cope with, aside from LoR's which can be somewhat subjective.

 

To sum up, there are 3 regimes: undergrad doing grunt-like works, undergrad doing independent research (into new topics, not replicating old stuff), undergrad having achieved something with his/her research project (publication is one; award is also another way to show recognition). The first requires simply being recruited into a project, while the second requires a dedicated supervisor, and the third depends on your ability and luck. If you're stuck with the first regime for long and just touch on the second, LoR's from well-known professors should be more helpful.

 

After working towards that high aim for a few years, by looking at the profiles of PhD students at various places, you definitely know where you are

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

P.S.: I have been talking about publications where you're the first author. It can be hard for others to judge your contribution if you're the second or third author, in which case LoR from your supervisor becomes more helpful.

[Usmivka]

 

....Taking some graduate courses, which require you to read papers or do course projects at the research student level, can well compensate for that, and you can find good LoR writers from those....

 

....Now having publications is good, but that's not the ultimate goal....

I don't completely agree with these two points:

1. Graduate courses may count against you for fellowships--most external fellowships you are eligible for, whether your naturalization status changes or not, require that you be a beginning grad student. This means that if you have too many graduate credits, you could be considered beyond a year fo coursework and no longer eligible for an award. Look at application guidelines well in advance and be careful not to cross this threshold.

2. Communicating your science is the ultimate goal. The primary way that scientists communicate their work and are referenced for it is through papers. So I think having (quality) publications (that will be referenced) is more or less the ultimate goal. With a US educational background, it seems less likely you will be submitting papers shotgun style to journals of poor repute and minimal review, which is the issue hikaru1221 is keying into.

[hikaru1221]

1. Graduate courses may count against you for fellowships--most external fellowships you are eligible for, whether your naturalization status changes or not, require that you be a beginning grad student. This means that if you have too many graduate credits, you could be considered beyond a year fo coursework and no longer eligible for an award. Look at application guidelines well in advance and be careful not to cross this threshold.

2. Communicating your science is the ultimate goal. The primary way that scientists communicate their work and are referenced for it is through papers. So I think having (quality) publications (that will be referenced) is more or less the ultimate goal. With a US educational background, it seems less likely you will be submitting papers shotgun style to journals of poor repute and minimal review, which is the issue hikaru1221 is keying into.

 

Thanks for pointing out some unclear points

 

1. I'm unsure of the specific practice, but as long as one is not registered as a graduate student, he doesn't hold any graduate status, no? I believe taking graduate courses in advance can only give one the advantage of waiving the course prerequisites when he formally starts his graduate education, since he hasn't earned any graduate credits yet. A way to work around this complication is to register graduate courses using undergraduate credits, i.e. counting them towards the bachelor degree.

 

Yet, given Usmivka's warning, the case of external fellowships might need certain considerations, since the school has no control over these.

 

2. I would be very careful distinguishing the standard of the conference/ journals and the standard that really matches the research at a specific university. Stepping over the former doesn't guarantee the latter. In the same international conference (even one that is supposed to be first-tier), one may observe a wide spectrum of quality of works - this can be area-dependent, though; at least, it happened in my field.

 

To researchers, communicating one's discoveries and ideas is definitely one of the ultimate goals (the other one is to discover / come up with brilliant ideas). However it might not be in the case of gaining admissions. At the end of the day, professor X at Y university might simply not know how to interpret one's paper, unless he is well familiar with the topic (although one may recognize certain traits of a good paper just by looking at it). So if not ideas / discoveries, what is conveyed to the professor? In the context of admissions, it is that the applicant's competence is evident.

 

That is not to encourage people to write papers just for the sake of gaining admissions, though. Without a clear goal of being a mature researcher, there is no point getting a PhD. And because the goal of the OP is so vivid, I believe there is no reason not paying practical considerations to the admissions process.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Usmivka]

Thanks for pointing out some unclear points

 

1. I'm unsure of the specific practice, but as long as one is not registered as a graduate student, he doesn't hold any graduate status, no? I believe taking graduate courses in advance can only give one the advantage of waiving the course prerequisites when he formally starts his graduate education, since he hasn't earned any graduate credits yet. A way to work around this complication is to register graduate courses using undergraduate credits, i.e. counting them towards the bachelor degree.

 

....

 

2. ....

 

Just my 2 cents.

I know hikaru1221 is trying to help, but this is incorrect. It sounds like a tautology, but graduate coursework (eg a 500 level course) is graduate coursework in terms of fellowship requirements/preclusions. It doesn't matter whether you took it as an undergrad or not. Unless the course is cross-listed with two course numbers (eg 300 and 500, with one being the graduate section and another the undergrad section) there is no way to count it otherwise on your transcript--this is unrelated total credits counted towards graduation.  Further, few if any programs in the sciences accept transferred graduate credits as substitutes for their own requirements unless a student is transferring with their advisor from another graduate program late in their thesis progression. Taking a grad course as an undergrad may help you learn more, faster, make future graduate work easier...but it most likely won't get you out of future course requirements at the sort of place you are trying to get into when "aim[ing] high."

 

I'm not really sure what hikaru1221 is elaborating on for point two. Yes, there is variable quality in any conference or publication, but this isn't exactly breaking news. As for how to using paper to your advantage in the admissions process, I'd like to think that most scientists hired by top schools are competent to understand and evaluate work in a related field. S/he seems to be making an argument for style over substance, but this appears ot be a false dichotomy to me, and I'm not sure how it relates to the "quality" argument. I'd be very surprised to see evidence that applicants coming from a similar educational background to you "with a bunch of publications at hand [commonly] get rejected by all the top schools" as hikaru1221 claims. The point I made is that a paper "not reach[ing] the standard quality expected in the school" is unlikely to be a problem for peer-reviewed, published work coming out of a lab at a "very highly ranked" US institution. I don't think it is something you should be worrying about.

 

Also, you don't need to apologize for the way other people read and (mis)understand your posts. You clarified, and it wasn't as though you posted something offensive!Besides, even if you had, I'm just some person on the internet--who cares, right?

Edited October 24, 2013 by Usmivka

[Eatin' Biscuits]

I know hikaru1221 is trying to help, but this is incorrect. It sounds like a tautology, but graduate coursework (eg a 500 level course) is graduate coursework in terms of fellowship requirements/preclusions. It doesn't matter whether you took it as an undergrad or not. Unless the course is cross-listed with two course numbers (eg 300 and 500, with one being the graduate section and another the undergrad section) there is no way to count it otherwise on your transcript--this is unrelated total credits counted towards graduation. 

 

Graduate courses taken as an undergrad do not count against NSF or NDSEG fellowship eligibility. For NSF the limit is 1 year of full-time graduate study and NDSEG 2 years.

[Usmivka]

Graduate courses taken as an undergrad do not count against NSF or NDSEG fellowship eligibility. For NSF the limit is 1 year of full-time graduate study and NDSEG 2 years.

You are right, as of 2014 for the NSF and 2013(?) for the NDSEG, the wording and rules were changed to specifically allow this. hikaru1221, my apologies. Good catch Biscuits. Here is the link for anyone interested for NSF: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13584/nsf13584.htm#elig.

[Eigen]

Pretty sure they didn't count that against you as far back as 2010 when I applied, and I don't remember it being there in the 2009 solicitation either. 

 

On another note, I know that for the transfer of course credits, it doesn't really matter if it was a graduate level course or not- it matters if you took it as a graduate student or not. 

 

Taking a graduate course as an undergrad likely won't get you transfer credit, and it's not accruing graduate credit, as many schools specify that to get graduate credit, you have to be a graduate student. I know none of the "graduate" courses I took as an undergrad showed up on my transcript as graduate credits, I was simply an undergrad the professors allowed to take a graduate-level course. 

 

Small distinction, but it can be important. 

[juilletmercredi]

They didn't count against you in the 2009 solicitation either (that's when I applied).  Graduate courses taken as an undergrad almost never count against you for fellowship eligibility.

 

Your GRE scores are fine - I wouldn’t retake it any time soon.  But since you took it as a freshman, you do run the very real risk of your scores expiring before you apply to grad school if you take time off to work.  And I know that you said that your goal is to go to grad school after graduating, but you’re also a sophomore and you don’t know how you’ll feel two years from now.  Moreover, working for a few years before an MS or PhD may actually be more beneficial to your career than going straight through.  One of the things I wish I had done was worked for 2-3 years before beginning my PhD.

 

Admissions chances do sometimes change if an applicant can pay without funding.  If an applicant is borderline and the reason they didn’t get admitted was lack of funding, sometimes an applicant stating that they have some reputable source of outside funding (like a fellowship, not necessarily personal funds) can change the rejection to an acceptance.

[Usmivka]

They didn't count against you in the 2009 solicitation either (that's when I applied).  Graduate courses taken as an undergrad almost never count against you for fellowship eligibility.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the  2011 solicitation had different wording than the current one, and I interpreted grad coursework as counting against you. Last year had similar wording to 2011, but this year looks like different wording that makes it clear that grad courses not in a grad program do not count towards the 1 year total. I had an acquaintance that did fall afoul of this rule, however she was in a 5th year MS program, which is probably more like what the rules were meant to prevent.

 

Anyway, I blew it on that point. But as restated above, graduate courses taken as an undergrad are still not useful as transfer credits.

 

Incidentally, every grad course I took as an undergrad showed up as graduate credits on my transcript, in a separate section from my <500 level credits, unlike Eigen's experience. They were mostly things like seminars and a music ensemble, so they didn't amount to much, and I don't believe they would have counted towards graduate requirements had I stayed at the same school. Anyway, this is what I meant when I said a grad course is a grad course.

 

The above point about time off is a good one. Time away from academia is not necessarily time wasted.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Usmivka