What's wrong?

[mastergod6767]

Hi everyone,

 

I've been a longtime lurker but this is the first time that I am contributing, and its been spurred by another year of flat-out rejection.

 

I'll get right into my credentials:

 

Major/GPA: B.S. Chemistry and B.S. Physics with a cumulative GPA of 3.26

Work Experience: 2 years as R&D at a start-up drug delivery company

Publications: 1 patent currently, one patent being drafted, and one publication being drafted

GRE: 159V/161Q/4.5Writing

LOR: one from past research adviser, two from current occupation (supervisor and chief scientific officer). The CSO is extremely well respected in the field and has won numerous awards.

Statement: Vetted for by all my LOR writers and refined throughout the year. Emphasis on what I want to do, how i fit in with specific professors at schools, and relevant experience. I did a lot of reading on ~3 professors at each school I applied to and tailored the statements to each school.

 

I applied to materials science programs wanting to pursue study in bio compatible polymers and drug delivery.

 

The first year I applied was pretty haphazard and I got rejected flat out, since then I worked and got a lot of relevant experience. This time around I was very focused and took a lot of time to consider where to apply and how to go about it. 

 

I've been flat-out rejected from schools for the past two years that I have tried. First year I applied to eleven schools ranging from state all the way to Ivy league. This year I applied to four schools with the same spread (2 and 2).

 

I've given this a lot of thought and come up with the following next steps:

 

1) Retake GRE and get >=90% (currently in 80%)

2) Take a subject test in chemistry

3) Apply to ~15 schools again

 

 

What am I missing? Why do I keep getting rejected? Are there some apparent "red flags"?

 

Thanks for any input you may have!

 

[eeee1923]

1) Yes that would be helpful

2) ditto

3) Apply to about 10 schools - no need to apply to 15 (it's sort of a numbers game but it will hurt your wallet)

 

4) Work on your statement of purpose early - have it reviewed by your past PI's + profs (maybe one of them sits/sat on an adcomm and could give you pointers)

[MathCat]

I would say the only red flag that I can see is your GPA. I don't know what schools you are applying to, but it certainly could hold you back at some places. Another possibility is that your LORs are not that strong (which is not the same thing as them not thinking highly of you - some people just can't write a decent letter). I think you are doing the right thing to overcome your GPA (gaining experience), but I wonder if perhaps you are aiming too high with your program choices?

[Mechanician2015]

- Did you contact the professors you want to work with at each program? It might help.

 

- This year I applied to 2 top 10, 1 top 15 and 2 top 50. Programs in the top 15 rejected me. Programs under the top 15 accepted me. If you have a weakness like a relatively low GPA, try with lower programs!

 

- GRE retake will surely boost your profile. Keep in mind that competition in Material science is fierce.

 

- I don't know what factors you take into account to pick the programs you are applying to. Benchmarking is paramount. Do you know a rough estimate of the average GPA and GRE score's of the programs you applied to? Do you know more or less the profile of the other applicants?

 

You can use the Search Results function here on grad cafe. Hopefully, your intended school and program will have enough entries to draw an idea of the profile of admitted students.

 

I don't know but, if I was a faculty member, I would like to know that my students have the commitment you are showing.

[isilya]

The problem might be your GRE quant score. I'm not in materials science, but I've noticed in the results search that most people in the "hard" Sciences have quant scores between 165-170. Your application may have just been thrown out in the first round before anyone had a chance to read it in depth. So get your GRE up, and you could also email POIs in the beginning of fall just so that you're on their radar. If they like you, they might make sure that the adcomm reads your application fully.

[TakeruK]

Here's what I think you should do to increase your chances for next year, in the order of most efficient (i.e. most gain for least cost of time+money):

 

1. Apply to more schools next year and target the schools well. Your first year had 11 schools which is a good number, but what was your spread? I would say that the very best students would have a 10%-20% to get into any specific top 10 program, so even for the best student hoping to get into a top 10 program, I would recommend applying to 5-10 top programs (maybe around 7 or 8 is a good number). As someone said above, it's a numbers game.

 

I will be honest here, hope I won't offend: Unfortunately, I do not think your profile (especially your 3.26 GPA) makes you very competitive for the top programs. Given the results of the last 2 years, I don't think you should spread your schools out so much this time. Over the summer, I think you should think about what path you want to take forward (post PhD) and what kind of program you need to get there. Then I think you need to make one of two decisions:

 

1A) Go for the long shot and commit to top programs only. Apply to the 10-15 top programs in your field and hope that 2 years of R&D experience is enough (it might be--by the time you apply for Fall 2016, you would have twice as much experience as you did this application cycle). There's no point applying to only 1 or 2 top programs in your 3rd cycle--if you're aiming for the top, go all the way. The risk you take here is that you are basically saying "I only want to do grad school if I get into a top program". Do this only if you feel that your goals can only be achieved with "brand name" PhD. 

 

1B) Apply to lower tier schools only. Again, it's a numbers game so you want to apply to the most # of schools that you feel you have the most chance to get in -- maybe 8-10 schools. If you have the extra time and money, and you don't want to wonder "what if", go ahead and apply to one or two "long shot" top programs but only as extra on top of the 8-10 "lower tier" schools.

 

Overall, what I am trying to say is that you should apply to ~10 programs that are at your "goal" level. Admission probability is low so you want to maximize #schools to increase your chances and if you spread 10 schools over a large range then you are not being efficient. Note that I would phrase this advice slightly differently if this was your first application cycle but since this is your third, you probably have a better idea of where you can and cannot get in!

 

2. It might also be a good idea to reconsider your LOR writers. I don't know though--I'll mention some potential issues and you can decide if they apply to you (since I don't know your LOR writers and the relationship you have with them). 

2A) Your past research advisor -- Do they have a PhD? It sounds like this person is a prof and it's great that you have at least one person that is in academia writing your letter. How did your research project go with them? Do you think they wrote you a strong personal letter? Maybe it's worth asking them to sit down with you for a coffee to talk about your graduate school goals and plans (hopefully you had a good relationship and they would be willing to mentor you). 

2B) Your current supervisor -- Do they have a PhD? Were they ever in academia? It might be okay to have one letter out of 3 be written by a non-PhD holder and/or someone not in academia.

2C) Your CSO -- they might be very famous and well known, but how much do they know you personally? A vague/lukewarm letter from a famous person doesn't go very far! 

 

After reviewing your LOR writers, you might want to consider replacing one of them if possible (maybe not, since undergrad is a couple of years away now though). I highly recommend talking to your past research advisor for advice if possible!!

 

3. The next thing you can do is work on your SOP. I don't think it means anything that your SOP was vetted by your LOR writers -- two of them are not even in academia right now so they might not know what to look for. Even if they were though, SOPs are so subjectively judged that the same SOP could be loved by one prof but hated by another. So one professor's opinion might not mean very much. Your description of your SOP sounds like it does the right thing but it's hard to tell!

 

4. You might want to consider taking a subject GRE (not sure which one would best fit your field, but it sounds like you identified Chemistry). This could demonstrate that you have the foundational knowledge and offset your GPA (which you can't do anything about now). However, I do not think you need to retake the General GRE (sure you can do better, but I don't think that will help very much).

 

Finally, since you asked about "red flags", this is what I think might be concerning to an admissions committee (in order of concern), however, there is not much you can do about these issues specifically (but perhaps keeping them in mind might help you frame the other parts of your application):

1. This is your 3rd year applying to schools.

2. Your GPA is low (for top programs, but it's decent for most other programs).

3. Your LOR writers might not have PhDs and/or do not work in academia.

 

Hope that was helpful! Good luck

[Vene]

2. It might also be a good idea to reconsider your LOR writers. I don't know though--I'll mention some potential issues and you can decide if they apply to you (since I don't know your LOR writers and the relationship you have with them). 

2A) Your past research advisor -- Do they have a PhD? It sounds like this person is a prof and it's great that you have at least one person that is in academia writing your letter. How did your research project go with them? Do you think they wrote you a strong personal letter? Maybe it's worth asking them to sit down with you for a coffee to talk about your graduate school goals and plans (hopefully you had a good relationship and they would be willing to mentor you). 

2B) Your current supervisor -- Do they have a PhD? Were they ever in academia? It might be okay to have one letter out of 3 be written by a non-PhD holder and/or someone not in academia.

2C) Your CSO -- they might be very famous and well known, but how much do they know you personally? A vague/lukewarm letter from a famous person doesn't go very far! 

On this, as an anecdote, when I applied I had 4 people write me letters (two from academia, two from industry). In the cases where I sent two industrial references and one academic reference I never got to the interview stage. When I sent two academic references and one industrial reference I got interviews. The two industrial references were people I did research for and I only did research for one of the academics. So, I would really try to avoid any more than one non-academic letter writer.

[Crucial BBQ]

Hi everyone,

 

I've been a longtime lurker but this is the first time that I am contributing, and its been spurred by another year of flat-out rejection.

 

I'll get right into my credentials:

 

Major/GPA: B.S. Chemistry and B.S. Physics with a cumulative GPA of 3.26

Work Experience: 2 years as R&D at a start-up drug delivery company

Publications: 1 patent currently, one patent being drafted, and one publication being drafted

GRE: 159V/161Q/4.5Writing

LOR: one from past research adviser, two from current occupation (supervisor and chief scientific officer). The CSO is extremely well respected in the field and has won numerous awards.

Statement: Vetted for by all my LOR writers and refined throughout the year. Emphasis on what I want to do, how i fit in with specific professors at schools, and relevant experience. I did a lot of reading on ~3 professors at each school I applied to and tailored the statements to each school.

 

I applied to materials science programs wanting to pursue study in bio compatible polymers and drug delivery.

 

The first year I applied was pretty haphazard and I got rejected flat out, since then I worked and got a lot of relevant experience. This time around I was very focused and took a lot of time to consider where to apply and how to go about it. 

 

I've been flat-out rejected from schools for the past two years that I have tried. First year I applied to eleven schools ranging from state all the way to Ivy league. This year I applied to four schools with the same spread (2 and 2).

 

I've given this a lot of thought and come up with the following next steps:

 

1) Retake GRE and get >=90% (currently in 80%)

2) Take a subject test in chemistry

3) Apply to ~15 schools again

 

 

What am I missing? Why do I keep getting rejected? Are there some apparent "red flags"?

 

Thanks for any input you may have!

It is impossible to tell if your scores hurt your application or not.  I am not sure about materials science, but QR scores at the 80th percentile seem to be good enough based on the top programs in my chosen major (oceanography) and of similar majors even at Ivy League schools.  Increasing your GRE scores would definitely not hurt your application, but it may also not help your application, which is the conundrum of ~320 scores. 

 

If your programs will accept a subject test, then this would most likely help your application assuming you earn a decent score.  I'd suggest taking the subject test over retaking the GRE if you were to only do one. 

 

I don't think it is necessary to apply to more schools, but that is up to you.  I have no proof of this but I am of the belief that the quality of application goes down in relation to the number of schools/programs applied to.  I mean, that is just a lot of info to get straight, especially if you are tailoring each SOP to each individual program.  

 

Considering that you were rejected from 15 programs total (assuming that if the last four were "repeats" that those applications count as unique submits themselves), I'd change the LORs and your SOP.  Your LORs because you are not that far removed from undergrad, and as such, should get at least one more academic LOR.  Your SOP because I am thinking you might be tailoring them too much to demonstrate fit, which might be giving the impression that you are too narrow or rigid.  Without seeing your SOP, I would suggest easing up on the "fit" a little and to include more about what you want to do after you graduate.  

 

I write that because last year I tailored each SOP to the individual programs, had them vetted by someone who writes communications for the Fed Gov, and in general submitted extremely well written SOPs to each program.  Or so I thought.  When I went to revisit them later in the year I found them to be total garbage and to be honest, embarrassing.  Grammatically correct and well written embarrassment, sure.  The first thing that jumped off the page was that I was not clear in what I wanted to do later in the life nor how the program would get me there even though I thought I had got that through when I completed my last draft.  

 

I also tailored my own interests to fit those of particular profs/PIs/labs, which was intentional to show that I had some flexibility as well as "fit".  Well, now I can see how I appeared to NOT have a clear idea of research area/question and thus, ultimately no fit. 

 

Everyone will tell you that your SOP needs to be tailored to each program, that you need to research profs and PIs and read their publications (I am beginning to wonder if this is even true?), and that you need to demonstrate fit above all.  For those who followed this, or a similar, formula and found success, it is hard to pinpoint if this tactic was the reason for their acceptances or not.  With the rejections coming again this year, I am starting to feel strongly that the SOP is truly about you and how the program will fit into your "life plan" instead of how you fit into the program.  

 

Another thing to consider is that you majored in Chem and Physics, yet want to get into something that is essentially more related.  Do you have the necessary bio pre-reqs? If not, than perhaps that is what is holding you back?

 

Anyways, and as always, contact the programs and ask them where in your application you were deficient.  I did that last year and was quite surprised by what I found out. 

[bsharpe269]

I don't think your GPA will hold you back all that much... I got into 8 schools this cycle (including a 10 program and a top 15) with a similar GPA. I am certain that my success in admissions was almost entirely linked to my strong LORs. I know that they were terrific and PIs commented on them at every single interview. They made my application. All 3 were from PIs in academia. 2 were from research supervisors and the other was from someone I had taken a couple classes with and done some little project things with. I bet that your LORs are the problem, as others have mentioned. I think that having another very strong academic letter could really help your application.... It might be worth it to switch to a full time academic research tech job this summer or fall.

 

Also, do you regularly read literature in your intended subfield? If you don't read a paper a day or so then I would start. It could help refine your interests which would improve your SOP. Your knowledge of your subfield would also come across when emailing PIs and interviewing (if your field does interviews).

 

Taking a subject test could also help, especially if your major GPA is low.

[mastergod6767]

Thank you everyone for your responses, they've given me some perspective as to what I am going to do moving forward.

 

I'll add a few more details about my applications that were brought up by some replies:

 

1) All of my LORs are from PhD's that have ties to the top schools in engineering/hard science (think MIT and Bob Langer) 

 

2) My SOP was tailored to each school if by "tailored" we are talking about being a good fit. I specifically identified my interests and experiences and how they relate to specific professors/groups within the department. 

 

3) My first application cycle was straight out of undergrad and was to mostly physics programs as I was doing research on spintronics at the time. The LOR I mention from that time was the director of the materials department at my school. It wasn't until I took my job that I discovered what I was truly passionate about!

 

Now onto my thoughts as to what I am going to do moving forward:

 

I don't think I will be applying this fall. In order to fully prepare myself I am going to be retaking the general GRE as well as taking a subject GRE as well as try to connect with some professors where I want to study. I'm also considering switching jobs to an academic institution in order to get more academic references and experience, as that is valued more so in applications (it seems). My target application date is for Fall 2017 and I will be targeting schools that are in line with my credentials (GPA). The bench marking comment was very helpful, thank you. I don't take any offense to being told my GPA is low, haha. I'm well aware of it and the reasons for it are silly, but I have no regrets (Read: didn't care about attendance which was 30% of the grade in most first year classes so I got a few C's) I also have a personal belief that its more the person than the school, so I think not going to a top 10 school won't negatively impact me or my experience. I'm going to aiming at around 15 applications the third time around. 

 

I will not be applying exclusively to Materials Science. There are a number of groups that work on what interests me that have positions in chemistry, chemical engineering, pharmacy, biophysics, etc.

 

In terms of my plan for post graduate work I want to continue doing research either in academia or industry on drug delivery, active targeting, and bio-compatible polymers. 

 

Thank you again to everyone!

 

EDIT: For the two most recent replies:

 

I have biochemistry experience from my chemistry major and my current work is directly related

 

I definitely read a lot of academic papers regularly as well as patents

Edited April 1, 2015 by mastergod6767

[TakeruK]

I think moving to an academic institution will help but not absolutely necessary. If you are planning for Fall 2017 start date, you will have 3.5 years of experience by the time you apply to schools. I agree that academic research experience is generally valued over industry research experience (especially if the latter does not result in many publications) but the quality of research matters too! It's better, I think, to do great industry research than mediocre academic research.

 

I think a high number (i.e. 15) is a good idea if you are applying to a wide variety of fields (as you seem to be doing). Remember, even if you think the chance of getting in is about 20%, then you need to apply to 4-5 of the same "type" of program! Your probabilities don't get to add up if you are applying to different types of programs (i.e. you'd have a higher chance of getting in if you apply to 6 chemistry programs vs. 3 chemistry programs and 3 physics programs). 

 

And finally, it might help to know that having more experience is viewed in two ways. This applies whether you do a Masters or work in industry for a few years. More experience is good because it shows that you have the skills and expertise to get things done. However, it also demonstrates what you are capable of. In more concrete terms, pretend you can rate everyone's research ability on a scale of 1-10 (a "research score") and consider two applicants:

 

Applicant A is a recent graduate and their past experience and profile indicates that their "research score" will fall in the 6.0-9.0 out of 10 range.

Applicant B has 3-4 years of post-BSc work experience and the work from the past 3 years indicates a solid 7.0/10.0 research score.

 

Some programs are going to value Applicant A over Applicant B, despite the increased experience. Graduate programs are not always in the business to accept the currently most qualified people, but they would rather take people they can train into the most qualified people! Of course, not all programs will behave this way, some will have the view that your "research score" can still change over time and that Applicant B will be able to improve it to a 8.0/10.0 while in their PhD program. Either way, I think it's important to keep in mind that more experience is not going to be necessarily viewed as absolutely good by all programs. The quality of your experience matters and mediocre experience might be worse than no experience. You can get a sense of how departments/programs feel about experience by looking into the backgrounds of current graduate students--do they tend to be fresh-out-of-undergrad or are they coming from experience in industry or other careers.

[TexasGuy]

yeah i would say GPA. and its sad because that is not a bad GPA. but when most people have 3.8+ GPA's it makes it easy for grad schools to just filter out the applicants with GPA's closer to 3.0. Same with GRE. 161 Q is great but when a lot of people applying to top programs in science have 164+,... Its just a human thing. If i was looking at a whole bunch of applications i would probably employ the same lazy ass approach to weed out a lot of applicants. this especially goes for top 20- top 30 programs. Just make sure you look at admission statistics for previous years and see where you stand.

 

Honestly, write the letters of recommendations by yourself and send them to your recommenders. A lot of the time professors just dont feel like putting in all the effort to write a great recommendation letter so its best to do it yourself, make it as great as possible and tell them to edit and make changes if they want to. THey'll be really happy because it will save them so much time and they might even be willing add and tweak the letters to make it even better because it wont take them much time to do it.

 

And then the last thing is the SOP. Make sure others read your SOP.

[mastergod6767]

Is there any place I can find aggregated statistics? Most schools provide only demographic statistics and I've had a hard time finding anything on GPA, GRE, etc. 

I know GradCafe has a results section but that's self-reported and not very comprehensive. 

[TakeruK]

I don't agree with TexasGuy's opinion about the GRE and writing your own LORs. 

 

Many programs do not publish their statistics because it is misleading. Usually, individual pieces like your GRE or GPA do not matter a whole lot -- you can be in the top 5% of applicants in any particular part of your application but still get rejected. Or, you can have the worst GRE score and still be accepted. Admissions is a holistic thing and since not every part of the decision can be quantified, reporting only the quantitative parts can be very misleading, and even more so when it's small numbers, so most schools avoid it and I would recommend that most applicants don't pay that much attention to it. 

[Mechanician2015]

Is there any place I can find aggregated statistics? Most schools provide only demographic statistics and I've had a hard time finding anything on GPA, GRE, etc. 

I know GradCafe has a results section but that's self-reported and not very comprehensive. 

 

- Well, if you can spare USD$30, you can purchase the "1 Year of Unlimited Engineering School Compass Access" of U.S. News report. It contains rankings, average GRE and more.

 

That being said, this year I applied to programs with Q-GRE average of 166, and some people got in with as low as 159. Conversely, you can see how many applicants with Q-GRE=170 were rejected at MIT and the likes.

 

I see the stats as a good starting point, they are NOT the full decision( also, in my case, I would retake the GRE because some type of FUNDING is dependant on an exceptional GRE score). 

Edited April 2, 2015 by Mechanician2015

[Hani2015]

GRE is not everything. I was surprised that many students with a high GRE score got rejected ( above 165 ).

my advice to you :

get LORs from people who involved in academic life. ( really important ). you will be fine.

[mastergod6767]

Thanks for the recent responses, I have a few follow-up questions for you guys.

 

@TakeruK: Where do you think I fell short?

 

@Hani2015: I have contact with one past professor and she already wrote my LOR, though she is in a different aspect of materials science (spintronics/semi-conductors). How important is it that they do the same research as the program I apply to? How would you suggest I go about getting more academic references if I work in industry, short of switching jobs?

[Guest]

Your GREs are fine...I honestly do not know why some suggest retaking it. A 161 in Quantitative for a science based field? I mean come on, lol.Unless your aiming for the hardcore Ivys (Stanford, Harvard, etc), it shouldn't be the worst thing. I still think you could even get into such schools with those GRE scores though.

 

If it was your GPA, then one thing I've noticed that people (on here) have done in order to compensate that was get years of work experience (4-6 years). It was definitely a smart idea to include the professors who you wish to work under in your SOP. My GREs were atrocious and that's exactly what I did in my SOP. The subject test is another good idea for you as well.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Guest

[Hani2015]

Thanks for the recent responses, I have a few follow-up questions for you guys.

 

@TakeruK: Where do you think I fell short?

 

@Hani2015: I have contact with one past professor and she already wrote my LOR, though she is in a different aspect of materials science (spintronics/semi-conductors). How important is it that they do the same research as the program I apply to? How would you suggest I go about getting more academic references if I work in industry, short of switching jobs?

 

 

 

u have already publication and your file is saying this person is promising.

 Try to make connections with professors who specialized in materials science. Try to work with them.

If not possible, I will go to some of them and explain to them my problem. They will have a look at your profile.

They will not mind giving u recommendation if they believe in u.

I think getting recommendations from professors who is area in material science is really important. 

I read a lot about students who got accepted in many schools in USA. I can frankly tell u that I realized that many of them attribute their acceptances to LORs.

 

Another point I strongly suggest u to do it is to take the subject test. Even if it is not required by some schools but I believe it will make a difference.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Hani2015

[TakeruK]

Thanks for the recent responses, I have a few follow-up questions for you guys.

 

@TakeruK: Where do you think I fell short?

 

I think the biggest place you could be falling short is your GPA and that you have zero academic research experience. To be clear, I am NOT saying that high GPA and academic research experience are absolutely necessary for admissions. However, these are the two main areas that another candidate can "win" over you. For example, I think that someone with a 3.5 GPA and 1 or 2 summers of research experience in a university lab would rank higher than you with a 3.3 GPA and 1.5 years (at time of application) of R&D at a startup.

 

Again, I do think "real world" experience is valuable but at the time of last application, you didn't have that much experience yet and (unless you left something out), it sounds lik you did not do any research in an academic setting. I would classify you as a "higher risk" applicant because of your GPA and non-traditional experience, which brings me to the other important thing I mentioned earlier: you need to be applying to more schools in a focussed area. 

[TexasGuy]

yes i agree that admissions are holistic..... so coming from a  very highly ranked school but having a GPA in the low 3's isnt a bad thing...but coming from a lesser known school with that GPA will make it difficult to get into top ranked programs....so in that sense its hard to say which is the most 'important' part of the application.....its about balancing out the weaker parts of your application with really strong LORs and a really great SOP.

 

this is why i suggested writing your own LOR because honestly, noone knows your strengths better than yourself.a professor  may think very highly of you but may throw together some generic SOP on account of just not being in the mood or having too many other things to do....unless you are one of the best students he has ever worked with or something like that and you are really close with the person. The LOR and SOP (and getting relevant researchwork experience) are the only things you can control at this point. Getting a publication would really really help as well. fter all thats all professors really care about- can you produce publisahble work?

 

I think my previous post comes across like i think GRE's are really important and i didnt mean it that way. They're not important as long as you're around the average for admitted students. Actually your GRE scores are excellent- thats a 320/340. The average quant score for MIT engineering/science programs is usually around 164'ish and so im sure there a lot of people just below that score. Really, I think anything 160+ is considered great for top schools. So there is absolutely no reason to retake it.

Edited April 3, 2015 by TexasGuy

[Mechanician2015]

Your GREs are fine...I honestly do not know why some suggest retaking it. A 161 in Quantitative for a science based field? I mean come on, lol.Unless your aiming for the hardcore Ivys (Stanford, Harvard, etc), it shouldn't be the worst thing. I still think you could even get into such schools with those GRE scores though.

 

If it was your GPA, then one thing I've noticed that people (on here) have done in order to compensate that was get years of work experience (4-6 years). It was definitely a smart idea to include the professors who you wish to work under in your SOP. My GREs were atrocious and that's exactly what I did in my SOP. The subject test is another good idea for you as well.

If you have a good GPA, 3 summers in REU's, a published paper or "high-impact" recommendations, sure retaking the GRE is not necessary. I see the GRE retake as a compensation of a weakness in one of those points(yeah, I know, there is no way a GRE Q=170 can replace a strong LoR from a working researcher in academia).