bad gpa chances??

[carlsaganism]

Hi All,

 

I am a 3rd year undergraduate physics major with a 3.04 GPA (too many Cs in math class, though I have a mix of As and Bs in physics and astronomy classes). I am going to take the GRE this summer but I generally do horribly on exams.

 

My research mentor and I submitted a paper for ApJ recently (I am first author). I will be working on another project this summer and hopefully result in another first author paper.

 

My question: Is my research experience good enough to make up with my really bad grades and test scores?

 

Thanks in advance for your kindness.

[GeoDUDE!]

Hey Carls, I certainly think its possible, but I would apply to a range of schools (maybe 5 T-20 and 5 below T-20) and also a few masters programs. I think its really going to be up to the POI (if he/she has funds for a student). I think it would be hard for you to win a TAship at many schools. 

[carlsaganism]

All the programs I've looked into have guaranteed five year TAships.

I am also looking to apply for some graduate fellowships, if that helps.

[GeoDUDE!]

All the programs I've looked into have guaranteed five year TAships.

I am also looking to apply for some graduate fellowships, if that helps.

 

 

The point is that generally TAs are more competitive because professors have less individual say over who gets them: its the departments money. If your advisor wants you specifically, and has RA funding, he has a lot of say (its his money).

[Usmivka]

Having both average grades and poor test scores will not make your life easier. Yes, the GRE is the least important part of the application, and lots can be forgiven if the other components are all strong. But why risk it?

 

Since you are not taking the GRE till this summer, perhaps you should spend the intervening time learning how to take it effectively with a practice book and some practice tests (say, one or two a month, then once or twice a week in the final 2-3 weeks). It is a single specific task that you can practice ad nauseum for, so being a bad test taker really should not be a factor--practice till it becomes rote. The GRE doesn't test what you know, just your ability to perform a specific task quickly (in this case eliminating wrong answers is often much faster than solving for the correct one, which has some parallels in science). Test environments aren't my forte either, but I aced the GRE with 6 weeks of practice.

 

All these profs took the GRE too, so they know it isn't a big deal and can be prepared for--"I'm a bad test taker" doesn't fly well. It doesn't reflect well on anyone if they don't take the time to prepare for a known task. This is like cooking--assemble your ingredients before you turn on the burner.

[columbia09]

I agree. I did horrible on my GRE and still managed to get a TA position at a good school. However, I had s high GPA as well as other factors that were backing me up. Still got rejections that were due to my GRE but I'm the end it all worked out

[fromchaos]

Hi All,

 

I am a 3rd year undergraduate physics major with a 3.04 GPA (too many Cs in math class, though I have a mix of As and Bs in physics and astronomy classes). I am going to take the GRE this summer but I generally do horribly on exams.

 

My research mentor and I submitted a paper for ApJ recently (I am first author). I will be working on another project this summer and hopefully result in another first author paper.

 

My question: Is my research experience good enough to make up with my really bad grades and test scores?

 

Thanks in advance for your kindness.

You are just above the cutoff at most schools. I would say an elite program (top 20) or so is out of the question, top 50 or so may be possible depending on how GRE goes and what your LOR look like.

 

My advice, lay the hammer down in class this semester. Do as well as possible, maybe even look to take a class or two in the Summer to boost your GPA. Also make sure to do well next semester as well, and wait for those grades to come in before you send out your applications. If you could get it up to say 3.2 I think that would make a huge difference. There are some schools who mostly only care about the last 60 credits, so finishing strong is important. Also it sounds like you may have taken a harder course load then others so this will likely be factored into things.

 

You dont need to knock the GRE out of the park but you should have solid scores, especially on the quant in order to counter act your low math grades. The Verbal section is tough to study for other than taking a practice exam or two. The quant problems arent that hard but you have to be able to do them quickly (they are essentially hard 8-9th grade math problems) you need to know the quickest way to solve these problems. There are "tricks" to some of the problems, find out what they are and learn them.

 

GL

[moochie]

The problem I see is that you still have more than a year to fix your grades, study for the GRE, etc and the way you asked the question makes it sound like you are trying to take the easy way out and just make up for poor scores/grades with a couple of research papers. This might not be at all what you are trying to do, but to me it sounds that way and so it's possible future POI's could misinterpret it the same way.

 

I think profs value a good attitude/strong work ethic and would be more forgiving of GPA issues if you clearly had worked your ass off in your remaining time as an undergrad and also took the time to study hard for and ace the GRE. Papers will help, but they won't erase everything else.

 

IN MY OWN OPINION:

Bad grades + bad GRE looks lazy/unprepared for grad school.

Bad grades + good GRE merits talking to the individual about why their grades aren't stellar (adjustment issues in college, medical leave, one bad subject etc).

Good grades + bad GRE looks like a test taking issue or like you didn't take the GRE seriously.

Good grades + good GRE looks like you are well prepared for grad school.

 

None of those impressions are necessarily true, and probably are incorrect more often than not. But what I've gathered from going through the application process this year is you need to LOOK good enough on paper to get people to talk to you. Once they are talking to you, your application stats matter less than who you are and what you have to say. Is that fair? Absolutely not. But it is what it is.

 

When I started emailing POIs last August, I just wrote the general,

"Hi, I'm interested in your work on X. I am a recent graduate from X school and I majored in Chemistry and Physics. My own research interests are X and that seems to line up well with yours. Are you taking PhD students in the fall? If yes, can I talk with you more about your research?"

I sent about 5 of those emails, and got 1 response.

 

So I changed my email structure to say the same thing, but then after I sign my name I'd add,

"PS. To assure you that I am a competitive applicant for X school's program, here are my basic stats. Double majored in Chemistry and Physics, graduated cum laude. 165V/166Q/4.5 AW on GRE. One year post-bacc research at a national laboratory. One summer research scholarship at same laboratory."

I sent about 5 of those emails and got 5 positive responses. By framing myself in the best light possible I got my foot in the door at a couple top ten schools, and a handful of 10-30 schools.

 

My point is, it'll be hard to frame yourself with good stats if you don't have any good stats. Profs don't have time to listen to everyone's life story, so you need to get your foot in the door somehow and GPA or GRE seem to be the easiest way to do so.