Got my PGRE scores. What do I do from here?

[WarPhalange]

47%. I got over 50% on the practice exams I took which I didn't even go the full 3 hours on. I don't know what happened. I felt so confident in my answers too... like I just knew the answer (or how to get it), you know? No guessing.

My physics GPA is also a 2.98. Is there absolutely any chance of me getting into to a decent school at this point? Top schools like Berkeley and Stanford are obviously out of the question. What about something like UC Santa Barbara or U Michigan Ann Arbor?

My letters of recommendation might range from so-so to good and I did 2 years worth of research which I will also classify as okay to good. No publications. Never got the chance.

And of course a personal statement can't even begin to make up for that, so that is completely irrelevant.

 

[WarPhalange]

So my only course of action is to just lie down and die?

 

[tmc]

What about staying at your current school; they know you, so they might be more inclined to let you in. Otherwise, you could try some lower-ranked Masters programs and get good grades there.

What area are you interested in?

 

[WarPhalange]

Professors and the physics adviser have specifically stated that the school has a bias against students who were undergrads at the school. I suppose I could give it a shot, though. I can still make the deadline. Would I still need letters of recommendation from my professors if I am to be admitted to the physics department? If so I'd have to ask each one to write me one more... that would be kind of weird.

I've been thinking about Master's programs, but I wouldn't have the money for them, especially since graduate credits are more expensive than undergraduate. :(

I am interested in areas where the goal is to make or develop something, such as quantum computing and nanotech stuff, various material science projects like say carbon nanotubes or even biophysics research where they are trying to understand how various macromolecules form and work.

I've done 2 years of research, including summer, which included coding, hands-on work, and data analysis, and this quarter have been doing some biophysics research, although in a different area.

So I made sure to write my personal statement to specific people in each department that I would like to work with instead of a general "I like your school." letter. But I don't know if that even matters.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I hate to break it to you, but UCSB and Michigan are among the best schools in the country. Maybe not Top 5, but certainly Top 10 or 15. People with GPA's below 3, scoring in the bottom half of the GRE and with weak letters are not the students they are looking for.

I don't think the question "How do I get in a Top 10 or 15 school" is the one you should be focusing on. I'm afraid that ship has sailed. You need to be asking "How do I get in anywhere at all?" Something like 1/3 of the students who take the GRE end up in grad school. You're not in the top 1/3. I don't know what the GPA average is, but where I got my PhD, two terms at a 2.98 meant you were shown the door. And grad classes are harder. Finally, so-so letters completes the picture, and I am afraid it's not a pretty one.

In the past, you've complained that your school isn't the strongest. Low grades at a weak school coupled with a low GRE indicates that graduate work is beyond you: so-so letters confirms this and calls into question whether you'll be a good enough researcher to finish the program. Now, this might not be an accurate picture of you, but it's all the admissions committee has to go on.

If you succeed in getting in at a school that is towards the bottom of the rankings and graduate, you'll have to find a postdoc somewhere, right? There are fewer postdoctoral positions than PhD's, so this will not be easy. People are looking for grads from Chicago or Princeton, not the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople. Even if you are planning on going into industry this is important - the best industrial positions go to people with postdoctoral experience.

I'm not very keen on the "get a MS first" school of thought. Many of the top schools don't offer a terminal MS. Stipends go first to PhD students. The courses taken for the MS may not even count when you start your PhD. And finally, if a MS made a big difference in admissions decisions, you'd see the most competitive schools filled with students who already had an MS, and you don't.

I'm sorry to have to write this, but the combination of grades, test scores and letters doesn't look promising.

 

[tmc]

The idea behind getting a terminal MS isn't so much that the MS itself is useful (it's not, as indeed the courses wouldn't count for a PhD), but rather because (i) they're easier to get into than PhD programs (though probably without funding), so it's better to get in there than nowhere at all, and (ii) it'll give him a year or two to raise his GPA, retake the PGRE, and get research experience and thus better letters of reference. Once he's got those, he can re-apply to grad school with hopefully an application that's competitive with undergrads.

If money is too much of an issue to continue in grad school without funding, perhaps you should consider going on the job market in something physics-related.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The problem with the MS is that I don't think it weighs much in admissions. Like I said, "f a MS made a big difference in admissions decisions, you'd see the most competitive schools filled with students who already had an MS, and you don't." If he's shooting for UCSB, they aren't going to be impressed by an MS from East Cole Slaw State.

 

[tmc]

an 4.0 MS average looks a lot better than a 3.0 BS average though. You don't see much of that in top schools, because the applicants already have the 4.0 in undergrad, so there's no advantage in getting an MS. Think of it as just taking extra courses to raise his average, as a way to prove that he can handle grad coursework.

Course, without great grades during the MS, it would be worthless.

 

[WarPhalange]

In the past, you've complained that your school isn't the strongest. Low grades at a weak school coupled with a low GRE indicates that graduate work is beyond you: so-so letters confirms this and calls into question whether you'll be a good enough researcher to finish the program. Now, this might not be an accurate picture of you, but it's all the admissions committee has to go on.

My school is pretty good. I don't remember when I said it wasn't. Maybe I was saying it wasn't as good as some other school?

My letters aren't all so-so. I'm saying one will probably be alright, one will be good (maybe even great), and the third somewhere in between. Yeah, that's still not 3 stellar letters, but I'm just trying to defend myself here because you pretty much crushed the rest of my self-esteem there. :(

If you succeed in getting in at a school that is towards the bottom of the rankings and graduate, you'll have to find a postdoc somewhere, right?

No, I plan to go into industry or perhaps a government lab, but they have post-docs, too I guess.

the best industrial positions go to people with postdoctoral experience.

So what do people who didn't become post-docs do? Do they just wither and die? I would assume there were some sort of industry jobs for them as well.

And finally, if a MS made a big difference in admissions decisions, you'd see the most competitive schools filled with students who already had an MS

Not really. An MS takes 2 years to get and you learn what you would have learned in the first 2 years of a Ph.D. program. So there would be no reason for people to bother with it.

If the system was like in Europe, then you would be correct, because over there the Ph.D. program puts you straight into research.

I'm sorry to have to write this, but the combination of grades, test scores and letters doesn't look promising.

Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to figure out what to do next. Thanks for your help, but I can spiral down into clinical depression on my own. =S

 

[WarPhalange]

The problem with the MS is that I don't think it weighs much in admissions. Like I said, "f a MS made a big difference in admissions decisions, you'd see the most competitive schools filled with students who already had an MS, and you don't." If he's shooting for UCSB, they aren't going to be impressed by an MS from East Cole Slaw State.

He's not saying it's better, he's saying it's a decent backup plan. I understand what he means.

If I got into some Master's program I could take graduate level courses, and assuming I did well in those, I could resend my application and go "See? See? I can handle it!"

Money is an issue, though. I don't know if my school would let me stay an undergrad for an extra year (while taking grad courses) either. Nor would I want to. Part of the problem right now is that I live an hour away from campus, and as such any sort of tutoring, office hours, or studying with friends that is later in the day is pretty much out of the question. Whereas I know that part of graduate level physics courses is to have everybody study in a group and bond to make grad school more bearable.

 

[tmc]

Why wouldn't your school let you stay an extra year in undergrad? Can't you simply forget to apply for graduation? Wouldn't fix the issues of not wanting or being able to economically though. The only choice, besides crossing your fingers, would be to look at industry right away (they do hire physics BS, though you would probably be called an engineer)

 

[WarPhalange]

I already applied for graduation for one. :P

And secondly I'm already a 5th year senior because my community college didn't offer 2nd year physics. I think I'd have too many credits for their liking.

Would it be a **** move to declare a 2nd major (say math), and then take some more physics classes next year and then drop that major and say I'm graduating with a physics degree? That would be a waste of a year, I suppose...

I wouldn't mind being an engineer. I like engineering. I just don't know where I'd find work with only a bachelor's and with the current economy.

 

[tmc]

I don't think they can (or would even desire to) force you to graduate if you want to stay. For example, I could picture someone having completed all requirements for the degree, but wanting to take some advanced classes for a semester or something. You'd have to check with your university, but I know it would be possible at mine.

But yeah, however you do it, if you take a year to improve your grades, then that year will be wasted (except for all that physics you'll be learning)

 

[cristo]

Have you tried speaking to an advisor in your department and asking them for advice? Ask someone who'll be honest with you whether they think you're suitable for grad school, or whether they think you've got a chance. I can't see that it's promising, though, and from what I've heard, and the way you describe your own work, I don't see how you will be accepted.

But yeah, however you do it, if you take a year to improve your grades, then that year will be wasted (except for all that physics you'll be learning)

But will an admissions board really not see through this? If it takes someone 6 years to complete a Bachelors degree then surely they'll be doutbs as to whether he'll ever complete a PhD?

 

[WarPhalange]

But yeah, however you do it, if you take a year to improve your grades, then that year will be wasted (except for all that physics you'll be learning)

That's the reason I opted not to take graduate level QM this quarter. I figured I'd have to take it in grad school anyway, and solid state is pretty important for a would-be experimentalist/hobo with a physics degree.

I suppose if I have to, I could force my way into staying an extra year. Or you know, I just remembered a friend of mine saying he took a year off to do some sort of research type thing. I think he got it through the professor he was currently doing research for. I'd better start looking around for something like that that I could latch on to...

 

[WarPhalange]

Have you tried speaking to an advisor in your department and asking them for advice?

Not yet. I'm too embarrassed. I just got my scores yesterday anyway. I emailed a post-doc I worked with for some advice.

Ask someone who'll be honest with you whether they think you're suitable for grad school, or whether they think you've got a chance. I can't see that it's promising, though, and from what I've heard, and the way you describe your own work, I don't see how you will be accepted.

I don't know how to describe my own work is what it boils down to. I enjoyed it and I thought I made a pretty good contribution for an undergrad, but how do I know whether or not my professors think the same way and write me a good letter? Or whether the person reading my personal statement will think my research is good or not?

So I don't like to say what I did was stellar even if I thought it was great and I don't want to say it was garbage because it definitely was not.

 

[tmc]

But will an admissions board really not see through this? If it takes someone 6 years to complete a Bachelors degree then surely they'll be doubts as to whether he'll ever complete a PhD?

Of course they'd see through it, but it doesn't matter. The admission committee will take everything into account, both undergrad and grad. Just because someone had a bad undergrad doesn't mean no one will ever hire them ever again. Getting good MS grades shows that he wants to learn and that he has the ability to learn. It won't transform him into a top applicant, but he should at least be able to get in somewhere...

 

[WarPhalange]

Just because someone had a bad undergrad doesn't mean no one will ever hire them ever again.

That's a good point... didn't mathwonk go back to school later in his life after leaving due to poor grades and is now a professor in a great school?

 

[tmc]

That's a good point... didn't mathwonk go back to school later in his life after leaving due to poor grades and is now a professor in a great school?

Yes, he's the token example of someone doing that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm just trying to figure out what to do next. Thanks for your help, but I can spiral down into clinical depression on my own.

Would you rather I told you "Gee, you sound like exactly the kind of guy Harvard is looking for?"

I think your expectations have been unrealistic. It was unrealistic to assume that with a 2.98 GPA you'd ace the GRE, and it's unrealistic to think that you'll get into a Top 10 or Top 15 school like Michigan or UCSB now. You can continue with these expectations if you wish, but don't blame us if you are disappointed.

Based on this, I think you also need to ask yourself what is realistic for your letters. You originally said "so-so to good", but later said "great". I think you need to understand two things: one is that students getting into grad school pretty much all have good letters. The other is that great letters are rare. One in a pile of applications, and in a good year, perhaps two. A good letter says "one of the best in his class". A great letter says "one of the best - ever".

Looking at some past posts, one concerns me a lot:

I've skipped class so many times because it was at 8:30am I can't even count anymore.

If the fact that you habitually skip class ends up in a letter, this will be very hard to recover from. Probably impossible. Remember, universities can only admit a fixed number of students: to admit you, they have to say no to someone else. Why waste a slot on someone who in the past didn't even bother to show up.

I'm also unconvinced that a MS improves ones chances. You aren't the first to want to go to grad school with less than stellar credentials, and you aren't the first person to think of getting an MS. If having an MS really helped, you'd see a lot of students with MS's already - and you don't.

Finally, you seem to think that a career at a government lab is relatively easy to get. That's not the case - it's at least as competitive as a faculty position. With budget cuts, labs are getting very, very careful with hiring. You will need a postdoc, and you will need to have done quite well with it. Post-Sputnik, pretty much any PhD with a pulse could land a lab job somewhere. Those days are long gone.

 

[WarPhalange]

Would you rather I told you "Gee, you sound like exactly the kind of guy Harvard is looking for?"

No, I was looking for "One thing you could do next is..." Did you bother reading the title of the thread?

I think your expectations have been unrealistic. It was unrealistic to assume that with a 2.98 GPA you'd ace the GRE, and it's unrealistic to think that you'll get into a Top 10 or Top 15 school like Michigan or UCSB now. You can continue with these expectations if you wish, but don't blame us if you are disappointed.

How was it unrealistic to think I'd ace the GRE with a bad GPA? They have absolutely nothing in common. I wasn't expecting to ace it, though, but hoping for 70+%

Based on this, I think you also need to ask yourself what is realistic for your letters. You originally said "so-so to good", but later said "great". I think you need to understand two things: one is that students getting into grad school pretty much all have good letters. The other is that great letters are rare. One in a pile of applications, and in a good year, perhaps two. A good letter says "one of the best in his class". A great letter says "one of the best - ever".

I'd call that "stellar", but now we are down to semantics so it doesn't matter. In short, I don't know. One professor said he'd write me a strong letter and another said he'd write me a good one (I worked for him for a year). But how they define "strong" and "good" I can't know.

Looking at some past posts, one concerns me a lot:

If the fact that you habitually skip class ends up in a letter, this will be very hard to recover from. Probably impossible. Remember, universities can only admit a fixed number of students: to admit you, they have to say no to someone else. Why waste a slot on someone who in the past didn't even bother to show up.

I never skipped the classes of the professors giving me letters. :) In fact I sat in the front row for most of them.

It was General Ed classes that I skipped.

I'm also unconvinced that a MS improves ones chances. You aren't the first to want to go to grad school with less than stellar credentials, and you aren't the first person to think of getting an MS. If having an MS really helped, you'd see a lot of students with MS's already - and you don't.

You still don't understand. They wouldn't bother looking at whether I have a BS or MS, they'd want to know if I could handle a Ph.D. candidacy at their school. If they look at someone who took graduate courses and did well, it won't matter what degree he has. That's the entire point.

Finally, you seem to think that a career at a government lab is relatively easy to get. That's not the case - it's at least as competitive as a faculty position. With budget cuts, labs are getting very, very careful with hiring. You will need a postdoc, and you will need to have done quite well with it. Post-Sputnik, pretty much any PhD with a pulse could land a lab job somewhere. Those days are long gone.

How did you get the idea that I thought it was easy? I just said I don't want to work in academia.

 

[Wretchosoft]

When did graduate school admissions become the same type of stressor as college admissions? I think it's safe to say that not everyone has to go to graduate school, even the best students. What's more, they may not even benefit from going.

Look, be honest with yourself. Either you didn't try hard enough or you just weren't good enough. There's no use fretting over which is the truth, though, because to the people who handle admissions, both look almost the same. It's not the end of the world, blah blah blah, but it may be time to reassess the career path you have imagined for yourself.

 

[WarPhalange]

Look, be honest with yourself. Either you didn't try hard enough or you just weren't good enough. There's no use fretting over which is the truth, though, because to the people who handle admissions, both look almost the same

I know. That's why I'm not making any excuses for my GPA, although I am puzzled by my GRE score... it still doesn't matter.

It's not the end of the world, blah blah blah, but it may be time to reassess the career path you have imagined for yourself.

My "realistic" options are:

• Go to a crappy grad school
• Master's program in physics then go for Ph.D
• Master's program in EE
• Get an engineering job (at least for now)

I think my best course of action is actually going to a crappy grad school... the way I see it, getting a job at the moment doesn't look very good if I don't even have an engineering degree and the way the economy is right now. The Master's programs are enticing, but I don't know how I'd support myself through those 2-3 years. I'd still have to get a job or take out some loan...

Anybody have any advice about this?

Thanks for helping, everyone. Yes, even you Vanadium.

 

[cristo]

I don't know how to describe my own work is what it boils down to. I enjoyed it and I thought I made a pretty good contribution for an undergrad, but how do I know whether or not my professors think the same way and write me a good letter? Or whether the person reading my personal statement will think my research is good or not?

So I don't like to say what I did was stellar even if I thought it was great and I don't want to say it was garbage because it definitely was not.

Then speak to a member of faculty, preferably one that wrote one of your references. You need someone to be blunt with you and tell you where your work fits in in relation to that of others.

How was it unrealistic to think I'd ace the GRE with a bad GPA? They have absolutely nothing in common. I wasn't expecting to ace it, though, but hoping for 70+%

Isn't the GRE a test of the fundamentals of physics that you should learn during your Bachelors degree? I don't see how this and your GPA can have nothing in common: the latter says how well you understood your undergrad courses, and the former tests this all in one go.

You still don't understand. They wouldn't bother looking at whether I have a BS or MS, they'd want to know if I could handle a Ph.D. candidacy at their school. If they look at someone who took graduate courses and did well, it won't matter what degree he has. That's the entire point.

I think you should listen to Vanadium a little more. I'd hazard a guess that he knows a lot more about the admissions process and what is/isn't required than you do.

I know. That's why I'm not making any excuses for my GPA, although I am puzzled by my GRE score... it still doesn't matter.

With all due respect, why are you puzzled? Isn't the GRE score you obtained something like the score one would expect with your GPA?

My "realistic" options are:

• Go to a crappy grad school
• Master's program in physics then go for Ph.D
• Master's program in EE
• Get an engineering job (at least for now)

I think my best course of action is actually going to a crappy grad school...

I don't think you're being realistic, since you're still saying that you're puzzled by your GRE score, etc.. I don't think going to a 'crappy' grad school will be good for you in the long run and, if you have to pay for the privilege to do that or a masters degree then it certainly isn't worth it.

Bottom line, to answer the question in the title, you should talk to a member of faculty and a career's advisor to ascertain the best career plan for you.

 

[WarPhalange]

Then speak to a member of faculty, preferably one that wrote one of your references. You need someone to be blunt with you and tell you where your work fits in in relation to that of others.

Yeah, I'll do that. Thanks.

Isn't the GRE a test of the fundamentals of physics that you should learn during your Bachelors degree? I don't see how this and your GPA can have nothing in common: the latter says how well you understood your undergrad courses, and the former tests this all in one go.

No, it is a test you cram for that doesn't involve doing anything you'd do in an actual physics class. It's all about memorizing tricks and formulas. If you haven't seen any of the physics before then you're screwed, but the way everybody studies for the GRE is to take the practice exams and study the answers over and over.

I think you should listen to Vanadium a little more. I'd hazard a guess that he knows a lot more about the admissions process and what is/isn't required than you do.

He doesn't understand what we're saying. He's refuting something we're not asserting. He's saying the degree matters whereas we are saying only the experience and grades matter.

With all due respect, why are you puzzled? Isn't the GRE score you obtained something like the score one would expect with your GPA?

Not the way I studied for it (i.e. a LOT compared to my classes) and not the way I thought it went. The GRE is nothing like a physics test. Derivations and proofs fly out the window. You need to memorize quick formulas and tricks for solving problems that look complicated.

GPA isn't a good indicator of what your GRE score will be. That's the entire reason why there is a GRE in the first place. If your GPA determined your GRE score, they wouldn't bother having one.

I don't think going to a 'crappy' grad school will be good for you in the long run and, if you have to pay for the privilege to do that or a masters degree then it certainly isn't worth it.

I think I'd get funding for a Ph.D. program even from a crappy school, but the Master's degree is where one usually has to pay out of pocket. I'm definitely not going to a Ph.D. program that I'd have to pay for.

Bottom line, to answer the question in the title, you should talk to a member of faculty and a career's advisor to ascertain the best career plan for you.

I'll talk to one of my professors tomorrow then. Thanks again.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, it is a test you cram for that doesn't involve doing anything you'd do in an actual physics class. It's all about memorizing tricks and formulas. If you haven't seen any of the physics before then you're screwed, but the way everybody studies for the GRE is to take the practice exams and study the answers over and over.

Unless the test has changed radically in the last few years, I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

Why exactly do you want to get into grad school? Is it only because you think you won't find a job now?

 

[WarPhalange]

No, because I want to learn more physics and do research. I enjoyed the undergrad research I did and would want more of that, plus the classes, though hard, are really interesting since they go deeper in well, cool areas such as QM and E&M. I just think I'd really enjoy graduate school.

You couldn't disagree more? How did you study for it then? Because there is no way you'd know all the little tricks they use if you did the exact opposite of what I said.

 

[leright]

Unless the test has changed radically in the last few years, I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

Why exactly do you want to get into grad school? Is it only because you think you won't find a job now?

Maybe the test changed radically then because I agree with WarPhalange. The GRE does not accurately simulate graduate school.

I've never seen a more negative group of people in my life. WarPhalange came here and asked for simple advice. You gave it to him, but in a not-so-tactful way.

WarPhalange, you don't need to go to Berkeley or Stanford to do good research in graduate school. There are plenty of very highly respected professors at non-top 20 schools. What you need to do is carefully decide on an area of research you want to do, hone in on a specific area, find professors that have lots of publications in that area and are well known but not at top 20 schools, learn as much as you can about the area, and then contact the professors and demonstrate that you know something (the more the better) about their research. Ask deep and insightful questions and perhaps even present your own original ideas to the professor.

I agree with some of what the others have said. I wouldn't bother applying to top 10 schools to be honest. You'd be better off focusing your energy on finding a good group that matches your interests at a top 30 school...I'm sure there are many.

If you execute it right, I think that demonstrating you are extremely passionate about a particular area of research, that you've done your homework when looking into schools, and that you know what grad school is all about will get you very far in the admissions process.

What type of research did you do? What types of physics related activities did you partake in? What skills did you gain that will help you succeed in grad school? Your GRE and GPA do not make your case so you need to come up with other things you've done that make your case. Really think about your research experience and the physics related things you've done outside the classroom and deeply consider how it benefited you and how it will help you succeed in grad school.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, because I want to learn more physics and do research. I enjoyed the undergrad research I did and would want more of that, plus the classes, though hard, are really interesting since they go deeper in well, cool areas such as QM and E&M. I just think I'd really enjoy graduate school.

If you are dead serious about going to grad school and believe you are ready to work for it, then I think you should apply to both PhD programs as well as MS programs. Devote no more than 40% (and no less than 20%) of your apps to schools that are fairly good (10-30 in NRC rankings), and concentrate most apps at lower ranked schools. If the only thing you get is an MS admit, then you really need to work your @$$ off for the next couple years to make a very high GPA, AND retake the P-GRE.

You couldn't disagree more? How did you study for it then? Because there is no way you'd know all the little tricks they use if you did the exact opposite of what I said.

Someone gave me a Schaum's outline series book (I think that's what it was) that was essentially an elaborate syllabus, the day before the test. I may have gotten lucky. Or maybe it has changed a lot - this was a decade ago.

Maybe the test changed radically then because I agree with WarPhalange. The GRE does not accurately simulate graduate school.

I didn't say it did. I know it certainly doesn't. It probably doesn't also simulate undergrad level physics accurately, because I was an Engineering student, and I had only taken like 3 or 4 physics classes. I found it was more a test of very basic understanding of a range of topics from the high school level to the undergrad level.

 

[WarPhalange]

WarPhalange, you don't need to go to Berkeley or Stanford to do good research in graduate school. There are plenty of very highly respected professors at non-top 20 schools. What you need to do is carefully decide on an area of research you want to do, hone in on a specific area, find professors that have lots of publications in that area and are well known but not at top 20 schools, learn as much as you can about the area, and then contact the professors and demonstrate that you know something (the more the better) about their research. Ask deep and insightful questions and perhaps even present your own original ideas to the professor.

I know I don't have to go to a top school to still have a good education. I'm just not sure what kind of school will accept me now. I have narrowed down my research interests so I know what to look for in a grad school, but I have trouble knowing what the level of the grad school is. Is the US News and World Report a good indicator?

I agree with some of what the others have said. I wouldn't bother applying to top 10 schools to be honest. You'd be better off focusing your energy on finding a good group that matches your interests at a top 30 school...I'm sure there are many.

The second I heard my scores I immediately dropped the idea of going to a top school. I really don't know why people are even pointing this out to me.

If you execute it right, I think that demonstrating you are extremely passionate about a particular area of research, that you've done your homework when looking into schools, and that you know what grad school is all about will get you very far in the admissions process.

Really? Cuz that seems like a load of BS to me. I don't know, maybe my mind is just different, but unless the applicant somehow indicated that he doesn't care or even doesn't like what s/he is doing, then I wouldn't care how much they want to do. I understand doing my homework on the area I want to work in, though.

 

[Crazy Tosser]

Why would you want to go into a university that accepts people based on how they did on a test that's load of BS?

 

[WarPhalange]

If you are dead serious about going to grad school and believe you are ready to work for it

I haven't been so sure of anything in my life. When deciding on a major I just kind of went "Meh, I'll do physics... I guess." but now I know I want to learn more and do research in physics. I know it won't be a walk in the park. My classes + TA + Research is a lot to handle. But I just view it as the difference between something being hard and it being a challenge is whether or not I like it.

then I think you should apply to both PhD programs as well as MS programs. Devote no more than 40% (and no less than 20%) of your apps to schools that are fairly good (10-30 in NRC rankings), and concentrate most apps at lower ranked schools. If the only thing you get is an MS admit, then you really need to work your @$$ off for the next couple years to make a very high GPA, AND retake the P-GRE.

I don't know of any MS programs that offer funding. I can't afford to pay for 2 years of graduate school + living expenses. I'm lucky enough to live with my parents while an undergrad. I'll look into some sort of scholarship or something, though. Maybe I can pull it off somehow.

I was told that if I get admitted to a not-so-good Ph.D. program I can transfer to a better school after a year, although it is still difficult.

Someone gave me a Schaum's outline series book (I think that's what it was) that was essentially an elaborate syllabus, the day before the test. I may have gotten lucky. Or maybe it has changed a lot - this was a decade ago.

I worked with a grad student like you. He said he just looked over one of the practice exams and didn't really bother studying. He is really smart.

The main issue for most people is the time they give you. If you can think fast you have an advantage, even if you are on the same level as someone else. Hence where you need to learn "tricks". Often times instead of actually going through the derivation and calculation, you just remember a simple mnemonic or number that let's you skip over all of that.

 

[WarPhalange]

Why would you want to go into a university that accepts people based on how they did on a test that's load of BS?

Because those schools happen to be Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc.

The test isn't a good measure of your ability, but that doesn't mean they won't weigh it in their decision on whether or not to take you as a student. If you tell them "I'm not jumping through your hoops!" they will just say "Okay." and dump your application in the trash.

It's no different than having to dress up nicely for a job interview even though in your job you will be wearing regular jeans and a t-shirt. I'm in no position to make any demands. If I'm ever in a position where I have to decide whether or not to hire someone, I can tell them not to bother wearing anything fancy to the interview. But as it stands, I have to do what they say.

 

[Mute]

I don't know of any MS programs that offer funding. I can't afford to pay for 2 years of graduate school + living expenses. I'm lucky enough to live with my parents while an undergrad. I'll look into some sort of scholarship or something, though. Maybe I can pull it off somehow.

Have you considered looking into programs in Canada? You don't go directly into PhD programs in Canada (always an MS first, and then usually on to a new university for PhD), so I think most universities would offer some sort of stipend. For instance, at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia incoming masters students are guarenteed a minimum of $20,526 (Can $, of course): http://physics.sfu.ca/teaching/grad/financial_info

So, maybe that's another option for you?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Isn't the GRE a test of the fundamentals of physics that you should learn during your Bachelors degree? I don't see how this and your GPA can have nothing in common: the latter says how well you understood your undergrad courses, and the former tests this all in one go.

Exactly. Of course, it's not identical to graduate school coursework - number 2 pencils and filling in ovals were not part of my grad school experience - but neither are any of the other metrics - undergrad grades and letters. But it does allow a graduate committee to normalize grades across schools at some level, and it certainly does provide the opportunities to look for patterns. There is certainly a correlation between grades and GRE.

I disagree with WarPhalange that GRE and grades have nothing in common and that the only thing one needs to do to do well at the GRE is to memorize a bunch of "quick tricks". Not to belabor the obvious, but WarPhalange's approach to the GRE didn't exactly pay off.

I downloaded a recent GRE from Ohio State and took a look at it. It was much as I remembered. It was a fairly good overview of my undergraduate curriculum, within the constraints of multiple choice. While there were questions where one could get the answer more quickly if one remembered a key fact or a shortcut, it is certainly not a test made up of nothing but memorization and shortcuts.

You still don't understand. They wouldn't bother looking at whether I have a BS or MS, they'd want to know if I could handle a Ph.D. candidacy at their school. If they look at someone who took graduate courses and did well, it won't matter what degree he has. That's the entire point.

I understand just fine. I'm trying to give you some insight into how graduate admissions committees think. You can accept or disregard this - your choice. I do feel compelled to point out that if this strategy had a high probability of success, you would be seeing many graduate students who followed this path.

I think your expectations are unrealistic. You were talking Top 10 schools when you thought you'd get a 70% on the GRE. If each Top 10 schools takes 20 students, half international, that means you need to be in the top 100 nationwide. If 3000 students take the GRE, a 70% means a GRE score in the top 1000. Toss in a 2.98 GPA and letters that range from "so-so to good", and you don't have a package that looks to me like one of the hundred best in the nation.

With a 47% on the GRE, now you're in the bottom 1500 on the GRE. Moving your window from the top 100 students to the top 150 isn't really the right response. If you want to get into a school like UCSB or Michigan, you need to somehow convince the committee to accept you and to reject the student who got a 3.8 average and a 90% on her GRE. This is a zero sum game: there are N slots. If you get one of them, someone else doesn't.

Even when you were talking about a top 1000 score on the GRE, my counsel would be the same. There are about 1200 PhD's produced every year, so that means maybe 1500 get into grad school. A 2.98 GPA and a GRE score in the lower half of what's accepted means that you don't want to be looking at the schools at the top of the list. You should be looking for good people at a school that is not highly ranked. They're out there, but this means you need to decide on your specialization now.