I just failed the Physics GRE, now what?

[undergrad_phy]

Lots of interesting ideas here. First of all, I've done the math and to achieve a 3.0 I'd have to stay in college for a full 6th year, taking a full load each semester, and make A+'s in every class. I can't really afford to stay in school another year, and even if I could I think it's unreasonable to think that I get by with B's and C's and then suddenly just decide to make A+'s in everything.

I think what I'll probably do is apply to some PhD and MS programs, but also to some jobs, and when I graduate if I get a job and not into a graduate school, I'll continue to study for and take the PGRE, and hopefully get back into school down the road.

Apparently, you didn't bother looking at the admissions requirements to the "safety" schools that you posted. Let's go down the list one by one, shall we?

LSU: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/newwebsite/graduate/faq.html#question7



University of South Carolina: There is no admissions requirements information on their website, but the other science and engineering programs require a 3.0. I'd be surprised if the physics program had lower standards than the others.

University of Alabama: http://physics.ua.edu/grad/UA_AIP_profile.pdf



Miami University: http://www.muphysics.org/prospective-students/graduate-programs/admission-requirements



I've got to run to class now, I'll finish doing your grad school research for you later.

Jack I don't know what I did to you to make you so abrasive towards me, but I didn't put those schools up because they were my safety schools- I put them up asking if they were considered safety schools by anyone else. Secondly, I'm not asking you to do my grad school research for me, I'm asking you to keep your opinions to yourself, if you don't mind- because every time I get on here you put me in a bad mood.

 

[Jack21222]

Lots of interesting ideas here. First of all, I've done the math and to achieve a 3.0 I'd have to stay in college for a full 6th year, taking a full load each semester, and make A+'s in every class. I can't really afford to stay in school another year, and even if I could I think it's unreasonable to think that I get by with B's and C's and then suddenly just decide to make A+'s in everything.

I think what I'll probably do is apply to some PhD and MS programs, but also to some jobs, and when I graduate if I get a job and not into a graduate school, I'll continue to study for and take the PGRE, and hopefully get back into school down the road.




Jack I don't know what I did to you to make you so abrasive towards me, but I didn't put those schools up because they were my safety schools- I put them up asking if they were considered safety schools by anyone else. Secondly, I'm not asking you to do my grad school research for me, I'm asking you to keep your opinions to yourself, if you don't mind- because every time I get on here you put me in a bad mood.

I'm trying to save you time and money in application fees.

As for your poll, I don't think I was the only one under the impression that you were asking which of the "safety schools" you listed might accept you.

You'll probably make more money by going right into industry than you would by going to grad school first. Even if you did get accepted somewhere, based on your undergrad record (at least as it looks on paper), you won't survive through grad school. By all accounts, grad school classes are harder than undergrad classes. In undergrad, you had freshman-level classes to "pad" your GPA up to 2.7. Now, you'll need to get a MINIMUM of 3.0 to barely pass grad school in harder classes without any easy classes to "pad" your numbers. If you were capable of that kind of quality schoolwork, I suspect you would have done it in undergrad.

So, based on all of that, you're going to spend money on application fees, and if you do get accepted somewhere, you likely won't make it to the end, costing you money and time that you could have spent doing well in industry.

If me telling you that you can make a ton of money in industry puts you in a bad mood, then I don't know what to tell you.

If it makes you feel any better, I do think that if you applied to enough programs, you probably could get in *somewhere.* I just don't think that you'd make it past the first 2 semesters even if you did get in. Here, you said it yourself:

I think it's unreasonable to think that I get by with B's and C's and then suddenly just decide to make A+'s in everything.

Likewise, I think it's unreasonable to think that you could get by with B's and C's in undergrad and then suddenly just decide to make A's and B's in grad school.

 

[G01]

Lol, you placed Tufts and BU as "safety cards".

I'm a physics Ph.D. student at B.U. I know for a fact our department won't even look at an application with a GPA less than 3.0. That is graduate school policy here. I don't even think the website will allow you to submit an application with a GPA less than 3.0.

Most people in my year had undergrad GPA's ~3.5-3.9. From PhDs.org: Our departments average QGRE is 797/800. PGRE was not listed but from personal experience, it seems the average in my year was around 800 for domestic students.

B.U. is not a safety for you. It's not even a possibility. Sorry.

My advice to the OP:

1. You need to realize that a 3.0 undergrad GPA is not "average" for those applying to grad school. 3.0 is a bare minimum at most programs.

2. Get schools that are ranked in the top 50, (even the top 100) off your list. You will only waste $50-$70 on an application fee if you apply to these schools.

3. I have seen friends with low PGRE's get into programs. Consider applying for masters at the following programs:

SUNY Binghamton

University of Kentucky

Consider applying at programs that aren't ranked in the top 100. They exist, they are probably your best shot, and they don't necessarily have bad programs.

4. Don't expect to get a TA/RA. If you are admitted, the department may want you to focus on your courses full time, given your course record. You may have to fund yourself for at least a semester/year.

5.Take real job applications seriously. Don't take this for granted. Your chances of getting into any program are low. Your in a position where no school should be considered a safety. You need to have a safety plan that is outside academia.

 

[AndersonMD]

I've never gotten a 78 or below on an exam, but if I did, I would not feel like I barely passed. I would feel like I failed. But that's just me; I hold ridiculous standards for myself that I don't hold for other people.

It must be nice to go to a school that marks so generously, has easy tests, or bell curves high. Where I am most graduate classes are curved to mid 70's (so more than half the class will be given below 75%) and anything about an 80% is first class honours (4.0). The best and brightest may get close to 90, or low 90s but not likely, and you are happy to have anything about 80, so 78 wouldn't be that bad (average). Clearly where you are 78% is a much lower relative grade so I imagine your average is 90+?

 

[Jack21222]

It must be nice to go to a school that marks so generously, has easy tests, or bell curves high. Where I am most graduate classes are curved to mid 70's (so more than half the class will be given below 75%) and anything about an 80% is first class honours (4.0). The best and brightest may get close to 90, or low 90s but not likely, and you are happy to have anything about 80, so 78 wouldn't be that bad (average). Clearly where you are 78% is a much lower relative grade so I imagine your average is 90+?

As I've stated before, I'm not in grad school yet. Also read where I stated that in one of my classes, an 83% is an A.

I like how the OP was successful in derailing his own thread. Surely you're not agreeing with him that a 2.7 GPA is anything but "barely passing."

 

[AndersonMD]

No, of course not, what I don't understand is how he gets a 2.7 GPA with 78%. Perhaps I quoted the wrong statement. I also agree that the OP should probably not attempt graduate school, and that the chances of getting in with a 2.7 are basically 0. Even if you can get in with that the chances of being successful are next to nothing.

 

[Jack21222]

No, of course not, what I don't understand is how he gets a 2.7 GPA with 78%. Perhaps I quoted the wrong statement. I also agree that the OP should probably not attempt graduate school, and that the chances of getting in with a 2.7 are basically 0. Even if you can get in with that the chances of being successful are next to nothing.

I don't think he does. He was just equating a 2.7 GPA with getting a 78% on a test. I consider both "barely passing," he thinks they're both great. He calls a 2.7 "closer to a B- than a C+" which simply is NOT the case. It's on the low end of C+, near a regular C.

 

[stevenb]

I don't think he does. He was just equating a 2.7 GPA with getting a 78% on a test. I consider both "barely passing," he thinks they're both great. He calls a 2.7 "closer to a B- than a C+" which simply is NOT the case. It's on the low end of C+, near a regular C.

Maybe there are different standards out there, but my experience says the following.

4.0=A
3.7=A-
3.3=B+
3.0=B
2.7=B-
2.3=C+
2.0=C
1.7=C-

http://www.collegeboard.com/html/academicTracker-howtoconvert.html

The 2.7 should be a B-, but the 78% is like a C+

 

[G01]

The debate over whether 2.7 is a B- or a C+ is beside the point.

Either average will be considered deficient by most graduate programs. The moral is that passing through undergrad does not immediately mean you are ready for graduate school. A C+ does not scream "grad school material." Neither does B-.

 

[AndersonMD]

Wow, I've never seen a conversion like that before:
Here is one inclusive to Canadian Universities

http://careers.mcmaster.ca/students/education-planning/virtual-resources/gpa-conversion-chart

2.7 ~ C+ to B- ~ 65-70%

 

[AndersonMD]

The debate over whether 2.7 is a B- or a C+ is beside the point.

Either average will be considered deficient by most graduate programs. The moral is that passing through undergrad does not immediately mean you are ready for graduate school. A C+ does not scream "grad school material." Neither does B-.

Yes, I agree with this statement, the conversation has wandered way off course and I second this assessment.

 

[stevenb]

Wow, I've never seen a conversion like that before:
Here is one inclusive to Canadian Universities

http://careers.mcmaster.ca/students/education-planning/virtual-resources/gpa-conversion-chart

2.7 ~ C+ to B- ~ 65-70%

You're misquoting your reference. Your reference identifies 2.7 as B- not as a range of C+ to B-. The percentages are the things that seem to be more nebulous.

The label may not be that critical, but we might as well be accurate with what we say of the scale.

 

[AndersonMD]

Yes, I was referring to column 9, where C+ is inclusive of 2.7 and B starts at 3.0, though labels really aren't that important.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The debate over whether 2.7 is a B- or a C+ is beside the point.

Either average will be considered deficient by most graduate programs. The moral is that passing through undergrad does not immediately mean you are ready for graduate school. A C+ does not scream "grad school material." Neither does B-.

Exactly.

 

[stevenb]

Yes, I was referring to column 9, where C+ is inclusive of 2.7 and B starts at 3.0, though labels really aren't that important.

I don't interpret it that way at all. The space is blank which should mean it is half way between the C+ at 2.3 and the B at 3.0. Those schools don't give grades of B- for courses, but the effective average of 2.7 can only be interpreted as a B-. Note also that 2.7 is closer to 3.0 than it is to 2.3, so if you want to round off, then round up.

It's amazing how unimportant the labels suddenly become when people get them wrong. Above Jack a calls a clear solid B- "on the low end of C+, near a regular C". Physicists are usually a little better at correctly classifying things than I see here.

 

[twofish-quant]

It must be nice to go to a school that marks so generously, has easy tests, or bell curves high.

I think it's really a bad thing. I went to a school with absolutely *brutal* tests in which people were sometimes lucky to get 60 on tests. There are a lot of good lessons that go with tests like that.

 

[Jack21222]

I don't interpret it that way at all. The space is blank which should mean it is half way between the C+ at 2.3 and the B at 3.0. Those schools don't give grades of B- for courses, but the effective average of 2.7 can only be interpreted as a B-. Note also that 2.7 is closer to 3.0 than it is to 2.3, so if you want to round off, then round up.

It's amazing how unimportant the labels suddenly become when people get them wrong. Above Jack a calls a clear solid B- "on the low end of C+, near a regular C". Physicists are usually a little better at correctly classifying things than I see here.

I've never looked at what a B- is, so I admit I was wrong. I've never in my life until now considered something below a 3.0 to be a B of any kind. Walking around with a 2.7 average proclaiming to be a B student (even with the minus label) seems disingenuous, but if that's how things are classified, then I'm in no position to change it.

 

[AndersonMD]

I don't interpret it that way at all. The space is blank which should mean it is half way between the C+ at 2.3 and the B at 3.0. Those schools don't give grades of B- for courses, but the effective average of 2.7 can only be interpreted as a B-. Note also that 2.7 is closer to 3.0 than it is to 2.3, so if you want to round off, then round up.

Having gone through undergraduate at one of the only two schools that use that grading system I am quite familiar with the interpretation of the marks, and trust me schools don't "round up" to a B, a 2.7 is a C+, in the same way a 3.9 is a B+. The conversion on this chart is a bit strange as you generally use a GPA at those schools out of 4.5. A+ = 4.5, A = 4.0, B+ = 3.5 B = 3.0, C+ = 2.5, etc.

This clarification is even more important for most graduate students who are applying with a GPA between 3.5-4.0, even though often your percentage marks coming out of courses could be mid 80's you CGPA could be say, 3.7 which is ineligible for federal funding (NSERC, etc). While other schools that use a % based system will be eligible with identical marks.

Anyways, long and the short of it, as much as I would love them to "round up", this is simply not the case, a 2.7 is a C+, and you won't get into grad school with it (while at a 3.0 you might). Also, a 2.3 would be considered a C not a C+.

 

[AndersonMD]

I think it's really a bad thing. I went to a school with absolutely *brutal* tests in which people were sometimes lucky to get 60 on tests. There are a lot of good lessons that go with tests like that.

I was being a little facetious, though I do admit I after finishing a 12 hour in class exam with no breaks, where no one in the class could reasonably finish even half of it, I sometimes dream things could be just a little bit easier (this was not a qualifying exam, it was just for a single class).

It never feels good coming out of one of those feeling utterly defeated.

 

[stevenb]

Having gone through undergraduate at one of the only two schools that use that grading system I am quite familiar with the interpretation of the marks, and trust me schools don't "round up" to a B, a 2.7 is a C+, in the same way a 3.9 is a B+. The conversion on this chart is a bit strange as you generally use a GPA at those schools out of 4.5. A+ = 4.5, A = 4.0, B+ = 3.5 B = 3.0, C+ = 2.5, etc.

This clarification is even more important for most graduate students who are applying with a GPA between 3.5-4.0, even though often your percentage marks coming out of courses could be mid 80's you CGPA could be say, 3.7 which is ineligible for federal funding (NSERC, etc). While other schools that use a % based system will be eligible with identical marks.

Anyways, long and the short of it, as much as I would love them to "round up", this is simply not the case, a 2.7 is a C+, and you won't get into grad school with it (while at a 3.0 you might). Also, a 2.3 would be considered a C not a C+.

I'm quite confounded by your statements. I agree a 2.7 should not be rounded up to a B. The charts clearly show it as a B-. This agrees with any standard I've been under (4.0 scale). My undergrad school used the letters to report grades and showed a GPA number scaled to 4.0. If a student at that school got a B- in every single class, his GPA would be 2.7. It also agrees with the reference you cited. A scale based on a max of 4.5 would of course be different, but I'm assuming the OP is measured on a 4.0 scale (EDIT: yes, I checked and that's what he said).

Anyway, it's hardly a battle worth fighting, but it seems to me the OP should be comfortable (and would be accurate) saying he is a B- student. Even saying he is a B student, while clearly saying his GPA is 2.7 out of 4.0 is not "disingenuous" in my book because he is clearly not trying to hide anything.

 

[Vanadium 50]

People aren't getting the hint. Discussion of whether a 2.7 is a C+ or a B- is not helpful to the OP. What matters is that 2.7 < 3.0, and 2.7 << 3.5.

 

[johng23]

I was being a little facetious, though I do admit I after finishing a 12 hour in class exam with no breaks, where no one in the class could reasonably finish even half of it, I sometimes dream things could be just a little bit easier (this was not a qualifying exam, it was just for a single class).

WHAT? That's utterly ridiculous. How is that even allowed? Why don't people laugh in the prof's face and refuse to do it?

Undergrad or grad?

 

[stevenb]

People aren't getting the hint. Discussion of whether a 2.7 is a C+ or a B- is not helpful to the OP. What matters is that 2.7 < 3.0, and 2.7 << 3.5.

With the number of times this fact has been pointed out, I'm absolutely convinced the OP had been "helped" by this hint.

What isn't helpful to the OP is telling lies about obvious facts and insulting him with words like "disingenuous".

 

[G01]

With the number of times this fact has been pointed out, I'm absolutely convinced the OP had been "helped" by this hint.

What isn't helpful to the OP is telling lies about obvious facts and insulting him with words like "disingenuous".

We've now spent close to two pages debating the differences between a B- and a C+! It's not the original purpose of the thread.

Who's telling lies to the OP?

 

[stevenb]

We've now spent close to two pages debating the differences between a B- and a C+! It's not the original purpose of the thread.

Who's telling lies to the OP?

If you are implying that I lied about something, then at least have the decency to point it out so that I can realize it, acknowledge it and apologize for it.

If you want to say I'm annoying for belaboring a point, then fine, I'm guilty as charged. Certainly this is not the first time a PF member asked that an inaccuracy be corrected.

 

[G01]

If you are implying that I lied about something, then at least have the decency to point it out so that I can realize it, acknowledge it and apologize for it.

If you want to say I'm annoying for belaboring a point, then fine, I'm guilty as charged. Certainly this is not the first time a PF member asked that an inaccuracy be corrected.

Steven, I have no complaint with you, just about the direction the conversation is going. I'm sorry if I "sounded" disgruntled or belligerent. I did not intend for that.

I wasn't implying anything about you personally.

I was wondering about your statement:

What isn't helpful to the OP is telling lies about obvious facts and insulting him with words like "disingenuous".

My question was serious and not implying anything about any of your statements. I didn't see anyone in this thread say anything blatantly false to the OP.

I seriously wanted to know, "Who told lies in this thread?"

 

[stevenb]

Steven, I have no complaint with you, just about the direction the conversation is going. I'm sorry if I "sounded" disgruntled or belligerent. I did not intend for that.

I wasn't implying anything about you personally.

I was wondering about your statement:



My question was serious and not implying anything about any of your statements. I didn't see anyone in this thread say anything blatantly false to the OP.

I seriously wanted to know, "Who told lies in this thread?"

No problem. I'm not offended or anything. I'm not accussing anyone specific of lying in the sense of "deliberately trying to deceive". I just said "telling lies" as an a general way of saying several innaccurate statements were made which don't really help the OP. Poor choice of words on my part, and appologies for that.

I actually see 4 innaccurate statements, but I'm not going to expand on that for two reasons. First, I don't want my poor choice of the word "lie" to carry over and seem to accuse a particular person, and second because the most blatent innacuracy (2.7 equals C+ or C) is aready deemed as irrelevant and acknowledged by Jack as incorrect and an inadvertant mistake.

 

[undergrad_phy]

Hey everyone, thanks for the input- some constructively worded, some not so much, but all helpful nonetheless. I wonder if there is a way to label a thread as 'closed' or 'complete'- because I think we may be getting off topic. I'll try to figure this out- if you have any idea, message me.

However, to reiterate, I do appreciate everyone's thoughts and I feel like I have a much more realistic idea of my goals and my options now.

 

[flyingpig]

I think it's really a bad thing. I went to a school with absolutely *brutal* tests in which people were sometimes lucky to get 60 on tests. There are a lot of good lessons that go with tests like that.

Wait, then does that mean only like 5 people in the whole university actually even considers applying to grad school since their gpa so darn low?

 

[Ryker]

I think their GPA isn't low, because they're graded on a curve. So even though there weren't as many 90's as you would perhaps expect, there were probably still as many A+'s.

 

[flyingpig]

Not in my university...

The other section in my physics class had an average of 45% on the midterm and no scaling because someone got 90% on it lol. But they believe there was an error in the question, so who knows.

 

[panzival]

Not in my university...

The other section in my physics class had an average of 45% on the midterm and no scaling because someone got 90% on it lol. But they believe there was an error in the question, so who knows.

Happening at my school too. 49% average on a math exam and no curving because someone got 89%.

 

[Ryker]

When you say no curving, what exactly do you mean? For example, at my university, professors look for gaps in-between student scores, so that those gaps represent cut-offs for different grades. Of course it's probably not always as clear-cut, so that they have to "force" the cut-off and look at the scores themselves, as well, but if the average was 43% and, say, one person got 90% and the next best one got 50%, then the latter wouldn't get a C or a B.

 

[pongo38]

Have you considered doing Engineering in some form? That way, you will be applying physics, and it could lead to a research degree in Engineering.

 

[twofish-quant]

Wait, then does that mean only like 5 people in the whole university actually even considers applying to grad school since their gpa so darn low?

Since the tests at MIT are heavily curved, you get decent GPA's even if the tests scores are low. Most of the physics and math courses are A-B centered which means that roughly half the class will get A's, half the class will get B's, and a few people will get lower than that, but that's only if you did something really wrong.

They post the distribution of test scores, and if you are at the tail, there is always one or two major tests before drop date, so that you can get out if you have serious trouble. Also the fact that MIT gives horrendously difficult tests is part of the culture. Because I know that I can get a 50% and there is still the possibility of getting an A on the test, I start enjoying horrendously difficult tests. It's part of the "drop you in the ocean and watch you struggle to swim to shore" philosophy of MIT. One thing that MIT teaches you is that if you are getting 90% and 100% on tests, then your standards are too low.

Harvard also has pretty inflated grades. I took one course in humanities there, and once I got a B- even though I was unable to answer practically any question on the test.

The classes in the engineering departments tend to be B-C centered, because employers really care less about GPA than grad schools do.

People put a lot of thought into grading policy. Most physics departments will deliberately set up their grading so that most physics majors will end up with about a 3.5, so that they can get into graduate school. The flip side is that if you get a 3.0 or 2.7 then people assume that you did something really, really wrong.

This causes some interesting issues when you have international students. The Chinese educational system for example is set up so that people do extremely well on standardized tests, but have really low grades. For example, if someone graduates a Chinese undergraduate university with a GPA of a 2.5, that might be outstanding, or not...