Can I Get Into Grad School with a 2.8 GPA?

[BrutePhysics]

I have a GPA of 2.8 as of right now (i have 3 semesters of grades left and I am busting my butt). I have not taken the GRE but I am taking a Phys GRE prep class (which is offered because people at my school are notorious for low GRE scores) so hopefully I will do well. Do I have even a chance at grad school? I'm not talking about upper ranked... I'll take nearly anything that has chemical physics or condensed matter.

On the good side, I do have research experience through one professor that I started last semester and I plan on doing more over the summer and through the next year (possibly other professors). And I believe I can get good recommendations.

Another side note. I have worked 20-30 hrs/week to pay for my schooling, which I never use as an excuse but some people have advised me to mention that when speaking of my GPA... should I really make a note of that?

 

[Cyrus]

If I were in your shoes, I would seriously consider working after school and obtaining a second degree in something related to physics, maybe EE just to get a degree with a GPA that is competative. As it stands, I highly doubt anywhere would take you in with a 2.8. It's just too low. A 3.2 in grad school is still too low.

You are honestly not in a good position. Finding a job with a BS Physics is going to be next to impossible. So, I hope you enjoy doing engineering work for a living.

 

[daveyinaz]

Finding a job with a BS Physics is going to be next to impossible.

What in the world possesses people to say things like this? If you have a BS in physics, it would not be very hard to find a job at all. It might not be doing superstring theory or anything but a job is a job.

But he does make a good point...if you can't bring up your 2.8 GPA in the next 3 semesters then you might want to work a job and get a second undergrad degree taking one class at a time to bring up your GPA or something like that. Other than that..all I can say is that don't be afraid to apply to grad school with a 3.0...it's completely possible.

 

[Cyrus]

The fact that people with BS's in physics here can't find jobs.

 

[Brian_C]

You should definitely be able to get in somewhere with a 3.0 GPA, especially if you have a higher GPA in physics and math classes. Doing well on the physics GRE can make a big difference. I would suggest applying to a masters program, since the requirements are usually less stringent.

As far as studying for the physics GRE, it is mostly basic calculus-based physics like you would find in Halliday and Resnick. It was a lot easier than I thought.

 

[Cyrus]

The Graduate Record Examination (GRE), including the Advanced Physics test, is required for admission. In rare instances, this requirement may be waived. The average GRE Advanced Physics test score is 785. The average gpa for students educated in U.S. institutions is 3.7. A minimum overall score of 575 on the Test of English as a Foreign Langauge is required of applicants from non-English speaking countries.

http://umdphysics.umd.edu/index.php/academics/prospectivegraduates.html


You could possibly shoot for ohio state.

an earned cumulative grade-point average (GPA) equivalent to at least 3.0 out of 4.0 (or B) in all previous undergraduate college-level course work, or 3.3 in all graduate course work. If your undergraduate GPA is below the minimum, an official Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) test score is required.

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/grad/apply/minrequirements.php

But when they say the minimum is 3.0, what they should really say is most people who apply have 3.6.

 

[Brian_C]

I doubt you could get into a flagship state school, but there are numerous lower tier institutions that would take you with a 3.0 and a decent PGRE.

 

[cristo]

I have worked 20-30 hrs/week to pay for my schooling, which I never use as an excuse but some people have advised me to mention that when speaking of my GPA... should I really make a note of that?

It might be worth mentioning, but in my opinion this just shows that you're not serious about the amount of time you spend on your studies. I would strongly advise you to stop trying to undertake about 2/3 of a full time job and try to go to college full time too. Take out a loan for your final year, and you can work even harder and, in theory, get your grades pulled up higher.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It may be helpful to read https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=284463", particularly post #7.

There is a perception here on Physics Forums that a GPA of 3.0 marks the line between getting in and not getting in. I disagree with this. It usually marks the line between being rejected immediately and being rejected after the committee has looked at your application.

Moving from a 2.8 to a 3.0 in 3 terms means a 3.3 average in the last 3 terms. That's not very ambitious in terms of improvement. Your target needs to be a 4.0 for the last three terms. That gets you to a 3.25, which is still not very high, but will look a lot better than a 3.0, particularly since it will include many upper division physics classes.

Additionally, that's your best chance to get your physics GRE score up.

 

[Choppy]

I completely understand having to work to pay for school. Personally, I'm in the school of thought that students should work during their studies. Not only can they avoid or at least reduce debt, but it gives them solid experience that they can draw on when seeking their first full time positions. Further, the application process for the graduate programs that I'm aware of require a CV, and therefor work experience counts. Naturally a part-time job working in a lab, tutoring, work as a TA etc. counts for more than weekly shifts at McDonald's.

Something else to consider, is that if you're finding undergraduate work a challenge, it doesn't get any easier in graduate school. The reason the admission levels are so high is because the admissions committees don't want to allow anyone in who doesn't have a reasonable chance of success.

 

[cristo]

I completely understand having to work to pay for school. Personally, I'm in the school of thought that students should work during their studies. Not only can they avoid or at least reduce debt, but it gives them solid experience that they can draw on when seeking their first full time positions. Further, the application process for the graduate programs that I'm aware of require a CV, and therefor work experience counts. Naturally a part-time job working in a lab, tutoring, work as a TA etc. counts for more than weekly shifts at McDonald's.

There's a difference between doing a bit of lab work, or tutoring on the side (and, indeed, doing a couple of shifts at mcdonalds) and working 30 hours a week (regardless of the job) during term time. If I saw a student that was acing a course and working for 30 hours a week then I'd be impressed, but if I saw one who was only achieving low grades and told me that this was due to working for 30 hours a week, I would not be impressed, since it shows no sense of priorities. Weekend and holiday jobs are a good thing, but when a student's work starts to become affected, it ceases to be beneficial and becomes a hindrance.

 

[skeptic2]

Why is there the 3.0 or higher cutoff for admission to grad school? I understand upper tier schools wanting to set their standards high and not wanting to waste time on slower students.

But why don't 3rd or 4th tier schools accept them?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let me say this again. There is not a 3.0 dividing line between getting in and not getting in. Below a 3.0, many places - even the less competitive ones - won't even look at the application. I mentioned in the thread that I referenced that at even one of the least highly ranked schools, accepting a student with a GPA less than 3.0 requires the approval of the provost.

The reason grad schools require a high GPA is because they can. Even the less competitive schools reject more than they admit.

 

[skeptic2]

Even the less competitive schools reject more than they admit.

Agreed, but why? Wouldn't they be ahead financially by accepting more students?

 

[BrutePhysics]

Thanks for all of the honest opinions. I truly appreciate them. I don't know if the professors and grad students are just trying to be nice or something but they think that, while difficult, i can get in somewhere... To be honest, i'd rather hear, you screwed up go fix it then... oh your not that bad off. And I understand that I have made some serious mistakes which has led me to this point.

As it stands, I'll probably apply to a few schools when my GPA gets up but I'm not counting on anything.

On a side note, what useful information is there out there on high school teaching? I know I can easily teach a high school class and I have actually tutored many people in the bare basics of the subject and I always get the "you make it more understandable" comments. Would it maybe be better if I just go for high school teaching and then maybe work on a masters later?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Agreed, but why? Wouldn't they be ahead financially by accepting more students?

No, the department pays for graduate students.

 

[physics girl phd]

Agreed, but why? Wouldn't they be ahead financially by accepting more students?

Grad students (especially in science and engineering) aren't really the revenue units of the university systems, even of smaller universities. Often the less competitive schools are smaller overall, so there are fewer faculty to support large numbers of graduate students, their faculty receive fewer grants (or the grant money they receive is in collaboration with other institutions and must be split accordingly), and the number of TA positions (which can be used for graduate students support) are fewer becuase the institutions are perhaps smaller. Most grad students in science or engineering are only offered positions if there will be financial support for them. Aside: the revenue units of the university system are the undergraduates who are not on scholarship.

In fact, large numbers of graduate students are often found in the more highly ranked schools, which often have the research funds and large numbers of faculty to support large numbers of graduate students. You can play with the numbers a bit at this link:
http://graduate-school.phds.org/find/programs/physics"
You'll find that of the 36 schools in the top 20% in size, 26 of those schools are also in the top 20% reputation-wise. None are in the lower 40% reputation-wise.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I have a GPA of 2.8 as of right now (i have 3 semesters of grades left and I am busting my butt). I have not taken the GRE but I am taking a Phys GRE prep class (which is offered because people at my school are notorious for low GRE scores) so hopefully I will do well. Do I have even a chance at grad school?
<snip>

This may be tangential, but the medical school here recently revised the graduate (PhD, not MD) program, and issued the following criterai for admission, in order of importance:

Research experience, as measured by honor’s thesis, publications, abstracts, and presentations
Letters of recommendation
Interview
Grades and rigor of coursework
Diversity of the candidate pool
General GRE scores

Note two things- grades are far down the list, and the GRE is ranked even lower. My point is that obsessing over grades, rather than getting some good experience, is likely to hurt you more than just having "poor" grades.

 

[j93]

Moving from a 2.8 to a 3.0 in 3 terms means a 3.3 average in the last 3 terms. That's not very ambitious in terms of improvement. Your target needs to be a 4.0 for the last three terms. That gets you to a 3.25, which is still not very high, but will look a lot better than a 3.0, particularly since it will include many upper division physics classes.

Additionally, that's your best chance to get your physics GRE score up.

The Physics GRE must have changed since you have taken because the level for 60% of the problems is at the AP Physics B level and the quantum questions are a joke (Calculate simple expectation values and qualitative boundary problems). There are 2 Lagrangian/Hamiltonian questions and 4 questions that align well with EE courses. If the goal is to get a better PGRE advanced physics courses are not the way to go. Taking an intro circuits class is more effective or some course surveying electronics or solid-state theory.
Comparing the old Physics GRE with recent ones the committee deciding questions included on the exam are trying to decrease the amount of computation which means quantum questions come up less often and are dependent more on qualitative boundary value problems and asking more other topics questions that are more like history questions(particle physics which is heavier).

 

[eri]

Agreed, but why? Wouldn't they be ahead financially by accepting more students?

You need to maintain a 3.0 GPA or higher in grad school to remain enrolled in the program - fall below that and you're on academic probation for a semester, stay below 3.0 and you get kicked out. Grad school classes are more demanding than undergrad, so it's assumed that if you can't maintain a 3.0 in undergrad you're not going to pass grad level classes.

 

[j93]

Grad school classes are more demanding than undergrad, so it's assumed that if you can't maintain a 3.0 in undergrad you're not going to pass grad level classes.

That must depend from university to university because for some schools it is conceptually more demanding but less demanding in practice because there is more grading weight given to problem sets which everyone tends to do well and less emphasis on exams, the whole idea of getting a grade distribution goes out the window.

 

[TMFKAN64]

On a side note, what useful information is there out there on high school teaching? ... Would it maybe be better if I just go for high school teaching and then maybe work on a masters later?

The basic answer is: most high school teaching in the US is done in public schools, and this requires a teaching credential from the state you are teaching in. (Private high schools don't legally require a credential... at least in CA... but they still prefer to see one.) The process to get a credential varies widely from state to state... some states have "fast track" programs designed to get people with math and science degrees into classrooms quickly, others require a year of additional education coursework and a battery of standardized tests.

So the not very helpful answer is... it totally depends on where you live.

 

[Choppy]

There's a difference between doing a bit of lab work, or tutoring on the side (and, indeed, doing a couple of shifts at mcdonalds) and working 30 hours a week (regardless of the job) during term time. If I saw a student that was acing a course and working for 30 hours a week then I'd be impressed, but if I saw one who was only achieving low grades and told me that this was due to working for 30 hours a week, I would not be impressed, since it shows no sense of priorities. Weekend and holiday jobs are a good thing, but when a student's work starts to become affected, it ceases to be beneficial and becomes a hindrance.

I think we'll just have to respectfully disagree on this. In order to keep taking courses one needs to pay for them. This leaves the student with four options.

(1) Being born with rich parents (who also agree to fund your schooling).

(2) Scholarships. These, I agree should be a student's first priority if at all possible, but (a) there are significantly more students than scholarships and (b) the scholarships tend to be very selective, hence not everyone qualifies.

(3) Taking out student loans. Unfortunately, not everyone qualifies for student financial assistance. I also personally feel that people are, in general, too quick to take on debt these days.

(4) That leaves working so that the student can come up with tuition, in addition to basic living expenses (ie. food and shelter).

Naturally I agree that once the basic necessities of life are met, the student's priority needs to be studies.

 

[j93]

I have to agree with Choppy and I really hope people in physics community are not so insulated that they don't think some people have no choice but to work to live and that not everyone is starting/working under the same conditions. However I do feel the physics community is insulated and probably doesn't realize Choppy's list of four options.

 

[ice109]

There's a difference between doing a bit of lab work, or tutoring on the side (and, indeed, doing a couple of shifts at mcdonalds) and working 30 hours a week (regardless of the job) during term time. If I saw a student that was acing a course and working for 30 hours a week then I'd be impressed, but if I saw one who was only achieving low grades and told me that this was due to working for 30 hours a week, I would not be impressed, since it shows no sense of priorities. Weekend and holiday jobs are a good thing, but when a student's work starts to become affected, it ceases to be beneficial and becomes a hindrance.

what world do you live in? i think a student who starves and does well in his/her classes is the one that shows no sense of priorities.

 

[Cyrus]

What world do you live in ice109?

I think what cristo was saying is quite clear. If you have to work, don't do it and school full time. Cut back on the number of classes you can realistically commit to, and do well. It will take longer, but you have no other options. Just because you have to work and take classes, don't think that's a special pass to sub-par grades.

 

[BrutePhysics]

Hello again,

before this gets out of hand... as certain tones may make it seem. I'd like to point out that I do not in any way use my work as an "excuse" for low grades... I simply asked because a few professors and students have told me that it might be helpful to mention. I do not blame anyone else but myself for something like that.

As for now, I have taken some other advice from here and talking with my advisor and taken out a loan for the remaining semester with plans on doing the same next year so as to boost my grades and make what chance I have as good as possible.

 

[Cyrus]

Keep this in mind. If your highest GPA you could get (all A's all the time till you finish) won't bump you up above 3.2 (And hence be competitive for Grad school), is there really any benifit to taking a loan out at this point? Is it not better to just finish school, get a job, and start from scratch with an engineering degree and then reapply to grad school a few years down the road with a near 4.0 GPA.

To me, taking out a loan just to go from a 2.8 to 3.2 and still not get into grad school seems unwise, financially.

 

[daveyinaz]

To me, taking out a loan just to go from a 2.8 to 3.2 and still not get into grad school seems unwise, financially.

Who died and made you God? Or even Lord of all school admissions? Who says he won't get into graduate school? You?

Seriously...You and Vanadium both...get off the high horses already...

 

[NBAJam100]

errr i don't think vanadium was really up on his high horse... if anything he gave hope to Brute that you CAN get into grad school with below a 3.0 gpa...

 

[j93]

errr i don't think vanadium was really up on his high horse... if anything he gave hope to Brute that you CAN get into grad school with below a 3.0 gpa...

Did you read his post? Here it is, it explicitly says that you will be rejected immediately if you have below a 3.0 GPA.

There is a perception here on Physics Forums that a GPA of 3.0 marks the line between getting in and not getting in. I disagree with this. It usually marks the line between being rejected immediately and being rejected after the committee has looked at your application.

Somebody has to help set the GRE verbal curve.

Cyrus is right. I don't think that the loans are worth it because you are still not guaranteed admission. It would be better to take your time without loans.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

Are the courses you will be taking in the next 3 semesters upper div physics courses? If so, wouldn't acing those courses be much more pertinent than a 3.6+ gpa? What are the courses that are keeping you down? Gen eds aren't nearly as important as major courses and lower div courses are not as important as upper div courses. If you ace all of your upper div courses, a bad mark in Newtonian mechanics is a lot more tolerable. Also, are there any professors that you have cultivated a relationship with who might know your work well enough to write you a good letter of rec? Have you done any research at all? If not, do you have this summer open? If so, find every REU that isn't past deadline and sign up for it. If you do decent on the phys gre and have a 3.25 with an upward trend you surely would stand a chance somewhere.

 

[j93]

If so, wouldn't acing those courses be much more pertinent than a 3.6+ gpa? What are the courses that are keeping you down?

I cannot say anything with certainty since I cannot be in the mind of every admissions committee but people on this forum value consistency above all else, so no.

 

[Cyrus]

Who died and made you God? Or even Lord of all school admissions? Who says he won't get into graduate school? You?

Seriously...You and Vanadium both...get off the high horses already...

I think it was Bob who died and made be god. Yep, it was bob.

 

[cristo]

I think we'll just have to respectfully disagree on this. In order to keep taking courses one needs to pay for them. This leaves the student with four options..

I think there are other options, namely

(5) Attend school part time and work part time, thus allowing the student to have enough time to focus on studies

(6) Work full time over holidays. That's what I did: students have enough holiday time (at least in the UK, anyway) to enable them to save up money, if sensible enough with holiday spending.

If you have to work, don't do it and school full time. Cut back on the number of classes you can realistically commit to, and do well.

Exactly!

Who died and made you God? Or even Lord of all school admissions? Who says he won't get into graduate school? You?

When someone starts a post with "To me, ..." that implies, even more so than usual, that it is an opinion. Lose the attitude: it won't do you any good.