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

[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.

 

[physics girl phd]

Have you thought about going into HS education? The pay isn't great overall, but there are some other advantages... like virtually guaranteed employment, decent heath and retirement, often funds from the state for the certification program, and summer time to work a second job, take time off, or take classes (even sometimes getting paid at national labs through their teacher outreach programs)...

 

[Reshma]

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

Well apparently it has, not in terms of content but in terms of the number of test takers.

The test content has virtually remained the same for atleast 2 decades. But the number of test takers has gone up significantly. The raw scores and percentile scores has changed drastically.The 2008 tests were scaled upto 100-200 points higher than the released sample 2001 test. The percentile scores have also been affected. A scaled score of 990 puts you in the 95% compared to 98% last year. Which means test takers will have to get more than 90 correct hits to get 990 (quite tough to achieve I feel). Also, since the test is offered only once in places like India, China etc. the number of candidates in the November test is higher which will further reduce the percentile scores for the November candidates.

I think ETS should administer the test more than once in places like India, China etc. This might reduce the discrepancy between different testing periods.

 

[WarPhalange]

GRE

Of course you need to know the physics. But going back and learning derivations isn't going to help when they need a quick answer. You don't have time to derive anything and your calculations need to be fairly rough estimates most of the time. And often times it is "Here is Question X. Recognize that it is Concept Y (say Compton Scattering) and calculate something relatively trivial." so you need to memorize all of your little formulas instead of just looking it up in a book like you would in real life. I don't know whether grad classes let you have open book exams, I guess it depends on the school and professor, but even then you are covering a single concept and deriving things is key.

Bork bork bork!

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/snackeru/greet/swedishchef.jpg

How long are you going to keep going with this? Applying to top schools wasn't because I thought I had a good chance, it was because I figured with was worth a shot. My professors didn't look at me like I'm crazy when I showed them my transcript and my list of schools. I thought that maybe I still had some chance, while applying to 2nd tier schools that I would still really like to go to.

Now that I know how low my GRE score is, I know there is no hope, okay? Now I am focusing on 2nd and 3rd tier schools that have projects I am interested in. Unfortunately, I have no idea how I would even begin looking for "good people" in these areas. I just don't know how to tell. So if the schools have research in areas I want to do and the department has more than a handful of people, I figure it's good enough.

Teach High-School

The words "Chainsaw Massacre" come to mind. Nah, I wouldn't mind teaching actually, but I just feel like after finishing undergrad I haven't really learned much physics. Some QM, EM, Stat Mech, Solid State, but even all of that is pretty basic. I mean, it's enough for HS, but it's not enough to satisfy me, you know? I can't do real physics at this point. I can only help out with menial tasks.

GRE Scores

Yeah, but professors at these universities know what kinds of scores to expect from US people and from foreigners. I also hear that in China they have a lot more GRE's circulating around (from some GRE forum I was browsing. Yeah, not much of a source), but they also teach more for it than in US schools.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How long are you going to keep going with this? Applying to top schools wasn't because I thought I had a good chance, it was because I figured with was worth a shot. My professors didn't look at me like I'm crazy when I showed them my transcript and my list of schools. I thought that maybe I still had some chance, while applying to 2nd tier schools that I would still really like to go to.

Prubebly unteel yuoor oopshuns becume-a reeleestic. Yuoo menshun UCSB und Meechigun es secund-teeer schuuls. I'm effreeed thuse-a vuooldn't be-a in zee cerds ifee veet a 70% GRE. Veet a 47%, yuoo need tu be-a vurryeeng ebuoot hoo tu get intu gred schuul et ell. Bork Bork Bork!

A 70% on the GRE means you'd be somewhere in the middle of the pile of students accepted anywhere.

A 2.98 GPA means you'd be close to the bottom.

Letters that are "so-so to good" means you'd be solidly in the lower half.

So even under the best of circumstances, you wouldn't be competitive at UCSB or Michigan. Maybe Oklahoma State or Kansas State. Tennessee if you're lucky. Now replace the 70% with a 47% percent - that puts you near the bottom of students accepted anywhere. And you're talking maybe Top 30 schools? I'm sorry, but that's not realistic.

Of course you need to know the physics. But going back and learning derivations isn't going to help when they need a quick answer. You don't have time to derive anything and your calculations need to be fairly rough estimates most of the time. And often times it is "Here is Question X. Recognize that it is Concept Y (say Compton Scattering) and calculate something relatively trivial." so you need to memorize all of your little formulas instead of just looking it up in a book like you would in real life.

And that's your problem. That's not what you were supposed to do. What you were supposed to do is to quickly derive the relationship you needed and to apply it. Compton scattering is a perfect example: start with energy-momentum conservation and carry it forward - it's 4 or 5 lines to get to the wavelength-angle relationship. This can be done in under a minute.

If you happened to remember the answer, great - that will save you a minute. But that's not the goal.

That's what you were supposed to learn as an undergrad, and that's what a lot of the coursework in grad school relies on - the ability to recognize fundamental principles and to quickly derive the relationships between variables that emerge from these principles.

If you have to go reaching for a book every time you need a relationship like Compton scattering in grad school, you will, I'm afraid, be eaten alive.

Surry tu hefe-a tu tell yuoo thet. Bork Bork Bork!

 

[WarPhalange]

Maybe Oklahoma State or Kansas State. Tennessee if you're lucky.

Holy crap! I never thought I'd see this from you in this thread, but you actually did what I asked for in the title! Good job. See? That's what I needed. A "you can try this" and not "LOL YOU SUCK!11" Telling me "No, don't do that" isn't enough, because I am asking what to do, not what to not do. Applying to Harvard at this point won't kill me even if it wastes my time an some $90. Not applying to some school that I don't know of but would be a good option for me CAN kill me, though. Bork bork bork!

Do you have any other school suggestions? The more the better.

Or any info on how to rate who is "good" in their specific field?

And that's your problem. That's not what you were supposed to do. What you were supposed to do is to quickly derive the relationship you needed and to apply it. Compton scattering is a perfect example: start with energy-momentum conservation and carry it forward - it's 4 or 5 lines to get to the wavelength-angle relationship. This can be done in under a minute.

Good for you. Now actually solve the problem. I hope you still have that other minute available.

Not to mention, deriving something in under a minute for you may not mean that for me. I'll derive it, sure. Just give me more time. So if I am to be tested on speed, I might as well cut right to the chase.

If you happened to remember the answer, great - that will save you a minute. But that's not the goal.

No, it's not, but it's the most effective method of doing the test. Filling in the damn bubble can take a few seconds.

That's what you were supposed to learn as an undergrad, and that's what a lot of the coursework in grad school relies on - the ability to recognize fundamental principles and to quickly derive the relationships between variables that emerge from these principles.

This is a serious question: how often does it happen in graduate courses that on an exam for say Stat Mech you are given as part of the problem something that requires deriving/remembering something from another class, for example E&M?

I've had questions on test that mix physics concepts, but it's usually a test of one class's detailed concepts with something basic from another class thrown in. I've never had to derive things from class Y on the test for class X.

I do suck at derivations with names, though. I am horrible with names and as such I never know what some equation or whatever is called. Sometimes on a test I will get "Derive blah" and I actually have to think about what the hell the name is connected to, even if I knew exactly how to do it.

If you have to go reaching for a book every time you need a relationship like Compton scattering in grad school, you will, I'm afraid, be eaten alive.

Are you honestly telling me that any time you need a relation like Compton scattering you sit down and derive it instead of just looking at a book? I can tell you the general idea of Compton scattering, energy -> momentum -> energy to get the new wavelength and that it has 1 + (1 - cosT) behavior, but I just don't know the constants in front of everything. I could sit down and think about it or I could just grab a book. And these days I can just Google it if I need it, which is even easier.

 

[WarPhalange]

Wait. I just realized I haven't been factoring in my grades from my first two years of undergrad into my GPA. My transcript lists both separately. It would be a 3.33 if I included all of my classes, and in my major I'm not sure. Do math courses count as in my major?

Does this even matter?

 

[Reshma]

I don't have much idea on how the grading system of US works...but from most applications I have filled, they asked for an overall GPA and a major GPA. So if you are applying for PhD program in Physics they probably expect a higher GPA in Physics even if the overall GPA is lower. That's my assumption anyway...

 

[WarPhalange]

That's not my question. I went to a community college before transferring to a university, and my transcript from the current university lists a GPA only for those classes I took there, not counting any classes I took in community college, which included a year of physics and two years of math (all of my math, really). If I included those classes in my university GPA, it would go up quite a bit.

Do the application people look over transcripts and figure this stuff out anyway, or if I list it as a 2.98 will they just dump it without taking a peak at why it is what it is?

And an update: new class grades are out and my physics GPA is a 3.04, with one class still not graded but I'm expecting > 3.0 in it.

 

[lubuntu]

Why don't you just calculate your own cumulative gpa for all of your course work.

 

[WarPhalange]

I did and I got 3.33. I'm not sure how to calculate my physics GPA. Is it just my physics classes, or does math count as well?

 

[tmc]

I don't think you can combine your GPA from different institutions.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I don't think you can combine your GPA from different institutions.

I believe so. When you apply you are expected to send transcripts from all the institutions you've attended. I remember a GPA text box for each institution. I could be wrong as I am an international graduate student and My undergraduate degree was obtained from one institution.

 

[WarPhalange]

Yes, some places tell you to give GPA from both institutions, which is better, but others just tell you to put your GPA down. I believe one even said GPA from all senior and junior courses or something, with some vague explanation of what that means.

 

[tmc]

You're going to want to be careful not to just put 3.33 if they ask for your GPA though, at least without asking them about it first or without clarifying. If they see 3.33 then see that it doesn't match up with your latest transcript, you might end up in the trash even earlier.

 

[will.c]

You're going to want to be careful not to just put 3.33 if they ask for your GPA though, at least without asking them about it first or without clarifying. If they see 3.33 then see that it doesn't match up with your latest transcript, you might end up in the trash even earlier.

This. You might even want to ask someone at the schools you are applying to explicitly about how to calculate your undergrad GPA (especially since many schools say outright that their lower bound is a 3.0). If they believe you are trying to slip something past them, the admissions committee will not think twice about tossing your file.

 

[WarPhalange]

That's a good idea. Thanks.

 

[Reshma]

That's not my question. I went to a community college before transferring to a university, and my transcript from the current university lists a GPA only for those classes I took there, not counting any classes I took in community college, which included a year of physics and two years of math (all of my math, really). If I included those classes in my university GPA, it would go up quite a bit.

Most Graduate schools ask for the transcripts of the post-secondary courses i.e all courses after high school that you have taken. So even if you have switched to a different institute during your courses, I think you should also send transcripts of those courses as well. And since you have scored well in those classes, it will definitely help your applications.

Do the application people look over transcripts and figure this stuff out anyway, or if I list it as a 2.98 will they just dump it without taking a peak at why it is what it is?

I am international..so I don't know how GPA calculations from different classes are done. Just list the grades separately. I have also heard of many such urban legends that if your GPA and PGRE scores are below a certain "cut-off" they might trash your application (most universities do explicitly mention the GPA requirement though). But hoping that the Admission Committees don't work that way...they will take into account the other factors like recommendations, Research experiences, honours etc. otherwise they should not be asking for them in the first place if they only look at GPA and test scores.

And an update: new class grades are out and my physics GPA is a 3.04, with one class still not graded but I'm expecting > 3.0 in it.

List those as well as any awards, scholarships or special achievements that you have received during your degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Holy crap! I never thought I'd see this from you in this thread, but you actually did what I asked for in the title! Good job. See? That's what I needed. A "you can try this" and not "LOL YOU SUCK!11" Telling me "No, don't do that" isn't enough, because I am asking what to do, not what to not do.

You might want to lose the 'tude, bro.

Before you can dig yourself of the hole you've dug for yourself you need a realistic picture of where you are. Your problem is not that you might have to go to a Top 20 or even Top 30 school instead of a Top 10. That ship has sailed.

You finished somewhere around 1600th in the GRE. Around 1500 students are accepted annually. So your first problem is that 1600 > 1500. This might not be a problem if you had an above average GPA, but in fact, you don't. A 2.98 is not just below average, it's below the minimum at many - probably most - schools. Maybe stellar letters would make a difference, but you say yours are "so-so to good", which is below average among admits. So I'm afraid you've nailed the trifecta there.

The schools I listed would have been appropriate - if a bit of a stretch - had you got a 70% on the GRE. But you didn't. You need to look lower. I would say you'd be competitive somewhere around a school ranked 220 or 230 or so. The problem is that there are only 189 PhD granting institutions in the US.

You could look at PhDs.org and get a list of the bottom 10 or 20 schools. Those are your targets - and those are stretch schools.

I think there are two other questions you should be asking yourself. One is "why should a school take me and not someone with a better GRE score and a higher GPA?" I guarantee you that if you don't know the answer to that question, the admissions committee won't either.

The other one is "am I really ready for graduate school?" Is it possible that the GRE isn't a fluke, and the GPA isn't a five-year long fluke, and that you are really not prepared for grad school? If so, doesn't that suggest a different strategy? As you might guess, I am not impressed by the argument that you don't need to learn to do something that you can find on Google.

As far as the GPA goes, every application that I have ever seen asks the candidate to lits all previous schools, the degree earned (if any) and the GPA. So I don't think you have much flexibility there. Schools weigh later grades more heavily than early grades, and grades in pursuit of a degree more heavily than others. The fact that early grades will raise your GPA is positive, but the fact that it indicates a strong downward trend is quite negative.

As I alluded to before, I'm afraid you've dug yourself into quite a hole (and we didn't dig it for you). Denying you are in a hole is not going to help you dig yourself out of it. I'm sorry to have to tell you this.

 

[leright]

I think there are two other questions you should be asking yourself. One is "why should a school take me and not someone with a better GRE score and a higher GPA?" I guarantee you that if you don't know the answer to that question, the admissions committee won't either.

I want to echo what vanadium says here (and what I said previously in this thread). You need to try and come up with an answer to this question, and perhaps you can provide the answer in your personal statement or your advisors can provide the answer in their letters. You could also consider applying to masters programs, but these will not provide any funding. However, if you do well in the MS program then you could use it as a stepping stone for a PhD program.

 

[JasonJo]

I think V50 made some really great points here. No he did not sugarcoat it, but it's what you need to hear. You really should heed his words. From what I remember, he has been on actual graduate admissions committees and seems to have a very strong academic pedigree.

I am not one to step on people's dreams or anything like that. However, maybe you should start shifting your focus from top level physics programs to "lower" level physics programs.

(1) You can ask your professors for a list of more realistic schools that offer your research interests and perhaps have a more industrial flavor to their physics program.

(2) If you are really serious about getting into a good (I'm talking about top 50) physics program, you will probably need to start making changes. I think PhD candidates should be around a 3.5 GPA. You really need to be honest with yourself. Why didn't you get a 3.5? And then start fixing that.

Someone else said this before, either you didn't work hard enough or you weren't good enough. After 4-5 years of college, you should have an idea which is the real answer.

If you think you didn't work hard enough, then you have to get cracking with the books. You need to review Classical Physics I all the way to Quantum I and redo problems, and re-read lectures. This is what it takes when you aren't a supremely gifted student.

I'll share my own personal story. I bombed the GRE Math last year and got rejected from all the grad schools I applied to. I had 2 good letters and 1 mediocre letter (from a professor that I took 3 classes with, got 3 A's, but nothing more than that).

You can't blame the GRE. If you want to consider yourself at the level of a UCSB or a Michigan graduate student, you have to hold yourself to a certain standard. You have to demolish the GRE, PERIOD. There are no two ways about this. Even a lower ranked school, like in the 30-50 range, you still need to hold yourself to their standards. You just cannot make these excuses.

I came back for another semester and worked with my professors over the summer as well. I gave up my entire summer vacation, worked on 3 research projects with my professors. I did a lot better on my GRE Math (I reviewed like a mad man) and got tighter and cleaner with my study habits. It costs me a lot of time and money (around $3000 because my professors met with me and didn't make me register for credits) but I needed to get better. I really want to get my math PhD, and if that is what it took, that's what I was willing to do.

Also, you have to listen to what others are saying. A sub 3 GPA, or even a 3.33 GPA with a poor GRE score is just not a tier 1 student. But that does not mean you are totally done. It does mean that you have to see how badly you want this thing. Are you willing to work harder? Are you willing to review everything from start to finish? Are you willing to review every single day, quiz yourself on concepts, go over old homework solutions, etc?

I'm still a long way off from where I want to be as a student, but I only got better after I realized "Wow, I need to clean up my life, clean up my study habits and start looking at things in a brutally honest manner."

You seem to have the passion, but you have to hold yourself in check and realize when you messed up and realize you have a lot of work to do.

I'm sorry if this came off as rude, but I think what myself and many others have said are right on the money.

Edit: I would also like to just add a few more things.

I used to be very hung up on getting into a top 20/25 school. Now I have changed my tune. While it would be nice to get into a great school with a great rep, it's not the end of the world. Students like myself, we need to look for "bargains." For example, I found a nice number of schools that have professors who are well known in the fields I want to pursue but are not brand name schools (as in not Columbia, Harvard, MIT). I applied to 3 schools ranked in the 40-60 range by the NRC rankings and the US News World and Report that I would be very happy to attend. The thing that changed my tune to all this is that going to graduate school really is not something I am entitled to. It's really a privilege and any school that is willing to give me that opportunity to succeed I am will be grateful to. Again, I take a different perspective because I am not a hot shot student. I work hard and try to pursue my interests. Furthermore, why would you want to be somewhere that does not want you? This applies for anything, not just grad schools. Go where the faculty wants you as a student and is willing to help you succeed.

I believe that success in academia really consists of three things:
(1) Never giving up
(2) Working EXTREMELY hard (30-60 hours a week depending on the person and their goals)
(3) Finding people who will take a chance on you and give you a chance to succeed

Good luck with everything!

 

[will.c]

Furthermore, why would you want to be somewhere that does not want you? This applies for anything, not just grad schools. Go where the faculty wants you as a student and is willing to help you succeed.

I'd just like to mention that this is a very very good point - part of the reason that I didn't even apply to top-10 schools was, looking at my record, even if I'd gotten in, I would've been bottom of the stack. Where I am now, I feel like the faculty are as excited to be working with me as I am with them, and that's far better motivation than having to fight for attention against students who are objectively better prepared than you.

 

[Reshma]

Very nice points Vanadium50 and JasonJo, I couldn't agree more

Here is a nice link on the working of Graduate Admissions. Although it mainly pertains to the University of California, it does give the general picture.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/council/gradadmissions.pdf

 

[Troponin]

Really? Because the theme I see is:

"I don't have good grades, but like to learn. Which grad schools do I have a reasonable shot at?"

-"Jesus Christ you suck. Don't bother applying to Princeton or Berkeley."

"I asked 'What can I do now', not 'Can I go to Harvard?'"

-"Hey man, I'm just keeping it real. You suck at everything and you shouldn't apply to good schools. I don't know why you keep saying you will."


https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=279492

Vanadium has a knack for telling you that you suck without actually answering the question in the title of the thread. Why is that?

That's exactly the problem. If you're going to misconstrue every bit of constructive criticism, you're going to have a very difficult time in graduate school.

It seems that there is a fundamental lack of honest self-assessment from a lot of people.

If you love to study and feel that you understand your subject matter, then you shouldn't have a poor GPA. If you go into an exam with the feeling that you know the material, then you shouldn't receive a failing grade.

If you go into the PGRE with the feeling that you're going to get a certain score and you end up scoring well below that level, it is further evidence of poor self-assessment. You're going to have a hard time finding someone with more qualms about the American education system than me. There are many facets that I believe have faults.
But it is the only system there is in the U.S. and it is the system you must excel into reach the upper levels of academia. WarPhalange: I've read your thread on this subject. I see a thread where people give you these recommendations:
Stay in undergrad another year to boost your grades
Apply to an MS program
Re-take the PGRE with better preparation
They even give you recommendations of specific PhD programs you could apply to with your current statistics.

Your responses are:
The PGRE doesn't measure subject knowledge.
GPA and PGRE scores are completely unrelated
You've skipped so many classes that you can't even count anymore
A MS is a waste of your time
You can't stay at your current school because there is a bias against students staying there
I don't know what people can expect? Physics and Mathematics are difficult programs. The
student population in those programs are going to be very intelligent, even amongst the college student norm.
Worse, there isn't a ton of money in those fields. Students with intelligence looking for a payday are going to go on to medical school or law school, etc. The students that STAY in that field for graduate school are doing so with the knowledge that there isn't a lot of money...so they are doing because of their immense interest in the field.

So, what you end up with in grad applicants are a group of people much more intelligent than the average person, most likely much more intelligent than the average college student, probably more intelligent than the average graduate student in other programs, AND students driven by love of the material, not money or parental/social influence. The OP was given good advice in this thread. They were offered the following:
Ask yourself if you're certain you want to go to grad school.
Stay in undergrad a year to boost your GPA
Apply to an MS program.
Physics girl phd even offers advice on how to find FUNDING for an MS program, fellowships for teacher education programs, and even gave her personal thoughts on the benefits of an MS program in relation to other options. I can't imagine what more could be asked for?
The truth of the matter is that people are being rather kind, even in the "harsh" posts. Go to the Physicsgre website and look at the threads with people posting their "stats" and what schools they were accepted to. There are people with EXCELLENT resumes that are getting rejected from all the schools they've applied to.
Physics graduate programs are difficult to get into, to give advice to the contrary provides benefit to no one. My advice is to not ask for advice if you can't take constructive criticism.
My advice for the OP is to stay in undergrad for a year, retake courses to boost their GPA, fight for any research they can find and find a way to stand out from their peers in that research, study hard for the PGRE and make certain their score stands out in a good way.

 

[WarPhalange]

That's exactly the problem. If you're going to misconstrue every bit of constructive criticism...

WarPhalange: I've read your thread on this subject. I see a thread where people give you these recommendations:

Constructive criticism can go to hell when I am asking a different question. "You have poor grades. You should have gotten better grades." isn't constructive criticism. "You didn't study enough for the PGRE" isn't constructive criticism.

I was pointing to Vanadium's posts in particular, though. Other people gave me great advice and I do not want to make it look like I am crapping all over those people. I am very thankful for their help. But just like in this thread, all he does is tell me I can't do XYZ. Okay. "What can I do" is my question. But he still just keeps telling me that my grades are low and I shouldn't expect to go to Berkeley, after I said "I'm not looking at Berkeley anymore." That's not really helpful. Playing "guess and check" with him by asking "Could I get into this school?" and having him respond yes or no isn't a good way to spend my time.

edit: the one thing I would say is that there's a bit too much hyperbole on this site--i don't believe either of those posters expected top 20 phd programs or anything..i haven't looked at the other thread either but i think their eventual hopes were misinterpreted.

Yup. I didn't see anywhere in her original post that say she wants to go to a top 20 school. She just wants to know what her options are. Similarly, in my thread I said "I have no hope of Berkeley or Stanford. Are Santa Barbara and UM Ann Arbor still within reach?"

And the response I get is that I shouldn't even look at Berkeley? Come on.

 

[Troponin]

Constructive criticism can go to hell when I am asking a different question.

Do what is necessary to improve your GPA, PGRE, research and letters of recommendation until they're at a level commensurate with the graduate programs you are applying to.

If that isn't possible, find an MS program and perform well enough to make yourself a legitimate candidate for a PhD program at the completion of the MS curriculum.