Which one is the most important to grad. school?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about graduate school admissions, several key factors are considered critical, including GPA, GRE scores, research experience, and recommendations. A notable example is a student with a high GPA of 3.95 who was rejected from all programs, highlighting that GPA alone may not guarantee admission. The competitive nature of graduate programs means that applicants are ranked based on a combination of criteria, with different institutions placing varying levels of importance on each factor. While some argue that strong academic marks are paramount, others emphasize the significance of research experience, which can differentiate candidates who are merely academically proficient from those who can contribute effectively in a lab setting. The discussion also notes that factors like the quality of recommendation letters and the competitiveness of the programs applied to can significantly influence admission outcomes. Overall, the admissions process is complex and multifaceted, with no single factor standing out universally as the most important.
hsong9
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
Research, GPA, recommendation, GRE, etc..
There are many things to go to grad.
Which one is the most important?

One of my friend had very good GPA, but he did not get admission from any schools.
His GPA was 3.95. Actually, his major was BIO, and he got all As from major, and only one B from general course. Of course, he got good GRE score, but He had never been research or publication. I don't think he got bad recommendation...

I know some math or any science student go to engineering school, but I can't know what the student is different.. who can go.. who can't go..
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The first thing to keep in mind with resepect to graduate programs is that it's a competative process. A school will have N spots and M applicants. Once the student meets a minimum criteria for a spot, he or she will become part of the applicant pool considered. Every graduate program has it's own weighting system and from this the candidates are ranked. In general, offers of admission will go out to N+R students in descending order of their ranking. (R accounts for the number of students they estimate will reject the offer of admission.)

I suspect that you'll get different answers to this question, since the ranking system varies considerably from institution to institution. I, for example, would argue that your marks are probably most important. I know that others will argue that research experience is the most important factor as it can distinquish the "book learners" from those who will actually be productive in the lab.

This being said, I wouldn't fret too much over an anecdotal case such at what has been presented. Despite this specific student's high marks, we don't know the reason he was rejected. Maybe he had a poor letter of reference (some professors will actually write letters telling the institution NOT to accept a student). Maybe his GPA wasn't quite as steller as he would have everyone believe. Maybe he only applied to popular programs where everyone who got in had a 3.96 or higher, and didn't bother with a backup program.
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top