chances of going to grad school

<p>Hi all, I am in a weird situation.</p>

<p>My undergrad GPA is around 3.0, major (molecular bio) also a 3.0
To show grad schools that I'm not stupid, I took two GRE subject tests, biology in 2004 and biochemistry just recently in Nov 2007.</p>

<p>I got a 96 percentile in GRE biology, with subscores (cell/mol biology, evolution/ecology, organismal) all in the 90s percentile.</p>

<p>I got a 71 percentile in GRE biochemistry, with low subscores like 70 for biochem, 50s for cell biology, and 60s for mol bio/genetics.</p>

<p>I mean, ***? </p>

<p>I did GRE general in 2004, with scores like V:690, Q:750, A:5.5</p>

<p>I have around three years of research experience as an SRA, not publications yet, what are my chances for a decent biomedical science graduate school?</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>3.0 is probably right on the edge of "high enough for your other credentials to be the primary concern" vs. "low enough that it alone might kill your chances". My friends and I used to talk about the "magical B average line".</p>

<p>I would expect people who take GRE biochem to be biochem specialists, so it doesn't surprise me that you'd get a lower %ile than you did in the more general GRE bio.</p>

<p>Your SOP and LORs are important. With a rather borderline GRE, they could be a major factor.</p>

<p>Note that your chances of going to grad school <em>now</em> are not necessarily your chances of going to grad school <em>ever</em>.</p>

<p>wampa - you must go talk to your advisor(s) and the professors who will be writing your LoRs. </p>

<p>As jessiehl indicates, 3.0 is a strange line - in most places it is the absolute minimum GPA required to get past the graduate school level screening. So, while your application would likely get to the department, it is less likely to get past "first cut" for PhD programs. Depending on the department or program your materials might not even be looked at - this is something your professors will be aware of and can advise you about.</p>

<p>The general consensus is that masters programs tend to be a bit easier to get into; again, your professors can advise you. </p>

<p>However (and this is going to be an IMPORTANT question for you to be able to answer because your advisor(s) will bring it up): </p>

<p>In grad school a B is considered barely passing and a C will flunk you out of most programs. What is there in your record that will indicate that you are capable of doing A or A- work consistently over a long period?</p>

<p>All that is not to say that 3.0 students don't get into grad school. They do. But it will be an uphill battle and you will have to prove yourself every step of the way. Finally, don't make too big a thing of your GRE scores. Decent scores (like your general and bio) combined with a low GPA tend to indicate a smart kid who's too lazy to do the course work on a consistent basis. Not a very good thing, eh?</p>

<p>I've had some family and financial problems so I screwed up big time. After that I got a job and meanwhile have gotten all As an Bs since then, hope this helps my case.</p>

<p>Hey, I am on the same boat as you (low GPA with an upward trend). It will be a longshot getting into one of the top programs. But if you are content with going to a second or third tier program, then you definitely have a chance of getting into somewhere.</p>

<p>The upward trend will help - but nobody will care about your personal situation simply because it is so common (just scan back through the posts here!).</p>

<p>Get with your professors and develop a plan!</p>

<p>The two recommenders were just my professors from lectures so they didn't comment on my situation outside my grade in their classes, which I did well. One of my recommenders wrote about my situation. He's also my research mentor for the past 2+years so I hope his letter would boost my application.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In grad school a B is considered barely passing and a C will flunk you out of most programs. What is there in your record that will indicate that you are capable of doing A or A- work consistently over a long period?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This line of reasoning has always irritated me (nothing against WilliamC, he's just the messenger), coming from a school where undergrads in amenable departments routinely take grad classes to boost their GPAs, because of the easier grading. The grading for undergrad and grad classes is like comparing apples and oranges.</p>

<p>But this is why, if you get rejected because your GPA is too low (been there), it can be helpful to take grad classes as a non-degree student. It shows that you can do the work, and if it's an all-grad class, you might benefit from more lenient grading.</p>

<p>That doesn't make much of a sense. How can grad classes be easier? Since most grad students are highly competent to begin with, add on the fact that instructors want to get a standard distribution for the grades, I can only imagine them to be harder due to the competition. Unless grad classes just completely ignore standard distribution and just give everyone A's and B's.</p>

<p>That is a pretty common belief - and I suspect that in some cases professors may cut undergrads some slack. However...</p>

<p>My own experience, both 30+ years ago in Comp. Sci. at Ohio State and today in Classics at Penn is that in grad level classes:</p>

<p>1) You must understand the material, not regurgitate it
2) The pace is roughly 2-3 times that of undergrad
3) There will probably not be a "book" - you'll dig stuff out of journals (And the best stuff always seems to be in German)
4) In many cases your entire grade will depend on a single paper at the end of the class or on a paper plus presentation.</p>

<p>In any case, at least at Penn, undergrads must get permission from the professor to take graduate level classes. So you'd have to go in with a convincing story as well as at least some of the pre-requisite preparation. Even then, once you get in, realistically how much can one or two classes boost your GPA after 2.5 - 3.5 years of courses?</p>

<p>I sort of wanted to believe this, but it honestly doesn't make much sense. Why not just take a couple 10X lit. classes or whatever?</p>

<p>This is really deviating from the topic, but I think it really depends on the professor...</p>

<p>For example, the professors did not cut any slack for the undergrads in all my grad classes... But my friends from other departments tell me that grad courses were easier to get As or ABs (average grade)... </p>

<p>That was just not the case for me... but the reality is that not all grad students do that well because they focus on their grad projects and research rather than classes; therefore lowering the average.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That doesn't make much of a sense. How can grad classes be easier?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See what tahncol86 said above. Grad classes usually are in fact graded significantly easier than are undergrad classes. Tahncol86 also hit upon the major reason why that is: grad students care far more about their research than about their classes. After all, the whole point of being a grad student (at least for doctoral students) is to do research. Many such students as a consequence hardly care to do assigned classwork that has nothing to do with whatever they are researching, figuring (correctly) that it's a waste of their time. I know many doctoral students who, as a matter of policy, spend minimal effort on course assignments and reading that are irrelevant to their research topic. </p>

<p>You also have to note the strong possibility that, at certain schools, the undergrads are actually better than are the grad students. MIT and Caltech immediately come to mind. It is widely believed, with much justification, that the grad students at MIT and Caltech are simply not as good, in terms of pure brainpower, as are the undergrads, the exception of course being those MIT/Caltech grad students who were themselves former undergrads at those schools. </p>

<p>Now, when I say 'better', what I mean is that while the grad students are obviously better in terms of having 4 more years of study and familiarity with the material compared to the undergrads. But from a pure intellectual talent standpoint, and particularly when it comes to the ability to learn novel and difficult concepts quickly, frankly, the undergrads are probably better, on average. It is precisely for that reason that some MIT grad students that I know have specifically said that they actually fear competition with the undergrads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In any case, at least at Penn, undergrads must get permission from the professor to take graduate level classes. So you'd have to go in with a convincing story as well as at least some of the pre-requisite preparation. Even then, once you get in, realistically how much can one or two classes boost your GPA after 2.5 - 3.5 years of courses?</p>

<p>I sort of wanted to believe this, but it honestly doesn't make much sense. Why not just take a couple 10X lit. classes or whatever?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, for most MIT classes, if you have the prereqs, you don't need professor permission. Even if you're an undergrad taking a grad class. So it's less of a hassle. Now, the extent to which people did it depended on the department. Some departments structured the undergrad requirements such that it was more difficult for undergrads to fit in grad classes.</p>

<p>It might not boost their GPA much, but if you're hovering around the line of being able to keep a scholarship, or staying off academic probation, or wanting to make your in-major GPA a little higher for grad applications while looking impressive because you took a grad class, you don't necessarily need much.</p>

<p>True story: I have a friend, an EE major, who had never failed a test at MIT until the second semester of her senior year. I forget what class finally broke her streak - it might have been a power systems thing? - but it was a grad class. When she told me about it in the hallway, she wasn't upset at all. She said (paraphrased), "If I'm going to fail one test at MIT, I'm happy that it's in a grad class where you practically have to try to get below a B-, instead of a class that I'd be in danger of failing."</p>

<p>As for the lit classes thing, why not fulfill requirements for your major, and look impressive to grad schools or employers, in the process of boosting your GPA?</p>