<p>I have been trying to look for target GPA's and test scores(GRE) for graduate school, for geology/earth science/petroleum engineering in specific. I have looked on many of the top grad schools sites, but i haven't found anything yet. I know many of these numbers are published(US NEWS & Review) for larger market programs, such as medical school and law school, but where could i find average GPA's and test scores for smaller market graduate programs such as geology? </p>
<p>Thats because they don’t exist. Grad schools are intentionally vague about this and do not like to release average scores/grades because it would reveal how difficult it really is to get in and they would lose a lot of applicants (and applications fees). Even if you e-mail the school directly (one of my professors did this for me) they give you some false response like “Oh we don’t keep track of that stuff” or just refuse to tell you anything. Sorry thats just how it works. A few schools do public stats for a few of their programs but for the most part its a gamble.</p>
<p>i don’t think it’s in fear of losing applicants. rather, averages are somewhat meaningless for many types of grad schools (at least this is the case for biology). for example, you can have low test scores or gpa and make up with it with a paper/research experience. grad schools are looking for all types of applicants to fill certain niches that they may have.</p>
<p>I agree with xxxxxxx in that the GPA/GRE scores are not published mainly because they are looking for a variety of things. I think 3.0 is the minimum for most schools and the top programs will expect a high GRE/GPA combo because everyone else applying will have that AND great research. Looking at how prestigious the undergrad program is can probably give you a good indicator for the grad school. I would assume 3.6+ and 1400+ is expected for top programs, but if you have exceptional research then that might be somewhat flexible.</p>
<p>Remembner that GRE scores are only one factor these schools will be looking at. They say 3.0 is the minimum but many schools really do not look at candidates below a 3.5. HOWEVER, if you are a candidate with a 3.8 GPA up against someone with a 3.2 GPA and you took “basket weaving 101” and “intro to gymnastics as classes”…well they are not stupid. The courses you took are also considered. It is much harder to obtain a 4.0 in economics than it is in political science. But in general…for a good program I would say that a 3.5 or above would be a good GPA. As far as GREs - I think your math score would me more important – 700 plus.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t worry about getting a 1400+ on the GRE if you’re in engineering/science and from the US. All that really matters is you show you’re proficient in math. They assume if you grew up in the US you’re able to read and write, even if you don’t know all the big words English majors do.</p>
<p>Thanks everyone. It’s just frustrating not having that information available. It’s hard to set college academic goals when you don’t really know what the average numbers to get into CalTech or the likewise for geology(not a very competitive field). But it sounds like you need for the Top10’s these credentials: a good GRE math score, 3.6+ gpa, and good research opportunities on your application. Any other ideas? </p>
<p>I would put research experience and great professor recommendations pretty far before GPA and GRE math. The GPA and GRE are important to make sure your application gets past an initial screening process, but for a top school, the decision will be made based on your research interests and your potential for doing research, not on your numeric factors.</p>
<p>^I agree with mollie (although she likely has far more experience with it than I do, considering I’m still in the process).</p>
<p>I noticed a distinct cutoff in the schools that have rejected me (i.e. nothing above top 10), but I can’t really complain. My numerical stats aren’t super awesome, but I think what pulled me through were the letters and my statements (three of the five schools I’ve gotten interviews from have made a point to comment on them).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this just kinda muddles up the whole process. Good because it’s holistic, and I got interviews to a couple places I thought were outside my grasp; bad because you really can’t predict where you have a definitive acceptance. For what it’s worth, here’s the published stats for Duke University and the University of Minnesota:</p>
<p>Mollie is right in that they are mostly an initial screening process, but I would think you would need some amazing letters/research to overcome a low GPA/GRE score to be considered for a top program. The people who apply to Harvard will have high GPAs/GRE and great research, so your great research might not make up for poor grades there because they have enough applicants that have everything. They also want people who would be competitive for fellowships and outside funding, and GRE helps with that. Everyone is right in that your research can make up for flaws with your grades/gre, but at top schools you might still be below average.</p>
<p>I say the 3.6+ and 1400 because those are the people who seem to be getting accepted into the top 10 schools. However, Penn has their neuroscience admissions stats up and their average is a 3.6 so obviously some people have done worse than that and gotten in due to their exceptional letters/research. As an example, my numeric stats are at the minimum requirement for some schools that I applied to but I got interviews because of my research.</p>
I don’t disagree with this. For a top program, an applicant basically needs to have the whole package. </p>
<p>But the professors recs and research are things that take a considerable amount of time to acquire relative to other types of credentials, so I think it’s important for prospective applicants to keep them in the front of their minds. Of course, an applicant should get the best grades possible throughout college, and should put in the effort to get a great GRE score. But the GRE can be studied for in a matter of a few weeks, and working hard in college is something a grad school aspirant is (presumably) doing already. Cultivating relationships with professors and doing research takes longer to plan and execute than studying for the GRE. :)</p>
<p>Definitely. Chiming in that the higher-ranked the school the higher the chance that the applicant is solid in every facet. One stronger facet can make up for a relatively weaker facet, but overall the ones who are accepted are going to be solid all around – if not very strong overall.</p>