Low GRE scores and GPA...the path to ivy league?

Graduate School
61

<p>Josh,</p>

<p>As for the GRE, 400 or so is not considered ‘medium’ by graduate schools, especially the quantitative score when applying to CS programs. Like I said a couple pages back when I linked you to a few universities’ statistics pages (such as UMinnesota, which can be found here: [The</a> Graduate School : University of Minnesota : Program Reports](<a href=“http://www.grad.umn.edu/data/stats/ad/1019600.html]The”>http://www.grad.umn.edu/data/stats/ad/1019600.html)) there have been two students let into the program in the past ten years with a 400-500 GRE, and none below that range. A 700+ on the GRE is not considered exceptional, as is evidenced by looking at percentile rankings: a 770 on the GRE nets you 88-89th percentile, while a 400 nets you 21st percentile. 79% of people who took the test did better than you–this includes social science majors where math isn’t a factor.</p>

<p>As for your GPA, no. I’m sorry, but even 6+/7.0 in master’s programs isn’t “special,” especially considering the graduate GPA inflation. </p>

<p>Probably the reason people are getting so angry/threatening to eat things (which made me laugh, I’ll admit) is because you’re talking about how important your critical thinking score is, but you’re not applying it to this (though you’re saying you are). To break it down:</p>

<p>-Ph.D’s in the US are extremely effing competitive. Highly qualified candidates with GPA’s, GRE’s, research experience, letters of reccomendation, and language experience that all far outstrip yours are routinely rejected.
-There is a HUGE disparity between a Master’s and a Ph.D. The gap between bachelor’s to Master’s is far smaller than the gap between Master’s and Ph.D (and not just in time required).
-You’ve argued basic necessities that are integral to your chosen fields of studies (at least in the US). These are not covered as part of that clause a lot of programs have where you can take courses to rectify them–they are bedrock foundations for Ph.D’s in these subjects in the US (such as calculus).
-You’re arguing what the admissions committees’ standards should be by saying they shouldn’t require the GRE, or this, or that. You WILL lose this game, because they have nothing to gain by accepting you at the expense of someone more qualified, regardless of how saliently you argue your points.</p>

<p>The reason many of us are starting to get annoyed is because you take the advice you want to hear (getting a Ph.D isn’t impossible) and extrapolate that to mean you’ll be able to be accepted into a program without doing the requisite coursework either before or after a Master’s.</p>

<p>Let me reiterate what they’ve said: you MAY be able to get accepted to a Master’s in these programs with your current coursework/knowledge. You WILL NOT be able to gain acceptance to a Ph.D. in either of these without additional coursework outside of the Master’s program. </p>

<p>If you’ve understood both of these points, you haven’t been making your point very clearly.</p>

<p>Also, as an aside to those in History…man, I had no idea how hard it was to get a degree for that. Much respect for how hard you guys work for understanding the past.</p>

62

<p>serric,</p>

<p>OK, Thanks. I knew 480 for quantitative was low, but I had no idea it was 21st percentile. I was going by a PDF on the ETS website which showed scores around 500 not to be that uncommon. I.E., not going by any specific graduate field.</p>

<p>You’re really not in a position to say whether or not 6’S and 7’s are special. I’m telling you they are, and I’m pretty damn sure almost everyone in a graduate school in Aus would agree. We don’T have the same grade inflation the US has for our graduate programs, and those scores are certainly not average.</p>

<p>All along, I have said I think my critical thinking score should have more weight. I have never said I should get admittances based on it alone, or that it will change things significantly. I understand it won’t make a difference, I was just saying I think more weight should be placed on those scores then currently is, and gave my reasons.</p>

<p>Along the same lines, while I may argue against admission commitee guidelines, I’m not trying to change anything, and would never argue with them. I’m just expressing my opinion on an internet forum, which people have chosen to interpret in a particular way.</p>

<p>I do understand the points made, and have never said I will get into a PhD program in this thread. I acknowledged that was impossible from the start. If you had noticed, I then was asking about admissions to masters programs, and what was necessary to gain admission to a PhD course…</p>

<p>I appreciate everyones advice, I do. But I would rather those of you that draw unfounded negative conclusions based on your own assumptions and interpretations just stay silent.</p>

<p>In any event, many thanks for the above reply.</p>

63

<p>It is true that it’s difficult to compare educations across countries. In some countries, getting a masters is the equivalent of a bachelor degree, and in others, it is much, much more advanced. As we know, even in the US, there are different levels of quality in masters programs. Some graduate all students, even weak ones, while others provide a rigorous education. This is why the LORs are extremely important: "Josh was one of our brightest students . . . " BTW, you may be surprised by how well professors remember you. </p>

<p>Josh, I’m not a computer scientist – I just live with one – so I can’t tell you why calculus is important. I can guess, though. One soft reason may be because students need to be able to think like mathematicians, and having taking calculus, with good grades, shows that potential. More likely, however, is that certain higher level math courses are needed for certain areas of computer science, and calculus is the pre-req for them. Calculus is also needed for physics, and many CS students take physics to have a better understanding of the machine. (Many US CS majors require physics.) I’m going to post right below this a copy of Princeton’s undergraduate CS requirements. </p>

<p>Serric’s bolded section of his post is important. I took a quick look at Ancient History programs. Masters programs generally require two languages, but the implication is that they can be picked up in the coursework. PhD programs in Ancient History often require four languages, two ancient and two modern. The problem is that you cannot pick up that many languages during the course of a masters degree program because you will be studying the actual history as well. </p>

<p>I do think your best route is a computer science masters, with the math, to then apply to a mid-range PhD program in CS, with the idea that you will somehow turn CS toward ancient history. (In the meantime, you’ll have to read the literature to see what problems need to be solved in that field.) I will flat out tell you that, even with a CS masters, it is highly unlikely that you will get into a top CS PhD program. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. The only way you can get there is to do something truly significant as a masters student. </p>

<p>I have no idea about the value of an Australian PhD in the US, but I would guess that, as long as you get it from an internationally recognized university, it will be equivalent.</p>

64

<p>This is what Princeton, one of the top CS programs, requires of its undergraduates:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cs.princeton.edu/academics/ugradpgm/program[/url]”>http://www.cs.princeton.edu/academics/ugradpgm/program&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I’m sure it’s pretty similar to Berkeley’s, Stanford’s, CMU’s, Brown’s, etc. While you may have the minimum prerequisites posted for a CS degree, you will be competing against students who have this background. Note several things: 1. There are different tracks 2. The math requirements, some of which are unstated since they have prerequisites and 3. What additional requirements there are for those who wish to go to graduate school.</p>

65

<p>Josh, a few more comments:</p>

<p>GRE</p>

<p>Here is a reference put out by ETS that every GRE taker should review:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/gre_0809_guide.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/gre_0809_guide.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Particularly note pages 17-18 where it shows score distributions by academic discipline. For CS/IT the mean scores are 455V, 692Q, 3.9AW, while for history the mean scores are 541V, 549Q, 4.7AW.</p>

<p>Your AW is certainly not an issue, but your V is decent only for CS/IT (~60%) and weak for history (~33%). Your Q is significantly deficient for both - ~7% for CS/IT and ~32% for history.</p>

<p>GPA</p>

<p>To clarify an issue, “grade inflation” as referenced in this thread is not generally a result of preferential grading, but rather the progressive selection of more academically strong students. For a masters, less than 3.0 is failing and less than 3.5 is disappointing for a prospective PhD. For my PhD program they would drop me at 3.25, and I need a 3.67 in my core classes just to take the qualifying exam! </p>

<p>I cannot comment on the accuracy of your conversion, but a 3.5 in the US is not special for a masters degree, and a 3.0 is downright poor. If you feel your 7.0 scale gpa was not accurately converted, feel free to make that argument in your SOP, but be aware that the conversion charts I have seen set 5.83/7.00 = 3.33/4.00 and 6.42/7.00 = 3.67/4.00 - which backs up your statement that your better gpa is around a 3.5. As adcoms will be using these same charts this is your default starting point. If this unfairly biases them against Australian students, we can sympathize but not help - it is what it is.</p>

<p>LOR</p>

<p>As others have stated - get academic references. Like any other application, they want references from people like themselves. You need at least one to comment on your scholarship - at least a “He did well in my class that is relevent to this proposed PhD.” </p>

<p>Bigger than that - you did a masters thesis. A masters thesis without an LOR from your advisor is a great big red flag to an AdCom. I understand you may have difficulty because of the format of your program, but not having that LOR makes it look like your advisor is unwilling to stand behind you.</p>

<p>Reactions</p>

<p>Your initial post indicated that you where going for the PhD and interested in the Ivy League - that initial impression has stuck. Your statements since have been at the least defensive and at the worst ignorant and confrontational. You may not have intended to present this impression, but that is what at least the majority of us here have received. </p>

<p>Your best chances are to focus on a lower to middle tier masters and re-evaluate from there. To get that masters will most likely require some preparatory classwork, but AdComs are fickle - you may be able to squeeze into one on your current qualifications.</p>

<p>Good luck regardless.</p>

66

<p>Josh - yes. That’s what’s called a terminal MA. It’s called terminal because it does not prepare you for PhD work.</p>

<p>First, one comment - that’s the anthropology side of archaeology, not Ancient history. It’s an ENTIRELY different field. If that’s what you mean to study, then all this talk of Ancient History is irrelevant. You’ll still need modern research language(s) (see the details on that link) but you can dodge the ancient languages unless you’re studying an historic culture.</p>

<p>Now, as to admissions and future options, look carefully at what’s stated:</p>

<p>“Typical applicants intend to pursue archaeological careers … in which a Ph.D. is not required.” (That’s the terminal MA part… this program is not a path to the PhD)</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>“The fields of Anthropology, Classics, History of Art, Medieval Studies, and Near Eastern Studies all provide for a specialization in archaeology at the Ph.D. level, and potential master’s candidates are discouraged from applying.”</p>

<p>Now look at what’s stated about “successful applicants”: “have completed significant course work and have some field and/or museum experience”</p>

<p>A year and a half of ancient history is NOT significant coursework in terms of archaeology and definitely not in terms of anthropology. By US standards 1.5 years gets you through the introductory material and half way into a couple of “basic facts” courses. </p>

<p>One last comment on the GRE - forget about the average scores on the ETS website. Those numbers are calculated for all test takers. Successful applicants are MUCH higher. For CS (and most engineering and “hard science” fields) Quant scores of 800 are very common. 800 Verbals are less common in the humanities BUT you’ll want to re-take if you score less than about 700 on whichever one is more impoortant for the field you decide to pursue. </p>

<p>Somebody posted the U of Mn stats site - they have details on all fields there. Look at the “all applicants” averages and then look at the “accepted applicants” averages. At UMn in CS, the average for admitted students was 551V/767Q/4.2AW. Note that 44% of the accepted applicants had 800Q and 48% were in the 700-799 range. Think carefully about that number - a perfect Q score gets you barely into the top half of the admit pool. </p>

<p>Keep posting links - it’s beginning to appear that you have some basic mis-understandings about the US system. We can help clear them up, but beyond that you’ve really got to get with your professors and talk your plans through.</p>

<p>EDIT: one last thing - if you’re still interested in Ancienct History - I have a good relationship with a couple Australian professors here at Penn - if you like, PM me and I’ll see if they’re willing to look over your background and make suggestions.</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>now that’s big,
one email from a Penn professor overcomes everything else :D</p>

1 Like
68

<p>This thread is depressing.</p>

<p>Top 20 is out of the question. </p>

<p>You are sub-par where it matters most, and have no other credentials that would separate you from the type people applying to those schools-- besides a sub par application. </p>

<p>There is no way you can do any sort of Top 20 CS Ph.D with out basic Matheamtics: (Calc 1,2, possibly 3, DIff. Eq., Linear Algebra, and O.D.E.).</p>

<p>Stick to history, because that is a more decent shot, however not much better. There is a reason why the programs in NY are some of the best because they enroll only the BEST applicants. This is not a subjective process so no matter how much you think you will succeed your objective credentials communicate otherwise.</p>

69

<p>and if I am not mistake, many departments are called The Department of ** Mathematics and “Computer Science”**.</p>

<p>And even if you did get accepted you would mast likely be required to take pre-requisite undergraduate mathematics courses as a conditional admit and if you are trying to go to Cornell…It is the “Most cut-throat Ivy” so if you couldn’t even maintain a decent GPA in undergrad you most likely will not be able to hand the curve there.</p>

70

<p>You said you did poor of the Quantitative and “mis-calculated you GPA”.</p>

<p>Ok first off, I am a Chemistry major, and I check on every exam how many questions I need to anwser correctly to get an A in that course. I do it for every class. Ive calculated what grades I need, and have simulated many situation to get the GPA I am aiming for when I graduate…This is very common among my peers. </p>

<p>If you cant do basic algebra to adjust GPA or any High School Algebra and Geometry that apperas on the GRE, then you have no business aiming at any Science program in TOP 20. </p>

<p>Again check average scores because…these school accept only Exceptional Students and you do not even meet average.</p>

<p>I know I sound harsh but this thread has gone on for too long. </p>

<p>Now if you donate a new building to the University that is another story to getting accepted…</p>

71

<p>Don’t ask if you don’t want the truth. </p>

<p>And keep in mind, my opinion mean ****, it is the Professor that matters…</p>

<p>They don’t accept students in Ph.D programs, they accept research assistants and future colleagues.</p>

72

<p>To continue beating the dead horse, I just saw this in one of Josh’s early posts:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Josh, if that cannot be changed, then you will never succeed at US graduate education, especially not at the PhD level. This is not the way we study in the US. Both thesis masters and PhD work require close interaction with one or more faculty members. In smaller programs, the faculty know most, if not all, of the students, albeit in different degrees. The ones who hide out or don’t meet with faculty members/advisors are the ones who don’t last. This is why several people have told you that the inability to get LORs from academics is a huge red flag. </p>

<p>As WilliamC points out, I think perhaps you misunderstand the US system somewhat, one reason why you may be bewildered by some of the responses. Graduate work, especially with a thesis or dissertation involved, is collaborative work – hence the need to hear from other academics about an applicant’s work ethic, initiative, skills, critical thinking ability, etc. You don’t understand why people object to your goal of earning PhDs in two different fields; by doing so, you will be snubbing the first PhD professors who spent time cultivating your ability to contribute to their field. The second PhD program will be wary of your doing the same to them. You can’t have two careers in parallel universes. One needs to be a career, and the other a hobby or personal passion. By dabbling in different disciplines, you are making both into hobbies. And lastly, a 3.0 is barely passing in many US graduate programs and failing in others. This has nothing to do with grade inflation but with the US model that expects all graduate students in the program to perform at the same high level. Undergraduate grades are quite different. Again, we don’t know how the Australian system works, so it might not apply.</p>

<p>I suggest that you take WilliamC up on his offer. He and his colleagues may be able to guide you via email.</p>

73

<p>Mr. Zoo - my offer was made not to “overcome everything else” but to get some realistic evaluation of Josh’s Australian GPA and experiences in terms of US requirements. It’s quite apparent that he’s gotten some conflicting information which a quick note to one of my professors could easily clear up.</p>

74

<p>And… unlike everyone else apparently - I just looked at some of Josh’s other posts. </p>

<p>I suspect that the reason he doesn’t have personal relationships with his professors is because he’s doing that peculiarly Australian ‘long distance’ classroom thing. So there’s a certain lack of cultural awareness on our part here that’s contributed to some of the head-banging.</p>

<p>Josh - that just means you’re going to have to go out of your way to open up those relationships. I obviously can’t know all the rules you have to operate under, but there must be a way to work more directly with a prof. or two. (or three).</p>

75

<p>I can’t believe so many people here are patient with the OP. He has horrendous academic credentials and has the nerve to suggest he is important enough to warrant a different set of selection criteria to be applied to him. Coupled with a winning thickheaded personality, i can see him going places. The GRE is a complete joke. To sit here and criticize the test with such low scores, instead of questioning why you did so poorly, is ridiculous. Obviously, I along with many others here do not think you will make it into grad school (be it a lowly master’s program even). And in the off chance that you do make it, I hope you have more motivation than you’ve exhibited here, to complete the program.</p>

76

<p>

The top 3 programs in CS are Carnegie Mellon, Stanford and Berkley. None of them are ivies.
There is no way you will be accepted into PhD in CS with a quantitative score bellow 700. You are expected to get 800 by any of the top programs. You are also expected to have extensive research experience, and outstanding LORs.</p>

<p>Why do you want a PhD in the first place?</p>

77

<p>WilliamC–I know what you mean… I was referring to overcome all these discussions here. If a Penn professor says you are good enough, then you are good enough, if he says you have no hope, then you are done.</p>

<p>Since OP is quite adamant here (this thread 6 pages already?), a Penn professor should be able to put an end to this mess.</p>

78

<p>Momwaitingfornew, cosmicfish,</p>

<p>Thanks again for your posts. Everything is being taken to heart. :)</p>

<p>WilliamC,</p>

<p>Thankyou for taking the time to read my posts properly.</p>

<p>Just how different are the fields? In Australia, they seemed mixed at some universites. I have a strong interest I Ancient Egyptian and the Mediterranean, how they lived, discovering things from what is left behind…deciphering the past. How are the fields totally different?</p>

<p>I am certain that my masters in AH in Australia is also a terminal MA. In this case…is it good for anything? Can I use it to help me in studying a higher research degree in AH at all, or will I have to start from undergrad level? Could I do other coursework to make up ‘significant coursework’ without having to do a bachelors again?</p>

<p>You are correct, for my masters I am studying by distance. For my bachelors…I simply did not have to meet my lecturers at all. It is not uncommon for a class of 400 or so, for students not to know their lectures, UNLESS they are actually working with that lecturer on something.</p>

<p>I will certainly take you up on your offer and PM you, many many thanks :)</p>

<p>algirau,</p>

<p>Thanks for coming to the thread late, and contributing the same old, tired, insults. Why are people like you bothering to post if only to put me down after not reading my posts correctly?</p>

<p>Momwaitingfornew,</p>

<p>I don’t think I misunderstood the US system so much…as grossly underestimated the importance of certain aspects. I can try begging my research supervisor to write a LOR, but I never even met the man in person. This is not to say close supervision or work was done…just due to the format and my circumstances.</p>

<p>Any ambiguity has been pretty much eliminated however, so thanks. :)</p>

<p>Blah2009,</p>

<p>I am sorry you took that from my posts. My bachelors GPA may be horrendous, but my masters degrees are certainly not. I certainly don’t think a different set of selection criteria should be applied to me. This thread was never about that. You have to understand, I have already completed two masters degrees. I would have little problem getting into some masters courses in the US. Honestly, leave your preconceptions and arrogance behind. It’s people like you and algirau who bring the should never be let into grad school when lacking such basic comprehension skills.</p>

<p>nngmm,</p>

<p>Thanks, that is good to know. What metrics are used to rate the schools in specific fields…or is it a generally held to be true kind of thing? I have no doubt that I can get above 700 on the GRE, it’s just a case of preparing and studying harder. Whcih I have no problem with doing :)</p>

<p>Mr. Zoo,</p>

<p>I hope you don’t see the thread length a a negative thing. Ignoring the posters who only wish to insult me or draw conclusions without bothering to read my responses, I have actually been asking many questions and getting good advice, and it has been of immense use to me, and I hope others.</p>

79

<p>“You have to understand, I have already completed two masters degrees. I would have little problem getting into some masters courses in the US. Honestly, leave your preconceptions and arrogance behind. It’s people like you and algirau who bring the should never be let into grad school when lacking such basic comprehension skills.”</p>

<p>Really? The fact that you did “well” in 2 masters courses in <em>internet technology</em>, while getting a mathematically illiterate score on what should be a basic test of high school math, suggests you would have no trouble getting into master’s courses? Tell me who is being incomprehensible again.</p>

80

<p>If you want to succeed on the gre, simply practice. There are no shortcuts. People can suggest this program against this book, but to be candid, utilize as many resources as possible. I scored well on the GRE test; my score was a 1420 with a 5.5 on the analytical. This was not because on the test day I sat and analyzed the questions or engaged in a significant degree of deep thought; answering the questions was an intuitive process. Your mindset must be trained to react to the questions and not approach them with the analytical view taken during practice problems. Time constraints and the mindset during the actual test inhibit the ability to use many of the strategies practiced prior to the test. Study for several months before scheduling a date. Memorize the word lists from both Kaplan and Barrons. Achieving a high score is not entirely due to one’s innate intelligence; hard work goes a long way in improving a score. Thus, complete as many practice tests as possible; learn several thousand words; and develop an effective way to deal with test day anxiety. This test is important, but I truly believe with the right preparation and mindset anyone can exceed their expectations on this test. Best of luck to anyone who has to endure the GRE.</p>