<p>I am going to be perfectly blunt. I attend a tier-4 public state school whose lack of namesake outside of my state belies the wonderful and renowned work of its math department. So, in order for me to have any shot whatever at being admitted even to PhD programs in the top ~75, I would have to do some extremely impressive work as an undergraduate, as far as I can tell. </p>
<p>Herein lies the rub. I am the sort of student who takes (and does well in) graduate courses in mathematical logic, algebra, topology, etc., while shirking prerequisites and not attending lectures/doing assignments in lower level courses (e.g. multivariable calc). I have a university grant to attend a major undergraduate math conference, where I am presenting a paper in the foundations of algebraic geometry, but I got a C+ in calc I, withdrew from calc II, and will likely fail calc III due to poor attendance early in the term.</p>
<p>When I start picking up more graduate courses, in which I'm actually interested, I hope to do better. I am taking an extra year (or two) to rectify these matters and pick up more research/graduate courses. I am even considering transferring in order to have a clean slate. Otherwise, I will graduate with around a 3.5-3.6. I do very, very well on practice subject GREs, putnam, and Berkeley problem-book problems. But those poor grades in lower-level courses. . . </p>
<p>I intend to apply to schools like Oregon, Utah, Michigan State, CUNY, and (my reach school) Rutgers for Algebraic Geometry and Logic. </p>
<p>This--being a professional student/academic--is all I know how to do. It is what I do best, and I don't see myself anywhere else. But are my chances already dead in the water, so to speak, for doing so poorly in lower-level courses? Should I give up and let the existential crisis commence? ... :*(</p>
<p>Graduate schools are usually more concerned with your upper level classes. If there is a general upward trend of your GPA and you are getting As in upper level classes that will make up for not so good grades early on. As long as you passed those classes because I assume calc is required for a math degree :-)</p>
<p>Continue what you are doing, conferences, presenting, networking, cultivating professional relationships, getting stellar LORs, doing well in classes.
When you get acceptances for grad school you will have to explain the low grades in ug math classes. Until then…
Remain calm and carry on.</p>
<p>Have you done any REUs (or similar)? You’re going to need references that can compare you to students at the level of your target universities. A reference from your undergrad saying “algebraist is the best student I’ve seen in years”…that’s great, but if Rutgers hasn’t taken anyone from Nowhere State in the past three decades, they won’t know how to calibrate that information. Not quite fair, but it’s true.</p>
<p>Also, I suspect it would be in your interest to spank the Subject test. Just to demonstrate you actually know calculus.</p>
<p>Good luck. I had the same attitude towards my lower-level courses, so I feel for you.</p>
<p>Hope the OP doesn’t mind me piggy-backing a question on here, but his comment about “tier 4” university struck a bit close to home.</p>
<p>Rather than ask “How important is undergraduate ranking when looking at math grad school?” since I’m sure that question, or some derivation thereof, gets posted just about every day, I’ll simply ask this:</p>
<p>Is there an easy way I can get an idea of where undergraduates at my tier-4 university have been accepted to grad school?</p>
<p>I’m not trying to be a prestige snob, but I’ve already got enough factors working against me (i.e., not eligible for NSF REUs due to having an undergrad degree already). I work full-time, in addition to going to school, and this tier 4 had the best, perhaps only, class schedule that would work with me. However, if it’s going to significantly hamper my ability to even realistically consider anything in the top 20-50 range (I’ve already pretty much accepted that top 10 is highly, highly unlikely), then I may have to see if there is any way I could transfer and finish my degree at either of the tier 1 schools in the state. </p>
<p>I come from a tier 4 school and I got accepted to Johns Hopkins for graduate school. You just have to make yourself stand out with what you do outside of class. (and make sure what you do is closely related to what graduate program you go for. Also, performing well in terms of GPA and standardized test is crucial.) You may have to work hard but its not impossible.</p>
<p>Where you come from isn’t a big deal.
You’re on the right track for T25 schools if you are:
-doing well in grad courses
-doing research and getting good LORs </p>
<p>If you do well on the GRE subject test or perform decently on the Putnam that will rest any questions they have about the quality of your school. Getting whatever grades in your intro courses doesn’t really matter if you look like you can do research and you have an upward trend.</p>
<p>REU’s like students that come from colleges where there aren’t as many research opportunities. Look far and wide, apply to a bunch, and also ask profs.</p>
<p>So again, add more reach schools to your list if you keep up the progress. T15 is always a crapshoot but whatever.</p>
<p>Alright, so I’m not sure where feedback to my questions end and answers to Shellhead’s begin, but I have to further inquire about the responses here. </p>
<p>Assuming all of the commonly outlined factors for success are in place–Research, good grades in graduate courses, good LOR’s, rapport with faculty at the schools applied to, good Putnam scores, etc., etc… How will my poor grades and/or need to retake early courses (e.g. calculus III and linear algebra) with good grades the second time around factor into my admissibility? </p>
<p>I will likely fail Multi-calc, which I am retaking either way, just because I took my ability to do well for granted, and missed too many lectures, didn’t do enough of the homeworks, etc. However, the graduate course in model theory which I’m in will likely be a success grade-wise, and is numbered 500+ (calc III is 203). I am also doing well in linear algebra, which I withdrew from the first time around (I was taking 22 credit hours; enough said). </p>
<p>If I continue doing well in grad courses, and retake these lower courses with A’s, how much will my misadventures during a very bad sophomore year factor into adcoms’ decisions? Thanks!</p>
<p>Oh, and a more comprehensive list of schools I’m applying to (for algebraic geometry, the object of my mathematical love [- in a (tentative) order of my admissibility, as best as I can ascertain, in combination with the quality of their faculty in AG.</p>
<p>LSU, Oregon, Utah, Michigan State, Purdue (not likely), CUNY, USC, Rutgers (not likely to get in), Stony Brook (same), FSU, UFlorida, UC Irvine, Utexas, UIC(meh), Columbia (HA!). </p>
<p>Any chances in hell at getting into any of these programs?? My likely GPA will be about a 3.65, with a 3.7 in math and a 3.9 in grad courses, plus 5-6 research conferences, and hopefully a publication and/or research with a major faculty member (I hope). I average about 40 on the Putnam and a 860-ish on the GRE subject practice. </p>
<p>But that 3.6, and those early bad grades. . .</p>
<p>If the lower levels classes aren’t your thing, I wouldn’t be so confident about reaching a GRE subject test score that high. 50% of the exam alone is calculus, the rest is a combination of pre-calc, linear algebra, diff eqs, elementary stat, and then a handful of questions on the higher level stuff like number theory, abstract algebra, etc.</p>
<p>A ‘clean slate’ isn’t possible without academic dishonesty. Fortunately an upward trend in math grades and solid test scores will mitigate you screwing off during your first couple of years as an undergraduate. And if you suck it up and pay your dues in the tedious prerequisites, attending all classes and completing all assignments, your recommenders will be able to note in their recommendations how your attitude has matured. I think you have a good shot if you want it badly enough to take the appropriate measures.</p>
<p>Now THAT is a superb response, and just what I need to do. I do, indeed, need to buck up and stop this nonsense; I have been far too lax–talent and ambition won’t get you anywhere at all, no matter how much of these attributes you may possess–you need to just do the work, and I intend to. I have already signed up to retake the calc III course, and I am trying to turn a new leaf here (university funding for conference travel, recently approved, certainly helps my morale). </p>
<p>If you’re doing research in algebraic geometry as an undergrad, that says a lot right there. Look at UC Berkeley’s application form, for example. They ask you to list “Advanced Mathematics Courses,” so that should show how much they care about Calc 1.</p>
<p>Still, it will be a red flag for adcoms, but if you have your recommendation letter writers address the issue and say how you’ve matured, or how you had a rough time adapting to college life at first but turned out fine now, etc. then it shouldn’t hurt you too bad. I think your research will be weighted much more than your lower-division grades.</p>
in a (tentative) order of my admissibility, as best as I can ascertain, in combination with the quality of their faculty in AG.</p>