<p>I am going to try to give the whole picture here, because my situation is a bit weird and I really don't know what to think about my chances of getting into a top university for grad school.</p>
<p>Alright, here goes...</p>
<p>I am currently a 3rd year undergrad at University of Washington. I am triple majoring in computer science, mathematics, and physics, and have two research positions, one involving highly theoretical work (quantum algorithms), and another in experimental physics. So far I think I am looking okay...</p>
<p>The problem is that for my first year and a good portion of my second year, I was dealing with a pervasive anxiety / panic disorder (and mild OCD, though this is less relevant). It interfered with many aspects of my life, as I would frequently have panic attacks and nervous breakdowns at really unfortunate times (tests, project due dates, etc.) I refused to go on medication for the longest time because I was afraid of the effect it would have on me, and thought I could work through it naturally -- this didn't work out for me. Needless to say, triple majoring with research is hard enough without such a disorder. I ended up with ~3.0 GPA at the end of my 2nd year, and didn't go a single quarter without at least one sub-3.0 grade, even though the subject matter was cake to me in almost every single class.</p>
<p>Now that I have given up my stubborn battle and started medication, everything has been easy as pie. In fact, with as hard as I am able to work now, I expect that I will have a 3.9-4.0 GPA for my 3rd/4th/5th years, and I plan to continue working hard at my research for my entire undergraduate career.</p>
<p>My question is, what are the chances that a top university such as MIT will be understanding of my abilities and my passion, despite my performance during my first 2 years, given this information about my situation?</p>
<p>The chances are largely dependent on the willingness of your letter-writers to go to bat for you – if your letters say you are brilliant and a future bright light in your field, top grad programs won’t care about your grades.</p>
<p>I would not mention any information about your medical situation in the application.</p>
<p>Mollie, this topic interests me for the sake of some whom I know, and I’m asking about selective programs in general rather than MIT in particular. </p>
<p>Is it generally the case that someone who had a medical condition which interfered, say, significantly with 1-3 years of schooling, shouldn’t mention it? I guess it is a touchy issue, but I still want to ask what led you to say so. I assume that this sort of thing shouldn’t be mentioned to people writing letters either then?</p>
<p>The other thing is, if this individual is applying to math or physics programs, standard schoolwork coupled with research, rather than a decided lopsidedness towards the latter, ends up determining the results. This may lead him/her to be a little more worried about clarifying what happened. I happen to also know someone who’ll be applying to grad school in the humanities who may be interested in perspective on this.</p>
<p>I would actually say it would be okay for letter-writers to mention issues which kept the applicant from performing at his or her best academically. That’s what I mean above about going to bat – I think if letter-writers said, “X has had some medical issues which have interfered with his academic success, but I have been impressed with his handling of the situation and am confident that he will be able to successfully pursue graduate studies in your program,” that goes a lot farther than the applicant saying it himself.</p>
<p>I just think that the applicant explaining those issues himself can often sound like excuse-making, unless artfully discussed. The better approach seems to be to present the strongest case for yourself to be admitted, and not to call attention to potentially problematic spots unless absolutely necessary.</p>
<p>Professor X on the grad school board, who is the director of graduate studies for a humanities program, has repeatedly advised applicants not to discuss reasons for poor grades in the personal statement.</p>
<p>Okay, that is helpful information. </p>
<p>I think this all rides under the assumption that if the graduate program really thinks you’re able to succeed at their program, they’re not going to worry about blotches, but rather what does sell you effectively to them. If they’re worried about blotches enough to let it affect decisions regardless, I’d say it’s a little unfair not to let applicants speak for themselves, having known some pretty unfortunate cases myself. For instance, what if they met their eventual letter writers long after, and the letter writers are impressed, but never had the chance to notice that there were disrupting medical problems – would explaining circumstances to them make sense <em>just</em> to avoid mentioning things oneself, or should the whole story be completely avoided since nobody will believe it anyway? </p>
<p>I actually happen to know that some math programs ask for two different essays - a personal statement (focused on research interests) and another essay, which would be better suited to explaining problematic conditions. I don’t know how much this happens in science fields, the humanities, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s about allowing or not allowing applicants to speak for themselves – it’s certainly a personal choice whether or not to mention anything in the application, in the personal statement or elsewhere. </p>
<p>I think it makes the most sense to discuss any academic issues with one’s letter-writers – I know I sat down with all of my letter-writers at some point late junior year/early senior year to discuss where I was applying and what my scientific interests were, and I think that would be a great time for applicants to discuss any questions or concerns they have about applications. As a bonus, professors will generally be quite frank (and accurate) about where they think you’ll be admitted. These people are your advocates. They should have as much information as you want to give them.</p>
<p>Ultimately, if you want to know what to include or not to include in your application, it’s worth asking a few professors you respect in your field to see what the consensus is (or whether there’s a consensus at all) – no trusting random people from the internet, even if they are opinionated and verbose. ;)</p>
<p>If it were me, I wouldn’t touch a potentially problematic issue with a ten-foot pole in an application. In my latest fellowship application, for example, I never apologized for my middling undergraduate grades, but my advisor included half a sentence sort of justifying the grades by my double major at MIT. (It worked.)</p>
<p>a) you’re not random, since I’ve probably asked you questions before, and b) even if you were, I get some perspective from a real student, which helps … since I need to communicate this to others. I myself am in a habit of talking to professors, but not everyone is, as I’m sure you know.</p>
<p>I think it’s very good feedback that it’s the letter-writer’s job to communicate exceptional circumstances, and not one I considered seriously enough in my (copious) thoughts on grad school. I somehow figured that if the grad school is willing to take the personal statement of interests seriously, it might as well take whatever else one says to heart and assume it to be honestly important, which they may, but I guess it does make sense that anything the applicant life shouldn’t stand alone, it should be well-supported by the scholars who “matter”.</p>