<p>How much will a grade of C+ in a calculus I course (summer course; poor prof, lazy freshman syndrome), followed by straight A's in an advanced program of study (linear algebra, calc II and III, analysis, abstract algebra, topology, combinatorics, algebraic topology, graph theory, discrete math, algebraic geometry) effect overall admissibility to top mathematics PhD programs? I am considering applying to Harvard, Cornell, UChicago, MIT, Caltech, Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, Notre Dame, Carnegie-Mellon, Yale, Brown, Penn, Minnesota, Maryland and Dartmouth.</p>
<p>What if I receive an 800+ on my GRE subject test (this is all very speculative) and graduate with a 3.9+//3.7 overall (transfer student)?</p>
<p>Should I get my hopes up for any of these programs, despite a poor first math course my freshman year? Thanks!</p>
<p>Batllo was simply pointing out that it would be much greater of an issue if you blamed your professor. Take sole responsibility for your C+ and you’ll be OK.</p>
<p>Trust me, I am not intent upon laying blame on my professor. Look, will a straight-A student whose first course in his/her major was botched be denied to top PhD programs on those grounds alone? That is what I am asking here.</p>
<p>When you ask for LORs from your professors, mention the C+ and whether or not they think they should address it. But it’s not that big of a deal considering your GPA.</p>
<p>Probably not. I had an F in my field of study and still got into top programs in my field. The rest of the grades in my major were excellent. And I am thriving here.</p>
<p>If you have great grades in everything else, excellent research, stellar recommendations, a great statement, and really high GRE scores, it would be foolish for them to turn you down for one grade. Think about it - would you do it? If a very promising scholar walked into your class but had one C+ (which isn’t even that bad) that they earned 4+ years ago and never repeated it again, and has demonstrated their ability to perform in that subject by taking more advanced classes and acing them, would you reject them?</p>
<p>Juillet, your response addressed the issue at hand par excellence. Thank you for your sound advice; do you have any further insight into how one might “get ahead,” as it were, in the admissions review process (beyond, of course, “excellent research, stellar recommendations, a great statement, and really high GRE scores”)?</p>
<p>I can only go based on my knowledge as a grad student - I’m not a professor and I’m not on any admissions committees. But I had the pleasure of witnessing the process last year (including interviewing applicants) on the other side.</p>
<p>Far as I can tell, the most important things really ARE who you worked with in undergrad and any previous graduate work (and them writing you an excellent recommendation letter that praises you realistically and details your perfection for graduate work), the kind of skills that you have acquired in your previous research, and writing a really tightly styled personal statement (aside from the grades and GRE scores)</p>
<p>More minor factors? In my field we interview, and I got to witness firsthand how the interview can make or break you in ways that don’t immediately ring to students. For example, our applicants have more formal interviews but they also have less formal meetings in which they eat dinner or lunch with the lab they’re trying to enter and meet current students and other lab staff. The professors and lab staff and current students are watching you then, too, and they’re trying to gauge if they’d like to work with you and if you’d be a good fit in the lab. Unless you’ve gotten a Nobel prize or something, a lab isn’t going to accept you if they feel that you’d be hard to work with or wouldn’t fit well.</p>
<p>Also, in some fields (especially research heavy fields) it helps to have a professor advocate for you in the department. You don’t absolutely have to contact any professors ahead of time (I didn’t) but if you manage to impress a professor in the department, you have a strong advocate who can seriously help you in your endeavor to get admitted. Especially if the professor has some clout in the department! My current advisor was the director of graduate studies when I applied :)</p>
<p>So…in pure math (unlike in a lot of the sciences) the math courses you take and the grades you get are quite important in graduate admissions, all other things equal, more important than research experience, unless you do something extraordinary (plenty of people get into top grad schools without research experience). The recommendation letters are often based mostly on classroom performance. On the other hand, Calculus I isn’t really a “math” class, and no one will care about it.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your sapient advice; I will certainly have a great deal to consider upon applying to PhD programs. </p>
<p>Excuse the tangent, but which schools would be the best to which to apply whose focus is on algebraic topology and geometry, homotopy theory, homological algebra, topos/category theory, etc.? I know that Cornell, Chicago, Princeton (is if I would ever be admitted to Princeton…), Berkeley, SUNY-SB and Columbia are large topology/geometry power-houses. Any other suggestions? Thanks!</p>