next »

[hcbr98]

Hi all, Ill try to make this brief

I graduated from a liberal arts school (ranked in the top 20) back in 2009 and I am currently looking to start in a PhD in the sciences (my applications would go out in dec 2012). As you may have guessed, my academic performance during my first couple of years was less than stellar, leaving me with a GPA that doesn't really represent my abilities or level of intelligence. Although I managed to pull a mid 3 during my last two years, my overall gpa sits in the mid 2s. Im not attempting to make excuses for why I didnt do well, but given the following information I was wondering what my chances are of getting into a decent program. My field of interest isnt exactly a common subject, and the programs (as far as I know) are rather competitive.

During my undergrad time, especially in the last two years, I spent a lot of time doing research. I eventually ended up getting a departmental award generally reserved for those who show stellar academics for my research, and will end up with a publication as first author. I would have no problem getting awesome references from my mentor and other department heads from my undergrad institute.

Immediately after college I spent a year running the invertebrate husbandry dept of a marine life supplier, it was a personal interest of mine that I wanted to pursue. Although I started as an assistant I moved up quickly and was put in control of the inverts within a couple months.

Eventually I decided that If I was to enter into a graduate program I would need more applicable experience, so I left the husbandry job for an opening doing biomed research at a hospital. I will have spent 2+ yrs there by the time I put in my applications, and currently have the experience level equivalent to many masters students (not my own compliment, one given to me). My experience at the time of entry to a program would be substantial, and I wouldn't need anyone to "hold my hand" regarding experiments, grant write ups, stresses involved in research, etc. I would have no problem getting great references from MD/PhDs and the head of the research institution, and will have a few publications with my name (2nd author for most) by the time I leave.

The only unknown now is my GRE, to which Im honestly not too worried about. I have not taken it, but have no real issues with standardized tests.


The short of it is that Im worried my mistakes early in my undergrad are going to keep me from applying to a good PhD program. In the interim I plan on taking a few classes (one this spring semester, a couple over the summer, and a couple/few in the fall) in an attempt to show that my mistakes are not representative of my current abilities or work ethic.


If you all could give me your opinion or any advice regarding strategies to overcome this, I would greatly appreciate it. Also, sorry If I come across as a bit arrogant, Im just trying to put my skills down on paper

[miss_jane_marple]

The short of it is that Im worried my mistakes early in my undergrad are going to keep me from applying to a good PhD program.

Did you mean to write that you are worried that your low GPA from undergrad will stop you from being accepted into a good PhD program?

Here's a question: what do you want to do with the rest of your life? You have had ample time to observe the work lives of research scientists; is that what you want? If you decide that you want that life, and can form a reasonable idea of what research area you want to pursue, and can support your application with evidence that you could be successful as a PI in that research, then the question is: what have you got to lose by applying? What alternative are you considering?

No answers, sorry. Just questions.

[hcbr98]

sorry, yes, I meant being accepted into a good PhD program.

Yes, Ive spent a good amount of time thinking about career paths and this is the one I want to pursue. Ultimately I want to work for the CDC or a FF lab before jumping into academia. Research, for whatever reason, just comes very easily to me and I really enjoy doing it. I have no doubt that I can put together an application that says that, Im just wondering if there's anything I can do to offset the fact that I botched my GPA

[scampster]

I had a 2.9 undergrad GPA and got into the top program in my discipline.

You'll be fine.

That research experience and the solid references will make up for it. Grad school is about research, not about classes, so I wouldn't bother to take some classes just to show you can.

[mouseman]

Back at UIUC, a friend of mine finished her BSc with a GPA of 2.7.  She also had a couple of years of lab experience with a number of top aquatic biologists.  She had her pick of PhD programs.  My experience, FWIW, is that, when looking at applications for grad school, an applicant's GPA is the least important factor.  Lab/research experience (and the LoR's from these) is probably the most important factor, and you have this down, as well as a publication.  Next is your statement of interests, so make sure that you write a good one, and then comes decent GRE scores.  Your undergrad GPA comes last.  With your research and work experience, I think that you are competitive for good PhD programs in most of the biological sciences.

It may be a good idea, though, to start contacting potential advisers.  At least in my field, ecology, your chances of being accepted to most programs are enhanced by having a faculty member who is interested in you before you apply.  Their interest in you is rarely the result of a stellar GPA.

Good luck!

[hcbr98]

Thats actually incredibly reassuring, I appreciate you guys weighing in

[hcbr98]

Any other opinions?

[archman]

I had a 2.5 GPA for my bachelor's degree. This put me out of the ballpark for the graduate program at the R1 I wanted to be at. So I applied and was accepted at rinky dink regional state college instead. Even then, I was under academic probation for a semester. I highly recommend taking the GRE subject test in biology, by the way (it was the only thing that got me into rinky dink college).

Rinky dink college turned out to rather limited for me, so I decided to transfer to the previously mentioned R1. This time around, the R1 took a good look at me. They still balked at the undergraduate GPA, but the recent graduate transcripts from rinky dink college were much nicer, and I had letters of recommendation from graduate faculty. After much pulling of strings and borderline faculty harassment, I was accepted into nice R1.

So, the short version is... perseverance really helps.

There is/was a formula that many colleges used for graduate school admissions back in the 1990's. It took both GPA and GRE scores into account. As I recall, GPA counterbalanced for GRE, and vice-versa. And for that late particular system, the lowest GPA permissible was a 2.7. The GRE scores would have had to be whopping great to counter the low GPA, of course.

[polly_mer]

I'm not in biology, but, in my areas of STEM, if you can convince a professor to take you into the group, then you will get into the program.  As others have written, the way you convince a professor to take you into the group is by contacting the professor directly and wowing the professor with your research credentials and potential to do research.  Most people would rather have someone with a couple years of solid research experience and the letters of recommendation to back that up than a student with a 4.0 GPA and no research experience.

If you have people who will write you stellar letters, then you also likely have people who can work their network to find someone who is willing to talk to you and point you in the right direction for a good program.

Do your investigation now and you'll be in fine shape to apply to top-notch programs.

[hoptoad]

I'm only familiar with a handful of top R1 programs in biology, and my info may be dated, but at those types of schools their Graduate College sets a minimum GPA for applicants (and some departments set their own, which may be higher).  This can be waived in some cases or you might have to take remedial coursework.  Your experience will certainly make you an attractive applicant to most departments/advisors, but your GPA might not get your foot in the door.  Incoming student GPA is used by some systems to rank graduate programs, so departments have a desire to keep it high.  Less competitive programs might be a better place to start (although it doesn't hurt to check out requirements of the top programs, because you never know) and you might have to pay your dues, as archman did, before moving up.

A word of caution in regards to this:

...I wouldn't need anyone to "hold my hand" regarding experiments, grant write ups, stresses involved in research, etc.

It's good to be confident, but don't underestimate grad school.  You don't just do research in most biology programs (you'll have to tackle coursework again and a variety of other demands) and it's probably not like your current position.  Also, experiences as a second author, in many cases, aren't the same as navigating a paper as first author.  I say all this because I've seen students fail just because grad school wasn't what they expected and it challenged them to expand their current skill set.

[kron3007]

Same in my STEM field, if you can find a prof that wants you all you need to do is meet the minimum requirements set by the department/university (which are usually fairly low really).

Another thing you could consider is applying outside of the USA.  For example, up here in Canada, graduate school applications only look at the last 2 years of the undergrad, and we dont use GREs.  Most profs I have worked with up here dont put too much stock in grades, and course work is not as major a component of grad school.  I dont know if this option is of interest to you, but it may be worth considering.

[mouseman]

Another thing you could consider is applying outside of the USA.  For example, up here in Canada, graduate school applications only look at the last 2 years of the undergrad, and we dont use GREs.  Most profs I have worked with up here dont put too much stock in grades, and course work is not as major a component of grad school.  I dont know if this option is of interest to you, but it may be worth considering.

Of course, on the down side, you will have to spend the next 5-7 years surrounded by Canadians.

<Ducks and runs>

[hcbr98]

Of course, on the down side, you will have to spend the next 5-7 years surrounded by Canadians.

<Ducks and runs>

:D ya, I think that Canada may be a bit too cold for me.

To clarify Im hoping to get my PhD in tox/epidemiology, or even xenobiotics, specifically how they relate to the marine life system. There are a number of schools Im looking at that offer a program in environmental/aquatic tox that I would be ecstatic to join. Although I can certainly deal with the microbio/biochem side of things, my interests are definitely more of ecology/system based. This ties in to my undergrad research, to some degree, which focused on Cone Snails.

Another point/question I wanted to bring up is the fact that from what Ive seen, most schools w/ a PhD program in xeno/tox are fairly high-tier, meaning that application to a "lesser" phd program is a bit difficult given the rarity of schools that even offer it. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[archman]

Search for the research scientists, don't search for the schools. You will often be highly surprised as to just how many researchers are floating about in most disciplines, at universities that you may never have even looked at. Google research articles online to see who is publishing and where they are located.

In graduate school (sciences), the title of the degree is essentially meaningless aside from the the master's/doctoral ranks, and a broad descriptor of discipline. A PhD in "environmental toxicology" may be the exact same thing as a PhD in "chemistry" or "biology" at a different school. In fact, one might even want to be wary about specialty titles in the sciences, as they sometimes indicate one of those newfangled "niche" doctorate degrees offered by recently expanded regional state universities. Many of those programs tend to be very small and poorly organized, and have few faculty or university resources compared to flagship state universities.

For the field you are interested in, the research can be expensive. Hence the correlation you may be seeing with faculty and the universities they are located in. Higher ranked schools can afford better research facilities.

[mouseman]

I'll second Archman's comment about top researchers in lower tier universities.  This is especially common in ecology and related fields.  For example, Southern Illinois University has world renown ecology faculty, and its Ecology program is ranked much higher than the rankings of the university as a whole.  Many ecologists look for jobs based on access to the ecosystems of their choice.  One of the best graduate students in my program took a job at a low ranked school, because it was close to the habitats that interest him the most.

Anyways, rather than looking at the stupid USA Today rankings (which really only check how similar a university is to Harvard), look at phds.org, and rank graduate programs by whatever is important for you - student support, faculty productivity, diversity, or anything else you feel is important.  Besides getting an idea of which programs are the best for you, you'll be surprised at the rankings. 

Actually, the best way to find an adviser is to look at the journal articles that interest you the most, look up the author, and see if she/he is taking on graduate students.

Again,  good luck.