<p>Firstly, I’m a Political science student, so this inquiry is 100% out of curiosity. The very thought of ever doing math again makes me sob, believe me.</p>
<p>I was wondering if applications are frustrating in the sense that, as far as I can tell, alot of applicants to top programs have identical transcripts, i.e. 4.0 GPA, 800 Quant+ Random Verbal score. In the humanities, it seems that there is a bigger variation with applicants transcripts since it is basically impossible to go through a political science or sociology program with a cumulative 4.0. I mean, I’m sure it’s been done, but usually GPA’s and GRE scores in the humanities vary wildly, depending on how tough your program was, what type of profs you got ect. That said, are applications for top school as identical as I think they are, and if not, what differentiates them?</p>
<p>I think the thing is at least in my experience (with bio), your GPA, and your GREs matter very very very little. It’s all about your research experience and your professors’ recommendations (esp. ones you’ve done research with).</p>
<p>That’s what distinguishes applicants–not the transcripts/scores. Certainly true in my case where I have some terrible grades but am still getting interviews to the majority of my schools (including top ones).</p>
<p>It’s extremely difficult to graduate in science with a 4.0 as well (because exams have clear cut right/wrong answers, and are thus very easy to create a curve with). My GPA is nowhere near a 4.0 incidentally, while the humanities kids have much higher GPAs (a good .5 on average) than the science kids.</p>
<p>Exactly. You need a decent gpa to get considered, but it won’t make or break your application. Research and prof. recs about your ability to do research in the future matter much, much more.</p>
<p>I wasn’t trying to triviliaze the difficulty of hard sciences, nor was I presupposing that getting a 4.0 in the hard sciences was easy. Rather, I was referring mainly to admission to top programs, where chances are that admissions will be clogged with applicants who all have 4.0 or 4.33 GPA’s and 800 quant scores. Therefore, I was wondering what exactly admission boards do to decide who exactly is admitted. I have a friend who is going to graduate with a 4.07 something (We allow A+ grades at my university, which tends to inflate GPA’s if you can actually land one) and he told me he wants to apply to MIT, but he won’t even bother until he gets a few years of related work done. When he told me this, I was shocked, because I figured with a GPA like that he would have immediate access to basically anywhere he wants.</p>
<p>Ok. Well, it depends on what school your friend goes to (difficulty, reputation) as well as whether he has done independent research before. Although my GPA happens to be closer to the 3.0 than 4.0 side, I have been doing lab research for 6 years now (I’m applying straight out of college), including an independent project. I know some kids have published papers while in college or through summer research internships.</p>
<p>So yeah, GPA doesn’t matter much, which is probably (partially? since I don’t know the situation) the reason why your friend is not confident about his chances. He also might be selling himself short, but I don’t know, obviously.</p>
<p>I think the science professors know that getting good grades in some courses is just a matter of who spends the most time/is best at memorizing loads of material. But when you are actually doing research, that essentially is all irrelevant and often the kids who do well at memorization aren’t so good at dealing with the randomness (things suddenly not working) or thought processes involved in lab work. Certainly I know at my school, the kids who have the best grades are 1) premeds and 2) not interested in doing lab research–which is what a bio PhD is all about.</p>
<p>The problem with my friend is that he is very young. He’s 21, in fact, so obviously he has no research experience and hasn’t really published anything either. I get the feeling that his plan is to take a few years off, work in the field, then reapply, at which point I’m guessing he would be a shoe-in for most top programs. I also told him he might think of doing a masters at a good, but lesser known school, such as McGill for instance, then applying to MIT with that under hsi belt. Is that a good idea, or is research work better?</p>
<p>I’ve been interviewing at a bunch of bio programs, and there are a few kids who did masters, but most of them seem to have worked as a tech/lab assistant for anywhere between 1-5 years.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, unless he gets really lucky with any publications he might get while taking time off, I don’t know if I’d ever consider him a “shoe-in.” Nothing personal about your friend in particular. It’s just that for the top programs, you’re competing against kids who won their own mini-grants while still in college, kids who’ve published not even just one but maybe two or more papers WHILE in college (doing research while also taking classes), and kids who have taken time off and managed to get a number of excellent papers under their belts along with recs from very well-known PIs. That’s the level we’re talking about.</p>
<p>The level of competition is really crazy–I know perfectly well. Applying to a good mix (in terms of selectivity) programs is really important.</p>
<p>I shouldn’t have called my buddy a “shoe-in” for a top program, but he knowing him he will be able to fill up his plate in the next 1-2 years enough to make a convincing argument to many top programs. He’s as qualified as a 21 year old can be, I guess. he just needs a bit more time to build up his scholastic resume.</p>
<p>Are all fields this hard to get into, or is it specific to hard sciences at top programs?</p>
<p>If anything, it’s the complete reverse for humanities. From what I see, and my own experiences, the top Ph.D. programs for English, Poli sci. , Sociology, etc. are all clogged with 4.0s. I think Yale just rejected a whole bunch from its poli sci program. The people who got in tended to be very well written. I’m not sure what research constitutes for humanities students - I’m guessing it involves reading a lot of papers and coming up with orginal theories or validating some professor’s theories further - but you definitely need to have some of it to be let in. </p>
<p>Engineering and sciences tend to have fewer 4.0s. The average still comes out to be around 3.7-3.8 GPA, but for every 4.0, there’s an equal number of 3.5s and 3.6s. The top schools almost certainly require research. Not published research necessarily, but proof that you are dedicated to research. This generally comes in the form of a great recommendation from one or more respected professors. However, research can also be substituted by a rec claiming that the person has excellent research potential. One of my friends got into MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, last year, without research, but he had a 3.96 and all his recommending professors knew him as that “really smart guy”, so he got in everywhere. </p>
<p>4.0s for sciences might be common for applications from state schools, but at the top ones, it’s almost impossible at a top school. I know that’s not the case with humanities.</p>
<p>PhD programs in Political Science and English are clogged because there is like, 300 similarily qualified applicants applying for 10 spots. Thats not just the case for schools like Yale or Princeton, either. This is only one of many reasons I would never pursue a PhD in Political Science–you break your back for years so you can get into Yale, only to find out that 250 other guys with identical records to yours are also applying.</p>