<p>By “colorful”, I often mean records that have some very low grades in them (so often a mix of low and high grades), along with a personal statement that is less traditional than most.</p>
<p>Of course, I must first say that compared to other professional programs (which are heavily GPA+test score based), grad schools are definitely a lot more forgiving towards those with “colorful” records. </p>
<p>Obviously, it has to be a program that will carefully look at each application (so in other words, it doesn’t throw out a lot of people). So programs with fewer (applicants), like astrophysics, are more likely to do that. </p>
<p>Then what else? I suspect that programs with younger faculty will be more likely to consider “colorful” applications (although a older professor might have a higher lifetime probability of seeing an untraditional applicant succeed - he may also have a higher probability of seeing untraditional applicants fail after he initially found himself convinced by them). </p>
<p>Maybe “newer” departments might also be more likely to consider the non-traditional. Especially departments that are heavy on “new” fields, like complex adaptive systems and scientific computing. </p>
<p>Anyways, this question applies to everyone. For me specifically, my main interest is scientific computing, and I’m mostly looking at astrophysics grad schools right now.</p>
<p>There is no easy answer to your question. I’ve known older faculty that were very forgiving, and younger faculty that were not. A large department may be more willing to take a chance, while a small department may be more inclined to play it safe with their one or two new students.</p>
<p>I also have a “colorful” record, and it really comes down to the overall story. Is there a reason for your poor grades? Do you have compensating qualities? Think of it holistically - if the average incoming student at school X has a 3.6 GPA, 600V/780Q/4.5AW GRE, a year of research (no pubs), and 2 good/ 1 so-so LOR’s, then how do YOU compare? If you have the same app but a 3.2 GPA they will probably pass you over. If you have a 3.2 GPA but 2 years of research and some really good LOR’s and/or a pub, you may be fine.</p>
<p>I don’t think that programs with fewer applicants necessarily means that more colorful grades are accepted. First of all, a lot of those programs also tend to accept more people straight from undergrad and may be less tolerant of longer histories between the BA and PhD.</p>
<p>A similar flip argument can be made for newer departments - their reputation and longevity is going to depend on what happens with the graduates of their first few years, so they may be less willing to be experimental with students with colorful backgrounds. Older, more established programs have more room to take risks, although they may be grounded in their ways.</p>
<p>I think it also depends on when did you get your bad grades. I’m kinda in the same boat since I did very poorly my 2nd year so my cumulative gpa is not really representative of my academic performance. Starting my 3rd year, my grades improved noticeably.</p>
<p>I think you should apply to the program where the fit seems the best, and try to make the other aspects of your application especially strong. How will your letters of recommendation be? Have you done research?</p>