Exploring Graduate Programs for "Colorful" Academic Records

[Simfish]

Which grad programs are more likely to consider ppl with "colorful" academic records?

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.

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.

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.

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). But of course, there's a flip side to this argument, and hence there's no easy answer to this question.

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. Again, there's a flip side to this argument, and hence there's no easy answer to this question.

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.

 

[lisab]

Would you consider self-funding?

 

[Simfish]

Self-funding is possible, but only for a small fraction of people who want to do science (and most definitely not myself)

 

[story645]

Do you have an adviser willing to go to bat for you? If somebody likes you enough to say "I want him and I'll fund him", (or to highly rec you to a buddy at a different school) then you may have a chance.

I suspect that programs with younger faculty will be more likely to consider "colorful" applications

*shrugs* On the other hand, what I've seen a lot is that the younger faculty are the ones with the most straightforward CVs so I wouldn't bet on that in the least.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

There are ways around a low grade. If you have a few bad grades, freshman year, it's not going to destroy your application. As far as "non-traditional personal statement," I'm wondering what you have in mind here. It's generally a very bad idea to write a personal statement that is too different.

Grad schools are definitely a lot more forgiving towards those with "colorful" records

Physics grad schools need cheap serf labor to run the academic mines.

Also there is no need to guess. Just find eight graduate schools, and then apply and see what happens

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.

So find a department that is heavy in scientific computing, and try to convince the admissions committee that you have the basic knowledge to work as a serf there. If your background is race car driving and you don't have any background in computing at all, then it's pretty unlikely that your are going to get admitted. On the other hand, there must be some reason why you can convince yourself that you'll be able to function as a graduate student, so figure out what it is and see if you can convince something else.

 

[Simfish]

Good points! I know that "succeeding" as serf labor means that I have to *convince* them that I can finish the task (without dropping out) and that I can do it better than other applicants, where "better" may be however the department perceives as "better". My impression is, though, that astrophysics graduate schools have very low attrition rates in general (my institution has a almost 0% attrition rate, but it's also recognized as the institution that's "nicest" to its students). I don't know about the attrition rates of other astrophysics graduate schools (but I am dying to know).

By "non-traditional personal statement", I simply mean a personal statement that directly states that I am fully self-aware of the factors that cause graduate students to drop out, and that I will address each and every one of the factors with concrete evidence attempting to convince them that I won't be one of those students. But of course, I must also convince them that I can excel, and do things better than other applicants (so I will bring up the point that I have skills that many other applicants do not have - e.g. I have graduate level courses in applied math and senior level courses in statistics and computer science - basically - my computational background is my strength). I'm also planning to address my awareness of the Fourth Paradigm, or http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/fourthparadigm/ - and on how I'm fully aware that astrophysics is the motivation for many algorithms that are used in numerical analysis and applications of the fourth paradigm. As for how I think it's untraditional - it's that I'm directly addressing that I know that I have to have desirable traits that others don't have (I'm thinking about explicitly pointing that out, although it might be better done implicitly), and that I'm also discussing topics that few others talk about (I am thinking about discussing my passion for data analysis more than my passion for astronomy, although I do love astronomy a lot - I do believe that data analysis/statistics/computational skills are more important for astrophysics research these days)

 

[story645]

it's that I'm directly addressing that I know that I have to have desirable traits that others don't have (I'm thinking about explicitly pointing that out, although it might be better done implicitly), and that I'm also discussing topics that few others talk about

Sounds a lot like many of the personal statements I've seen (including mine), so I don't think you're being anywhere as non-traditional as you think. Actually, I think you're pretty much on the standard track for a half decent personal statement from someone with a non-steller research background.

I am thinking about discussing my passion for data analysis more than my passion for astronomy, although I do love astronomy a lot - I do believe that data analysis/statistics/computational skills are more important for astrophysics research these days

Then why limit yourself to astrophysics? Seriously? My lab pretty much focuses on data analysis/statistics/computational science of physical systems/physical data sets/etc. and it's in CS and there are applied math groups at my school doing much the same research. Basically are you sticking to astrophysics out of passion or lack of research at what's out there?

 

[Simfish]

Sounds a lot like my personal statement, so I don't think your being anywhere as non-traditional as you think. Actually, I think you're pretty much on the standard track for a half decent personal statement from someone with a non-steller research background.

Ah that's reassuring. Yeah, I've read through many, but I wasn't impressed by any of the ones I've read.

Then why limit yourself to astrophysics? Seriously? My lab pretty much focuses on data analysis/statistics/computational science of physical systems/physical data sets/etc. and it's in CS and there are applied math groups at my school doing much the same research. Basically are you sticking to astrophysics out of passion or lack of research at what's out there?

Good point there. The main thing is that I'm going to get an astrophysics major, I need to limit my number of schools, and that astrophysics programs seem to be a lot easier to get in than CS and applied math programs (and also that astrophysics programs require the physics GRE, which is going to be one of the stronger points of my application). And then when I get my letters of rec, they'll come from astro profs, and it's better if people know who you're getting your letters from. Plus, my impression is that astrophysics programs are generally nicer to their grad students.

Of course, I am still very willing to look into those programs (and in fact, still try to research what I can out of them, and actually hate thinking of limiting myself to astrophysics - although I'll probably be okay with doing that in the end).

 

[twofish-quant]

Good points! I know that "succeeding" as serf labor means that I have to *convince* them that I can finish the task (without dropping out) and that I can do it better than other applicants, where "better" may be however the department perceives as "better".

Which is standard.

I must also convince them that I can excel, and do things better than other applicants (so I will bring up the point that I have skills that many other applicants do not have - e.g. I have graduate level courses in applied math and senior level courses in statistics and computer science - basically - my computational background is my strength).

That's also useful. However, one thing that would be more impressive is if you can show that you can code.

I'm also planning to address my awareness of the Fourth Paradigm, or http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/fourthparadigm/ - and on how I'm fully aware that astrophysics is the motivation for many algorithms that are used in numerical analysis and applications of the fourth paradigm.

Bad idea. I looked at the website, and as far as I can tell it's just marketing techno-babble that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with scientific computing. It looks like buzzword non-sense to me, and if you put it on your statement of purpose, you run the risk that you'll get the statement of purpose in front of someone that takes as evidence that you are overly gullible.

If you can talk about a project in which you had to actually visualize a large data set, that would be useful. But talking non-sense about "paradigms" isn't going to help me actually work with a large dataset. Jim Gray strikes me as pretty clueless about scientific research in that book. Yes we do need much better tools for visualizing scientific data, its just that it's pretty obvious from that article that he has no clue how to provide them.

As for how I think it's untraditional - it's that I'm directly addressing that I know that I have to have desirable traits that others don't have (I'm thinking about explicitly pointing that out, although it might be better done implicitly),

Don't explicitly point that out. If you talk about your data analysis skills as if it was something that only you have, then it looks bad if it turns out that other people also have those skills.

I'm also discussing topics that few others talk about (I am thinking about discussing my passion for data analysis more than my passion for astronomy, although I do love astronomy a lot - I do believe that data analysis/statistics/computational skills are more important for astrophysics research these days)

1) Don't talk about passion. Talking about passion is totally cliche, and you should avoid the word passion or talking about your passion at all costs in your statement of purpose. I can assume by the fact that you are applying to astrophysics graduate school, that you have an interest in astrophysics. The trouble is that so does everyone else that applies.

2) Talk about your *skills*. What can you do with data, that the next person can't do. If you've written python scripts that take FITS images and then do automated processing of those, that's great.

3) You do need to be minimally familiar with the astrophysics research literature. Go to the Los Alamos Preprint Server or the ADS and pick out a few papers that you are interested in, and make it obvious in your statement of purpose that you are familiar with the tools and astrophysics

 

[Riogho]

If you're looking for good graduate programs that don't require the GRE, than you should check out West Virginia University. I am currently an undergraduate there, and know that we do not require a GRE score.

We have one of the top plasma physics and condensed matter physics programs in the country. We also receive ridiculous amounts of funding for nanoscience iniatives.

I've noticed you're looking for astrophysics programs. The astrophysics program here is small, but very good. We currently have 2 astrophysics teams, one that is working primarily on studies of the outer atmosphere (things like magnetic reconnection), and this team just received a multimillion dollar grant. The other team is currently investigating pulsars, and I don't know much more than that. The astro professors here are incredibly nice and accomodating and always looking for new people to come in and help them out.

So if you're not looking for a very "prestigious" school, consider coming to WVU.

 

[Vanadium 50]

you run the risk that you'll get the statement of purpose in front of someone that takes as evidence that you are overly gullible.

Or worse - that you think the committee is overly gullible.

 

[Simfish]

Ah, thanks for the reply twofish-quant! I really appreciated it!

 

[negru]

What are the first three paradigms?

 

[Vanadium 50]

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).

Pretty much nobody spends a lot of time on applications that are clearly non-competitive, and pretty much everyone looks carefully at the "long short list" - a list maybe 3 or 4 times larger than will ultimately be offered admission. This shouldn't be too surprising.

I think you may not quite understand the task the admissions committee is charged with. Their job is not so much to look at individuals and decide if they are in some sense "worthy", but to admit the best class they can. If that class is filled without recourse to the more colorful candidates, that's it,