You're basically screwed if you have a late start.
dollar wrote:You're basically screwed if you have a late start.
This is so true. I finished my undergrad math major requirements by the end of second year and started taking grad courses then. I thought this would put me ahead of the applicants at princeton, mit, etc. So naive. Then I came across mathematicsgre.com and all hope was crushed.
Then again I did end up getting into a few top 20 schools even though my LoR were mediocre because I didn't know my professors very well. I didn't even get letters from my REUs because they fizzled pretty badly. If I were in another non-math science I don't think I would have a chance with my LoR.
So I think as long as you get good advice in your freshman year, maybe just a pointer to mgre.com, you should end up with a lot of grad courses and it shouldn't be too hard to get into a top 20 program from there. If you go to a good school it seems like you don't even need much research experience and good grades+lots of coursework will suffice. (This is based of other peoples profiles and my own experience).
I have noticed that a "good" GPA in maths is 3.9+ whereas a "good" gpa in most other sciences is quite a bit lower , say 3.6+. What is the reason for that?
colldood wrote:I feel this way too, but do we have any evidence to actually prove it? Others often dismiss the claim as merely whining.
Browsing physicsgre.com shows profiles pretty similar to here with similar outcomes. However I do know someone who was accepted to a reasonably good school for a funded Master's in Canada with a <3.2 GPA in physics, yet a 3.7 was insufficient for funding in the math department at the sames school.
dollar wrote:I have noticed that a "good" GPA in maths is 3.9+ whereas a "good" gpa in most other sciences is quite a bit lower , say 3.6+. What is the reason for that?
Users browsing this forum: sadface and 5 guests