GRE

[Chiki]

What are people's experiences with it? How does the test work on a computer? Is it complicated or easy to get a hang of?

[Celice]

I took a couple practice exams through Kaplan at my university, and it seemed easy enough. Everything was generally high-school level work, including the math part. It's easy enough to recognize, but also easy enough to have forgotten if you didn't need to stick with math (things like geometry and algebra, fractions/decimals/whole number debacles, etc.).

I think the big thing firstly is to speak with the school you want to go to, and ask what parts of the GRE they care most about. Some might care less about the math scores as they do the writing and language portions.

[Lord Raven]

The verbal is the hardest part by far - but I'm also not a good reader (got a 157, 70th percentile or something) I thought the math was easy as fuck, i got a 170 without studying, but I'm also majoring in physics.

I got a 5.0 on writing (which was like 94th percentile) and I don't think I'm a great writer. The writing is basically along the same lines of stuff you'll see in practice books.

As for the computer part - it's really straightforward. If you google practice exams you'll see the format. The computer makes the writing easier. Computer means you don't have to bubble in answers either, and in general it makes everything easier (since they give you scratch paper).

[Phoenix Wright]

^how was the physics gre?

[Lord Raven]

I got in the 60th percentile (730 raw). I ignored a lot of the questions pertaining to lenses because I never properly learned them (5-10 questions down the drain), and there were like 5-10 questions on particle physics that I had no idea about because we had next to nothing in terms of particle physics exposure. Otherwise it's basically like the practice one that they send you. It shouldn't be hard, especially since I have a great recall memory from all of undergrad, but there are some questions that basically come out of nowhere. If you search around the net you'll find plenty of resources for questions. A lot of 90s Physics GREs are very very different to modern Physics GREs, too.

The goal is 800+ for the raw score if you want to go to a Top 20 grad school. I got into none of the Top 20 places I applied to (I applied to around 7 Top 20 programs), and I'm 90% certain it was my Physics GRE score since I had 3 strong recommendations, a 3.91 GPA in undergrad, three distinct research experiences, strong regular GREs, and according to many people who read it a very solid Personal Statement/Statement of Academic Intent. They tend to ignore that if you get below an 800. It's a fucking grating process that one exam that's offered 2-3 times a year that costs 150 dollars - one that you don't even know if you should take it the second time because you don't have your score by then - is basically the qualifier for every single accomplishment you've had up until that point. And it's even more grating because around 10-15% of the content on said exam was not covered by any of the classes at my school. That's already 150 points out of the way for my raw score, not even counting anything I might lose due to a slight fuckup on another question.

At any rate, I'm satisfied with my grad school choice - I'll be moving to Tucson, Arizona by August to attend the University of Arizona for a Physics PhD - but I'm just mad I didn't get options.

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see it until now. Sorry for the venting too, it was an incredibly stressful couple months for me.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

I got in the 60th percentile (730 raw). I ignored a lot of the questions pertaining to lenses because I never properly learned them (5-10 questions down the drain), and there were like 5-10 questions on particle physics that I had no idea about because we had next to nothing in terms of particle physics exposure. Otherwise it's basically like the practice one that they send you. It shouldn't be hard, especially since I have a great recall memory from all of undergrad, but there are some questions that basically come out of nowhere. If you search around the net you'll find plenty of resources for questions. A lot of 90s Physics GREs are very very different to modern Physics GREs, too.

The goal is 800+ for the raw score if you want to go to a Top 20 grad school. I got into none of the Top 20 places I applied to (I applied to around 7 Top 20 programs), and I'm 90% certain it was my Physics GRE score since I had 3 strong recommendations, a 3.91 GPA in undergrad, three distinct research experiences, strong regular GREs, and according to many people who read it a very solid Personal Statement/Statement of Academic Intent. They tend to ignore that if you get below an 800. It's a fucking grating process that one exam that's offered 2-3 times a year that costs 150 dollars - one that you don't even know if you should take it the second time because you don't have your score by then - is basically the qualifier for every single accomplishment you've had up until that point. And it's even more grating because around 10-15% of the content on said exam was not covered by any of the classes at my school. That's already 150 points out of the way for my raw score, not even counting anything I might lose due to a slight fuckup on another question.

At any rate, I'm satisfied with my grad school choice - I'll be moving to Tucson, Arizona by August to attend the University of Arizona for a Physics PhD - but I'm just mad I didn't get options.

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see it until now. Sorry for the venting too, it was an incredibly stressful couple months for me.

that is a huge bummer. i'm sorry to hear that, dude. especially since you seem like quite the accomplished physicist/student thus far. and it is a great school; it's on my list for astrophysics as well. of course, it's also a couple years away, so it's best i stick to getting some experience haha.

it's fine. i go to the physics events at my school, i hear all about how grueling the grad school process is. it's not something i'm looking forward to (like, going through the process itself).

by the way, what's your focus/concentration?

also, thanks for the advice.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

I got into none of the Top 20 places I applied to (I applied to around 7 Top 20 programs), and I'm 90% certain it was my Physics GRE score since I had 3 strong recommendations, a 3.91 GPA in undergrad, three distinct research experiences, strong regular GREs, and according to many people who read it a very solid Personal Statement/Statement of Academic Intent.

Even if you got a higher GRE score, I still don't see what exactly in this application makes you different from other physics undergrads. All these things are common. What's your "hook?"

Edited June 4, 2014 by Chiki

[Lord Raven]

I'll respond to Phoenix Wright later, but these guys are not sifting through the 400 or so applicants they get - there's little time for that especially since the grad school coordinators of each department have to teach and do a ton of research. They are not going out of their way to read everyone's three recommendations, personal statements, and application details like classes taken, CVs, etc. My full applications for all my schools have been 15 pages long, and bear in mind that my personal statement was like a page long (so not lengthy - that's typical length).

So what they generally do is look at GRE scores in conjunctions with GPA to basically make initial cuts. Given that I applied to Top 20 programs, I'm competing against the same GPAs so I was cut because of lower GRE scores probably. I'm also competing with a lot of 4.0s; they are cutthroat enough that a 3.9 with an average GRE score is not enough, whereas a 3.5 with a very high GRE score is more likely to be given consideration. Also bear in mind that they also look at your school and also have some bias towards the undergrads who participated in their programs. I went to some small school close to Baltimore (11K students, so not a private school but not nearly the size of state schools outside of Maryland) so I have very little name or program recognition.

As for my hook, I was a very strong applicant with a very average PGRE score. I'm proud enough of the hard work, blood, sweat, tears, fucking depression, and everything to say I was a very strong applicant before my GRE score came out. I'm not going to brag about anything I did in undergrad or post my resume but I think it would be easy to find out what my hook is/was. And it's not structured or scheduled in a way to be taken twice unless you wanna waste 150 dollars to take it again, and I'll go more into this once I'm on my laptop.

Basically it's a qualifier and leads to initial cuts. It's a very antiquated system that many professors are hoping to fix because you are actually cutting a lot of *really* good and potential researchers based off of a standardized exam that a) has content not taught by nearly every school* and b) does not have standardized Kaplan practice books or anything.

*as I said, my school does not do much on particle physics. I should also note that electromagnetism and quantum mechanics constitute a total of around 20% of the exam and my school does not teach either until the fall and spring of senior year - which is the year most have to take the GRE because there's like 3 test dates per year or something. It definitely "punishes" you if you go to a smaller school and "benefits" you if you went to a school with far more opportunity available. I'm just glad I hauled ass and got Quantum and E&M done junior year, which is a year before everyone else did at my school.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Lord Raven

[XeKr]

tbh, just read some anecdotes on Quora.

Different schools, departments, and programs (MS vs. PhD are typically different) of course have different standards, but like mentioned, GRE (and GPA to an extent) generally only matters as a cutoff filter, especially at the top schools.

What (really) matters beyond that is research, fit, etc. Especially for PhDs, generally all they care about (after the cutoff) is your research aptitude and capabilities.

Also congrats, ofc, to Lord Raven.

Edited June 5, 2014 by XeKr

[Lord Raven]

by the way, what's your focus/concentration?

Not astrophysics, I can tell you that much.

I'm looking to go into something related to theoretical quantum information. Issue is that the only quantum info group at UA is a) purely experimental, b) would have me in grad school for 6-7 years, and c) would probably put me in industry when I want to go into academia. However, there is a good quantum optics professor at UA that I'd be interested in working with and some good guys in theoretical nuclear physics.

Based on conversations I've had with professors, it's not so much the thing you research but how focused you are and how well you do it. The latter two are subjects I am quite interested in and could see myself doing for the purposes of grad school. When applying for a post-doc or something I can quite easily switch my concentration. I am honestly leaning towards quantum optics type stuff, and if things really don't rub me right I'm hoping I can transfer out of here (I'm gonna work my ass off to get a 4.0 or whatever UA does my first year).

Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to pick a concentration early on. The only people who do pick a concentration often times have done a lot of research in the field themselves and have a great foundation. I did three completely different research projects in my time at undergrad (so basically three internships) so I both have a great idea of what I want to avoid and I have a decent idea of what I want to do. I've effectively narrowed my choices.

I take it you are an undergrad physics major?

Edited June 5, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Chiki]

tbh, just read some anecdotes on Quora.

Different schools, departments, and programs (MS vs. PhD are typically different) of course have different standards, but like mentioned, GRE (and GPA to an extent) generally only matters as a cutoff filter, especially at the top schools.

What (really) matters beyond that is research, fit, etc. Especially for PhDs, generally all they care about (after the cutoff) is your research aptitude and capabilities.

Also congrats, ofc, to Lord Raven.

I can confirm this based on a professor of a top PhD program I know: the only things they really care about are a writing sample/research and letters of recommendation. Especially when it comes to top schools, because most people have a similar GPA and GRE scores. The only things that can really differ is the unique research you've done and your recommendation letters. It helps to get a letter from someone who knows the people at the school you wanna go to.

Think about it. If everyone was applying with similar GPA and GRE scores, and the program only had 10 empty spaces, what would you care about?

I also know people with low GPAs (around 3.6-3-7 overall) who managed to get into the best program in the world for linguistics.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Chiki

[Lord Raven]

The issue is that if you're outside that "similar" GRE score then you're dead in the water. They tend to eliminate the rest of your application if your GRE score is below a certain cutoff.

The major takeaway point is that the Subject GRE is dumb as shit for the many, many reasons I've listed.

Also, three research experiences is not common now that I've read your post in a little more detail - have you talked to physics students? I've talked to plenty outside of my school and the mean was about 2 for those interested in a PhD. 3.91 is not common or uncommon but it's well above any cut off out there. I've also not even talked about other stuff on my resume that I don't care to bring up because I honestly have nothing to prove to you. However, they can't judge me based on a part of an application they don't look at.

My worst issue is that these top 20 schools seem to take the same 40-45 students, and those are the same ones on every visit. Can you understand how irritating this is? This makes it fairly obvious that many schools base things off of a fairly strict cut off and don't bother with much of the application. If they did, then there'd be greater variation simply because there are people in my spot that are getting rejected about as often as I am for very unknown reasons - and it all traces back to our same PGRE scores. One of my friends had similar classes and GPA (he's got a 4.0 actually) and my PGRE was only 10 points higher than his and he only got into one more school than me.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

Not astrophysics, I can tell you that much.

I'm looking to go into something related to theoretical quantum information. Issue is that the only quantum info group at UA is a) purely experimental, b) would have me in grad school for 6-7 years, and c) would probably put me in industry when I want to go into academia. However, there is a good quantum optics professor at UA that I'd be interested in working with and some good guys in theoretical nuclear physics.

Based on conversations I've had with professors, it's not so much the thing you research but how focused you are and how well you do it. The latter two are subjects I am quite interested in and could see myself doing for the purposes of grad school. When applying for a post-doc or something I can quite easily switch my concentration. I am honestly leaning towards quantum optics type stuff, and if things really don't rub me right I'm hoping I can transfer out of here (I'm gonna work my ass off to get a 4.0 or whatever UA does my first year).

Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to pick a concentration early on. The only people who do pick a concentration often times have done a lot of research in the field themselves and have a great foundation. I did three completely different research projects in my time at undergrad (so basically three internships) so I both have a great idea of what I want to avoid and I have a decent idea of what I want to do. I've effectively narrowed my choices.

I take it you are an undergrad physics major?

haha sorry, my wording was unclear. i meant that i was considering applying to UA for a phd in astrophysics when the time comes.

damn, quantum optics sounds particularly interesting. gonna read up on this, haha.

i hope things do end up working out. you got royally screwed over.

it's good news to hear that what i do doesn't matter all that much, and is instead how i do it. that said, it's more difficult to do something excellenty that one doesn't find particularly interesting.

nice! if i may ask, what did you do research in? and do applicants to top 20 schools typically have 3 unique research experiences? two of my major interests are exoplanets (atmospheric composition) and adaptive optics, and i'm hoping i get to do at least one of those in my time here at ucsc. if i'm able, i should also try to explore other research topics.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Redwall]

and do applicants to top 20 schools typically have 3 unique research experiences? two of my major interests are exoplanets (atmospheric composition) and adaptive optics, and i'm hoping i get to do at least one of those in my time here at ucsc. if i'm able, i should also try to explore other research topics.

I would think the mode number of research experiences among the most competitive applicants is two: one "main project" with a professor at the undergrad institution, and one during the summer for an internship or REU. The number is not a huge deal; what matters is the quality of your work. Many peoples' undergrad research experiences (including those of many of the most competitive applicants) tend to be very shallow in that they don't really demand much independence and creativity. After joining a lab for undergrad research and acquiring relevant background knowledge, you can really learn a lot and distinguish your application by taking initiative and asking for an independent project (it won't generally be that independent, but it's nonetheless much more instructive than what many undergrads do).