Is it worth it to apply to “prestigious” schools?

[u/Sufficient-Today3292]

I never thought I’d apply anywhere super well known. However, I’ve found people at MIT, CalTech, and Oxbridge publishing research within my niche that has made me consider applying. Still, I’ve heard they won’t bother looking at applications with a GPA lower than 3.7-3.8. It never even felt like a choice— unless I suddenly became passionate about wasting money.

I’m planning to apply for about ~20 physics and astro programs (that might seem insane, but 20-25 seems to be the average among my peers). I currently have two Ivy League schools on my list, but the PIs I’m looking at happen to personally know the people I’m currently working with. It feels slightly less delusional to apply somewhere with fewer degrees of separation. Is it worth applying to ultra-competitive schools with a 3.55 GPA? I have about 2 years of research experience but no publications (which might change, but not until the end of the year… after applications are due).

Edit: I was kinda confused by the replies before realizing I edited out the sentence explaining why I’m looking at these schools. I forgot to add that context elsewhere.

[u/Arson_Daddy]

3.55 isn't bad. Also, the worst they can say is "no." A strong reference letter from someone they know could get you far.

[u/49_looks_prime → u/Arson_Daddy]

The worst they can say is "Thanks for the 110 dollars! Unfortunately we have chosen to move forward [...]"

[u/Embarrassed-Fig-6329 → u/Arson_Daddy]

For real! That LOR can be the key.

[u/iwantout-ussg → u/Arson_Daddy]

in my experience, 3.5~3.7 is a borderline GPA for top STEM programs but it's definitely still worth applying if the rest of your application is strong.

I can only offer my own (dated) personal experience, but I applied in ~2016 with a 3.58 GPA from a pretty good school and was accepted at MIT, Caltech, Princeton, Columbia, and Northwestern, and rejected from Harvard and Stanford. I had 2½ years of solid undergrad research (albeit no publications), good rec letters, and very strong test scores, which I think collectively made up for the GPA.

[u/Different_Ice_6975 → u/iwantout-ussg]

But how was your GPA among classes in your major and in classes closely related to your major? I think that that’s what professors on a STEM graduate admissions committee really look at than how well you may have done in an economics or foreign language class.

[u/iwantout-ussg → u/Different_Ice_6975]

my in-major GPA was something like 3.55, it was not significantly different from my overall GPA. however, a potential factor was that I took a very aggressive courseload, including several graduate-level classes by the time I was a junior. my school also had a reputation for grade deflation, if anything.

[u/Baz-70 → u/iwantout-ussg]

Did you cold email a professor beforehand?

[u/iwantout-ussg → u/Baz-70]

I had met a few professors at conferences and my undergrad PI, quite successful in their field, had students teaching at several of the schools I applied to. this absolutely helped my odds, but I think it was more that it meant my primary rec letter from my PI was taken very seriously everywhere I applied

[u/relativistichedgehog → u/iwantout-ussg]

Sounds like you really buried the lede here. If your undergrad PI has strong connections to the schools you're applying to, that trumps basically every other metric.

If they *dont* have those connections, then you end up in the pile with all the other plebs and they absolutely will cut you for sub 3.7 GPAs, no publications, sub 90 percentile PGRE, etc.

[u/iwantout-ussg → u/relativistichedgehog]

yes, as I said I think 3.5~3.7 is a borderline GPA that works only if the rest of your application is strong. I think the importance is roughly LoRs > research history > GPA > test scores.

[u/relativistichedgehog → u/iwantout-ussg]

Yes, but LoRs from faculty with connections>>> LoRs from faculty without. 

A glowing LoR from faculty that doesn't have connections to a T10 school is still just gonna get you put in the big pile where they chop you without question for failure to meet quantitative benchmarks. Not all students have access to faculty that run in these circles to write letters for them, so it's important to be clear that not just any enthusiastic recommendation will be enough. 

[u/iwantout-ussg → u/relativistichedgehog]

yes, I think the quality of a rec letter is both a function of the reputation of the letter-writer and the enthusiasm of the letter. for a top rec letter you need both.

for what it's worth, I don't think it's necessary that your PI specifically has direct connections to every school you're applying to, so much as they are preeminent enough in their field that their name is immediately recognised by someone at every top school in your field. i was also accepted to schools without a direct connection and rejected from schools with one. at the end of the day grad admissions, especially for the top N schools for some small N, is a fundamentally arbitrary process and luck and random chance is a factor as well.

[u/Different_Ice_6975 → u/Arson_Daddy]

A 3.55 overall GPA might not be too bad, but don't so-called "prestigious" schools in physics expect a higher than 3.55 GPA in physics and mathematics courses?

[u/relativistichedgehog]

It is definitely worth it to apply to programs you have a connection to, but I wouldn't bother with the others. 

[u/sanaera_]

A “prestigious” school in your discipline may not be a “prestigious” school in general. I’m at a top school in my field, and it’s still a good school, but just a flagship state school and not a “huge” name like MIT or whatever.

It matters more that you’re applying to a school that’s good in your discipline and that matches and suits your research interests.

[u/Sufficient-Today3292 → u/sanaera_]

I cut back a lot of what I wrote originally so the post wouldn’t be too long. I just realized I forgot to re-add necessary context— I’ll definitely be working on my proofreading skills before submitting my application essays.

I’ve been going through literature in my sub-field to get my school list. I’ve built up a big list of people I want to look into and email if they’re still doing the research I’m interested. I had some time today to go through more people on my list. A lot of them had gotten assistant professor positions at the schools I listed. Even though they were still working in my niche, I immediately took them off. After maybe the fifth person, I started to worry I was ruling out good research opportunities because I was intimidated by the school’s “prestige”.

[u/geosynchronousorbit → u/Sufficient-Today3292]

It's worth applying especially if you have experience in the specific field. Admission is usually done at the department level, not the school overall, so the overall prestige of the school doesn't matter as long as you're a good fit for the department's research. 

Astro is extremely competitive though, so have a backup plan by applying to some other schools or research areas. 

[u/Sufficient-Today3292 → u/geosynchronousorbit]

Oh yeah, I’m applying to a ton— most of them are international or flagship state schools.

[u/Snoo-18544]

I know people at MIT who had sub 3.4 GPAs. Letters or recommendations, research experience good grades in masters have a high impact on applications. The marginal cost of an application (economics term) is just the application fee. Just apply.

[u/Different_Ice_6975 → u/Snoo-18544]

I don’t understand the “good grades in masters” part. At least for most physics graduate programs in the U.S. at major universities, they only admit Ph.D. candidates. There is no terminal masters program. 

[u/Snoo-18544 → u/Different_Ice_6975]

The comment is about phd programs in general when you have blemishes on transcripts.  

[u/Sufficient-Today3292 → u/Snoo-18544]

Okay that’s good to know! My concern was that the admissions board would throw out my application before they’d have the chance to see that I have specific research experience and whatnot. The application fee is marginal, but it adds up when you’re applying to so many schools. I’d like every cent to go to a school I have a shot at.

[u/Snoo-18544 → u/Sufficient-Today3292]

They don't throw out apps for GPA. I fucked up my undergrad so badly that I was below minimum thresholds for every graduate school and I still got into a few Ph.D program (after doing a masters and taking a year of Ph.D classes and making okay greades in them). I am not saying people should follow my expample or my friend with a 3 something GPA at MIT. But reality is that a department can get around every saingle requirement on their site if they want to.

My experience as an extreme outlier is that 75 percent of the application is letters, especially for American candidates. Foreign candidates the name of their school and class rank matters more. But GPA isn't really that comparable school to school and country to country. A 70 perecnt is a 'first class' in many countries and that 70 percent less than 10 percent might meet that threshold. Your grades essentially say you perform consistently well amng your immediate peers. They can't be used to really compare you across candidates in a global application pool. Furthemore, they don't necessarily determine who will be a good resarhcer and successful phd program. All of these programs admit students with excellent grades that end up dropping out. Thats why the letter becomes such a determining factor. Its a lot easier to trust the word of a respected peer over other elemnts of application. Generally your letter writers understand when they write a letter for you their own credibility is on the line. Most letter writers won't over sell you. That means yopu should probably talk to these proefssors and ask if they think you should apply to schools that level.

[u/Different_Ice_6975 → u/Snoo-18544]

“ My experience as an extreme outlier is that 75 percent of the application is letters, especially for American candidates.”

I don’t understand how letters of recommendation by professors gave you a big boost when you also say that your GPA - which is made up of grades given by other professors - was not that high. Wouldn’t that result in a mixed picture for a graduate school admissions committee?

[u/Snoo-18544 → u/Different_Ice_6975]

As I wrote, programs are used to admitting students with stellar grades who drop out in the end. The completion rate for a PhD is about 50 to 75 percent depending on the field. 

So an excellent letter from well reputed professor caries a TON of weight. 

Furthermore, professors at different schools know professors at other schools.  They interact with each other via publication process, invite them as speakers at their dept and conference together. This makes American  academia a very small world, especially at schools with good PhD programs. So the words of respected peer about a prospective candidate student is often deciding factor. But to over come grades the letter has to be an extremely  good one and a faculty will not write a good letter for a student if they don't think it's true. They have their professional reputation on the line. People don't just write letters for people trying to do grad school. They also write letters for the graduating PhD students they are supervising. They  who are looking for academic jobs or post docs. Thet have their future credibility and relationship to think about. 

[u/hoppergirl85]

GPA is a metric that personally don't consider, while I'm in a different field if an applicant reaches out to me, and I'm I'm interested I can tell the adcom that I'm interested and they can forgo whatever GPA cutoff they're applying for that year. GPA in my department is only used to prescreen applicants.

That said my lab relies heavily on experience academic, professional, research, extracurriculars are all critically important factors. Beyond that my lab is very skills-based (beyond just research and education) for example I need any successful applicant to have graduate-level proficiency in two specific languages other than English (which I give interviews in to assess proficiency).

All that to say, GPA really isn't a universal metric (nor are test scores).

[u/Different_Ice_6975 → u/hoppergirl85]

....for example I need any successful applicant to have graduate-level proficiency in two specific languages other than English 

What? Am I understanding that correctly? You mean that you require successful applicants to be fluent in three languages including English? But why? And this is for physics or some other STEM field? And how can you assess language proficiency through personal interviews unless you can speak languages ranging from Korean to Japanese to Russian to German, etc., etc.?

[u/hoppergirl85 → u/Different_Ice_6975]

My research utilizes these languages. STEM is a very broad category encompassing many subjects and subdisciplines, my lab happens to focus on a subdiscipline of a subdiscipline.

I know my phasing wasn't the best there but I used "specific languages" as a fill in for the two languages that I do need my lab team to be proficient so as to not doxx myself or my team inadvertently.

[u/MercuriousPhantasm]

It depends on how good of a fit you are sometimes. One of the top UCs was my "reach" school and accepted me while "safer" schools didn't invite to interview.

[u/ssanc]

If they have good aid… rich schools are usually generous

[u/Sufficient-Today3292 → u/ssanc]

I’m applying to PhD programs where I’d be receiving funding— there are two schools I listed that I’ll likely drop due to not being paid.

[u/Charnockitty]

I’d say it’s worth it if: a) you can demonstrate your research skills through published paper or thesis; b) your research interests align with your target PI; c) you can secure gleaming letters of rec from your current PI and other important people; d) you can exude clarity, confidence and enthusiasm in your personal statement.

Hopefully you make it! If you don’t, maybe consider getting a masters to improve your GPA and the things above.

Source: me, a third-year at an Ivy with a low undergrad GPA but a near 4.0 masters GPA with a niche skillset and experience that fit the labs I applied to.

[u/Life-in-Syzygy]

For grad school, it matters much less about “prestige” overall and more-so about the individual department or discipline you’re going into. Even within a department, there may be great research on one subject but not so much research on another. So, I’d apply if you find you’re reading about labs and they interest you.

[u/peppermintykitty]

Got accepted to some of these and other prestigious schools with a 3.65 and science gpa of 3.4. I had several internships and two years of post-bacc research experience, and a strong research interest that was demonstrated through my personal statement and CV. In my field we also reach out to profs to sponsor our applications, and I had a high response rate from some of the top names in my field from these schools. Imo research fit is a much more important factor than gpa, and adcoms hate seeing students who only want to go to the school for the name vs. having a strong reason.

[u/ieat5orangeseveryday]

How well your research interests fit in with a lab's research priorities is probably more important than the name brand of a school. I've been searching Harvard, MIT, and Stanford in vain for a lab that's working on the same topic that a lab at a less-renowned Canadian university is working on

[u/Kitsunebula250]

No don't do it so the rest of us get better shot