Is a 3.8 GPA at an ~okay~ (top 20% range) school for mathematics?

Is a 3.8 GPA at an ~okay~ (top 20% range) school for mathematics?

I'm a Computer Engineering and Math double major but want to apply to a good grad school, hoping to go into academia one day.

No, you basically need to go to HPMSCB for pure math to have a chance at a tenure track job at a decent place and a 3.8 will not cut it unless you have something else that signals ability like publications or being a Putnam fellow.

False. Some of my most successful instructors and professors had sub-3.5's during undergrad. I go to a prestigious research university.

3.8 is good, OP; you could obviously do better, but a 3.8 isn't going to limit you.

It was easier to get in to top grad schools and get tenure track jobs when your professors were undergrads.

It is harder than it used to be, but you don't need a 4.0 to get into a competitive graduate program. The absolute bar has moved, perhaps, from a 3.0 to AT MOST 3.7, and that's assuming you're the sort of person who attempts to rely solely on grades.

>hoping to go into academia one day.
People will not give a shit about your GPA in the academia.
Get a PhD, not having one is out of the queestion. Publish good papers in your very much pin-pointed and specific specialization. That is all they care for, a good gpa will not do it, a bad gpa will not matter.

In theoretical physics for a top place you need close to a 4.0, 950+ PGRE, a publication and references from well-regarded advisor(s) for a chance at a top program. I find it hard to believe that pure math is less competitive than theoretical physics.

But is a PhD from a not-so-great program stick me in a Community College for the rest of my life?

Just keep in mind that the tenure track professors at top 10, even top 30 schools represent the absolute best of the best, and they've generally published remarkable research besides all of the fantastic work they did while a student themselves.

Top 5 schools will hire from top 5
Top 10 from top 5
Top 20 from top 5
Top 30 from top 10
Top 50 from top 10
Top 100 from top 20
Top 200 from top 50
Etc

My point is if you're going to teach, you'll probably be doing it at a school much lower in rankings than you graduated from.

Yes.

Not for the rest of your life. At first? Maybe.
You will be hired to do research, and you need something to back up the claim "I am good at X". When you first start, unless you have some published research, your program is the only thing backing you up. When you have a decent amount of published papers, then your program will not matter.

Holy shit how autistic are you?

It depends more on what courses you take. If you have a 3.0 with nearly all grad courses in analysis,algebra,etc. you'll still be considered more than a 4.0 with only the standard undergrad courses. The math major standards are far lower now than they used to be so taking grad courses early is a must.

>The math major standards are far lower now than they used to be
>so taking grad courses early is a must.
does not compute

I'm sorry. Let me fix that. "...is a must if you want to go to a good graduate school."

No, I mean, if standards are lower, why would you need to take harder classes? Did you mean to say standards are higher?

Also, I thought basically everyone remotely serious about academics took many of the first and second year graduate courses as an undergrad.

Oh, I misunderstood. I read that as "The average math major is weaker academically" when you must have meant "it's easier to get a math major than it used to be".

The professors at good colleges now have poor impressions of current undergrads because of how little they take compared to undergrads back then. (I was typing this up before you replied with
Yes that is what I meant, sorry for the confusion

Somewhat related story. One of my professors was giving advice to the freshmen about the special topics courses in general relativity and quantum computing courses. He told them they would be fine if they took linear algebra. The QC course was filled with computer science and computer eng. majors mainly with a few physics majors. He had to spend nearly the first month just reviewing linear algebra. It turns out that when he said linear algebra he was thinking more about the topics in the abstract linear algebra course, not the standard one most undergrads take. He really was not aware of the changes and falling standards until I told him about it.

>Also, I thought basically everyone remotely serious about academics took many of the first and second year graduate courses as an undergrad.
I agree, that was what I meant to convey to OP. Most people don't realize how necessary taking grad courses in undergrad really is and that a good GPA is all that matters. This might be because in most other majors this actually is the case. Especially the big ones like engineering or medicine.

I took all the grad courses in both math and physics that my school offered and did independent studies in a few other ones not normally offered, and I still don't expect to get in to any decent schools because my physics GRE is below 950 and I don't have a publication.

Well, you should have studied harder fagget.

I got a 990 on the practice ones from 2001 and 2008. It's too fucking early in the morning. I can always just try again in April or just give up on academia.

How should I study for the GRE? Both the bar exam and the physics one.

The general GRE is super easy. For the Physics GRE, you will want to review using a big general physics book, Conquering the Physics GRE, practice tests, and undergrad texts like K&K, Griffiths QM and E&M, etc.

It's also useful to know some trivia about more advanced topics, some stuff about famous/semi-famous experiments, and error analysis. Also know circuits and positronium, circuits aren't in Griffiths.

Does getting a PhD make sense if I don't want to go into academia? For engineering, specifically.

I can echo this.

I was serious about mathematics but switched to engineering for graduate school.

During my undergrad I took graduate real analysis, functional analysis and complex analysis.

The standard undergrad math major is so watered down it's kinda pathetic, the students aren't to blame though. Sub-par universities are pushing math degrees which should be relabeled "high-school math teaching certificates".

No.

No.

MBA would be much better.

This is not true.

Academia is like becoming a famous musician in many ways. It's about more than ambition.
Make friends OP.

Who the fuck wants to do business shit with an MSc in engineer? top fucking kek

it is very true.