Jump to content

zliu224

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wisconsin
  • Application Season
    2015 Fall
  • Program
    Computer Science

Recent Profile Visitors

1,077 profile views

zliu224's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

3

Reputation

  1. For me, I always think Software Engineer is a job title. You got a job at companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsft etc and think that hey I loving coding and they pay me well. So you might end up with a happy life where you would spend time on your job, doing practical work, while socializing in free time. You have more time for yourself and people that are important for you. To me, one has to 'sacrifice' himself for academia. Research isn't similar to Software Engineering. You might work on an open problem for years without making significant progress. Some people don't like this because they think it's a waste of time, since in the end research solution might not as well be adopted in the industry. So what's the gain? You ultimately seem to contribute less while sacrificing the rest of your time on the problem. Every professor i talked to understand this point. But what drives them is their passion for the area of study. I always think true passion draw someone into academia (because 1st you get paid much less than if you could get into industry, 2nd your solutions might not get adopted by others). Academia is like a frontier of scientific discovery. People on the frontier are usually really passionate about what they are doing, sometimes caring less about what they could do otherwise. They push the boundary of human knowledge and help generate new ideas for the discipline. For instance, many currently widely used technologies come from ideas in academia such as RAID, AFS, NFS, Openflow etc. And it's very exciting to become one of such person to contribute to human knowledge.
  2. Most school sends out their Phd application admit before early March. I am not sure if they will let more people in at this time. Most likely you are put on waitlist. Most school have deadline for reply to admission before April 15th. You shouldn't rely on this though. It would be a gamble to let go your other offers while waiting for result from schools that you probably wont get in.
  3. It's a sad truth. But at this point, you shouldn't dwell on the decision from UCLA. You could probably get off waitlist, but chances are slim.
  4. Don't take any chances. Take your existing Phd/MS offer rather than waiting for Stanford. I think the message is pretty clear that if they didn't send out acceptance, most likely it means rejection. Even if you are lucky enough to be accepted, that would be too risky since most school require response by April 15th. Unless you are hardcore fans of Stanford, I suggest not waiting for the end result.
  5. It's an unfortunate truth that every year programs receives large number of applicants. People might think their profile is great, but it is very likely that many applicants at top programs share the similar profiles. To get into Phd program, someone has to be really competitive. Also, Phd programs generally faces the situation in which there are way way more applicants than open spots. Phd are supported by faculties funding. And a faculty in any given year can only take 1 ~ 5 Phd students.
  6. If your end goal is Phd program, go with the program that has advisors doing interesting work in your area of interest. The namebrand of the school matters to a certain extent. But if there is not a professor in your target school that have interesting work to you/not funding for new students, then you would be better off going to schools where there are more options. Advisors matter more than the brand name in my opinion. As for MS applying for Phd, you shouldn't expect professors to treat you the same as Phd if you are leaving in two years. Professors' priority is for their Phd students. Any additional time they would used to advised to MS students/students who are leaving soon means that they won't spend the same quality time with their Phd students. I know a few people applying for Phd after MS and they ended up getting good offers (but not too often since school will expect more out of you than fresh undergrad graduates). You could do that, but it means you only have 1 years (assuming you are going for Phd immediately after MS) to get involved with research and possibly have a good publication. Wisconsin has a pretty solid MS/Phd program. Although the overall ranking is not very high, the CS department is well-respected both in the industry and academia
  7. I would suggest concentrate one area (Others can disagree with me). Grad school like an applicant with a consistent profile and background. It would be better if two projects are related in one way or the other.
  8. If your end goal is Phd, go to Cornell. Otherwise, take the Stanford offer. The reason being, Cornell is already a great Phd program. If you got to Stanford, you will risk 2 more years before you get your phd. Also, during these two years or actually one year assuming you are applying before graduate, you have to find a professor who are interested in working with you, adjusted into the lab, and maybe publish some top conference papers. But at Cornell, you could be more involved with research as a Phd student.
  9. It's doable. But you need to be really determined and focused. It also means that the next two years could be the toughest year you would have before you get into a Phd program (let's not talk about after getting into a Phd program when you would scratch your head working on your thesis for 4 ~ 6 years ) I think for most top Phd program, they mostly care about your research experience. It doesn't matter the quantity, but the quality. I know many people with multiple publications get rejected from these schools (I assume you are talking about CMU, MIT, Berkeley, Stanford). Also, many people with 1 or 2 1st author publications at top conference get accepted. The time you would spend on these research as a first author will be significant. If you are lucky, you research could get accepted into those top conference at first try. If not, you will face the question of how to improve upon existing research. A good friend of mine suggest work on multiple (but not too many) research projects at once, but have one or two that you are mainly responsible for. Whenever you have a chance, try to submit to conference. But there is also a question of whether you can find an advisor that would give you the freedom to lead research as a master student, since most of their responsibilities are for Phd students. In the end, I think it really depends on the individuals. I believe if you are really determined, you can achieve whatever you want.
  10. What you said is true. high GPA does not guarantee acceptance into top program. It won't hurt you if you have a higher GPA, but lower GPA might hurt you consider the fact that you are in competition with many other top applicants who are really good at what they are doing academic wise. But having a 4.0 is not worth it if you don't even have time to do good research. I also have seen many applicants with 4.0 major GPA, and 3.9 overall GPA with first author pubs at these top programs. Yes, you shouldn't place too much weight on GPA if that take you too much time, but sacrificing GPA for more research experience might not get you anywhere neither, since most schools internally have cut-offs for the grade.
  11. For me (I got into CMU MSCS, MSML, MSCV, Michigan Phd with fellowship and RAship, Wisconsin with TAship + scholarship), it's Hardwork and strive for excellence: If you want to get into the top MS/Phd program, you need to be the best of the best. Yes, a student might be really smart. He can get all the 1st place in the coding competition like ICPC with ease, but research (which is highly valued at top academic program) is not just about being smart, but also about the amount of time you spend reading literatures that you might not even understand as an undergrad, installing software on the testbed that few people would use, or developing an innovative algorithm that no one has ever come up with before. You also need to maintain a relatively high GPA (>= 3.9) in your course works. Depending on which school you are in, you also need to be aware that sometime this strive for excellence will separate you out from the rest of the group. So you need to be really determined and passionate about what you did. Luck: this means some times you might not get what you want (getting into top program) even though you paid the due and spent lots of time on research. This really depends on the institution, CS programs you currently enrolled in, and professors. If you are in an institution where the program encourage undergrad to do publishable research under several really good professors who regularly publish in top conference like SIGCOMM etc. Then congrats, you are in luck. Some department does not really encourage undergrad to do research until they took more advanced classes. But if you are really good, I guess this wouldn't be a problem. If you are applying for MS, then GPA and courses you took are the most important factors, since most MS programs are course based program. Having research experience will be really helpful too especially if you are applying for the highly competitive MS program like CMU, Stanford etc. Finally, I would say internship at a reputable company will also help your application (although Academic/Industrial R&D might be better) If you are applying for Phd, research is the most important of all. Having several first author publications at top conference in your field will definitely get you an edge over many other applications. It will also help you get a really good recommendation and personal statement. Of course, GPA still matters. In my opinion, getting a >= 3.8 plus publications at several top conferences is greater than only a 4.0. But getting a 4.0 with many high quality pubs >= 3.8 plus equal amount of pubs. Hope this helps
  12. Dear all, I am fortunate thus far for getting into the following programs: 1. Michigan CS phd (fellowship + RAship) 2. Wisconsin CS MS/Phd (scholarship + TAship) 3. CMU MSCS, MSML, MSCV (unfunded program) I am having a hard time deciding which place to go. My current goal is to obtain the Phd degree in CS. Michigan and Wisconsin are both great place for CS research. I know Michigan is really good at CE and AI, whereas Wisconsin is really good at database and architecture. But although unfunded, CMU seems to be a really attractive options for me. One of the key reason is the network, peer group and resources. For instance, the Andrew DFS (one of the first dfs) is invented there. I think one good advantage of attending CMU is being in an atmosphere of excellence, innovation and leadership in the area of CS, which would be really helpful for personal and career growth. CMU MSCS program is mainly a course-intensive program, MSML has limited research component with a Data Analysis project, and MSCV is purely a professional Computer Vision program just established. I asked many people the possibility of reapplying for phd after >= 1 year. All of the professors I talked to argue against this for some reason. They all suggest me to take the funded phd offer from either Michigan or Wisconsin. Some current students suggest me to the CMU master and reapply. They also got the phd offer from tier 1 CS schools. So I am basically at a lost as to which schools to choose. Yes professor is more experienced in this admission, but what students say seem to suggest there is still a chance of getting into top tier program after MS. What if I attend the MS, and then work for research lab, and then apply for phd, would it be harder to get in than fresh undergrad? Thanks for all your comment and help Z
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use