Jump to content

fdhkjal

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fdhkjal

  1. First off, I definitely wasn't clear on the international students. I meant international students who are wishing to work in the US; I have no knowledge of hiring practices outside of the US, and frankly, from my understanding the things I've said do not hold in other countries. Second, the entire reason a person with a PhD may find it harder to get a position is a mixture of economic and psychological (not because you aren't qualified). To a employer, your value to them increases the longer you work with them, the first 6 months or so you are essentially worthless to them since you don't know the systems they are using, the code, etc. Employer's therefore attempt to hire people they believe will work at that position for at least long enough to return their initial investment. If you are perceived to have a lower chance of staying their long enough to return that investment, then a less qualified candidate may be chosen on that alone. E.g., a person with a PhD in databases is perceived to love working on databases (I mean, you spent a whole lot of damn time in graduate school working on them, you best love them), so when a company in the video game industry receives this person's resume, they assume they will only work on the position at hand long enough to find another job (in say databases). This is similar to how police won't hire anyone who has a high iq ( http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/04/16/2145221/judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores ). This problem happens a lot with managers who get laid off. They have a hard time finding work which they are overqualified for because it's believed they will only be in this position temporarily (even if they want it permanently). Wikipedia even has an sub-article specifically to over qualification of PhDs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overqualification#The_Ph.D. and employer's reservations to hiring them. The last thing I wanted to add, was that employers also like to hire people they want to be around. A PhD doesn't make you weird, but I can definitely say I see a lot more weird (my term for people with obvious psychological/personality disorders) than there are in undergrad, and hiring managers also make this assumption -- anecdotal evidence from a recent conversation with a hiring manager.
  2. I got rejected by some of my safety schools too, very few people get into all the places they apply; I see it kind of like a probability distribution, the more places you apply, the better chance you have of getting in somewhere. I'd need more info about Amazon to give good advice; but I personally didn't tell any of the places I got hired I was applying to grad school (but I mentioned I was considering it), I only told them after I got accepted into a program I wanted to go to that I won't be able to work at their company.
  3. This is my personal opinion and might not reflect those of others (or even most people): if I was reviewing a candidate, I would prefer the candidate with only a BS from michigan to the guy with a MS from MSU. I will explain my reasoning as follows (again, my personal views): (1). People generally only look at your last place of education, not your entire track record. (2). They assume there is something wrong with you outside of what's written on paper because you didn't get a job immediately. A common view from a company aspect is that when a person goes to a better school after their undergrad, they are more interested in the topic, want to learn more, etc. When a person goes to a worse school, it means that they didn't get a good job offer and are trying to buy time. Is this a fair assumption? No, absolutely not; but there's other notorious assumptions like this such as fat people are inherently lazier. Maybe I'm exaggerating this, and I'm not saying that MSU or Ohio State are bad schools by any means, but what would your automatic assumption be if a Harvard undergrad went to, say, the University of Southern Mississippi for a masters... On a side note, in computer science its easy to tell who is a good candidate and who isn't (unlike in business), so good companies will give out 15-30 minute phone interviews like candy so the more important thing to to actually have knowledge. Lastly, I'm currently at a top 4 school right now, and there are plenty of master's students who have similar profiles to yours. I wouldn't sell yourself short. Most of the people on this forum are PhD applicants, and the bar is much higher since the school is making a huge investment in them (6 years of paid tuition and a stipend -- depending on the school, this can be over half a million over the time the student spends there); schools generally see a master's program as a cash cow and have a lower bar.
  4. This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but here is a list of some NSF applications: http://www.alexhunterlang.com/nsf-fellowship . I wrote my NSF application before I wrote my SOP, and essentially condensed it into statement of purpose, getting rid of stuff that's relevant for the NSF but not for grad schools (i.e inner city, high risk, female, racially diverse, under represented minorities in STEM). There's a few statement of purposes I ran across, but chances are they're not relevant to most applicants (see: http://people.csail.mit.edu/mip/docs/phd-application05/statement.pdf), or I guess if they are relevant, then you really shouldn't be worrying about getting in anywhere. You can also find a bunch of statement of purposes online with some google search trickery (of people who put stuff up accidentally), but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
  5. It depends on the school, normally, from my understanding, the top tier schools have a committee admissions process, where they sit together and discuss who gets in and not; this event was posted on the MIT calendar last year at the end of January, and I figure the rest of the schools are the same. But remember before this, the applications have a first pass where people who for sure aren't getting in are thrown out. Then the applications go to the POI mentioned in the SOP, or who ever the department thinks should read it. And only then do they have the big meeting. But don't forget, its winter break now at most colleges, so even the first passes won't start til january at the earliest. For other schools, where the application is more dependent on the adviser, I assume that they just give all the professors some time to get their finances in order, read all the applications, etc; although I have less knowledge of this process.
  6. Realistically, you're in a tough spot. Schools normally have a 3.0 hard minimum. I would retake classes if you can.
  7. http://cs.stanford.edu/masters_students seems to confirm this. 420 students in a 2 year program would mean about 200 new master's a year.
  8. A single B- from Michigan isn't gonna hurt you nearly as much as you think (or maybe I'm over estimating the rest of your profile). My small piece of advice, which should obviously be taken with a grain of salt is that: You are getting a Masters, presumably for work related purposes. You go to a good school, thus I would drop Ohio State and Michigan State from the schools you are applying to (and maybe add cmu/mit/wisconsin/columbia/harvard/etc). It looks weird for companies when someone drops from a good school to a worse school (they assume you couldn't get a job because something is wrong with you that's not on your transcript/resume, etc); you'd be better off not getting the master's in that case, and say, working in your hometown for a few years before applying to companies on the west coast.
  9. Apply where ever you want. The decision is yours, your professors are simply trying to give you input; they will write your letters of recommendation regardless of where you apply and they will use the same letter for every application. Stop digging so deep into what the professors said, you sound like a women analyzing a text from a guy that says 'c u at 8'.
  10. You have a chance of getting into any school. I'm not sure of your desired area or I would be able to give better advice, but if it was me applying, I would choose 7-8 schools in the top 10, 1-2 schools in the top 25, and a school I knew I was gonna get into, such as one of the schools you did your REU at.
  11. For a top tier schools, I would say that your undergraduate research area definitely affects your statement of purpose and your admission chances, but not necessarily your PhD research. For example, if you had lots of research in HCI but really wanted to do theory, you'd be better off writing your SOP towards HCI and then switching after you already got in. The best way to prove that you want to do research in a field, is by having done research in that field, kind of like the best way to get a job is by having a job. Yes I know this is somewhat disingenuous and deceitful, but ultimately your best shot of getting in. The last I heard, over 50% of incoming grad students (at my institution) change their area (I mean big changes like Systems -> AI, or AI -> Theory; not small changes like Computer Vision -> NLP or Algorithms -> Computational Complexity), so its not that big of a deal if you change. Although, it definitely helps to have done research in the area before starting your PhD, and it helps even more to know what area you're doing when you start; you simply waste less time doing things that don't ultimately help you with your thesis. For lower tiered schools, since a professor normally accepts you and your funding options are more limited, you might be stuck with a certain professor/area upon acceptance, so I would be a little less deceitful in your intentions. In any case, the best way to have freedom for your research area is to get a fellowship; unless a professor has a ridiculous number of PhD students, they're always willing to take on someone who they don't have to fund. Yes, I know this is sort of a convoluted answer, but I think there's lots of factors involved.
  12. They're both great programs in my opinion. If you're dead-set on AI, then I think UMass is a better option, although, I would say that UMCP is a slightly better program in general. If you're looking for the current research area's of both schools, UMass - https://www.cs.umass.edu/faculty/research-clusters ; UMCP - http://www.cs.umd.edu/areas/ . UMass definitely covers all aspects of AI, whereas UMCP is a little more lacking. Honestly, I would try to apply to both programs and see where you get in. They're both top 20 programs, and from what you posted of your profile, you have a chance at either.
  13. In this situation, I can't imagine it would hurt you. I'd definitely send it in if they ask for it.
  14. Hah, went on a slight tangent there. As far as your chances, I would say you could definitely get into the top 25. You obviously need 3 recs, but if the one you have is top notch (the professor praises you in the highest light, and is a leader in the field), then that's all you really need (quality over quantity). Personally, I would recommend waiting a year before applying. If you are confident that your papers will be accepted, then applying with 2 accepted papers (especially at top conferences with <20% acceptance rates), your chances are immensely improved over applying with 2 *submitted* papers. The GRE isn't all that important, however, depending on the spread of that 1200 (is it 600 Q/ 600 V or 750 Q/ 450 V, etc) you might want to take it again. Although, in general, I wouldn't consider this a huge deal.
  15. I would stick to (this is what I did at least) "I'm interested in Prof X_1, X_2 at University Y because they are doing very interesting work in Z." Although it is a committee-based admissions process, unless you are the top applicant coming from harvard and have a hertz fellowship, you want a professor to want you. Think of what goes on in the committe-based admissions process if you write your SOP in that way: Professor X_1 (as you mentioned in your SOP) say "I think applicant A should be accepted," Professors X_{2, ..., 99} "I don't see anything wrong with that." On the other hand, if you don't have at least one professor fighting in your favor, it's much tougher. One of the things I regret doing during the admissions process was being too general during a phone interview at one of the schools I applied to. I knew I was going to have it days in advance, so I looked through all the previous publications of the faculty in the area and took note of all the things I found interesting. When the professor conducting the interview asked what/who I'd like to work on/with I essentially ran through the entire area and all the professors in it, citing papers and all that. But in the end I didn't get accept to that school. Looking back I think the reason was because I was being too general during the interview when I should have been more specific, say, cite one or two papers, why I found them interesting, how my previous background relates to that kind of work, why I think I would be an asset in taking that research forward, and why the professor/group in charge of the cited work is the only place I would be able to do this research. It's also worth noting that schools want people with a passion for something. Its more common for a person to turn a passion from Z to Z', than for a person to have passion come out of no where for Z'. The latter (people who come in wanting to get a degree from University Y because its University Y), tend to be the people who drop out more than the people who are less smart, but have a passion for something.
  16. Unfortunately, this isn't true. If you get a PhD in computer science, with an emphasis in say databases, then only employers who are interested in database people will want to hire you. The going rate for a PhD is higher than someone with a bachelor's degree, thus companies that want an entry/mid/rank-and-file level programmer, won't look at you. If, for example, you wanted to get a job in the video game industry, after finishing your PhD in databases, you would have a significantly harder time than if you simply had a bachelor's or master's degree. This is normally called being "overqualified." International students especially tend to not understand the concept of being overqualified. Additionally, your time would be better spent in industry if you ultimately want to do industry. Only do a PhD if you want to be a professor or a researcher...
  17. Mine has been a fairly negative experience thusfar. I have an order of magnitude less work than I expected I would have (I expected to have at least as much as I did in undergrad), and am generally bored, although courses are generally what I expected. I've started research, but I was thrown on a project that already has more than enough people and I don't have anything of value to do or contribute (nor do older graduate students want me to; I think they see me more as a burden than an asset). I like my advisor a lot, but I don't work with him directly (he meets primarily with the older graduate students on a project, who then delegate tasks to the younger graduate students). It also doesn't help that I don't have much to do outside of academics. I left to go to the other side of the country, and left behind hundreds of friends I'd made back in my hometown/undergrad, and haven't really met any people here (I didn't realize how much of a minority I would be as an American in a PhD program). I guess in general, grad school isn't at all what I expected it to be.
  18. I'm a first year PhD at a top 4 school; I remember the (horrible) process of applying last year, so I figured as deadlines start approaching I might give advice (particularly to all those, "will I get in"). (1). Recognizability is the key. When you're applying, make yourself as recognizable as possible. From that I mean, if you have a paper at a conference, the more promininent the better (obviously this goes without saying). Also, your letters of recommendation are key. If you can get even a single letter of recommendation from a faculty member who is known by one of the POI at the school you are applying to (and it says good things), your chances increase dramatically. I have met more than a few people who didn't go to prominent schools, didn't have research experience or the best grades, etc, but managed to work with a leader in the field and get in. For foriegn students, this can be very bad news. I would say that if you are a foreign student, and don't go to a top school in your country (China - I think its the top 7? Tsinghua, Peking, etc; India - a top IIT; Iran - Sharif; and so on), the chances of getting into a top 10 or maybe even 20 program are negligible. The best route to play if you are foreign and want to go to a top school is to first do a masters in the US/Canada/Europe(to a lesser extent) at a mid-tier school. This has two advantages: (1) mid-tier schools tend to be the ones that will provide support and a stipend for master's students, whereas top-tier schools see these programs as cash cows. (2). Arguably, your research opportunities at a mid-tier school at the master's level will be significantly higher; at top-tier programs, professors already have quite a few PhD students (who get preference over master's students), whereas mid-tier programs, professors have a harder time finding good people to work on the interesting projects they have funding for. (2). GRE isn't that important. In general, the GRE is taken to fulfill requirements. This is both true of the applicant, and the university. If anything, the GRE is to weed out people who REALLY don't belong there. Its hard to believe someone who has trouble with basic math (600- on quant) will be able to do hardcore theoretical computer science. Also, the Computer Science GRE is even more useless. The CS GRE tests mostly theoretical computer science knowledge, which is great if you're applying for theory, but doesn't test your knowledge in a field such as computer vision in the slightest. If any department would use the CS GRE, it would almost certainly only be in the theory subfield. (3). When to contact. Contacting a professor in the top 10 is simply a waste of time. First, most of these programs accept students to the department, and not to a specific advisor, and guarentee them funding. However, the further down the list you go, the more professors want to hear from you and know that you are interested in working with them. If you can contact a professor and get to know about their projects and show them the benefit of having you as their grad student, then I would say it greatly increases your chances. Lower-tiered schools tend to accept students to a specific advisor; at least more-so than high-tiered ones. That's all I can think of for now. If anyone has any questions or anything they think they should add, I'd love to know.
×
×
  • 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