tarrman

@ak48 Surprisingly, I think that is pretty typical for the big name schools; they know you will dish it out to come visit! I've talked to a few people who said the reimbursement at MIT was comparable. Oh well it's wort a few extra hundred to come fly out and stay an extra night. I too have heard about what a boring place Princeton is. I grew up in a small town in the northeast, so I'm used to locations like it. I have to say that I prefer them over big bustling cities as I'm a pretty low-key person There's something quaint and peaceful about these kinds of locations that really appeals to me. I can't imagine the social life is as bad as everyone says, but I wouldn't expect being able to go out to bars/clubs to meet new people. It probably helps a lot of if you know some people in NYC, though.

Since you're planning on applying 10 years AFTER you attend one of these schools, I think your experience would be weighted more heavily than the school you graduated from. And if your ultimate goal is primarily teaching (and not research), I don't think it'd even matter what school you came from. UT's english program is also pretty respectable, so the loss in prestige isn't even in that significant. You can get into pretty respectable programs coming for lesser known schools anyways. And the fact that you were already admitted to top, competitive programs leads me to believe it'll happen again when you reapply. IMO I don't think it's worth the debt.

For sure! What field are you going for?

Yeah I'm trying to avoid experiments and laboratories as much as possible! All I need is a blackboard/whiteboard and Matlab. Are you going to accept? The prospect of taking some classes through the math dept. is extremely tantalizing to me, and the school seems like a perfect fit academically (and I love the northeast). I can hardly hold out to the visit weekend at the end of March!

I'm strongly considering the ECE dept. there, but there are several professors in CS I'm really interested in (doing work in big data, machine learning, and compressed sensing). I think I'm gonna try for Butler apartments, only because there will be a new set of apartments developed in 2014 and Butler will be demolished (so current occupants get priority ).

@Ezzy What did you think of the ECE dept. when you visited and what track are you going for? I'm planning on doing information science (I really like math). @jj2270 I've heard (from my mentor) that the professor's are pretty flexible with what you work on. Also, the endowment at Princeton is MASSIVE, and I think it has the highest endowment-to-student ratio in the country, so funding is guaranteed for all students for the full duration of their Ph.D.

So I was actually in the same boat you were; I was double majoring in EE and physics, and I had the opportunity to graduate in 4 years and pick one or stay an extra year to get both. I chose the latter, but this last year has kind of really sucked. All of my classes feel like a waste of time and I don't really feel like I'm learning anything. I've had enough training from my previous 4 years to be able to learn on my own, and having to complete lengthy hw's and attend classes has been really annoying. Conversely, this extra year gave me the previous year/summer to complete a little bit of research (not much, but some) and do an internship at Lincoln Lab. It also helped me realize what my interests were. I originally had planned on a physics Ph.D., but I switched to EE at the very last minute. I can't say that universities have been particularly impressed by double major, mostly because the only thing I've gained from the physics degree is a better mathematical background, which is crucial to the field I'm going into. I think if you really like CS and it's very relevant to the research field you're going into, then go for it, but it might be better to just take some classes in the topic you're interested in (AdComms are more impressed by this). The extra year to do research is definitely the biggest benefit. Being able to publish even just one paper will get you a great recommendation and will make you look very good. I think my decision to take an extra year was heavily influenced by the prospect of doing more research. But don't think you can't get into top schools with just short-term projects that don't end in results. I know it can be intimidating to see all the rejects from top schools who say they've published 10+ journal articles (I'm very skeptical of these people.) It isn't easy to publish and it isn't easy to get significant results, especially as an undergrad, and it takes a considerable amount of work and time. I think 1 conference publication + 1 journal article is pretty impressive. I haven't been able to publish anything, mostly due to numerous issues I've run into throughout the course of my research projects, but my mentors have all been pretty impressed with the work I've done, which I think has helped me a lot. This, along with a 3.9+ GPA from top 5 university in EE has helped me get into Princeton and UT, both with a lot of funding, and I was barely waitlisted at UMich.

Hooray for Princeton engineering! I'm leaning towards committing to the ece dept. there (Ph.D.). I talked to one of my mentors who did his Ph.D. there, and he said the grad students are pretty separate from the undergrads, but it's something the school is trying to improve.

I don't think GRE scores are weighted very heavily in the admissions process, but I do think GPA plays a major role. We're not just talking about grades when it comes to GPA, but also which classes were taken as an undergraduate. I've taken a few graduate courses very relevant to the field I'm going into, and my interviewers were impressed (somewhat) with my initiative in taking those classes because it shows that I'm serious about the field I'm applying to. As Eigen said, POI's want you to start working ASAP, and my exposure to these highly relevant courses has given me more of an edge and preparation in doing so. But of course, this is all in supplement to a good bit of research experience (although I never felt they were superbly meaningful) and great LoR's and a decent SoP, which I think are the more major deciding factors.

Note that the April 15th date is the EARLIEST deadline to accept. Some schools set it later (for example, Michigan EE has a deadline to accept of May 1st, but they signed the CGS resolution).

I'm in an identical situation as you are with UMich, however the PI was much better about telling me, and I don't think he mentioned anything to the other student. His email to me said that I and the other student were his top picks, would love to work with both, but he only had funding for one and decided on the other student. He encouraged me to keep an open mind about the school and stressed that he would enjoy working with me. It sounds like your PI is the same way, but had trouble expressing it. She wouldn't have invited you to her lab and stressed the fact it is likely you will be admitted if she wasn't interested in working with you. A waitlist admit is still and admit, and no one will treat you differently because of it (and most likely wouldn't know).

I'm in ECE looking to DSP, and I mentioned a little about radar. I've seen essays from winners though that either didn't mention a defense application or the research proposed was very vague.

As you said, you and 15 other students were the "top picks" for the department, and it's more likely than not than not that the school is admitting more than just those who visited. Supplemental funding usually comes in the form of a fellowship and is given to top students to further convince them to attend their school (because everyone loves money, right?), because it's likely they also received admission to other great schools. It's almost like a bidding war. Not all schools do this, though. I was given a 4-year supplemental fellowship at UT Austin, but Princeton's financial package is identical for all incoming students (At least in EE. I haven't seen anything yet to indicate otherwise, so correct me if I'm wrong).

The way admissions work is that the department you apply to evaluates your application and decides whether to accept or reject. If the department wants to take you on as a student, they then recommend you for admission to the graduate school administration. Then the grad school administration double checks your app to see if it's alright for you to attend (mostly applies to international students) and makes sure there aren't any major discrepancies between your transcripts, GRE scores, etc. and what you wrote on your application. In short, it's great new! Congratulations!

I agree with TakeruK here. I can't think of a single CV from the professor's I've looked at that mentions how they were funded through their Ph.D. These fellowships are there to attract top students in the applicant pool to get them to commit to the school. I don't think they carry much (if any) prestige outside of the school, unlike the national fellowships, which are much more competitive and well-known.

Rice University ECE did this (I attended this past weekend). It was an all-expense paid invitation, so I had initially assumed that I was going to be admitted and they were just slow with the official processing. During my visit, the grad students said that about 70% of those invited to the weekend are admitted, and the graduate committee would use the weekend to gauge whether or not Rice would be a good fit for each student. We spent the day meeting with various professors in our field of interest in small groups of 3-5 students. The graduate student hosts said these meetings served as "interviews", but we were only asked what our interests were and were given opportunities to ask about the campus, research, etc. If you're interested in the school, I recommend attending. What I gathered from my experience is that missing the weekend tells the school you aren't very serious about attending (unless you have a legitimate reason for missing it).

There are no guidelines of when to accept except your own. If you're certain that this is the school you want to go to, then accept it. Schools generally want to hear your decision as early as possible.

Usually offers that come in the form of a 1st year fellowship + RA are essentially an "RA" for the first year as well, as any RA offer is a commitment to work with that professor. First year fellowships by themselves (no RA offers) are there to free up any research/teaching obligations for the student during the first year so they can work on finding an advisor. If you already have an advisor, there really isn't any reason that you shouldn't be starting work once you classes begin. It sounds to me like your POI just wants you to start gaining some experience working in her lab on a project that may or may not lead to a dissertation topic.

It sounds to me that the research opportunities at both schools are about equal. I'm not familiar with CMU (and consequently Dr. Moura), but I know the school carries a very prestigious reputation and that they are very strong in theory. I don't think you could go wrong in picking one school over the other. I imagine the acceptance rates at CMU (and the other schools you applied) are also comparable. I think it comes down to which research sounds more interesting to you and which schools have a broader range of professors doing research that you know you'd like to be a part of. You'll be doing the same amount of math in both programs, and I'm sure you'll have the opportunity to take courses in other interesting topics, regardless of where you go (so don't worry about missing out on harmonic analysis). If you really like the advisor you worked with at CMU and the research he was working on, then I'd take the offer. It's nice to have an established relationship with an advisor you know you can work with. And CMU's program is strong enough that if you for some reason wanted a different advisor, you wouldn't have a problem finding another professor to do research with. Hope this helps! I know it's very tough to make such an important decision, which is why I'm going to wait until the end of March/early April to make mine.

Those threads are cancerous. As an EE Ph.D. applicant, I found my Q162 to be abysmally low and these kinds of threads only made me feel worse. Somehow, I found the strength to not retake, and now that I'm getting acceptances from top programs, I'm glad I didn't waste another $200+ on that test. I really think it's only used to weed out applicants initially at schools with a large pool.

In regards to the tenure comment, most professors eventually obtain tenure. I only meant that prior to getting it, the professor may be more busy/stressed out than he normally is, which sometime can affect his ability to work with his graduate students. But you already have experience working with him and should have a good idea how he handles his own work, so this may not even be a problem for you. I also had a chance to meet with Dr. Baraniuk (although very briefly). He was extremely nice and probably one of the most laid back professors you will ever meet. He was very informal, modest, and an excellent speaker. I think as a mentor he would be a lot of fun to work with. All the grad students and current ugrads said he was one of the most unique and friendliest professors on campus. As for his research, he described it as purely mathematical foundation (no design whatsoever). He collaborates with many professors in the dept. of statistics and even mentioned that he was interested in having a mathmetician in his group. He did mention that he was doing a lot of work in applications, as you had mentioned, however it was all on developing the mathematical foundation for doing so. Some examples he gave were hyper-spectral imaging, A/D conversion, infrared cameras, and MRI/CT scans. He's doing less applied work in machine learning and his examples of the kind of math he was doing was manifold modeling, factor analysis, and collaborative filtering. Again, as I mentioned in my previous post to you, I'm guessing the reason for this is it's a developing field. Overally I was very impressed with him and found his interests to align almost perfectly with my own. My only concern is that it seemed like most of the other students at the recruitment weekend were primarily interested in his work (a lot of DSP people). However, I and one other student were the only onese primarily interested in theory. Also, the grad students mentioned the acceptance rate is only 10% Decisions should be coming out in mid-March or so (first year fully funded by fellowships for all admits).

It all really depends on what you want to do. I'm currently an undergrad at Georgia Tech, and I can tell you the the DSP department here is very broad and strong. At least five professors did their Ph.D. at Rice (also has a great DSP problem). Rozell, Romberg, and Davenport all work on the theoretical side of signal processing. If you're interested in speech, there are a good number of professors as well (Clements, Lee). There are a few other professors working in networks and also in acoustic/audio processing. There are even some professors working in radar (and GTRI is a really great resource if you're interested in radar SP). A word of caution, however, if you're interested in academia, Georgia Tech is primarily aimed at industry prep at both the undergraduate and graduate level, and very few graduates go on to become professors. But there are always graduates who do, and some of the professors are well known enough to help establish yourself. The dept. is also very large, so if you're looking to get to know everyone and develop a relationship, don't count on it at Tech. But overall I think it's a great program (I'm just looking for a change of scenery). As for UT, I've been accepted there and will be visiting next Thurs. I'm not sure if you've talked to anybody there, but from what I've gathered, most students are co-advised, which allows for more felxibility in the topics you study. They also gave me a LOT of funding. And I think Austin is arguable the best city to live in in America (numerous people have told me this, in and out of Austin). As for the DSP dept. Dr. Bovik is extremely well known in his field. I'm not very familiar with the other professors, and it seems like there are a lot of young faculty members. And UT has some strong industry connections (although I think GT's are stronger). Sorry I can't give a better assessment, but I'll know more about the program next week. As for Cornell, I don't really know much about SP and can't judge the strength of the DSP dept. I think I heard they have a good imaging dept. I know that Parks (well-known pioneer in DSP) worked there before retirement, so I imagine the program is decent. They strike me as the schoold doing the most theoretical research of the three. If you have the opportunity to visit, I strongly recommend taking advantage of it. Hope this helps!

You and I are going for the exact same field: I'm also interested solely in the theoretical/mathematical side of signal processing, so maybe I can offer some advice. For me, I'm more interested in the math than anything. I'm willing to work in an ECE research field so long as there's a lot of math and theory. If you're the same way, there are other fields to consider within ECE that offer the same level of advanced math as compressed sensing, such as machine learning. It's a rapidly growing field that's gaining a lot of attention, and a lot of the theoretical work is still being developed. Many professors who work in compressed sensing/sparse approximation also do work in machine learning. If your mind is set on compressed sensing, however, ignore everything I just said. Otherwise it might be helpful to see which schools have a good bit of professors working in these fields to see which one has a stronger program. I know CMU is well reputed for its work in machine learning. Also, be wary of taking on an adviser who is still only an Assistant Prof. Their jobs are much less stable and are more likely to transfer to another school (statistically). He'll also be up for tenure during the time you work with him, which may take him away from his mentoring duties. This isn't a guarantee though, and many people have done their theses with an assistant professor without any issues. But if you're looking to get into academia after getting your Ph.D., it'll be much more difficult doing so having worked with someone who isn't very well known (but not impossible). I really don't think you could go wrong here with either choice. Basically it should come down to which school is doing research you're more interested in, which gives a better financial aid package, and which is in a better location (for your liking). Hope some of this helped! P.S. I'm visiting Rice this week, and I'm planning on meeting with Dr. Baraniuk to talk about his current research plans. If you're interested, I'd be happy to relay an information I get!

It was Dr. Caramanis.

Wow my bad. Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that, but I meant to say "Which professors did you list on your SoP?" I had listed three, but I was contacted by another professor who thought our interests overlapped. After about 45 minutes of conversation about his research, I realized that he probably should've been listed on there as someone I would want to work with, as I am now leaning towards his group (if I decide to enroll).