HassE

Jema, Congratulations on your stellar porfolio, wow. It's great to see that type of work being performed at UML. I'm a lowell resident so welcome to this forum. In terms of the schools your applying to, I think your well aligned to applying to those schools. You clearly have defined that your very good at research, and you have showed that you can handle the coursework in a graduate engineering program as well. Given that your advisor will most likely give you a phenomenal LOR, I think your on the right path. I will keep in mind though that those schools receive similiar applications from more reputable schools all the time, so do not expect all or nearly all of them to accept you, however I will be extremely shocked if at least 2-3 don't accept you. One of the bigger questions however is are you a domestic canidate or an international student? Most international students have similiar resumes compared to you as well, whereas most domestic canidates aren't as strong. Most US schools would rather accept the few and rare domestic students rather than the somewhat common international students especially in this field and those universities. If your a domestic student i'd say at least 5 of those schools will offer you an acceptance letter, whereas I still feel 2-3 of them will offer you an acceptance letter if you are an international. I wouldn't worry so much about getting a perfect score on your GREs though, do well on the math and make sure the verbal is just average and you'll be fine. I believe Harvard's math GRE score was in the 770's (out of 800 for the old scale). Please contact me as well if your interested. I was accepted into a PhD program, however decided just to complete the Master's there and will be applyign to similiar schools as you. I'm also in the DSP/Image Processing field and will look forward to sharing advice to each other

Personally, as good as UC Berkeley is, I just don't think name recognition wise it holds up compared to Stanford or MIT. Now education wise its just as good if not better, but if you can get into Stanford or MIT, i feel the prestige factor is significantly higher to those private schools. It's simple as well, if you want to try and get a job in the west costs, go with Stanford, if you want a job on the east coast go with MIT. I'm from the east cost (did my undergrad 5 mins away from MIT) and to me MIT always had that bigger prestige factor. However, I've heard the same from people from the west cost thinking Stanford is better. It's all about your long term goals and where you hope to reside. Although i don't think you can really go wrong with any of the 3.

In case any/all is wondering. I was accepted into Browns Dual MS Electrical Engineering/MS Entrepreneurship Engineering program. Had a meeting with the dean/program heads for both departments, they both said they there was nearly no chance you could get funded in the MS nor could you even handle the course load even if you did. They said that there are some part-time programs they offer paying an hourly wage, but once again said that the little pay you would get out of that program would not be able to even make a dent in the tuition.

I agree with most of everyone else. Although it is somewhat surprising to me that someone with an MS from a top-20 school AND their own funding get's accepted into only one school, your overall application must have just been okay and didn't impress anyone. A professor from UC Berekely told me that someone with an MS and no research experience is much much worse than someone with a BS with no research experience. At the MS level you've had a year or two to prove your research skills. I think overall it was a lack of research skills, lack of GPA, and possibly a lack of LOR that just made your application decent. I believe a Professor from UPENN saw that you were given funding and decided to take a chance on you. Honestly, if you've applied twice and only get accepted once, I wouldn't take that risk again.

I agree with ghanada, I'm from Boston did my undergrad in Boston and I feel MIT is more prestigious than Stanford, however it seems like the opposite in the west coast. To me, Stanford is very good in many things, Engineering, Law, Business, and even other things like Football as they've been getting a lot of attention in the media, however with MIT you only think of one thing to me, a Genius in Engineering. Boston is amazing, however from what i've heard Cali is also very very nice. Two very different atmospheres though. I'm curious just because you mentioned imaging, it's a field i'm currently involved in right now as well. Do you mind posting your stats? Whered you do your undergrad and where'd you do your MS. Any publications? MS-thesis? or non-thesis. Thanks

I'm in the engineering field, but given that my research interests span across Engineering/Statistics/Computer Science, i'm going to give my opinon and advice on this one. As a quick background, I'm in a PhD for ECE however am electing to do a master's first as a "safety net".I was making the decision myself whether to acquire a MS coursework (also need to take a comprehensive test) or if I should do the MS-thesis. I was contemplating on doing a MS-Thesis just because if anything were to happen and I felt like I might have to relocate to another PhD school that I would be more qualified. I elected to contact my very good family friend. He got his MS/PhD at MIT, went on to teach at GeorgiaTech, opened his own biomedical startup company, and then still ended up getting his JD (law) degree. So he knows research and industry about as good as anyone. I was shocked with his response, but it definitely makes sense. Like he mentioned to me, when we get out of school with an MS, we will be having the option to make easily 65k-70k. An MS-thesis is a degree that does not entirely depend on you when you graduate, it depends on your research adviser when he feels your qualified enough to graduate. Thus, if your adviser doesn't want you to graduate, you won't graduate it's as simple as that. By doing an MS non-thesis, you will graduate in about 2 - 3 semesters for most schools. On average an MS-thesis will take AT LEAST 4 semesters (not including summer semesters) and this is on a minimum basis, some MS-thesis could take 6 semesters to finish if things don't get well. Now as my friend mentioned to me, even if you have to wait an additional 1-2 semesters (about 6-8 months), you will end up LOSING about 30-40 thousand dollars by completing and finishing your thesis when instead you could be working getting 70k a year if you opted to take the non-coursework option. Remember, you control your destiny, not your adviser. I mean people, were talking about a masters at the end of the day, it's not like were comparing a MS to a PhD. At the end of the day, yes I absolutely would agree, a MS-thesis might look good. However, if your research has very little to do with the work being performed at that company (and there's a good chance it most likely won't have anything to do with it since an MS-thesis is somewhat specific) then a MS thesis most likely will have very little effect. This is one of those things were both candidates have an MS it's going to come down to their past experience and work they've done, and ultimately who they like better. Bottom line, an irrelevant MS thesis to the company is going to have little effect on them hiring you, only thing that would result is if you ended up losing 40k. Now if you get funded for doing an MS thesis, then this is a completely different discussion, but i'll assume for right now it doesn't. Also, you said your not really interested in research, however in case you ever did want to get your PhD, and it'd look good on your resume, i'd think about voluntarily working for a professor doing research/work for him. You get some research experience, maybe you can publish a few papers, and it looks good for you during an interview, gives you something to talk about. Best of both worlds, doing research while completing an MS-coursework.

Honestly, if your really trying to get into Computer Architecture, my best suggestion would be to go to UT Austin. Not only is it a top-10 research university, but within walking distance is the AMD research Facility and the Intel Research facility is in Austin as well. Don't get my wrong CMU is one of the top ECE programs, however there focus a lot more on wireless/DSP/AI/robots/etc; not really so much on CompArch. I also love Cornell, an IVY leage top-15 school with excellent prestige and recognition more so than any of these schools mentioned, but again, don't think you can compare to UT Austin for CompArch. If you go there you will have excellent ties to both Intel and AMD, can you really get any better than those companies for CompArch? Isn't Texas Instruments down there as well? If your serious about CompArch, you'd be crazy to turn them down.

I honestly hate this "old-school" mentality of "loyalty" and what not when I read these forums. If a research program is not the best fit for you and you are open and honest with whoever you are discussing this with, then please everyone quit with the "well i don't want to be disloyal and leave". People we are talking not only about the next 4-6 years of your life, but the rest of your entire career. How many times have we heard of a Professor accepting a job at a more prestigious better university leaving behind his PhD students? This happens all the time, yet we have so many people that would rather ruin their own dreams and passions just to satisfy their own Professor's dreams. My best advise? Leave the program and go to wherever you feel would be the best fit for you. If that is at another school, then don't hold yourself back or your dreams for someone else. As long as your honest, and you have been thus far with your Advisor, then what are you worried about? There are thousands of applications that can EASILY replace your position with him, he'll find a replacement in no time, especially since you said you've only been there for a semester.

With all due respect, I'm surprised you aren't considering Cornell more than you are? Cornell is not just an engineering-known school so it will be well diversified, it's an Ivy League school so you'll have the name and respect of one, and even better it's a top-10 engineering school for computer engineering. Don't get me wrong, CMU would most likely be my top choice due to how well their program is especially for electrical/computer engineering/computer science. UMichigan is also an excellent choice, i visited their campus and it surely is a beautiful one. I'd personally eliminate UCI, don't think it matches up well. USC is a top program as well, but considering the other schools you've gotten accepted into, i'd put that on the back burner. There are other things to consider though, take a look at the course offerings, see if you can come up with AT LEAST 12-15 courses you'd want to take. See if any of those schools will give you a chance for funding (TA/RA). Are you planning on doing a MS-thesis? Or just coursework MS? My honest list would go like this: CMU Cornell Michigan UCLA USC

In a general sense, no it's almost impossible for this to occur. First of all, nearly every single PhD school mentions that you need to be a full-time student for at least a year or two. Let's just say hypothetically that you do complete the year or two in FT studies, when would you even have time to conduct research? Even though as an RA you only supposed to work 20 hours/week, it's almost rare for PhD students to only invest 20 hours/week for their research, its generally more like 40 hours if not even more. Do people work full time while still earning a PhD? Absolutely, most likely what they do is they finish all their coursework and they get into a research based company which has good ties to the school. They'll also get funding from their company to conduct research for their company while still meeting the requirements of the local state school. So the company makes out because their getting quality research done from one of their employees, and the local state school makes out because their getting a fully funded student. Doing it this way is perfect because that individual is still getting paid their lucrative salary, but their also not investing double time to do the work and requirements, their daily job is there research credit.

Hello, So as everyone most likely have heard back from the large majority of their schools, i'm just curious if people can chime into this forum to give me advice. For anyone out there, just curious whats the best way to get into a top PhD program coming from a top-100(tier 3 school) Master's program. Did you do a thesis while getting your MS and then applied to PhD? Did you write a lot of publications? Less than 3? More than 3 publications? How was your GPA? Above 3.5 good? Or did you need higher than that? What about GRE, were they near perfect? Does domestic students carry much more weight than international? Or do top schools not really care about this. Any advice will help out as well. I read back in this forum back a few months ago about a discussion going on and the user said that most of his friends completed a MS at an average school, gained 2-3 publications and was accepted into many top schools. Just curious if there's a formula to follow as others seem like they've had good success at it.

I'm somewhat in a similar situation. I've been at my school for almost a year now and am looking to acquire my MS and apply to better ranked PhDs closer to the east coast (hometown, most important is I'm too far away from home). My best advice for you would be to acquire your MS first and be very frank about that. I would not join a research group expecting the Professor to fund you for your full PhD when in reality your planning on leaving after an MS. Tell them you want to do an MS-thesis first then decide about your future, or try just to be funded through TAs. It's perfectly acceptable if you feel that the school is not a fit for you after your accepted in. Don't try to think that once you enter into a PhD, that you are held hostage there for the next 4-6 years. Just remember it is 4-6 years, so if your not completely happen, don't see there. Just remember that it also IS NOT okay to tell your Professor you will be doing research for him for your PhD when in fact you leave after your MS; now that is not okay. Also, until you pass your qualifying exam your still an MS student, and not a PhD student. So in a way, your in a MS program first. Whether you decide to stop and get your MS en route to your PhD is your decision. However, i looked at the list of schools you applied too. I'm not sure what else you got accepted into, but Purdue is a top school. You ought to feel impressed about that. Just because you didn't get into UIUC or Stanford does not mean you'll be able to get accepted into them again in 1-2 years.

Awesome set of schools you got accepted into. This is prob rare but did you get rejected from any school? And do you feel there was anything specific about your portfolio that all these schools liked or wanted?

rga, it seems like you also got accepted into Princeton as well? What other schools have you gotten accepted into? And what will be your final decesion?

Personally, I would say no it wouldn't be crazy to turn down MIT if you feel that Berekley has a better fit for you. However, it would be crazy to turn down MIT based upon the fact of "its the bay area" or "it seems nice" or "the people seem cool there" or "the weather is nice". Lets face it, everyone in Engineering knows that Berekley is a top 5 school. No one will ever reject you from having a Berekely degree where another has an MIT degree. But all of Engineering constitutes maybe 5% of the total population. Who knows when there might be a time where having the recognition and prestige of an MIT degree will really hold numbers. MIT no doubt about it is the best known school across the world for Engineering, I don't think anyone can argue that. Who knows if there ever will be a situation when your trying to move out of the Engineering side and will be speaking quite often with Lawyers, Medical Professions, or Business Executives. Many times in a company they want the bigger (more prestigous) name to make the ultimate decision and be the leader of the group just because no one will really question them and it makes them look good. If you CTO of some startup company, it doesn't look bad when your CEO/founder can say ya our Chief Technology Officer graduated from MIT to a few potential contractors when the company is looking to get signed for work. Again, this might be a rarity for you if your planning on just being in Academia, but it is something to consider. Also, yea California might have more startups, however you can't discredit the fact that Boston/Cambridge does not. The two biggest known off the top of my head are Bose and iRobot, both MIT graduates. And let's not forget 5 minutes walking you have Harvard right there who graduated many Entrepeneurs. If you want to start a company, you'll start a company regardless of where you are. To discredit the beautiful of the Charles river (the river sitting right there on MIT) and all that Boston has to offer as well is crazy. Boston is beautiful year round and even better you get a big city feel, with an actual small city atmopshere. Unlike in Cali, you don't have to go far in Boston to get what you want. Let's not forget that Boston is called the College City for a reason. From MIT there must be a good 20 schools that are all walking distance from each other, don't think you can say the same about the Bay area. Then again maybe i'm biased cause I was born 30 mins away from MIT and performed my undergrad 10 mins walking from MIT. Either way congrats! As an MIT PhD grad told me, "if your excellent at what you do, then you reflect your school, however if you make mistakes or not so good at what you do, then your schools relects you" So regardless, you can come from a small unranked school, and do extremely good work and people will be saying "Wow this school must have a strong program", but just the opposite can happen if you go to a top school. Good luck