newms

Hi Kevin, Perhaps you could have started a new thread, but here's my opinion on your chances. I think you'd have a pretty decent chance at those schools - your 3 years of research experience will be very helpful to your chances. Is there any chance that you could get a paper published during the application season? That would also improve your chances. The other aspects of your profile seem competitive. Keep in mind that the schools you are applying to are very selective since they receive hundreds of applications, and many qualified applicants will not be admitted. That said, if you wrote a strong, focused SoP that showed how your past research experience has prepared you to be successful at research in grad school and would make you a good fit at the schools you apply to; and your letters of recommendation were strong then I'd think that you would likely be able to gain admission somewhere among those schools that you listed. A lot will depend on how good a fit your research interests are for the schools you apply to (ie how well do they mesh with the research already taking place there). Good luck!

This is so true also. One of my letter writers had difficulty uploading the letter via the application website. When I contacted the admissions people, they gave me an email address to which he could send the letter. So that, as well as snail mail, may be an option if you have timing issues caused by when the online application allows letter writers to submit your letters.

Most schools have online applications now, and if it's the case that the program you are applying to uses an online application, then the delay between when your letter writers submit their recommendations online and when you submit your application shouldn't be a problem, since the recommendations submitted would be linked to your application. Some online applications, however, only allow you to send the link to your letter writers (for them to submit their recommendations) after you have submitted your application - if this is the case then you might have to submit your application before September to comply with your letter writers' wishes. Most online applications aren't like that so hopefully your programs won't use a system like that. another concern is that some online applications 'open' in September (or even October) so if that's the case, your writers won't be able to submit until then. As for off line application submissions - you would really be at the mercy of the admissions people at your department as to whether they match up all pieces of your application. The vast majority of programs (I'd like to think) would be able to handle a situation like this in which the pieces of your application arrive at different times. Just make sure to regularly check with them to make sure that they have received the various pieces when they have been sent. The GRE scores being sent in August shouldn't be a problem - just check with the admissions people at your program to make sure that they have received them. They will keep them until you submit your application. Some schools will have a section online where you can check to see if and when the various pieces of your application has been received. It does occasionally happen that a piece of your application (such as the GRE scores) may get misplaced or not processed, so it is important that you check regularly to make sure that all of the pieces of your application arrive and are processed properly.

I'm working on mine now before I start and I'll get it set up during my first semester. That way I can just add things to it during grad school and not have to worry about the hassle of getting it set up while I'm in grad school.

Your verbal GRE isn't too low to kill your chances. Remember that the verbal GRE is not very important at all for CS admissions committees. What will be much more important will be your research experience, your SoP and your letters of recommendation - especially from the well-known prof. You could re-do the GRE to ease your nerves (especially since I'm guessing that you would probably do better on both the verbal and quant sections) but I think it would be unnecessary. Other than the lowish verbal GRE (which is really not that important at all) I think you have a pretty competitive profile for MS programs. Good luck!

I know, right? It's still an interesting topic to me though, especially because at a conference I attended, several student presented talks on their work in jeans and t-shirts. I thought it was a bit odd, but maybe people are a bit more casual with regards to dress in my field.

I'll be at the Rackham orientation. There's also the College of Engineering orientation and the CSE orientation so I'm sure there'll be plenty of opportunities to meetup. Send me a PM if you're interested in meeting up.

I'm in Artificial Intelligence.

Cool, I'll be arriving in mid-August. What CS area are you in?

Cool, thanks!

Zing!

I also notice that the birthdays don't show on the front page anymore. Is that permanent?

That would probably be best - then we would cut down on a lot of the unnecessary down posts.

I think you're qualified for all those schools that you have mentioned and you could even consider a couple top 10 schools as well. The trick is to make your application 'stand out' since there will likely be hundreds of qualified applicants. You do this by showing that you have the experience and potential to be successful doing the research that grad school will require of you. So having research experience and having a paper published (the more recognized the venue, the better) will help your application. The strength of your SoP (how you show that your research experience has prepared you to pursue the research you want to do in grad school), your letters of recommendation and how well your interests 'fit' with the research being done at the schools you are applying to will be important in helping you get admitted.

I noticed that the blogs section seems to be down. I'm getting a PHP error when I visit it.

The new look will take some time to get used to, but it's growing on me Congratulations on the successful upgrade!

Is it bad that I enjoyed reading that?

Yes, it would be good to have a clear vision of the topic that you want to study for your PhD. I think it's important to show that you have the ability to conceptualize an interesting topic to study. Keep in mind, though, that they are not going to expect you to stick exactly to that topic during your PhD studies - they just want to see that you have a focused idea of what you're interested in and that you have an idea of what research you want to do. At the school I'm going to, I can choose whichever area I want to study during the first year, and then if I wanted to, and if I could find a PI to be my advisor, I could change areas again later on in the program. Of course, I have a fairly good idea of what I want to do, and don't plan on changing areas. If I didn't convey that fairly good idea in my SoP, I'm not sure they would have admitted me. I'm not sure if this is the same at other schools, but I get the impression that most places can be flexible if you change directions in your research. You should check on this when deciding which school to attend (or even to apply to). Of course, the less you change areas, the better for you, since every change will likely add time onto the number of years it's going to take to complete your Phd, so the sooner you can get what it is you want to research for your PhD nailed down, then the better for you. Also, keep in mind that the PhD is not the end of our scientific careers, but the beginning, so you don't have to research every idea you want to study during your Phd years. Pick one that you're interested in, get your degree and then you have a whole career ahead of you to explore all the ideas you want. PS. I think you have some pretty good research credentials. Good luck!

dried flowers

I second bhikhaari. I got a lot of help from this forum last year when I was writing my SoP. Writing a good SoP isn't a secret art that you need an "professional expert" to assist you with. When you're writing your SoP you can solicit reviews on this forum by asking for people to review your SoP. Many people on here do it when they have the time.

Yeah, both. How much of an improvement did Erdos get from using amphetamines and are there any ethical implications involved as with when athletes who use performance enhancing drugs? I'm asking it since it's not settled in my mind - an athlete gains an unfair advantage using performance enhancement drugs over other athletes who are competing without an artificial boost. The 'clean' athlete can make a case that he or she has been wronged since they competed 'fairly' while the athlete on amphetamines gained an 'unfair', and in some sports, illegal advantage in depriving the 'clean' athlete of contests and earnings that the 'clean' athlete would have otherwise won. With Erdos' case, how much of an improvement did he get using amphetamines? He seemed to have believed that he gained a substantial improvement using amphetamines, since he regretted that the progress of mathematics had suffered in the month that he was off amphetamines. So if he did get a substantial improvement in his performance from using amphetamines, how did his colleagues feel about that? In a sense, mathematics is not a competition like sports, so his colleagues weren't necessarily disadvantaged by his use of amphetamines - if he hadn't made the discoveries he did, it's not clear that his colleagues would have in the way that a 'clean' athlete would probably have won had the athlete who used amphetamines competed drug-free. On the other hand, maybe he won awards or grants that would have gone to someone else had he not used amphetamines. So what I'm not sure of is - was his use of amphetamines 'ethical'? His advancement of the field was amazing and commendable, but should the fact that he used amphetamines put his accomplishments in the same light as those of a sprinter who pushes the limits of human speed while using performance enhancing drugs? Or, on the other hand, maybe there's nothing wrong with using performance enhancing drugs and we should all be using them to advance our respective fields to the betterment of the human race? EDIT: OP, I'm sorry to have hijacked your thread

I did not know that about Paul Erdos. I don't now if I agree with the idea, but it certainly makes you think though. I wonder if there's a parallel between a mathematician taking amphetamines to boost his performance and a sprinter taking them to run faster? Or a baseball slugger taking 'greenies' to hit more home runs?

Here's ETS' samples of essays and the scores that they received: http://www.ets.org/g...ow/issue/essays and here's a couple other links to some sample essays. A good rule of thumb, I think, is to pick one side of the issue and use about 2 paragraphs to present 2 or 3 points in support of your position. Then use another paragraph or two to show why some people might support the other position, but show why your position is better. Add your introduction and conclusion and you have your essay. Good luck!

fresh flowers

I don't know if that's even necessary. The 3.5 AW shouldn't hurt you at all. I guess if you want to and have the money, you might be able to get them to bump up your AW score a bit with a rescore, but honestly I don't think it's necessary. I would encourage you to focus on your SoP and research right now, those are significantly (maybe incalculably) more important than the AW score.