Sidiki

Has anyone heard back about Stanford MS fellowships? Last year they'd heard within a week but I don't think they gave us a deadline this year.

Hey all, I have an excellent dilemma, but a serious one. I would love to attend both Berkeley and Stanford, but barring learning how to be at two places at once, I thought people here could give me some advice. Obviously both are great programs, but what makes one school greater than the other? Academic environment outside of the program, town environment, quality of life, $$, etc?

I was asked to come to for a campus visit at Duke (applied to the PhD program). So I think they have started reaching out to applicants. But I was also the one person who posted so who knows maybe they got to me early.

Personal experience--I haven't heard from Yale's PhD program either.

They actually didn't tell me anything about the EES department, just sent me a curt reply telling me to expect a decision in the next day. So sadly, no word about PhD decisions yet I doubt they have though--I didn't see any PhD admits reported on gradcafe.

I sent an email and got an affirmative response back

Think there's any point in asking admissions if the EES sub-group has sent out their first round of invites yet?

Does anyone have information on the Stanford M.S. admissions letters? I saw a few were from the Structural sub-group, and I know that each sub-group does its admissions differently. What are the other sub-groups that have sent out admissions--did anyone hear back from the Environmental & Engineering Sciences sub-group (EES)? That's the one I applied to. Here's a reminder about the sub-groups: https://cee.stanford.edu/admissions/masters-program

Great post BBQ! My grades are kind of weird, plenty of B+s and A-s in the early classes, but all my advanced classes are good, especially senior year. This includes advanced math and physics courses. As far as my research, I have some, but I never got anything published, and honestly, I hardly did anything. :/ You made some convincing statements about the PhD. It really is a commitment. I think in an ideal world I'd definitely go with the Masters first. Now it just becomes a question of funding though

Hey gradcafe, I have a BS in physics so I’m not totally sure about how the M.S. vs. PhD applications work in engineering, and which would be a good fit for me. I’m interested in Environmental Engineering in particular. I am fairly certain that my end goal is a PhD. The depth of knowledge that it represents is something that appeals to me, and I want to consider a life in academia. However, I never applied to physics graduate school because I felt like the academic life was slim pickings. That was two years ago, and some things have changed, but I almost feel like getting the PhD will basically let me know if I’m truly suited for academia or not. So that’s my motivation. Not some burning desire to do research in one particular field (yet…I think that will come). I have a couple of barriers to entry though. 1) My research experience is not strong 2) Concurrently, I have no research in EnvEng and so I don’t know what research topics would interest me, right off the bat 3) I’m not sure to what extent my undergraduate degree will limit me 4) My GPA was a 3.63… I do not know how competitive that is in the engineering world but I looked up Harvard’s grad stats and they have a mean undergrad GPA of 3.8- yikes! I believe I have a valid interest in the field (my background is in international development and I want to pursue a career in water and sanitation work, applied to the developing world, whether it be from academia or the big NGOs & Governmental institutions or social entrepreneurship…). However, this interest is not research based. Again, if they asked me exactly what I wanted to research I wouldn’t have much of an answer for them. PhD applications are generally required to undergo an interview in which their research aspirations are discussed, correct? Are they also expected to have a more thorough understanding of their research interests from a technical aspect? Is this interview process applicable to Masters applicants as well? Basically, I’m wondering if it might not be easier for me to apply to a Masters and then make a second application to a PhD later on, instead of directly applying to a PhD (or indicating that I am interested in one on my masters application, as some programs ask). A Masters would also give me the chance to do more research, perhaps publish. Is there any advantage to this for an applicant? Are Masters programs generally easier to get into, or less research oriented in their applications? If there is no significant advantage to applying solely to a masters, I’d love to at least apply as an M.S/PhD applicant for a few of these schools, as I do intend to go on to a PhD and I’m worried that a Masters alone would be comparatively unfunded. Why pay for a Masters if you were planning on the PhD track in the first place, right? What’s considered normal in this field? Applying directly to a PhD program after undergrad or separately getting a masters first? Thank for all your help, I’d love to clarify anything I’ve said if that would help garner a good response.