OH YEAH

There are two things that would attract me: - Student profiles. Namely, give me the stats of a student currently in the program or recently graduated. If you can show me a number of students that have graduated and gone to top positions, that says something about the quality/influence of the program/professors. Likewise, if the current students are publishing in top venues consistently, that's a plus -- I would probably be publishing in the same venues if I was working with these students and their advisers. Let me know if they've won any major awards. I don't want to know about their hometown, what they like to do in their spare time, just the stats. - A profile of a strong professor who would be willing to chat with me. I don't know if people care about "facilities" or not (I am a theoretical computer scientist). I *surely* don't care about "funding", if you don't have "funding" then you are not even in the running. Strong publication record? Well, OK, if it is students that are putting out these publications, and they are recent, sounds good. I also don't care about no fee applications; what is most important to me is my time. If you're willing to fill out my application for me, take an SOP tailored to a different school, then you might get an application from me. But really, there are only three things I care about when looking at a program: the reputation, the professors, and the students. You guys don't have #1, or you wouldn't be spamming people. If you have #2, then show me you are interested in recruiting me by letting me talk to the people I want to work with--that says way more than some generic mass e-mail. If you have successful #3s, then show me the mirror: implicitly tell me that I am going to be just as successful as the students you have and just graduated.

I would apply locally. You aren't going to get funding from a low-end masters program, especially with that GPA and GRE Q score. Might as well save money by paying instate tuition.

The "general" wisdom is send 90+. I personally think even an 80+ helps, it's a hard test. 67 is low for the top 20; outside of the top 20 it might be OK.

Well, in that case 8 is probably fine I'd be happy to read further drafts.

I don't think you're applying to enough schools. Applying to 5 like you did last year is suicide, and even 8 schools isn't many in my opinion. I ended up applying for 12. SoP suggestions: - The vast majority of your SoP should be talking about your research experience. - Make it clear in the first paragraph what you want to study. The adcomm is going to forward your application to the relevant professors, so don't make them wait until (literally) paragraph 6 to figure out where it should go. - This is probably because you aren't a native speaker, but a lot of your SoP is "fluff". A sentence is "fluff" if it doesn't set you apart from the other people who apply or if it isn't backed up. For instance: "An enormous enthusiasm for computer science and a large motivation to confront difficult long-term problems: these are the two qualities that best describe the approach I have taken towards my academic life." Every student applying is enthusiastic about computer science. "Motivation to confront difficult long-term problems" describes your academic life? Can you back that up? What exactly does that *mean*, unqualified? "My initial interest in computer science became a true passion after I enrolled as a M.Sc. student at the nationally renowned XXXX Institute, where I graduated with one of the highest grades in the history of the program. One experience from the program that I hold in high regard was attending Data Structures and Algorithms lectures under Professor XXXX. I was particularly captivated by the complexity of the subject and the difficulty of the assignments, and I used to stay up until late hours working out efficient and elegant solutions. This motivation rendered its fruits, and I was honored when the professor selected some of my solutions and test cases as benchmarks for future semesters. The experience taught me that in order to excel in computer programming, one not only needs a solid mathematical background, but also a large amount of creativity." OK, you have a "true passion", but your evidence is that you took an intro level course? Millions of people take intro level courses in programming. The fact that it is difficult is why you are "truly passionate" about it? Why not study physics instead? "As a research assistant I have always pursued projects that are challenging and that require the combination of various disciplines." As opposed to non-challenging research projects? What does this sentence add? If your projects are challenging, it will be made clear by the descriptions you make of them. "I am confident that my academic background, both as a student and as a research assistant, gives me a solid foundation to contribute to ongoing research projects at XXXXX. I am also aware of the high responsibility that an acceptance to this world-class university will entail and I would hold this honor with the highest commitment to hard work." Mega cheesy. I wouldn't say anything like "the high responsibility", "world-class university", "hold this honor with the highest commitment to hard work" ... again, gotta back this stuff up. If your statement of purpose is good, there is no reason to promise things in your last sentence -- it'll be clear from your research that you take it very seriously.

What degree do you want? What do you want to do with your degree? I worry that you won't be able to do much with a PhD from UKY or UTK that you couldn't already with your undergrad degree. Masters is a different story.

In terms of reputation, it doesn't matter. Just pick whichever you personally like best!

To be fair that site is super out of date and admissions webpages don't necessarily rate themselves on difficulty. A rough approximation to difficulty getting in is their USNews ranking adjusted for size of the program. If you don't have research, then you're probably best off getting a masters or finding some way to do research. None of the schools that it would be worthwhile to go to will let you in without any research experience.

If statistics is anything like theoretical computer science or mathematics, then no, you don't have a shot at the top programs. Did well in class recommendations mean nothing, and research experience is paramount. The fact that you have absolutely no research experience will really, really hurt you.

I came from a (very) low ranked undergrad and got into several top schools for CS. I had a low GRE too. However, I had a pretty good subject GRE, 3 years research experience (including independent research), a successful side-business and consulting experience, and "best ever" recommendations. I know that last year the vast majority of people accepted to Princeton came from "known" schools, I'm sure it's the same at Berkeley. To be honest, I don't think you will get into Berkeley, because you don't seem to have much research experience (you didn't explicitly say how much experience you have had, so I am assuming a summer for the conference publication and another summer for the industrial internship). Another problem is that if you are coming from somewhere unknown, it is likely that your recommenders are unknown, so if your recommendations are merely "good" they won't stack up against others who have "good" recommendations but have known recommenders. That being said, I don't know much about your profile and could be completely off-base, so if you care a lot about going to Berkeley I would apply anyway.

Your courses don't matter too much, so definitely don't list 'em out in your SoP like you did here. I think you have as good of a shot as any: 3 years research is great. If you've submitted to a top tier journal that is also great. > Was wondering what my chances are at these universities. Been really hard to find any info about what the average (or better yet, lower bound) of people who get into some of these universities. At least for Princeton, the overwhelming majority of people admitted last year came from "known" schools, and a great many from the very top schools in CS. FWIW, I didn't go to a well known school, so don't worry about it too much. Just focus on your SoP. If you want someone to read it feel free to PM me.

I'd apply to CS, since that is Guibas' home department and that is what your undergraduate degree is in. Also, maybe this is just me, but I wouldn't want to take a bunch of non CS classes, which it sounds like you'd have to do for the ICME program...

I normally don't think the GRE matters much, but that's a *really* low score in Q. I'd retake if you can...

I would very much prefer a CS degree, otherwise you lose the Google/Microsoft/etc fallback... if you can't get an academic job, you'll appreciate the connections the CS professors have in industry.

What exactly do you mean by "internet research"? Are you interested in networking? Social research related to the internet?

This is good advice on contacting professors: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/advice/prospective.html I wouldn't list non-CS or adjunct professors (or postdocs...) on your application. Most departments require that your thesis adviser be from the CS dept. That doesn't rule out working with others, but I'd focus on the essentials... if who you want to work with isn't in the CS dept, then something is wrong.

The guys in the CS department @ Brown are really nice and care about the undergrads. I think you should go into Brown one day and talk with one of them and ask for their advice. You can get past the "non-CS major" thing by doing really well on the CS GRE. This isn't a given though, the CS GRE is very hard. If you want to go to a good school, I doubt your LoRs will hold up... you need to do more research and meet more CS people (a did well in class LoR from your super famous recommender won't help, unless that person thought for some reason that you have lots of research potential). I'd ask that recommender what kind of letter they will write for you. If your desired research area is something like machine learning, your work experience may help if you can convince the adcomms that what you did was novel. The press coverage doesn't hurt. Again, this is probably something you should mention tangentially in your SoP, save the bulk for your research experience if you can get any. Good luck!

I try to never step foot in Newark.

I'm a theoretical computer scientist as opposed to a pure mathematician, but since some of your interests overlap, I'll go ahead and give my two cents anyway. 1) I'd say your SoP is the second most important part of your package, well below your letters of recommendation and research experience though (these are more or less the same thing, which is why I say "second most"). 2) Don't give a laundry list of your interests. Instead, spend 90% of your SoP talking about your research experience. Your research experience should be (hopefully) related to your interests; show your passion by highlighting past accomplishments. You can use the (smaller) part of your SoP to talk about your future research interests, *firmly grounded in what the dept does*. Say what you like, and then relate it to a specific faculty member or research group. You shouldn't have space for this... I'd say pick 3 or 4 people you want to work with and talk about them.and their interests. If you want me to read your SoP, feel free to send me a PM! Good luck.

You're very wrong (for the US PhD anyway). If you are a fresh graduate with no research experience, your only hope for getting into a top school is to get some research experience (by volunteering yourself to research labs or doing a masters--doing it independently won't work too well unless you get very good results, because you need LoRs). Your LoRs need to be able to talk concretely about your research potential, and if you haven't done too much research, it's pretty hard to do this convincingly. Just trust me on this, I've spoken to prospective students at a variety of top 10 and 20 schools my year of admission, spoken to almost all of the prospectives for this year at my own institution, and additionally any advice you'll read from US professors online will emphasize research experience and LoRs above all. A masters is much different though -- so if you want a research masters, you don't necessarily need research experience. This is a good stepping stone to a better program if you do good work. But it is expensive...

Sorry! I was just in a hurry when I typed up my post. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings I'm sure you're a very talented guy, but the truth is that to stand a chance in top 20 admissions, you have to have a decent amount of research experience. If you go in with just a senior research project, unless it is phenomenal (or there is some other reason to single you out, like well known recommenders), you'll probably get passed over in favor of other candidates who have more research experience. I'd apply to a few that are super good fits anyway, though--I don't know the nuances of your situation. I'd look primarily in the 20s and 30s. You seem to have a strong background, just not enough research experience for the top 20 schools.

I can only speak for PhD admissions. Are the international conferences good? Local journals don't count, and survey papers don't count as research either. Since you didn't talk about your research experience, I am assuming you have none outside of this. Nobody really cares about your GRE or your GPA unless they suck ass; you're fine. What do your recommenders think about you? If all you did under them was take classes and write survey papers, they won't be too strong. If I am right, then I'd say you won't get into Caltech, UCLA, UCSD, or USC, and have a fighting chance at the others. Why all California schools? Good luck!

I can't give you useful feedback without knowing: are your recommenders well known, and what do they think of you? Your long list of qualifications is filled with stuff adcoms won't care about. Don't waste space talking about your non-research internships and jobs, nobody cares about your test scores or chess qualifications, and *please* don't write about how you tried to find a polynomial-time algorithm for graph isomorphism. You didn't actually get a result, and while that is not necessarily bad, people might be kind of inclined to laugh when they hear about what problem you tried to tackle... perhaps after that line you should write "studied how to prove P != NP"

There is a simple criterion you can use to know if something counts as research or not: if you continued to work on this project, is it conceivable that you could publish your work in a (moderately selective) computer science conference?

Unfortunately you have not given enough information for me to give any opinion on your chances. - Was your paper published in a strong conference or a weak conference? What author were you? Was it your idea? What role did you have in the work being done? - Are your recommenders well known? - What do your recommenders have to say about you and your research? Are you the strongest student in 10 years, or just another kid who did summer research with them? - Your GPA is fine, but nobody cares... don't hype it up on your statement of purpose. - A number of your schools are *very* weak overall. Tufts? WPI? UMBC? UIC? What research are you trying to get into? Where do you want to be after graduation? If you want to be a professor, I wouldn't recommend attending these institutions... stay within the top 20 (or top 30 if you are daring).