adelashk

Argh anon1 again. No, the best you can do is #1. You just have to make a decision whether it is worth waiting another year or not. If you do end up waiting another year to reapply make sure you spend the year doing really interesting research, and even then someone will always argue that you're still not good enough for #1. Also, don't apply to schools you don't want to go to as is the case for your #14 acceptance.

If you choose an advisor out of the professors interested in advising you... What would you say? Should I email my decision to both in a single email or should I address each in a separate email? Really worried that I would get caught up in politics or end up creating an enemy especially that one professor is more enthusiastic about me than the other (not the one I am choosing)

Many people know where UCLA/UCSD is because the name gives it away. I bet a lot of people do not know where in California Caltech is or where Carnegie Mellon is (besides the fact that it's in the midwest). This should not be an indicator of a program's prestige or strength. Needless to say, UCLA/UCSD are highly respected not only on the west coast but around the world. I agree that going to UCLA/UCSD would help a lot in finding a job on the west coast but it is not a leg up on graduates from HYPC through personal experience. Most of the people I worked with in California did not come from UCLA/UCSD but from random universities and they had some local connections in California. The rankings are a slight indication so when you see Columbia ranked #15 it does not mean it is way better than UCLA (if it was ranked lower) but it tells you it has the potential of the same university. I passed on an opportunity to go to a top 10 school but choose a top 15 school because of the specific research area and faculty available. Agreed. Also, OP should have applied to schools where she really wants to go.. So she should have done a lot of research in to what research/faculty is available at UCSD vs UCLA. If you go to MIT/Stanford and suck at research it's way way worse than going to a top 30 school and doing amazing. These things matter.

Thanks for the replies everyone, this is not an easy decision. The first advisor's research is in the area I am very familiar with yet I feel like he is a bit more distant. The other advisor is in a very specific research area that is not very popular yet he seems more chill. I think I am leaning towards the first advisor since I should not pursue something that just looks more laid back, that defies the purpose of why I applied to graduate school in the first place! Thanks again for the insight.

Thanks for the informative reply. I believe the class has another TA and my motivation was not purely to impress my advisor but to actually be a part of teaching this course. I think I will go ahead with it, especially since I am extremely familiar with the material.

Has anyone had an experience of TAing a class their first semester (as a PhD student)? I am very familiar with the material but never took the course and my potential advisor is pushing me to TA the class if I am "up for the challenge." I think it is a great opportunity and could be a fun experience.. I would like to prove to my advisor that I am up for the challenge but at the same time I am afraid to disappoint by refusing. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks

Hello all, It has been a while since I last posted something on TGC. I am deciding between a couple of advisors who are willing to advise me. How would I choose between advisors? What are the most important factors after research area? Should I consider the fact that one area might be easier (in terms of advisor difficulty/expectations)? What about advisor's background and reputation? Any factors I have not mentioned? (assume funding is not an issue/factor) Thanks

I know for a fact that someone was rejected from a top 10 CS school due to his 3-Year degree. They specified that was the reason why his admission was revoked. You might have a chance at top 30 schools.

Thanks isobel!

I am expected to work with only one professor. I guess I will go ahead with the interviews and be honest if I was asked what my preference is (or better say I have yet to decide). Thanks all!

Should I mention to professor B and C that I am looking at two other professors at the same school? I don't want to mislead professors.

Hello all, I am in a confusing situation. A month ago, I was interviewed by professor A and we got along really well. Later, I receive an email from Professor B from the same school asking me if I had a preference and if I was interested in his research. I mentioned I am open to exploring all fields. Then, I receive an email from Professor A saying he recommended my acceptance. Now, my preference is professor's A research. However I also received an email from a 3rd professor C. What to do in this situation? Is it unethical to still interview with Prof B and C? Is it rude to decline the interviews? All I want is an acceptance from the school, with the preference to work under prof A, then B, then C. Thanks

Hello all, I have a couple of questions regarding admittance. I recently interviewed with a professor and later on he sent an email saying he put in the word to accept me. How gauranteed is the acceptance? How long does it take until I receive the official letter? Second question, if I do not get interviewed by any professor at a certain school does it automatically mean that I am rejected? I.e. Do PhD adcomms interview all candidates they accept?

First of all, "you dun goofed up." Second of all, out of curiosity how did you manage to find shelter and food being on a 6-year break? Now to your question, I think what is worse than having nothing to show is showing no commitment. I think it is all about how you word it in your SoP. However, to be fair to reality.. You do have a weak case, not an impossible one. If I were you I would continue with the foreign language degree and then apply to master's possibly after getting some work or research experience. Part of it is to give a compelling reason why you want to do a grad degree in EE.

Thanks newms

Hi newms, Thanks for the reply. I am not required to take that specific class, but other classes are also not related to my area of interest in research and some are far from it. I will be doing some research and I am required to take one class, I am just worried that it might raise eyebrows when PhD adcomms see that I also did a similar class in undergrad. However I guess you answered the question.

Hello TGC, I took an operating systems 400-level class back in my undergraduate studies. Currently, I am a CS master's student.. Would it negatively affect me and/or look bad if I took a graduate level course titled "introduction to operating systems"? I plan to apply to PhD. My research field is not operating systems. I am considering OS again because my department is fairly small and there is not many alternatives of courses to take. Thank you Edit: Hmm, this might belong in a different subforum: "Coursework,..."

A master's in IIT might give you a chance to redeem your undergrad GPA, also provide you with some research experience when applying to PhD programs. It is an option to consider. You can also gain research experience from labs perhaps? I am not sure about research outside universities in India. Though if you think ASU is easy then you might excel and have a great app when applying to top schools for PhD, so there is a good side to it.

I think you are underestimating the [admission] competition at UMich/Yale. Anyway, focus on the GRE, especially the math section. Not sure about the research opportunities in India but IIT would seem a favorable name for adcomms, simply because it is recognizable. If you do research and get good LORs you might have a fighting chance.

I believe Waterloo is particularly known for its CS dept. I remember seeing lots of Waterloo students at Microsoft onsite interviews. U of Toronto is a tie or close second. McGill has a great graduate program and is generally well known around the world, however admission might be more difficult. If you are looking purely at a CS/engineering perspective I believe Waterloo/UoT take the most research funding for those subjects in Canada

I would imagine so, charlie. Rankings bear no match to admission rate difficulty, perhaps they are factored in but do not comprise of a considerable weight. There are many universities ranked high which are easier to get into (this is more true for undergraduate admissions, getting into purdue engineering might be easier than getting into Harvard engineering even though the former ranks higher). Most people would advice you to ignore general university rankings, some will ask you to ignore departmental rankings, some will call rankings a blasphemy and urge you to focus on a fit instead. That is up to you. Do not read too much into the admission rates. I know people getting rejected by numerous schools only to get into their top/highest ranked choice. Others like me got into the lowest ranked YET most competitive (i.e. difficult to get into) program. Anyway, as hasseye it's more about the resources the department has which allows it to accept more people

I think he was referring to engineering/research connections as opposed to venture capitalists/businessmen. In that case I would say UIUC > Harvard. For your future plans which would involve a startup or a management position I would say Harvard might be better.

You got into Michigan. I do not think you realize how big of an accomplishment and how impressive that is. I would definitely go for Michigan without blinking. With that said, there are exceptions.. Michigan would have tougher competition than Iowa so your chances of shinning might be lower. However, an average Michigan student might statistically have higher chances of getting into top schools than an average Iowa student (due to resources, well recognized professors, etc..). Essentially, if you think you can be an above average student at Michigan then go for it. If not, and if you think you can kick ass at Iowa I would go there instead. You must understand that this is all based on educated guesses and probability/stats rather than facts. You could go to Michigan, become a stellar student, and still get rejected from those schools.. You could also suck at Iowa and get a shiny letter of approval from Harvard or the like.

What about MIT or Berkeley? I think you should add more universities to your list. PhD is not easy to get into let alone at these schools... BUT it's highly unpredictable, if you read some posts here there are people getting rejected from every school only to be admitted into their highest ranked school, Harvard/Stanford/etc...

Read into what Harvard looks at when considering PhD applicants. Some schools give a lot of weight to GPA/GRE, others to thesis adviser, and some exclusively at research done. My advice is to contact current students since the admissions office usually tries to be politically correct (i.e. we look at everything). For your MS try to do research that is relevant to research done at Harvard. Also, I would rather consider Stanford due to its entrepreneurship spirit along with being in a major R&D hub.